User talk:The Filmaker/Archive3

Pilot (House)

I just did a fairly quick run-through copyedit; you may wish to look it over and make sure that I didn't make any assumptions. In terms of succinctness, there is probably some room for improvement, but, not having ever seen this series, I'm kind of wary of making bolder wording changes. — TKD::Talk 07:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity Plot

Just in case that you were adressing your last comment to me, we arrived at that guideline because of consensus-building WP:FILMS talk. Plus, the guideline leaves loopholes for complicated plots. The guideline is viewable at this link. Thanks, Cbrown1023 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

I'll try to take a thorough look at it soon. From a brief scan last night, it looked organizationally okay, but I did see some copyediting issues, in my book; there was one instance a slash was used instead of "or". — TKD::Talk 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone beat me to it. Maybe I'll try to give it a copyedit instead. :) — TKD::Talk 05:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to give it a look soon, but I am and will be somewhat busy in real life for a while. — TKD::Talk 13:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can probably tell, I'm not here too often anymore. If I'm not mistaken, you've achieved your objectives on this regardless. Good job.--P-Chan 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SWIII: RotS

I've tried to make my point a little clearer - that RotS was not the first Star Wars film to have Darth/Anakin played by the same actor, but is currently the only film to do so. It's a small point to argue, but as it was it's an incorrect statement. Rawling 16:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, my bad. My mistake. I thought that, as originally filmed, Anakin (force ghost) at the end of RotJ was played by the same person who was in the Darth Vader suit, and on actually putting in some effort and looking I have discovered that this is, indeed, not true. Still a bit of a dodgy point, since we see Sebastian Shaw's face while most of Vader is still in the suit, but I'll withdraw my objection and my edit. Rawling 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESB

Hey, I just helped to copyedit a bunch of articles, so I'm taking a little break. I'll definitely pitch in with the League though. — Deckill e r 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Batman Begins

I know, I know... I slipped up. Couldn't go back and change the edit summary. I was suggesting that Superman Returns isn't the ideal article to learn from, when it failed the GA test and Batman Begins passed. Better to learn from the FA-class Star Wars articles. :) I'm working on shaping up Spider-Man, any suggestions? I might subsection the Production section... not sure if I can make it sound linear in one body of text. There are some FA-class film articles that have some regular Production paragraphs, then subsections with more detailed paragraphs. Any thoughts on that or anything else? (My pride is the Development section; definitely added a new dimension to the film in my mind.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see how Development works as a subsection in the Production section. The Production section is definitely underdeveloped, as you can see that we've only gotten as far as announcing when it would start. Do you think the Development could stand alone if the Production was expansive enough in time? I'm hoping to work in the trivia details somewhere else, definitely -- they were just a couple of cited items compared to the whole bunch that we exported to the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather

Hey, I'm really busy in real life at the moment, if you haven't judged by the slowness of my response and the lack of Wikipedia activity over the week. Can you find someone else to weigh in? There's WP:3O and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Sorry that I can't help you personally. — TKD::Talk 02:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, because listing a few of the more obvious/common references might make the article more comprehensive. Only a few though; maybe a paragraph. — Deckill er 05:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Aleckenny.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Aleckenny.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection necessary?

Is it really necessary to protect Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace purely because it will be Today's Featured Article tomorrow? Or did I miss the memo saying that it was standard procedure to protect an article that will be Today's Featured Article? The Filmaker 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has only been move-protected so that no one can move the article. There is absolutely no need for an article to be moved during the twenty-four hours it is featured at Today's Featured Article. I've been move-protecting the featured article for several weeks now, but note what happened when I forgot to move-protect one. -- tariqabjotu 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESB

"Mixed reviews" should be balanced enough. Those who disagree need to understand that "mixed" means both good and bad, which ESB certainly received when it first came out (I've read plenty of stuff from that era, saying that it was 'unsatisfactory' or 'worthy sequel'). — Deckill er 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finish all your work on the article in the sandbox, and then start a peer review. Then things will get clear for that user. — Deckill er 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; but open the peer review at the same time you bring the sandbox contents in "to be fair". — Deckill er 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stress

I pity you; all the stress you must go through trying to maintain your featured articles :) I should probably go through and give a quick maintenence check for mine, as well. — Deckill er 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Men

