User talk:Bignole/Archive 5

30 Days of Night

Holy cow! I thought I'd share. There was a new photo released for 30 Days of Night, right? I've put it up in the article already. Anyway, I was getting Google Alerts of news headlines about the film (pretty much to show the new photo), and I was going across them to see if there was any additional content. So I came across /FILM, which had this Did You Know spiel at the end of it, saying "30 Days of Night author Steve Niles had conceived of the story in the form of a film but after a lack of attention, Niles wrote it as a comic." That EXACT sentence is in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article about the film — what I wrote! :D First time I've seen something I've written cited outside of the Wikipedia universe! Yahoo! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for having my back regarding Burr Bob's attack. Yet another satisfied customer for the list! I guess the wintertime keeps all the crazies inside and rampant on Wikipedia. Also, I noticed you copied my user page! :D No problem with that; hope it benefits you. It's easier than trying to sift through the help page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being deaf, I can't follow these production video journals. Wish they had transcripts for 'em. It would be useful information to include. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Saw (film series)

An anon vandal is adding false information to this page. I've reverted and warned him twice but I fear he will persist. I will try to keep an eye on this page, but if you could help with this I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 00:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Smallville (TV series)

Hey, how are ya? I have a quick question, under the Appearances by other DC Comics Characters on the Smallville (TV series) page; all of the characters only have one name. It used to be, for example, Oliver Queen ‘Green Arrow’ (Season X Episode X); but now it is just Oliver Queen (Season X Episode X). My question is, is this a new change or will it be reverting back to the old? Thanks much, slán Zadc7akr 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the person you messeged. Watch the episode Reckoning in the beginning. He flies Lana up in the Fortress of Solitude. . There is confusion on whether Clark Kent flew up in the Fortress of Solitude, or whether he kind of super jumped. Clark Kent has not flown since, and it is still unclear whether he has this ability

Spidey 3

Any chance you can check out Talk:Spider-Man 3 and share your opinion? You were reverting vandalism on the film article long before I came to it, so your thoughts would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 is a Future Film article which means it is an unstable embryo. For example, Star Trek XI was denied GA as it fails the stability criteria. I can only hope of a immediate GA passing when released ala X-Men: The Last Stand. Wiki-newbie 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I still wouldn't advice it. BTW, weren't you planning to make the previous films' articles good? Wiki-newbie 16:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support a peer review within the week, and we can ask in the peer review if the article could qualify for GA class despite the future film status. I think, though, that there are further improvements necessary in improving Spider-Man 3, such as re-writing the content to be in line with WP:MOS. We also need more development information, such as this. Let's try for a peer review by the end of the week after trying to tighten up the article in our own ways. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, should we mention our interest in having a peer review on the film article's talk page? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a Peer Review is more suitable for when the article is fully broad in coverage. Certainly the peer review will just tell us to wait for reviews/box office/DVD and so on. Wiki-newbie 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The talk page seems unable to handle new comments without erasing old ones. What's going on? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So, as for the Topher Grace picture, I like it. It illustrates all that talk regarding Raimi having a change of heart regarding Venom. Wiki-newbie 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can find it on the net alert me to it. Wiki-newbie 12:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's watermarked too. Wiki-newbie 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The SM3 quote you RV'd today - I've seen that, or somethign quite close, too. I 'THINK' it's from a magazine still on the stands... Empire or something else with him in it... We really do just need a source. ThuranX 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool. NO, I just wanted to tell you what's up. ThuranX 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

damn you for beatign me in taht edit revert. My comback was 'unless you keep kashrut'. but yours was good too, LOLThuranX 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

I agree. Even some cited info can be removed - for example it is possible to cite tabloid newspapers "confirming" actors - but this later turns out to be nonsense. I know such things require a judgement to be made and may be controversial, but I think it would benefit the article. Mark83 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't do anything more this afternoon - maybe this evening. Good luck if you decide to make a start! Mark83 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alien

Yeah, I agree. I just can't recall if the term xenomorph is actually used in the films at all. It certainly isn't used in all the films in the series, so using it in plot summaries could be confusing to readers. It's especially difficult in AVP where you need to distinguich the Aliens from the Predators, since really they are both aliens. Seaworldpunk 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Saw your comment while I was adding one of my own. I believe "xenomorph" is only said once in the entire series. In Aliens, Lt. Gorman says it while addressing the marines. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I want to say thank you for the compliment. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fountain Redux

