User talk:Steve/Archive 10

Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes

Hey. This article was on the main page yesterday, and I just wanted to thank you again for all of the help you provided during its FAC. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I was pleased to see it come through the day relatively unscathed, with only a couple of queries on the talk page—testament to the time and effort you put into it. All the best, Steve ^T • C 08:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fashion Architecture Taste

Thanks for the offer Steve. I think it may not be finished actually for quite some time. :) But I'll try to be patient. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to FAC The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Thanx for the edits Steve!! I was exhausted yesterday when typing it, so I did make a lot mistakes. Also in the The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie#Filming section can you revise this awkward section: Draper explained that the the production would often "sneak into locations and run". Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 22:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also in the lead, the problem is some sources say "Family Feature Film" and others say "Best Family Feature". I called the festival and they said their is no such thing of a "Best Family Feature" award and it's a "Family Feature Film" award. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I went ahead and made those tweaks; sorry for jumping in to do the copy-edit without doing you the courtesy of asking first; this morning (UK time) was my only opportunity, and I guessed you wouldn't be around until this evening. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I had stuff to do, so wasn't around barely at all when I sent you the message. Um...I know I might be making a little bit of a fuss about it, but in the interviews with Polly and Michael; they both said it won the "best family film award", so I'm not entirely sure what that means. Maybe when announced as the winner, the announcer said: "It's one of the best family feature film awards given out."? I'm not sure exactly. What do you think? ATC ^{. Talk} 00:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to pin down exactly what it's called, as Google returns no overwhelming consensus. However, the Hamptons Festival website does call it the "2005 Family Film Audience Award", if that helps. Steve ^T • C 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another listing in another category does or did call it "children's feature film award" and a blog site, which took all the photography at the Hamptons Film Festival that day for all of the screenings. The lady I spoke to on the phone said that is not a category, so it must've been typo. (Also, just so you are away, I tried retrieving pics and the lady on the phone said they don't have any copyright permission to lend photos, and the copyright permission belongs to the blog site.) Anyway...maybe if we had more people see this, we can get more ideas. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

HI Steve! I'm contacting you to let you know that I've restored your recent edits to the article, some of which were lost after subsequent edits went in. As per Tony's most recent comment here I was wondering if you have time to make the final copyediting push before the FAC is closed? Your edits were good, and I seem to have lost perspective with this article because I've worked on it a little too much. Thanks in advance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A section in particular that can use a little work is the Casting section. Thanx Steve! Oh, and thanx, Truthkeeper88 for all of you hard work. You have worked a lot on the article, and appreciate it. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of your edits have been great Truthkeeper88 and I think the article is almost perfectly written. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Changeling

Just wanted to let you know that I added an image of Eastwood at the Cannes Film Festival to the release section in the article. I asked the author to let us use the image back around the time that the article was at FAC in the hopes of getting you another free image for the article. Unfortunately, the author didn't get back to me until today. Anyway, better late than never. Feel free to reword/adjust the image as you see fit. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that looks great to me. Kudos for going through the hoops required to let us use this image and for those you've located for use in other articles. Thanks, Steve ^T • C 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Godfather

The IP from Heat (1995 film) is editing the genre at The Godfather. Wanted to give you a heads-up. Erik (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out, but my hands are a little tied button-wise. I can't semi-protect the page (not that that's what you were suggesting) because I've expressed an opinion on the talk page about what the genre should be (unlike Heat, where I only entered the conversation afterwards—at the time I protected I didn't have a particular opinion either way). I'm sure it'd be OK, as the IP is likely a block-evader, but some noise could be made of it per WP:UNINVOLVED. The IP is editing outside consensus, so if he/she continues to edit war I think a report at WP:RPP might be successful. Steve ^T • C 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot that you weighed in. Does not seem to be further activity at this point, so it may not be an issue after all. Let's hope I haven't spoken too quickly... Erik (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the IP passes the duck test as being a sock of Pé de Chinelo, so I wonder if it would be out of the question for me to wield the hammer based on that alone... Steve ^T • C 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, get someone else in on it. Regardless of the IP's block-evading, genre is a valid issue that the IP is just causing trouble over. Erik (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes

It looks like the wording and the linking we originally set up to report Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes may be off, and I think our language has proliferated a little bit. :) See this discussion. Erik (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SECR K and SR K1 classes FAC attempt

Hello again. As you previously assisted with the SECR N class FAC by reviewing the article and making suggestions for improvement, I'm wondering if you'd like to review this article as well? Any prose tightening and identification of areas that require explanation would be most helpful. Thank-you, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! I can't promise I'll get around to it right away; barring the odd drop-in review, I'm taking a couple of months away from FAC to pen something of my own. In week or two I'll hopefully have got it out of the way, so if I get around to any reviews after that, I'll make SECR K and SR K1 classes the first. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant illustration