Seeing that you profess in quality film articles, I was wondering if you could share your opinion over a disagreement at Children of Men. There is a mild conflict between a couple of editors regarding a phrase that appears at the end of the film after credits have rolled. Its thematic importance is pointed out later in the Themes section, but one editor believes that it doesn't belong in the plot, while the other editor believes it to be part of the overall package being delivered by the director to the audience. You can read discussion beginning here, going... a bit of ways down. :) Personally, I'm conflicted, as I originally tried to insert it in an objective light (merely saying that the phrase appeared), and leaving the interpretation for the Themes section. If you have the time, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars articles

It seems the articles still contain those same errors I pointed out.I checked the Return of the Jedi article and it still states the 1997 special edition came to DVD.This is not true. Please let's do change it.The 2004 DVD edition is a sperate edition.See list of changes in Star Wars re-releases to learn more.Regards.--Nadirali نادرالی

Sorry,I didn't know you were away.About the return of the jedi article,I fixed it.The problem wasn't in the article of the original trilogy,but on each movie seperately.It states that the movie was re-released in 1997 on theatres,VHS,Laserdisc and DVD.This is not true.The 2004 DVD editions are not the 1997 special editions because they carry significant differences to the 1997 editions.True they are special editions because of updates and better special effects,but they are not the 1997 editions. I think you should add the articles to you watchlist in case a confused user reverts my edits.I'll even bring this up on the Star Wars discussion page just to clarify.Regards.--Nadirali نادرالی

Outside Opinion Requested: Children of Men

Hi! I was hoping to enlist your assistance in resolving a difference in edits for the article for the movie, Children_of_Men. The differences in edits is relatively minor but contentious, with low-level edit-warring back and forth replacing one version, then the other. It has even resulted in one of the parties being reported for 3RR violations. And of course, it has strained civility to the breaking point. A third voice (preferably someone who has seen the movie, but not vital) is needed. A request for editor review was requested before from two other editors, without response. I would suggest taking a look at the key points as they have been debated on the discussion page, but the debate has gone on for...quite a bit. If you will permit me, the two edits take place in the synopsis, viewed by their diff here.

One side of the debate (indicated by the linked edit on the left) argues that statements and sounds heard at the end of the film (the sounds of children laughing and playing and the words Shantih, Shantih, Shantih appearing on the screen at the very end) were not specifically part of the synopsis as it was no more a part of the "storyworld" than the credits or specifcally thematic components. This pov statees that the components are solely thematic, and should be only be mentioned in the Themes header of the article.

The other side of the debate (indicated by the linked edit on the right) argues that these same statements, by the very fact that they were observable portions of the film should be a part of the synopsis, in keeping with the definition of the word, further reasoning that casual visitors want an accurate depiction of what was on the screen for the film's duration, allowing for any thematic discussion of the synopsis to take place in the Themes section, either in brief or in depth.

I thank you for taking the time to read this request, and I hope you can assist us in finding a compromise.Arcayne 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat back

Congrats on the House Pilot episode, great work on that. I will copyedit the article tomorrow, and let me know if you need anything for the FAC. I have been moving, changing schools, and getting engaged, so haven't been as busy on Wikipedia these last few months. :) Judgesurreal777 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Fine Line

On a somewhat related issue, please allow me to pick your brain a bit. When writing a synopsis, there is the need to avoid OR. Where is the fine line between the use of descriptive words in the synopsis which describe a character's motivations and inventing them? In examples, most taken from an FA article:

All of the aforementioned articles use descriptive words to allude to the perceived state of the characters in the film. Can you explain the difference to me a bit?Arcayne 06:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit over my head for all that before my first cuppa, but I think I understand yiour point. Of the four examples, 1,2 and 4 were from FA articles. Number 3 was a proposed alteration to the synopsis which would have reflected the intended ambiguity of the ending. The entire film, the viewer is told that the Human Project is trying to save mankind from extinction, and when we finally see them in the final moments of the film, they are not friendly at all. They don't wave, they don't smile; they don't act like Good Guys. A firend of mine said that she thought that 10 minutes later, it could very well have been a horror movie. Add to that the warning that Theo told Kee to keep the baby close, no matter what, and there is enough amibuity for second helpings. Do you see my point?Arcayne 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "helpful" edits

Would you please knock it off with the removing sections. It equalizes the House episodes and when anonymous members and regular ones want to place something in a catgoery and it isn't there, they tend to make different names and throw the whole system out of whack.
Blind man shady 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! "Borderline personal attack? Grow up. Stop removing content willy-nilly. If you plan to reorganize the way you just have to have it, stop ignoring all the info submitted and file it appropriately. Don't be lazy.
Blind man shady 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You didn't open any discussion about the articles, you just went through and deleted the sections. Those are big chunks of text and if you don't think they should be there, tell us why. But please don't start blanket editing the articles like that without talking about it first. You can agrue why those sections should be removed and let the community discuss it (because this is a community and a lot of people work on these articles). Until then, I'm going to restore those sections. BethEnd 02:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESB

I'm thinking about taking a break from copy-editing. I gave the lead a quick runthrough, and I'll go through and give it a quick read once I get the chance. — Deckill er 14:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I decided to butt in really and help out, as I've never really edited a Star Wars article. Why exactly do you need others to copyedit by the way? I hope ESB and ROTJ are featured by the end of the year. Wiki-newbie 20:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm afraid that I have zero time for Wikipedia at the moment. Both of my hard drives just got wiped by some bizarre hardware failure — my current guess is that a cable somehow became loose — so I'm going to be spending some quality time getting my system fully up. Sorry that I can't help you this time around. — TKD::Talk 09:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later today. Am about to leave the house in a few minutes. Appreciate the invitation! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I'll be sure to check it all out soon. Cheers. Cvene64 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the changes are satisfactory. Let me know if anything further is needed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, sorry about that. I think my eyes perceived a ghost paragraph or something? I think I need some coffee on this fine morning. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Be Bold"

The article also says don't be reckless. If you see an empty section that no-one has added text to, you can feel free to delete it. It doesn't improve the article to have empty places, you're right. But that doesn't mean you should delete half the page around it as well, including places where there ARE text. BethEnd 02:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another awesome job!

Empire strikes back looks great, only needed very minor copyediting at this point. It has come a long way from before it was GA. I hope to be more helpful on the Return of the Jedi, a personal favorite of mine :) Be in touch! Judgesurreal777 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Dear Filmaker,

I came across your page as I was looking at FAC pages. Six pages in your FA history, quite impressive! I am working on getting the Ohio Wesleyan University page to FA status. So, I was hoping to get your advice on how to get there? Thanks for your time! LaSaltarella 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One to go

Congrats; one more to go :) Then it's on to individual characters and concepts? — Deckill er 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

You're one of those guys who can make an image off a DVD. I have a request then: I intend on making Jurassic Park FA, and what I need is something from the James Earl Jones hosted documentary:

Stan Winston's company making animatronics.
The animatic of T-rex chasing Gallimimuses that made Spielberg and Tippett realise CGI was here to stay.

Contact on whether or not you can do it. It'd be much obliged. WikiNew 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks. What tool is needed to make images as a quick query? WikiNew 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godfather

The new version looks a lot better, for sure. — Deckill er 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll take a look :) Judgesurreal777 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as

Casino Royale (2006 film).

Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the summary of the special effects from watching the doucmentary and an online source and have added the complete awards section which I have sub parted in reaction as it looked too big,. THis may need writing into the text further I don't really mind. I plan to take an image of the rig for the Ventian house used while filming to show the mechanics of the baloon and cylinders -this would give it that bit extra to show - look we really know what we are talking about here. I plan to add a small section on technical specs type of cameras used etc. When this is copy edited it a bit then I want this up for a featured proposal. It is becoming an excellent article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users seem pleased enough with the progession so far but it may need to be cut down slightly I don't want it over 60kb ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete all three? At least one ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the character is so unimportant why does he have his own wikipedia article when most of the others are on merged lists? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many film articles the film not only has an image of the dvd but also the soundtrack. The poster is the dvd ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image of an award win is used in Abbas Kiarostami in exactly the same way which I helped get to an FA. Of course it is not essential but are any of the other images truly essential? I am trying to improve this as much as possible and believe images really help fit the full picture. I don't like articles with no vidual media whatsoever but also don't like clutter. I thought it was fine at least with one of them ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it very odd that you beleive that the gun barrel image really adds something absolutely amazing to the plot but an image of a major award win in the award section isn't. I think you'll choose anything to suit your own opinions. Can you tell me staight and honestly you think that gun barrel image tells something remarkable about the plot. It is in the plot section. I don't have a problem with it but that does not really add anything significant to the plot. Images help to put it into its context. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 10:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then but I am returning just the dvd image then -this like the main poster is part of the campaign for the dvd promotion which constitutes a sepreate paragraph. DVD release is very important an an image showing it is not a problem and helps the article. Look I am trying to improve this and I can't see that an image or two is really damaging to the article. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 10:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the image of the gun barrel help the article? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 14:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look life is too short to argue I would rather work together friendly to get it to FA status rathing than wasting each others time when we could work ogether properly. but are you saying an image of the key to the plot Mr White is not helping to create "the look" of the film. However little he appeared in the film this was intentional to create an air of mystery. He even has a seperate wikipedia article when 90% of the other characters are on lists. How can you say he is not important to the film? I'll forget the award image but i diagree with you about the others. The question is what is stopping this article from becoming an FA? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll leave white out but if I find the proper dvd cover not the poster surely you can't argue against this? Some Bond articles like Die another day have unneccesaary images of both soundtrack, book and dvd. An image of dvd is the most important that those others. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 11:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see these following improvements until it is ready for FA nomination:

Intergrate award list fully into written text and avoid redundant repetition.
Copy edit the article fully -most notably in the reaction and release section where some wording is not quite polished enough -too many short sentences and some phrasing is still quite clumsy.
Try to intergrate a bit of basic summary of the screenplay into an existing section basic differences from original novel -the similarity to Flemings and original charcter and plot also needs at the very least mentioning. No quoting but some mention of the dialogue in places might help -Judi Dench's character is even more hostile this time and she uses stonger language than ever before in fitting with the "darker Bond".
Mentioning the dates of casting - it was actually done in September 2005 and the final decsion for Craig for made in only a few weeks announced in October although the production team had had their eye on Craig since 2003.
One final image please. of the actual DVD COVER from than the poster. I'll forget about the award and Mr White.

What do you think amigo? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restructured sentencing and phrasing considerably with more professional wording throughout the article now removing a few sentences and words which affect the integrity of the article, the release section was repetitive before also and 3/4 of the US section before was about the UK -it should appear more readible now it has been rewritten. I also hope you like the Special effects section, which I see as the missing gap in info and having watched the doucmentary several times on behind the scenes I can confirm it sumarizes all the important information fully and I beleive it is a very useful asset in learning about the film. I would like to add a final image of the venice rig set used at Pinewood whilst filming though but I have mostly finished my work and appreciate that you all allowed me to improve it where I was intially reverted within seconds!!! I hope you and everyone is happy with the developments and won't re edit it too much. If there is no objection I now think it just about ready for FA proposal. ALl the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK whatever. I am amazed at your distaste for images!!!! I figure at least one image in bottom section helps and was very appropriate but never mind. Whatever the case I have rewritten the article and am proposing it for an FA today. Thanks for your appreciation anyway even if we can't agree on the images!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 09:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ok that fine mate. I just thought it might help the article. The important thing is that I have rewritten the article and it is hopefully up to FA. I beleive we already have one or two supports already - beleive me I couldn't care less about the images if this is voted an FA without them. I only thought it might help improve it. The main thing is that people are happy with my work and are aware that I have an ability -that people respect my work and everybody else combined who have made the article are respected too for their efforts including yourself. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Blond

I have addressed the James Blond in the intro. THats the best pplace to mention the protest against Bond the casting section should discuss the actual decsion making process beofre going on to production. I wish you had quickly told me that you saw it as a problem before opposing and it can be quickly rectified ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I consider in my view 5'10 is short and I don't really consider 6'1 all that tall I'm 6'4 1/2 and in my view Craig is pretty rough looking!!! but amzingly he does seem to have that quality of a bond which is beleivable. Those possible pov issues have been worded to show it is the view of fans who threatened to boycott the film rather than saying he is short or is blond. It is very difficult to attempt to please verybody but I agree that the briefing helps considerably and his highly appropriate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But remember it is from my view. 5 ft 10 I believe is even slightly above average in the UK let alone other countries (except Holland) so of course its not short compared to most of the population -but it depends on whose perspective!!! THis same thing applies in the article people see things from different persepctives. Anyway I hope the brief helps fill in the gap Saludos ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has removed the section I added. Even if the sources are removed we have to mention the controversy at least in a sentence or two. It is very difficult to accomdate everyone!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the brief but rmeoved the website reference. Going well so far 6/6 in support. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 10:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section:Title sequence

Another sub section summarizing details of how the credits were designed and the reasons behind it would be even greater

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4511

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private

Sure thing. My IM is SonOfYoungwood, and my e-mail is SonOfYoungwood@aol.com. — Deckill er 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godfather

That debate seems to be going about the same as always, which means it will probably result in a delete. — Deckill er 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park FAC

You wouldn't mind making a comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jurassic Park (film)? It'd be much appreciated. Alientraveller 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Alientraveller 12:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as

The Godfather.

Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--Crzy cheetah 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What topic within the DST debate isn't being covered?