So I continue building up this article for The Fountain... would you mind taking another look and providing some criticism? If you have the time, you can respond to my talk page or the peer review. Your insights regarding the Cast, Production, and Themes section would be appreciated, as well as any other part of the article. I hope to expand the Reception section within the week, though. Just let me know if anything fails to sound clear or objective. I'll review any article you like in return. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's just general production delay. I didn't really find anything that explained it in detail. Even Hollywood procrastinates, ya know? Also, I found out recently that The Last Man wasn't actually a previous title, but a working title. Take a look at the CraveOnline citation that goes with it — do you think it's worth expanding upon? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I addressed that The Fountain was now "officially titled". Makes better sense now. I also inserted "releasing the cast and crew from their duty" in the Robinov announcement of production ceasing. Blanchett left, I assume, because the film was no longer being produced. It's kind of implicit in nature, which is tricky to word objectively... any ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the "Graphic novel" section could go into the "Marketing" section, as the graphic novel was not part of the campaign but rather a separate product that was more related to the initial production run (with Pitt and Blanchett). I'm just trying to think of how to get the article closer to FA-class — what criticisms I would run into and such. How would you recommend going about writing a balanced passage of critical reaction, in terms of choosing who to cite, and how to select what sort of criticisms would be relevant? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, thanks for taking the time to look over The Fountain. It's really appreciated. If you ever need a hand in reviewing an article, let me know, and I'll return the favor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Movies

Yeah, I had a feeling you already saw Bram Stoker's Dracula. I guess whatever film you have in mind paid homage to Stoker's story. I might seek out another website to help me figure out the two movies I mentioned. Any ideas where else I could go? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping for an expert response from the reference desk, but I suppose the thoughts are too vague. I remember all the kid movies I enjoyed -- Suburban Commando, Surf Ninjas, and whatnot. I just think it would be really satisfying to figure out a movie that I haven't watched in over ten years and rewatch the scenes. I'm trying to Google for a decent website or forum myself. Will let you know if I find anything worthwhile. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you might want to check out IMDb's I Need to Know. If you don't have an account, try using BugMeNot or just sign up. I was able to get my answers there! They were The Power of One and Into the West. I'm freakin' pleased now, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, IMDb is actually nice in that regard, though I can't usually stand most Internet movie forums. Most topics are rampant speculation and opinions. I like the air of objectivity in working with film articles on Wikipedia, especially the SM3 and TDK crew. The holiday was alright; didn't get anything exciting — I have most of what I want already short of pricey, high-tech gadgets. I turn 21 in less than a week, so I suppose I'll be reaping the benefits of that particular age. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rocky Balboa

Yeah, I walked away for a bit and then came back to trim. I think this works better - it's more the movie in a nutshell. (And as for seeing, it's very good - won't win an Oscar but it's certainly the way the series should have been put away to begin with.) Theirishpianist 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Aliens Revert

I'm aware of the revert rules, I'm aware of the wiki policies, and I believe that you are in err. There were no additions, the grammar was cleaned, the edit is fine. If you want to debate, then I shall report you just as easily as you will report me. Let the admins deal with this.ShadowTao 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, learn the difference between verbose and specific. The text I added regarding previous events in the movie was necessary for the reader to understand the reasons for Ripley's concerns regarding colonists on the LV-428. If it wasn't important, the director wouldn't have included it in the movie. I'm leaving this to an admin. You think it's verbose, I think it's specific, let the admins decide.ShadowTao 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As for my "additions," I said I added nothing to the plot, save the necessary info from the previous movie. The rest of my edits were to grammar and specific areas of the plot that were not properly detailed by previous editors.ShadowTao 03:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Then change the words that you don't like, not the whole edit. If your point is that I added three words too many, then remove the extra words. You didn't do that, you completely reverted the edit. It's like you're trying to be difficult.ShadowTao 04:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said my edit was perfect, but it's awfully rude of you to completely wipe the edit just because you didn't like a few words. I welcome your edits, but don't be arrogant about it.ShadowTao 04:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well look, then let's just work together on this. When I saw your revert, there was a whole of red. You didn't simply remove and add text.ShadowTao 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I take my edits seriously, that's I why I spent so much time on this revision. If you don't like to take the time to read everything, then don't edit the page, and don't claim to know more about the revert than I.ShadowTao 04:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The detail of the plot section is succinct, but I think the wording could be improved. You can see the suggestions I've made on the talk page, but I might have some more to make. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who has never seen an Alien movie before and write accordingly. The bit about "...the aliens spring to life. After most of the squad is wiped out..." is assumptive of knowledge of how these aliens tend to behave. Not sure if there are any other bits that need clarification to strangers, but it's something to watch out for. Also, I suggest you take a breather and remember that it's not the end of the world if your ideal plot section can't be written. I probably got caught up myself in editing the plot for The Fountain a while ago; needed to step away to cool off. Hope you two can find some kind of compromise in all this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Matrix