This gave me a smile :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I nearly laughed out loud after reading it. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Although you've got a grammatical error in there... what would Tony think? (thread hijack) If you've got time at some point, could you take another look at The Search for Spock? BrianBoulton was nice enough to give it a stiff copyedit, but he was concerned about the level of detail in the production section, specifically the special effects. I'm loath to cut content... but I thought a second opinion couldn't hurt in regards to that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that I profoundly like your extremely elegant example. --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well! Thanks all. I would have put a bit more effort in had I thought anyone would notice. :-) I just thought it'd serve as a useful example for the nominator. (In retrospect, it's a bit patronising, but Hunter's not the type to take offence, so I think I'm OK.) David, no problem; I'll take a look later today. Steve ^T • C 16:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If I send you chocolates or barnstars or scotch, will you follow me around and correct my prose?  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably owe Steve chocolates for setting such a good example with Changeling (film). I am starting to unstand how much effort he put into that article while putting together Up in the Air (film). 8-) --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh ... hey, don't go putting me on any kind of pedestal when it comes to writing, you two. :-) I made 951 edits to Changeling (film), and I reckon at least half of those were copyedits to my typically-overwrought prose, hoping it'd get the Tony1 seal of approval at FAC—I consider his "satisfactory" high praise indeed. ;-) Steve ^T • C 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie (1990 film)

Hey there Steve, I'm not sure if you read my response on Sandy's page; but after you read it, I just wanted to let you know, the article is really coming along. I added numerous additions using that so-called gold mine of information from the Google Books search to the Production and Release sections. The article is almost at FA Status.....lOl.......But by the way, I did look into that "American Cinematographer" link, and for me to retrieve it; it costs like $75 to buy it!!! Its not free!!! .....So we'll see about that....I'll let you know ....lOl... Mike Tompsonn (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I also forgot to mention; Good Work on the American Beauty film article. I see your 600 edits in contributing to the page. I look for insight from it, in improving The Rookie article. I'm sure your article will be ready for FA Status fairly soon. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.130.66 (talk)

Hi, sorry for not replying sooner; Wikitime has been limited recently. It looks like you've added some decent stuff to The Rookie article. Hopefully more will follow (it's a pity about that American Cinematographer article ... $75, wow). Rather than take it straight to FAC when you feel it's finished, it might be a good idea to go to the lower-pressure zone of Peer Review; if you drop a note at WT:FILM at the same time, inviting comment, I'm sure you'll get a couple of decent reviews and some constructive remarks—at the more confrontational (by design) WP:FAC, you might simply get a few people saying "Oppose, not ready" (as the recent submission proved), and you'll be no better off about what needs improving. And thanks for you comments about American Beauty; it's not quite finished, but I don't think it'll be too much longer. Good luck, Steve ^T • C 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Will do. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve, since we last spoke, I made numerous corrections to the page trying to enhance it. Unfortunately, I never got around to getting that American Cinematographer issue from '91 because of the steep price to retrieve it. However, thanks to your help and insight, I included pretty much everything I could from the Google Book searches. Following my edits, as it stands now, I have almost 10 books as references in the article, plus a few new reviews in the critical reception area. The Production and Release sections are now vastly improved. Take a new look at it to see my most recent changes. I've been thinking about what you've said as far as Peer Review is concerned; but I really feel I can skip that step and take it to the FA level. You sounded skeptical before when I mentioned other film articles with slim content making FA status; but here are two FA examples for you: November and Dog Day Afternoon. I think the Rookie article actually contains more text and has a stronger intro than either one of them. Plus neither of them have even WP:ALT text for their main image!! Give me your expert opinion and let me know what you think. And just keep these few bullets in mind about the article:

• Strong Introduction
• Main image includes WP:ALT
• Plot is in correct format and composition while being properly detailed but not too overly detailed.
• Production and Release sections are greatly expanded and now feature thorough referenced content.
• The References section is correctly punctuated with Dated info. (And of course, the rest of the article is well-written too)
• It has all the necessary External links without going overboard turning it into a LinkFarm
• It is completely categorized correctly for Police Detective, Buddy Cop, and Los Angeles setting films etc....