Thanks for your contribution Talk:Daylight_saving_time#Controversy to the DST talk page. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by the "debate as to whether to discontinue" DST? How does this differ from the topics currently covered in the DST page's "Benefits and drawbacks" section? Eubulides 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV Pusher

Looks like he's stopped for now. — Deckill er 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Venom-Smasher for 3RR, since he's one edit away if not over the limit for today, but something tells me that it's not going to stop him. I'll keep an eye on those articles too, since I feel they are neutral, but hopefully we can all come to a solution on the problem that won't result in a bunch of 3RR blocks or worse. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw what happened back in December, but wasn't really up to getting involved other than trying to revert him back once or twice. I guess the only thing we can do is wait right now since I reverted back to the original versions on both Episodes I and II. His incivility is getting out of hand though, and that can end up in a much bigger block than 3RR if he keeps it up. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section "Politics" added to Daylight saving time

Thanks for your comment dated April 25 on Daylight saving time. I've added a section Politics that I hope addresses the issue. The page recently came up as a Featured Article Candidate, and two reviewers agreed with you on exactly that point—good call! Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daylight saving time if you'd like to weigh in on the latest version of the article. Eubulides 23:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROTJ

Star Wars articles take second highest priority, so I'll pick at it for the next few days. — Deckill er 19:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SW languages

Hi. Just to make it clear, I wasn't trying to bring a chuckle, it's fact: What language is spoken in what movie?. But maybe it doesn't belong to the infobox. I'll try to put it into the article somehow. --Steinninn 04:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

How's it going? What have you been up to lately? Need someone to help with ROTJ soon? All the best! Judgesurreal777 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars image

Policy has lately been clarified at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions per the new foundation licensing policy. In short, the situation is not the same as before, and non-free images are no longer used on the MainPage. I believe the building to be a satisfactory image, as it represents a very prominent location in the film (i.e. the hero's childhood home), and would be familiar to any fan. If you have another suggestion of a free image, I would of course be glad to hear it.--Pharos 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we cannot post "non-free content" on the main page because of legal nonsense. — Deckill er 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead

It doesn't say anything like that on WP:Lead. I hope this was an innocent mistake, rather than an attempt to mislead a newbie. Medieval Fiona 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Film Title Acronyms

I have replied to your comments in the 'Appropriate Tone' paragraph on the discussion page for A New Hope, be interested to hear any further thoughts you have on this. 193.63.62.252 15:04, 26 May 2007

Where to next?

I wonder, after getting ROTJ to FA, what film series would you like to focus your attention next? Alientraveller 09:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool for Indiana Jones, I've always been whipping Raiders of the Lost Ark into shape. Alientraveller 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could work on The Matrix, because those articles need a lot of work. I can keep tending to Indiana Jones, though I will request your help if I really, really need it. How does that sound? Alientraveller 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"please do research before removing information"

No. The burden of proof is on the editors who add information. If the link is all that it takes to clarify it (although I'm still dubious on this whole "canon scale"), then the editor should include it. What I saw was information "substantiated" by an unreliable source; it was fine for me to remove it. --EEMeltonIV 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Manos" title

"Manos" The Hands of Fate was the title of the page when I first came across it. I changed it to Manos: The Hands of Fate because no one could give a good reason at the time for that particular form, and that was the title being used on IMDB. In actuality, if you check around on the internet you will find that there is no definitive form of the title that everyone seems to agree on, I've seen it as Manos, The Hands of Fate and Manos - The Hands of Fate as well.

Recently, however, I was reading a critique of the film, and the author stated that he choses "Manos" The Hands of Fate as the "real" title as that is its form in the opening and closing title cards of the film. That made up my mind on the subject, and when someone else changed it to that form in the body of the article, I thought I might as well change it back to the way it was. -- Grandpafootsoldier 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Want

Is this or this (encyclopedia dramatica link blacklisted) good enough to cite as a reference? I couldn't find a news article or anything like that. If it's not, I'll just be quiet about it. Kevin 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately, no those will not work. Websites with information that is submitted by everyday joes are not allowed as sources for Wikipedia. The Filmaker 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)"

Ironic, isn't it? Basically a Wiki by that definition can't be a source for a Wiki. Anyway, nevermind then. Kevin 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Star wars episode one the phantom menace ver1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Star wars episode one the phantom menace ver1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ilse @ 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I don't really have an opinion on this one; it has its advantages and disadvantages. However, the synthesized budget numbers and whatnot will need sources. — Deckill er 00:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]