I was just curious that after you do a summary for Aliens, would you mind trying out an attempt for The Matrix which I could use as a basis? It'd be much obliged please. Wiki-newbie 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd do it Nolan style: you send me a version, I'll rework, I'll send it back until we're happy, before posting it on the talk page for a peer review of sorts. Wiki-newbie 19:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the plot is of acceptable length (and it is a complex film afterall), shall we post it for a mini-review? I'll keep cutting and give you a go ahead. Wiki-newbie 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The plot sypnosis is on Talk:The Matrix#Plot Synopsis now. Wiki-newbie 19:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There's seemingly an edit war about a Matrix Religion site right now. Maybe we can be bold and just post ours. Wiki-newbie 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Digging up information

I found an interesting way to dig up information about future films, especially ones that have yet to be made. (I'm keeping a news list at User:Erikster/Future articles.) Since we're in college, we have access to news databases, right? I found one called Access World News that helped me dig up some film-based information about the comic book superhero Black Panther. You can see my edit of the background for the film adaptation. I've been digging through old news for other films, too, and it seems like it's a good way to get information that may not otherwise be available. Using Google is kind of a pain these days, with all the fanboy blogs and forums clogging up the results. Thought I'd give you a heads up on that result, if you haven't considered it before. I might be revamping The Fountain and Watchmen using this... some gaps to be filled. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. Have a good drive? Takes four hours for me to get home from college; can't imagine ten hours on the road. Access World News has come pretty handy — I've expanded production history for Avatar as a result, and I'm currently working on doing step-by-step history for Ghost Rider. We also fixed up the Producton section for Spider-Man 3, so there's actually a beginning to the production cycle (with interesting info about screenwriter Sargent). Anyway, yeah, welcome back. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

(More) Casino Royale

Been meaning to say, great work lately. Mark83 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

SM3

I suggest we withhold any kind of response to the Jameson disputer in the future. As I said in my recent comment on the talk page, we've all made our points to him. If he comments again, only revert him if his words are thoroughly disruptive and lack any kind of contribution. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's likely that if Venom is shown in more detail in these clips, it'd be necessary to include a mention and a screenshot (if it proves to be high quality enough). You've been missing out on some fun with Boggs and the Jameson disputer... we've taken it to the principal now, but I don't have a clue what could happen. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Bond 22

He's had his last warning. I'm going to report him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I have a feeling that Voltron will take off after the likely success of Transformers this summer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never heard of Voltron. Probably because Simon Furman never wrote a comic book of it. Wiki-newbie 21:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well good luck with watching the article. Wiki-newbie 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Boggydark

See my most recent comments on the Spider-Man 3 talk page. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 08:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Matrix's Oscars

Re: using the search results as a refence.[1]

I originally did the search in Firefox, and after that clicking the link worked fine. But it was when I copied the URL into IE that I got the timed out message - apparently it relies on your browser's cache. Better to link to the search form rather than the results, or a different reference entirely. --Nick R^Talk 18:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Rocky IV

Following some of your edits and reverts on the page. I added a few relevant details, and cut it back a bit. I understand that Wikipedia is not for a blow-by-blow of a movie, but there should I think, be sufficient detail to capture the essential narrative and thematic significance, the "flavor" if you will, of the film. Tommythegun - 00:33 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Corollary to the above, if an edit or article on a movie is overlong or otherwise inappropriate, it might do better to do more selective editing rather than a simple revert. A revert can be an easy "nuclear bomb" way of dealing with problematic edits that, while taking care of what's wrong with an edit, also eliminates what might be right. Tommythegun - 00:44 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The details about Drago's fight with Apollo Creed are also part of the movie, yet you did not remove them. Please return the trivia about Drago's wife lying about steroids, as it is a relevant bit of trivia if that second point is. Metsfanmax 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Metsfanmax

Alright, at least we can compromise that way. I'm a little confused by what you meant, though; what I had contributed was simply an interesting note on how the Russians lied about what they were doing. I suppose I shall read some more film articles to see what exactly constitutes film trivia. Metsfanmax 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Would it make sense to include some of these bits of information in other sections, or should the plot summary section focus on the major issues in the film only? Metsfanmax 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a source for the Family Guy episode (although not a very detailed one, though it's impossible to be detailed with a simple plot summary) at http://www.tv.com/family-guy/brian-goes-back-to-college/episode/561186/summary.html. Perhaps we could add that in, or would it make more sense to simply revise the entry?