I can take the heat if it doesn't pass, but if those other 2 films made it, I don't see why this film in its current state can't either. Let me know.....Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 5:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I see you've already submitted the article to FAC, but just a note that those two film FAs you cited were promoted years ago (2005 and 2006) and may not meet today's FA standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Steveeeee, looks like the show is over....lOl.......I'm not sure if you saw my last comment on the FAC page, but I made a few major tweaks to the final look of the page. The References section was cleaned up and I added more sources to the paragraphs within the Production section that were lacking. The article is close to being the best I could make it. Hope you like it in its current incarnation. Thanks for the help. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I do like it, no matter what I might have said about the article elsewhere; you've done a fine job. All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gr8, thanks. Oh hey Steve by the way, do you remember the American Cinematographer issue we spoke about? And the steep price??? ...... Well You know, I was just looking on eBAY, and I saw a private merchant selling that older back issue for only $3.99!!! ... So I bought it! ... I will look through it, and in the coming weeks, I will expand the production section with additional info. But next time around, I will first visit Peer Review. We'll see where the article ends up. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank god you didn't pay $75 for it; I'd have hated to have recommended the issue for it to contain only one small paragraph about the film. :-) Still, all the American Cinematographer articles I've read/used have been pretty in depth, so it should be OK. Good luck, Steve ^T • C 22:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve....I'm just about finished with the article; and (right in time to see American Beauty get promoted) if I might add.....lOl......I pretty much cleaned house with American Cinematographer. There were 2 articles within the magazine, and they both proved to be very informative and interesting. Even if I wasn't writing the article, I still thought it was worth $4 to purchase it. The Rookie article now appears to be quite long and comprehensive. I invite you to take a look. You might seem surprised at the difference between the article now, and the way it looked 3 months ago.....lOl......I sent it over for Peer Review, but so far, no one seems to really care about it.....lOl......It hasn't even brought a single comment! Maybe, the article is "Perfect"....lOl......Please have a look at and let me know what you think. Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 2:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm glad to see you weren't disheartened by the FAC, and that the American Cinematographer article was useful after all. Peer Review was definitely the wisest next step; just don't expect immediate returns as there's usually a backlog. The usual reviewers at PR will get around to it eventually. I might not get around to another look myself at this stage; I'm knee-deep in controversy that'll keep me busy for a little while yet. But if after a week or so it still hasn't had any comments, I'll post a message for you, inviting other WP:FILM members to comment. On further content, I have another three weeks before I let my HighBeam account lapse, so if there's anything from this list of articles you want me to retrieve for you, just let me know which ones and I'll get them across to you. All the best, Steve ^T • C 10:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Steve. Thanks for the additional links with the Highbeam. I will look into it when I get a chance. With the Rookie article, its ok; I'm not in a rush to get it to FA. As it is right now, I'm avoiding trying to get into trouble at my job by goofing off half the day editing Wikipedia....lOl.... And listen, if some of the recommendations require me to do more comprehensive research, I can't really say that I have the time or will to do it. In the end, I may not nominate it for FA. I'm happy with the work I've done so far on it. And now that I think about, its actually a good thing the article didn't pass last time because it sure looks a hell of alot more comprehensive than at that previous point in time. I'll do my best to continually improve it with future advice from the reviewers, but it has to be within practical reason. I'm not going to go to the library and read 25 books for additional information. We'll se what happens. Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

NEW RESPONSE - Steve ... hello. I'm sure you've read my response on the Peer Review page, but recently I've been having some trouble editing the article. I've been trying to clean up the formatting using the WP:REFNAME link, but I can't seem to get the job done. I keep on getting a red Cite Error tag message. Could you possibly assist me with this? Can you create the initial tag for the american cinematographer and The Rookie DVD citations? I will then add all the additional areas of the article where those links are repeated. I just can't get the initial tag started. Helppppppp! .... lOl ......Is this a simple thing to do? Or does the entire Ref-list need to be completely reformatted? If it's a big job, then I guess forget it. Pleeeeze let me know if you can help. Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 2:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what Steve, on second thought scratch that. I think I got it working now. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 5:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Akira

Helloes. I see Akira Kurosawa has just gone up for peer review. Apparently they would like it to be an FA in March as it will be the centenary of his birth. I support this, as he's a legend, in't he? I know you're very involved with film articles and do peer reviews, so I thought this might interest you. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hallo! I noticed your comment the other day about becoming more involved in content review; GA, PR and FAC are always backlogged and could definitely use it. As for Kurosawa ... I'm relatively inexperienced with bios (I think Pappworth is my only one), so I don't know what standards the various WikiProjects have, but Kurosawa probably needs an overhaul before FAC-submission. I can't find any other director featured articles to compare it to, but if you look at something like Phil Hartman (which got its gold star last year), you'll see the difference—fully cited, nicely presented, written, etc. A "finished" Kurosawa article would probably be five times as long. Still, I don't want to be too down about it; it's a decent start and while time's a bit limited for almost all web activity at the mo', if I get a chance I'll throw some useful comments the way of "Dylanexpert". Cheers, Steve ^T • C 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

American Beauty Overflow

Hi there... just seen the requests for you to edit down the article. Bugger, eh? I can see both sides but my sympathies most definitely lie with the folk who go to all the effort to create the content as opposed to the boringly correct people who complain of length. So I'm here wondering if you'll perhaps shunt all the stuff you remove onto the talk page? I think it's what I would do. It's like a compromise; you please the length nazis but you keep the content as near as it can be to the article. Waddya reckon? (Rhetorical question; no need for reply, just an idea). Best --bodnotbod (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, Awadewit was right about the length; co-nom Erik had urged me to make similar cuts too. At the time, I figured, "screw it; the more information the better", but it's not just a case of its overwhelming the reader; there are technical problems with too-long articles. Load times can be an issue, especially when trying to edit the article, and it may have even caused the difficulties you saw with the reference links. As Awadewit said, the material that I cut would perhaps be more appropriate for an Interpretations of American Beauty sub-article one day. Thanks again for your review, Steve ^T • C 10:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"City of Blinding Lights"

Wow, thanks so much for doing that copyedit on "City of Blinding Lights"! It's exactly what the article needed, and it couldn't have come at a better time. Thanks a bunch for it! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome. I saw the opposition on the FAC page and stalked followed your contribs to see if you'd found a copy-editor yet. Noticing that you'd asked Malleus to take another look, I thought I'd see if I could give it a quick polish before he read it. :-) In the end, it was only a light copy-edit, as it looked like you'd already resolved most of the FAC issues; I don't claim to be a great writer, but hopefully it's enough to push it over the edge. Good luck! Steve ^T • C 16:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if it does end up passing, that light copy-edit will have definitely helped in getting it there. Thanks again! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Howdy. I don't understand your edit summary for reinserting The Economist book review of an entirely separate piece of work which, on one of its many pages, happens to mention The Revolution Will Not Be Televised in passing ("Mr Nelson finds [the film] contains many manipulations"). The page is about a documentary and we need to stick as closely to sources that discuss these details entirely in the context of the Irish film. Otherwise we are turning every page into a battleground by repeating arguments from 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Will you kindly justify your edit on article talk? Thanks. Wikispan (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I don't have a lot of time to get into this on the talk page, but as explained in the edit summary, my edit was not intended as support (or otherwise) of the sentence, it was merely providing a citation for text that was already in the article and had a {{cn}} tag. Steve ^T • C 23:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Others say only a few thousand. How did you land on "hundreds of thousands"? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gunson, Phil (May 1, 2004). "Director's cut". Columbia Journalism Review. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)—this says 500,000. However, respecting the fact that march figures (anywhere in the world) are often disputed, I decided to be vague about it and go with "hundreds of". Steve ^T • C 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no link to that and a subscription is required in any case. Can you do better than that? Something for us non-elite editors that don't have special access? Or do we have to take your word for it? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Charles, I have a copy, and FWIW, it does say 500,000 and Steve is summarizing it accurately-- it's a very short article, so he can't leave out much! Also, estimates of the march that day range as high as 1,000,000, so generically saying "hundreds of thousands" covers it nicely, but on the low side, which shouldn't ruffle any feathers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you stopped posting everywhere I do, Sandy Georgia. It gives me the creepy feeling that you are following me around wikipedia. Also, I object to you calling me Charles, even though you finally got the name right. It seems like you know me, and you do not at all. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, well, I've been posting to and following Steve's page for a very long time. [1] I'm sorry my presence troubles you so much, and I'm not going to type out Charles Rodriguez every time I address you, so I just won't :) Gee, I was coming here to offer to e-mail you the article, but I guess I don't really want you to have my IP address, if you still can't be nice. Toodaloo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. I've just see User:Unitanode threatened with a block for not using another editor's first name. When exactly did the lunatics take over the asylum? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You already know the answer to that :) I've had things said to me multiple times daily over the last month, that would have seen you blocked in a second. I've never been so aware of the double standard that troubles you as I have been since I resumed editing Ven articles ... they can say whatever they want to or about me, and nothing happens! Heck, you'd be banned by now if you had done a tenth of what I've endured this month :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, SandyGeorgia, or should I call you just Sandy :) , just because you have posted here before does not mean you have to comment on my every post, does it :) ? Or is there something that compells you to respond to every post that I don't know about :) ? Some wiki rule or what ever that says you must respond to each one of my posts, no matter where? Is there :) ? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that SandyG was trying to be helpful, but that you're determined to be a dick. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just falling head over heels and can't live without you. BigStupid