Re: Casino

Here's a source from producer Michael G. Wilson: [2]. So I guess Amazon is wrong. Wiki-newbie 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDb counts as Amazon. My memory is foggy given I saw the film on November 18, but I'm very sure the sequence is set in Madagascar, as was given by every thing I read about it. Keep it as there for now (it's definitely in Africa, I was reverting vandalism of it being Sri Lanka) and we'll doublecheck on DVD. Wiki-newbie 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How do I notify Amazon or IMDb? Wiki-newbie 09:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Skull Island Species

Hi there, you asked me for where I got my sources for the dinosaurs on Skull Island. Simply go on the official King Kong site and click on a link that says "The Beastiary" and there you will find all the creatures.

Aquaman

Hello there Bignole, thanks for the quick action taken over at the Aquaman (TV) page. Out of interest, do you think it would be good to include a pic or two in the article ? I cant seem to find that many on the net, but a cast or screenshot would make a big difference I think...Any help uploading a decent one without a watermark from a site or whatever would be really appreciated! ;) - (SRfan07 16:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

• That would be fantastic if it ever got to feature status. I have looked on KryptonSite, but most of their images seem to say KryptonSite on them, which probably is not the best for Wikipedia use yeh? Also, theres this if you are interested ([3]) - what would the deal be with such images, are they pd because its US gov? Anyway, I would be really excited to see the Aquaman article to be expanded in such a way, so yep ;) If you have any free time to work on it that would be cool. See you around. - SRfan07 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there, thanks for the message. I can't really see anything about the image license info on that page, so yeh, as you said an email is probably needed. I actually found another website which has a page of Aquaman stills, but they too were watermarked! So I'll keep my eyes open for any others. I read an article on the net somewhere about the underwater work done, so i'll track that down and try and add some of it to the article. Great job on fixing up the production section as well. See you around! Srfanone 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hello again Bignole - i have added more bits and pieces to the article. Can you think of anything more todo? I was thinking maybe expanding the plot a little and creating a section on what it does/does not share with the comics? (maybe the trivia can be used in there as well?). Maybe a music section could be done, but I have not really seen alot out there on the music in the pilot etc. Also, check out Quiñones' article, follow the "Commons" link at the bottom - and there are those production images! Srfanone 13:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, I was actually thinking in a similar way toward the cast/character section! I think having a Casting area in Production which includes the search for AC, Smallville cast/crew and other interesting stuff (ms universe) can go here - - then in Cast (like Smallville?) will have their roles etc? Splitting the section seems like a good idea, good work! and yeah, splitting the release area makes sense as well - I'll try and find more "reaction" type articles as well. Good work. Srfanone 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds great - getting it as a Good Article would be cool. I'm going to try and expand the powers and reaction section, but I'm having some trouble finding decent reviews and stuff to write about. Also - would a comparison of Mercy Reef and Aquaman comics canon be useful? Srfanone 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Makes sense about the comparison, so we'll can that idea. I just added more insight into the Powers area, and removed some trivial stuff. I'll try and get a reference for the second paragraph as well. What for the lone trivia? It is pretty important, but doesnt really fit anyone at the moment. Srfanone 14:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Go for it, sounds like a good solution to me. Srfanone 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm just glad there is someone as enthusiastic about improving the article! I'm going to add in a few more references, and later on I'll try and get the reaction area up and going some more. So yep, we're definantly getting there! Srfanone 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm just adding more little bits of info here and there right now, and will tackle the last section laterish. Peer review sounds like a great idea. Srfanone 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• That makes sense. I'll try and do as much as I can in the next daay or so. Srfanone 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• What should we do now before "Requests for feedback"? Srfanone 13:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hey Bignole, great work with setting up the request for comments - though it doesnt look as though anyone has checked it out yet. But I think we can (eventually) get an article like this to "Good" or "Feature" status. Check out Pilot (House) for example I guess, Also, I was thinking about writing in a little bit about 'Justice' on the Smallville (characters) section and adding [4]. I saw that you uploaded it, but I also found [5] without the mark, if you want to re-upload. Srfanone 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK cool. Anything in particular that should be done before "Good" submission? Srfanone 13:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe this? Theres not really a lot of reviews out there. I'll look for more, but if you could have a crack at the section it would be great because its probably not the best at the moment :) Srfanone 13:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I guess there is also the option for images - there is still that production-like image that someone added to WikimediaCommons. Also, I finally found some decent caps! (here). Srfanone 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh no! Thats exactly what I meant. (Wikimedia and just one cap). For the record, I like the looks of the one of AC facing the beach, him swimming, AC and Eva on the boat, AC underwater with orange blast and McCaffery and AC. I guess it all comes down to which one would serve the best purpose...Srfanone 14:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, that looks like a keeper :). Shows Hartley and gives an impression of fx/water. Where will you add it? Cast/Plot/Powers? Srfanone 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Should look great. Srfanone 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, the article is looking great. I just added some more info into the plot (not about the pilot - but the 'series'). Is there a peer review up for the article? Srfanone 12:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spiderman 3

hey,the lenticular is gone... what's up? ThuranX 16:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Access World News