I'm certain you must be replying to Mr Rodriguez, not to me. In reply to the point you made earlier, about me being blocked if I'd done what others have done, I received some good advice after my last daft block, which in a nutshell that those who come to my talk page waving their civility warnings around do so to deliberately provoke a reaction from me that will in their eyes justify a block, a reaction that they're not going to get in the future. Apologies to Steve for wasting this space on your talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

you know I can't format my indents correctly !! Ha, ha, leave you guessing. But look how well I've trained you to leave a space between posts for my eyesight :) Steve won't mind (I hope) ... I recall once a very fun conversation with him here ... besides, he's off watching a really boring movie, so he'll have some entertainment when he gets back ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I can only hope that you, Steve, are sincere and not part of this Twitter generation (as above) who seem not to take wikipedia seriously. :) I see that SandyGeorgia, sorry Sandy (perhaps he/she prefers that), has the habit of drowning anyone who edits in a way she (he?) dislikes with endless posts. :) Enough of that. I shall not post here again. If you, Steve, want to contact me please do on my talk page. This is silly nonsense here, and I do not believe that most wikipedia editors engage in this nonsense, but I may be wrong. :) Wikipedia is not at all like what I thought to edit. I realize that most editors here carry the power and don't give new editors a chance.  :) I have been told of that. :) And now I see it is true. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See, I decide to go to bed early and spend the whole of the next day with my son, and this is what I miss. Next time you guys have a party, make sure you send me an invite, or at least clean up the mess after. Charles, when you've spent a lot more time here you'll find that this sort of "silly nonsense"—the playful banter—is vital to long-term survival and avoiding burn out. It might surprise some to hear me say that, as I don't tend to join in very often, but that's only because I'm no good at it. :-) The worst thing anyone can do is take Wikipedia too seriously. That's not to say it's not important work we sometimes do, but that it's better to carry out that work with a smile on one's face. Banal, but true nonetheless. When it gets to the stage that editing is causing real-world stress outs, that's when it's time to take a few days away. It's surprising how few editors realise that. To my few TPS, who was it who said in their reconfirmation RfA that they'd been "soul searching for weeks" over whether to go through that wholly unnecessary, drama-attracting process? That's one guy who should have just taken a week off with a good book instead. Anyway, to go back on-topic for a moment, I'm anything but niggardly with my material, so I'm more than happy to provide you with the text of the Gunson article. Enable your Wikipedia e-mail and drop me a line if you want it. (I can't post a link to the non-paywall webpage here lest it constitute a breach of Wikipedia's policy of not linking to potential copyvios.) All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, I put my email in. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sent. Steve ^T • C 22:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Awesomeness

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		You are so awesome! Thank you, GeorgiaSandy (Talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast list format