I've been occupied with female company since the 29th, so I've been mostly off Wikipedia (save for the occasional edits that you've noticed). She's leaving this Wednesday, so I'll be back, though I also start class today. Don't worry, I haven't abandoned you guys. As for Access World News, I think that the database is more suitable for headlines that can't be found online, especially news from the 1990s. The information is verifiable, just not immediately so with the click of a button. To search, I usually type a mix of keywords, using quotation marks where applicable. For example, I searched for "iron man" and "new line" with oldest headlines first to see what comes up, then I use the information to see what came before that. Cheers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for WP:RCU. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OMG I am soooooo sorry!!

Sorry my sister and I are using the same laptop which explains why we have the same IP adress, sorry I didn't know that she was messing up the page!! Please don't block me because of her, I promise I won't upload anything to Wrong Turn 2 anymore and neither will she trust me!! Thanks

HorrorFanatic

Update: Ok, when that check appears, you'll see this is my only account, I dunno about my sister, maybe she has multiple accounts (and is a sock-puppeter), I'll ask her. Btw yes, I HAVE BEEN longer than 7 days here, but I wasn't registered until the 1st of January. Let me know when that check finishes.

Btw I'm using my I.P. adress because I won't no longer use my HorrorFanatic account due to that misunderstanding. You know what actually? I won't even edit Wikipedia pages anymore, it's just not worth it... Nice meeting you.

((SORRY! I didnt see Jigsaw in the template.)) Didnt see it dont know why....Sorry.

Vandalism

This is a library computer. 65.88.88.127 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Avatar

Really? I'll look into it. I just brushed up Speed Racer, and I was going through my News Alerts from Google to catch up on movie news. I'll see what I can find to cite about Avatar. Thanks for the heads-up. (Female company's gone, so I suppose I'm back in full swing.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely will check it out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just compiled the citations that I need to catch up on... sigh, quite a few. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've kind of re-addressed Avatar, but I'm personally confused about the technique used for the film. I mention an apparent contradiction on the talk page, and it's tough to tie in all the sources that say slightly different things. Thanks for the M. Night Shyamalan heads-up, that tip helped me find the necessary source. In the meantime, ah, I've been a lazy bum and cleaned up Sunshine and most of Beowulf. Also, if you're interested, vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highlander: The Source whichever way you like. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the article in your sandbox; definitely looks more progessive compared to the fancruft of the existing article. Hope you can update the page without any backlash; if you do, you can cite WP:WAF as a policy. There was a similar setup at Storm (comics), and a user transformed the fancruft into an impressive publication history that was far more encyclopedic than its previous incarnation. I've yet to encounter any major crisis in which someone wants to preserve the status quo of an article, no matter how fancruft-like it is. Probably 'cause I work with upcoming films; these don't attract as much attention -- yet. I think I'll be experiencing challenges with Ghost Rider (need to keep building that up) come February and 300 come March. I guess the key is to write enough about everything so people don't really have a reason to change it, like The Fountain, though I doubt that film's attracted as much attention in its post-release as Spider-Man 3 has in all of its pre-release time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hitman

Thanks for the heads-up. Meh, there's quite a few video game adaptations that I wouldn't mind deleting straightaway. I just cleaned up Hitman after I noticed some activity on it — I guess part of me said, get their information straight, which I did. The added citation is fine; I guess we'll see what reactions this will cause. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll support your deletion of the article, though since the citations are valid, I'd merge the content with whatever the main Hitman article is. I've gone both ways with AfDs in saying keep or delete; Interstellar is an example of one that probably should've been merged, but I think I played my hand too well in its AfD. I also tried to get Magneto merged with the Magneto (comics) article, but there were people who didn't feel that way. Thus, I'm a little hesitant to force a change like that, despite the clear crystal ball nature. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. I'll support it; the information seems more suitable for a Film section on whatever main franchise article there is, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed my vote to not merging per this. Weird that he was all in denial about it in the ComingSoon.net citation, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Saw III

Some anon user keeps on adding his personal interpretations of Amanda and Jigsaw holding hands at the end of the movie (saying that it means they forgive each other, when it could just as well have many other reasons) so I've been trying to revert it but he keeps on adding it with no reasoning. Any advice on what to do would be appreciated. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC) ...and he's continuing with no reasoning for his actions. Should I report him on the Investigation section?--CyberGhostface 22:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nightmare Template

No need to take a hostile tone, please. The old infoboxes weren't even templates, and they were all different and contained varying information. I thought I'd make a start on standardising it. I really don't know what you mean about gaming and jabba the hutt, i don't understand what relevance this bears to what i've done. as for colour schemes, i've only just started, so there's time to change the template. hence: "template". I'm pretty new to wikipedia, so if you'd like to be a bit more patient and tell me exactly what your problem is, i would appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveMuadDib (talk • contribs) 04:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Nightmare Template (cont.)