I have been experimenting with a different kind of cast list format partially based on the ongoing WP:FILM discussion about bold formatting. What has bothered me about cast lists with real-world context is that it can be uneven. For example, one of the three actors may have a paragraph about the casting and the role, where the other two don't have anything. I've been thinking that maybe we need to go back to basics; we should emulate the cast lists as we typically see them first, then enter the realm of prose. In addition, simple lists are generally unappealing because the actors and their roles are not spaced evenly. Doing some specific table work, I created Dark City (1998 film)#Cast and Surf Ninjas#Cast. It's not an across-the-board solution, but I was thinking that with the excuses that some editors are making with having the names stand out, an approach like this would avoid bold formatting and be better organized in terms of list and prose aesthetics. What do you think? Erik (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; it could be redundant in a lot of cases. Depending on how developed the article is, by that point the main cast could already have been listed three times: in the infobox, the lead and the plot summary. It might work better for films with larger casts, where it's unrealistic to list every actor in all three places, but how you've implemented it at Fight Club (film)#Cast, the very short section feels out of place. And that's before we consider that Jared Leto plays little more than a bit part. How about a quote box instead, such as this? It conveys the same information, but more subtly. Obviously, that's just something thrown together in a few minutes; I'm sure it could be made more aesthetically pleasing, and it needn't actually go in the "Casting" section if there's a better spot for it (maybe plot?) Steve ^T • C 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I considered this approach because it is easier to have a more comprehensive list of names for navigation. Starring actors will be mentioned a few times in a given film article, but it seems to me that when we try to convert all cast information into prose, we tend to drop the names of relatively minor actors. Maybe I'm straying into the indiscriminate zone, but the approach would help make navigation two-way. (Quite a few actor articles link to their works; seems a bit odd to go to an article and not find a mention of them.) I agree that the section is short at Fight Club. I did try to see if I could put the table in the plot summary but could not figure out how to get just a line around the table instead of between the cells. I'll look at the quote box coding to see what I can figure out. The problem with having the cast list in the plot summary, though, is that the summary is almost always at the top of the article, so the infobox and the cast box would "squeeze" the section. Otherwise, I think it would be really neat and effective to have the rundown of actors and their roles in the upper right of a plot section. I'll see if I can put the cast list in "Casting" somehow. Apt Pupil (film) has a more complete example, though... what do you think of that one? There are 11 names, so I'm thinking about having 6 on the left and 5 on the right to use the space better. Erik (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Success! Erik (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! I was working on something similar at the same time. :-) Take a look at the code; it seems to take a little less space. Of course, if this is a flier, a new template could be knocked up to make it even less code-heavy. As for your example at Apt Pupil, I think that works a lot better than at Fight Club. With 11 entries, it might not work well in a quote box. And that's fine; horses for courses and all that. Perhaps the editors currently thrashing this out at MOSFILM would be convinced that one of these options would look better than all that boldface. If we can get them onside, the guideline could be altered to recommend several such ways to present the cast, depending on circumstance. Steve ^T • C 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that will have to be later... I got heated under the collar at how a couple of editors were interpreting MOS:BOLD. I think what matters for now is that the WikiProject guidelines do not offer such a major "out" with its contradiction to the Manual of Style guidelines. I did not even realize the bold formatting was encouraged; I tend to skip over the guidelines' cast section since it is so old. A rewrite is in order at some point. I'm thinking that it should focus mainly on what you can do with the cast section and then worry about what you can't do, like list every actor's name or go overboard with fictional detail. Might be better to suggest setups like the ones at Apt Pupil and Fight Club in a grassroots manner and polish these setups further if necessary. Thanks for the Fight Club fix. By the way, I'm trying to get started on Dark City and successfully put in Cinefantastique information from LOC. Will follow up with more when I go back, but I have to say that Cinefantastique is a fun periodical. Lots of great production detail. I will need to relearn how to research, though... British Film Institute's index was probably the best I've seen, and I need to find an equivalent at LOC (which does not have any BFI databases, damn). Anyway, if you need anything for a pet project, film or Venezuela, let me know, and I can fetch on a LOC visit. Erik (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Psst! Look closer! You've got yourself another star. :) Congratulations! Erik (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I couldn't have done it without you; that star is as much yours as it is mine. A pity I procrastinated so much before Christmas and didn't get finished in time for the +10 years Oscar ceremony, but I don't think it would have beat We Are the World on TFA points anyway (not that I would have wanted to). Instead, I might look at the "true" 10th anniversary of its release Oscar win on March 26, even if I won't be able to keep much of an eye on it on that day. Thanks again, Steve ^T • C 11:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Steve. You have new messages at Craftyminion's talk page.
Message added 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crafty (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to issues raised on Inconvenient Truth FAC

I made some corrections to some of the issues you raised. Please check back and see if you have any more concerns.--The lorax (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden)

Steve, its time again for me to call in the heavies. The abouve is about 3/4's way through to FAC (will necessary be a short article). As you and Anonymous Dissident ‎did such an outstanding job on The Disasters of War, and because I am shameless, here is me asking again for c/e help. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And again you catch me just as the ennui is drifting back. This should be a nice little distraction, ta. I should be able to get around to it in a day or two. Best, Steve ^T • C 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont be worring though, man. A day or two, or a week, or a month. Whenever, and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Great work Steve, I'm very happy with the result - so much tighter and clearer. Thank you, and pologies for those apostrocrimes.... Ceoil (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hey. I didn't do much, really; it was in decent shape to begin with. But give me a shout any time; these art articles are more interesting than I would have thought. Best, Steve ^T • C 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Michel Thomas bio put at issue with March 22 discussion post

Steve:

Rather than weigh in myself, I'd rather defer to a real Wikipedian such as yourself to step in and stop the fight before it begins anew on an old, but sore, subject.

On March 22nd, "Intelligent Mr Toad" posted a comment in the Discussion section of the Michel Thomas entry. The pertinent sentence reads: "I must say I think his biography is largely an invention."

He is otherwise effusive about the quality of Mr. Thomas's language-teaching method, but as I'm sure you'll appreciate, this comment could light the fuse for another epic round of Hatfield-McCoy confrontation about the facts of Michel Thomas's life.

Suggest you intervene, as only you can do, otherwise, the Furies will likely descend, and very soon...

64.81.242.192 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there had been conflict at this article, since this was the first time I had visited it. My comment was only an aside to my comment on his teaching methods. I don't want to restart old fight, so I have no objection to the comment being deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr Toad! I appreciate your understanding. Steve ^T • C 14:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA!