I interpreted your message as hostile/impatient, but apologies if that was not the case. It's hard to tell on the internet.

I don't know if the Jabba the Hutt article was a very good example, because it was based on the "Template:Star Wars character". What is the difference? Why shouldn't there be a Nightmare on Elm Street Character template? And somebody's got to create these things.

And with information like "Criminal", "Hermaphrodite (male personality)" and "Crime lord" on the Jabba page, what can we class as encyclopedic or not? I agree that certain things on my template were non-encyclopedic, however, and I apologise for the error.

DaveMuadDib 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks for the advice, I'll do my best to change my mistakes! DaveMuadDib 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks for the advice! I've made the template pretty streamlined and wikipedia-coordinated now, and I've installed it on the pages i previously implemented the last template on, but mainly only to revert the damage I'd done. I haven't changed the Freddy Kreuger template this time though, because that's way too big a change. The template info is very basic, but it's truly standardised now, so it's a start. I'll try to get the development development open to discussion when I have more time to work on this. Oh, and I'm sorry I took you the wrong way earlier :-) DaveMuadDib 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

an example given of a "Good" article on a fictional character

First example ON THE PAGE YOU JUST QUOTED Captain Marvel (DC Comics) WookMuff 05:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean something that fits your argument better? WookMuff 05:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How are "Relations" a bad fit for a fictional character? WookMuff 05:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read the whole MOS, thank you, but nowhere does it say that a biography of a fictional character should discuss that character from the standpoint of where they come from, who made them, and what impact they have had. A biography of a fictional character is still a biography. Not discussing things from an "in-universe" perspective doesn't mean not discussing things that are important in-universe. Jabba's article doesn't just talk about puppeteers and papier-mache, it talks about fictional intergalactic gangsters and being strangled to death by a fictional princess on a fictional sand barge above a fictional plant-monster on a fictional planet. Also, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/PadmeComicPortrait.jpg. Comic book character? WookMuff 06:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i concede that relatives may be unnecessary in infoboxes from Wikipedia's POV, as sad as that makes me, but you would do well to stop using air quotes (ie. where you found your "example") and phrases such as "If you actually read the Padme and Jabba articles" and "Please read the entire MOS" after i said I had read it. It makes your comments seem uncivil. If you wish to call me stupid or ignorant, then say so and risk banning, don't skirt the issue. WookMuff 06:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I meant blocked, thanking for halting your implications of my ignorance. The picture was not the cover of a comic, but a page from a comic showing padme amidala 1 year before phantom menace was released. I was jokingly suggesting that because her first appearance was in comics then she was a comic character, but i guess you didn't get that. If memory serves, large portions of Freddy's backstory appears in film, in Freddy's Dead, but I could be wrong as I will admit to not having read the Freddy page in depth for a while. WookMuff 07:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

wrong turn 2

i wish you stop deleting information and trivia.23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Travb/m#.5B.5BUser:Bignole.5D.5D