American Beauty is an awesome movie, and there is a lot of stuff I didn't even notice when I was watching it, like the reflection that resembled him being in a jail cell. Thanks for doing such a thorough job. I know it took a lot of hours. Tisane (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! In addition to the reflection, shots of Lester "confined" are repeated throughout the early scenes: in his office cubicle and car, behind white picket fences and in door and window frames. It seems obvious now I say it, but it wasn't evident to me when I first saw the film either. Steve ^T • C 14:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy the love. Erik (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Cheers. Not as many as when Fight Club featured, though, but I guess that's a far cooler movie to like. :-) Steve ^T • C 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only 8 AM on the US East Coast; I am sure there will be some more tweets about it in the course of the day. :) Erik (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

See, there was just an update! ;) Erik (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, alright, maybe American Beauty wasn't as "cool" as Fight Club. Maybe you should do a cult film next! :) Also, check your spike here. Erik (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)

You are very welcome, glad to help. I am not familiar with the film or the attempted coup, so I am not perhaps the best person to check on the neutrality, but I thought it read well and did a good job of staying neutral. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1)

Hey Steve. I see you were making some edits to Parks and Recreation (season 1). Perhaps you'd like to weigh in at the featured article nomination? I believe it's running low on time, so if you get a chance I'd appreciate it. (Also, I've responded to a note you had left in the article. Thanks!) — Hunter Kahn 13:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't think I'll have time to pitch in with any kind of full review; I just happened to see Tony's comments and popped by with a "drop in" copyedit of the first few sections to see if it helped. I tend to agree with some of his comments about the short plot summaries, some of which seemed looser than the rest of the article, but I think most of the main problems with those have been caught. At a glance, the prose sections below the summaries are better, but they're a little verbose and have oddities such as non-idiomatic phrasing. For example:

The character traits of Ron Swanson, a government official who believes in as little government as possible, was inspired by a real-life Libertarian elected official Schur encountered in Burbank who favored as little government interference as possible and admitted, "I don't really believe in the mission of my job."

This could be rendered much more concisely; Ron Swanson is already established as being a character on the show, so how he acts are his traits, Schur establishes the "real-life" of the situation, and the beliefs of the character and his inspiration can be combined to avoid repetition:

Inspiration for Ron Swanson came from an encounter Schur had in Burbank with an elected official, a Libertarian who favored minimal government interference and admitted, "I don't really believe in the mission of my job."

To me, that's a lot less cumbersome, and doesn't remove any of the intended meaning. By eliminating the repetition, it means the reader is less likely to become bored from being told ideas they're already familiar with. If you go through the article with that in mind, you'll likely spot other such instances. As I say, the article is a little long for me to give a good going over at the moment, but I hope these pointers have been useful. All the best, Steve ^T • C 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Steve. Just so you know, DocKino has finished his copy edit. Maybe you wouldn't mind taking another look? Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 03:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure thing; I've got a peer review to finish off, but I'll take a look as soon as I've done. Best, Steve ^T • C 07:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Alien Nation

Hi Steve. Please see my comments under Erik's page for your insertion. But I do have something to say to you on your talk page. I'm aware of the sock-puppet rules. It would indeed appear I'm under a few names. I use a couple of pay-per use interent cafes for my logging in. The cafes have numerous users and they have rotating IP addresses as well. Many times, an IP address which is rotated might end up from a vandalized source too. I'm the same me, Mr. Theatrickal. So although it would appear that many different people are using this address from a static location, it is indeed the case. However, all those other people are not me. Theatrickal (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If I've made a mistake, I'll apologise; I just don't think I have. Your prose style, talk page vernacular, edit summaries, the way you format references and even ellipses are all strongly reminiscent of—in some cases identical to—another editor with whom I've had recent contact (and many throwaway accounts that have made edits to film articles over the last few months). There's also some article overlap between you and him via the contributions of his IP (which he inadvertently revealed while logged out at one point). That's fine; I merely assumed you were unaware of our policies and whatnot. If you're going to stick to this account from now on, then I'll say nothing more about it. I think you've added a lot of good content to these articles, and hope you'll stay with us. You can be a real asset, but I just think you've been a little eager to shortcut the normal review processes, which I admit can be frustratingly slow sometimes. A good way of getting more reviews can be to become involved in reviewing yourself; I'm not talking about quid pro quo supports or anything like that, but if you put yourself out there, the more people will take notice of your contributions and want to help out. All the best, Steve ^T • C 15:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

HA Ha Haha Hah ... Well Steve, or shall I say Detective Steve, your observations are quite perceptive. You might have forgotten to mention however, that edits made from that static location also contributed to numerous non-film articles as well. Many film articles were edited, and so were many other types of articles too. In the future, I'll try to make my edits more distinctive; if I can. Thanks. ;) Theatrickal (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.130.66 (talk)