Thanks. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Freddy Krueger

Hi there, I've been working on the Freddy Krueger article in my sandbox, as can be found here: User:DaveMuadDib/Sandbox/Freddy Krueger. If you have the time to have a quick look, I wondered if you could check it to see that I am doing the right thing? At the moment, I've only adjusted the opening paragraphs and the "origin" section. I'm not making any monumental additions or removals, but the article was in need of encyclopaediafication (if that's not a real word, it should be) and it desperately needs to be taken "out-of-universe". How am I doing? DaveMuadDib 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on 'origin', but that's what was on the original page. I'm currently working on making that Freddy page resemble the Jabba page in terms of content, hopefully it should be decent enough to replace the current one, which is a bit of a mess at the moment. I'm still learning, so I won't dive in with a replacement before it's ready :) DaveMuadDib 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right, i tried to take the article out-of-universe, but considering it basically requires a total rewrite, i'll probably stop and do just that. I'm still very new to wikipedia, but I'm learning, and I'll try to stick to jabba the hutt / (your) jason voorhees as closely as possible. The sandbox is the best place for this right now thought :) I care a lot about horror films, especially the Nightmare on Elm Street series (even had a go at a userbox a while back) so I'm happy to help you with this editing mission. Some of these pages are desperate for it!.... also, you're right about gallows humour, i was actually reading up on the definition this very moment. DaveMuadDib 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good of you to fix the link, I'll keep an eye out for things like that in the future. It's kind of you to watch my article-in-progress, any input you can give (especially if something is incorrect, or if my wikipedia adherence slips) would most definitely be appreciated. Something as important as Freddy deserves the attention :) And thanks, I'm glad you like my userbox! I've got it on my own userpage by using the full {{User:DaveMuadDib/Userboxes/User NOES}} tag, but I don't have a clue on how to go about making it a proper userbox. Can you send me in the right direction? DaveMuadDib 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, simple as that? Job done: User:DaveMuadDib/User NOES DaveMuadDib 02:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for using my userbox, I'm rather proud of it, actually :) I'm glad i'm on the right track with the freddy article. The only reason the "film appearances" section is littered with templates is that I did the whole thing from memory. I'll to back up/confirm the details when I have more time. I have a few Freddy books that I can use, and in the next week or so, I'll do my best to get the article sourced and completed. DaveMuadDib 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for updating those citations! I'll check them, and I'll keep what you've done in mind as I continue the article. I think it's progressing very well actually, but it's still very much a first draft in places. Is there anything you've noticed that I might be doing wrong? There's lots of detail about the character background at times, but it's all done in the context of in-film evolution, so I'm hoping it's okay. I've done all I have time for today though. DaveMuadDib 03:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Smallville DVD's

Bignole, as you seem to be big fan, can you tell if the NTSC versions of the DVD sets for Seasons 4 and 5 contain an episode booklet (as the first 3 seasons did)? I'm curious as the PAL version of Season 4 does not(Season 5 isn't released until April 07 in UK, AUS etc.) Instead, the episodes blurbs for the season are printed on the inside cover of the case. Perhaps these sorts of details can be included in a breakdown of the DVD sets? I know it has been done for the show Supernatural. Thanks in advance

Asgardian 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the first three boxed sets there is a booklet listing the episodes and a synopsis. This was pulled from the PAL version of the Season 4 set. Does the NTSC version of Season 4 (and 5) still have a booklet?

Asgardian 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspected that the PAL version (which has no booklet and just notes on the inside cover) of Season 4 was not the same as the NTSC version. Probably cheaper. As for PAL, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL

this in turn is related to region coding for all DVD's and electronic games:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_region_codes

This relates back to my original point about the series Supernatural, which has a blurb about the differences between series sets dependng on where released.

Hope it helps.

Regards

Asgardian 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

About Smallville

Bignole, the previous awards section was probably the worst out of the entire page as it listed only a handful of chosen awards and then talked about networks and other stuff. I just summarized the details of their nominations and awards. But I can't believe the IMDb would not be an appropriate source for this? Only quotes/trivia etc are fan submitted, whereas if you look on the page, there is a link to every awards ceremoney, which could not have possibly been fan submitted. Also, to get other citations, we would need around 30 citiations which would make the section almost unaccessable. And I didnt remove any from the other media (I dont think), as I just wrote that, and just included that trivia note. I'll add the green arrow source, but I don't think anything else in that section desperately needs a citation..? Davey4 13:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is back to normal. But just get it out of the last revision and you can put it back in when you think it is fine. Thanks for checking it out. Davey4 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Er hey, I actually logged out before getting your latest pm (about 10 days ago), so I didnt mean to pressure you into fixing up those paragraphs, but for what it is worth - great job. And yeah, I did remove those ratings info with the intention of rewriting it, but yeah, bad move on my part, but it looks great the way it is now. Davey4 12:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can back off a little bit. I can play the editing game just as good as you. If you are not capable of handling having your edits "ruthlessly" edited, then do not submit. That is WP's stance. My edits stand. Find better sources and be willing to compromise in the interest of RS and NPOV, please.Arcayne 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

"I think what you don't like is someone much younger than you telling you what's what. I've been doing this a bit longer, and I've quite familiar with NPOV and RS, thank you. There is quite a bit of subjectivity to certain things. Also, what you need to be aware of is the Three-revert rule, because both you and I have reverted that page 3 times in less than 24 hours. 1 more from either of us and it will violate that policy. So I think it would be wise if we both stepped away. Bignole 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"