Which pay-per-use internet cafe is operated by Valhalla School District? – iridescent 01:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha. I noticed that a couple of weeks ago when I checked to make sure it wasn't Mattisse (screw it, I'm a little cautious after being taken in by Mr Rodriquez), but decided not to call him on it, as I'm hoping he'll direct his ... youthful enthusiasm ... at article work. Steve ^T • C 10:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, perhaps you can contact Laserbrain for those sources ... in all your spare time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Mr. Iridescent, I'm not sure why that protocol identifies the IP Address as a school. Its not a school. The proof lies during the times I made edits. Sometimes it might have been late at night or in the early evening, like around 7:00 pm. What elementary or high school is open at 7:00pm? For Steve, please tell me what your watchful eyes tell you. Very interesting sock-puppet case of Mattisse. But you didn't say anything about it before because you checked the IP information on the backend and found out that none of it matches with my info. And that should make sense because I had nothing to do with that. I'm not Mattisse. As far as Sandy's recommendation, I don't think you should bother Steve. The article is perhaps better left undone. I don't want you to make a few edits and then take all the credit and hard work I put into it for yourself. If one day you nominate the article for FA, it would at least be nice of you to mention my time-consuming additions to the page. You've ruined my appetite for continuing my film-article editing, but I might change my mind in the future. And here's one more thing for you. I'm not signing in so you can see another rotated IP address. I didn't inadvertantly forget to sign in during my previous comment. Theatrickal (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.157.148 (talk)

And this pay-per-use internet cafe now routes its traffic via a Verizon cellphone? Very impressive, although I'm not sure it's a practical business model in the long term. – iridescent 17:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It might not be a practical business model, but thats not the point. The point is, I watch movies. I like to educate people on that subject. It doesn't get enough coverage on wiki. I've taken an opportunity to look through your edit history. You spend most of your time reverting vandalism. Have you considered a career change? I think the film project could use someone like you for helping out. I see your aggressive tendencies when you edit. The film area could use a helping hand in editing under-developed articles. Theatrickal (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I "spend most of my time reverting vandalism"? Er, if you say so. – iridescent 18:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

lOl.......So whats this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Iridescent Theatrickal (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like someone bug-testing the new release of Huggle. Basic stalking hint; check someone's history to see if something's part of a pattern, before you start throwing accusations about regarding where they "spend most of their time". – iridescent 18:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Theatrickal, what makes you think I want to take credit for any work you've put in? I've zero interest in working on that article. I took Sandy's comment to mean that I should perhaps ask Andy if he'd forward the sources to me (you seem to have been having trouble), whereupon I could put them in your hands. Try to assume good faith, eh? I've read your posts several times and I still can't work out whether you're denying being Mike, Peetric and all the rest. But I don't really care. My comments about your potential stand, but don't come here whining just because someone's called you out on a seeming lie. I mentioned Mattisse because she corresponded with me off- and on-Wiki pretending to be a new user with an interest in learning the ropes; I was a bit pissed off when I found out, so of course I'm going to be suspicious of similar behaviour, especially from those who submit a series of articles to WP:FAC that aren't ready (disrupting FAC was part of her MO). I didn't seriously think you were Mattisse, but I thought it prudent to check. Now, can we all just chill out a little? Go work on something else? If anyone's interested, I have several images of famous 17th century Bavarian nose flautists that need restora—wait, I was channelling someone there. Never mind. Steve ^T • C 20:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I don't think you have "Zero" interest in that article. In fact, I think your dying to make a meaningful contribution to it. Its not because of particular interest in that film itself, but because your interested in film articles in general. There is something you should know about me though. I make most of my friends after fighting with them first. I consider you my new friend because after this whole big chaos, you still sound polite. I was kidding about you taking credit for my work. I know your not going to do that, but just keep me in mind if you take it to FAC. There's hardly any work left to improve on the article. Its 95% finished. Oh, and here's a parting gift for you: One more unsigned comment. Frankly, I don't care where it leads to. Even if it goes to a sunglasses kiosk in a mall. Theatrickal (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.142.230 (talk)

Re: File:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv

The video's current resolution is 480 px wide, but in the article, it is only rendered as 275 px wide. At WP:CUM#Videos, it states: Videos should never be shown in articles smaller than their original size because it wastes network bandwidth. There's a little more elaboration in the white box in the section as to why videos should not be rendered smaller. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ack; I missed that line, thanks. I guess that makes sense. I'll get around to it when I next get a chance. Steve ^T • C 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for that reference, I just saw your message at WT:FILM. Much appreciated! --BelovedFreak 19:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)