Frankly, I am surprised at your assumption, BigNole. I have no idea how old you are or aren't, and I wonder how you arrive at the idea that I am older than you. None of that is a consideraton for me. Perhaps there is some transference going on; after all, you are apparently not used to dealing with people contradicting your viewpoints (why else all the reverts, rather than simply asking me why i am rejecting your assumptions?). Maybe next time, just ASK what the problem is before knee-jerk reverting. It would save you a lot of embarrassment. I am glad you are stepping away for a bit. Some of your observations are spot-on, and some have been...well, let's just say they aren't all that supportable. When i make a mistake, I own up to it. Perhaps you could grow up ans learn that lesson as well.Arcayne 20:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, from my talk page, it appears that I am in fact older than you (as my having a degree apparently makes me much older than you). Perhpas I should make it clear that I (personally) did not disagree with the citation source. I disagree with its reliability as a source of factual information, and I purge information based upon the structure of the article statements and the citations upon which they are based. If a citation source is weak, then the article utilizing it had bettermake clear that the source is weak. If it represents itself as anything other than marketing conjecture or media hype, then it's going to get reverted. Every. Single. Time. If you wish to take the time and effort to write a stronger article, either draw attention to the fact that the information you are citing is not fromt he best of sources, or find better sources. It isn't hard to do, especially with someone as experienced with WP as you claim to be. Do the work, or don't complain when someone corrects all the sloppy.Arcayne 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to the post you left in my talk page...) To begin with, I am going to archive this conversation after about a week, since I would prefer my talk pages filled with someone actually saying something of value. I keep saying the same thing, and you keep either sidestepping or utterly missing the point, so I am going to forego the politeness and use very small words in the fleeting hope that you will finally catch on. Ready? I don't care if I am the only person in the world who is suggesting that a reliable source be found, or at least a more reliable source than the marketing organ of CW. I mean, Jiminy Christ, they started out last season by suggesting that Bruce Wayne and Wonder Woman were going to be making stopovers in either Smallville or Metropolis, and that Chloe was an alien. Of course you won't see that now, because the marketing wonks received differnt marching orders from the producers, and pulled them from the website. To the marketing department, truth and news is malleable, something that can be spun to fit a situation. You give instance when Morris said he was Martian Manhunter, or when the producers suggested that. If it is true, why isn't it in the mainstream press that covers entertainment? Why isn't Martian Manhunter listed in either the opening or closing credits of Smallville? The reason is simple, and I would like you to try really hard and focus for the briefest of moments here: it isn't mentioned because it has not been made part of the mainstream press yet. For whatever reason, it has been leaked though less than reliable media because it can be denied or back-pedaled a lot easier than if it were released to the mainstream media. Morris is well aware of who signs his paychecks, so he will say what he is told to say. I meaqn, next you will say that he actually likes comic books. Shya, and if you pull the other leg, it rains beer. Please, wake up, sport, this is how marketing departments as media organs operate. It has happened before, and will likely continue to happen. What I find pathetic is how you tepidly agree that the source wasn't the best while simultaneously defending what essentially constitutes editorial laziness. It was the link you supplied and for whatever reason, you couldn't be bothered to put in the extra work to cite an actually relevant and reliable source until someone called you on it. How can you possibly defend that slackerboy nonsense? I will say it again: if you aren't prepared to do the work, don't act all surprised when someone calls you on your sloppy homework by editing you into oblivion.. Furthermore, to insinuate that I am taking exception to the casting of the character is pretty insulting. I actually think the casting was pretty good, as was the performance. See, this is where you consistently miss the point: you think I am making this a personal issue, and that I am against using any citation. This is absurd. It is not personal; I write for WP, and I take that responsibility seriously. It seems that it is an ego thing with you, sort of like the person who doesn't get to talk in large groups, and therefore does it online. I am not saying you don't have anything to contribute. I am saying that you don't seem to like being corrected. That, my friend, is ego, and it has no place here. Period. Arcayne 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(again, responding to you simply not getting the point) Actually, BigNole, the do have the credits at the end of the show, however, those without Tivo might not be paying attention to the credits that are squashed into one side of the screen, and they do not consist of only crew acknowledgments (lol, what a maroon!). Maybe you were hyper-focusing on taking a bathroom break or some such. And it's kinda funny you mentioned Justin Hartley; his casting as Oliver Queen actually made the mainstream press, making for awesome reliable sources. Perhaps you glossed over that, or were on yet another bathroom break. Pulling the link,suplying the link - dude, are you tryng to now backtrack on your OWN admission of sloppiness? Don't get stupid on me now, please. Imdb is a good source, as is tv guide, but you didn't supply those. You supplied one from comic connection, and CW and Kryptosite. Please keep up. If you aren't going to bother remembering what you did, why should I? You need to garner just a bit more experience in the realm of editing, my friend. Perhaps you will learn the difference between reliable source and a verifiable source. You haven't commented that you know the difference, and I am beginning to realize that you just may not get it. And of course I can be convinced, Nole. In fact, were you actually reading up on the sites we have been back-and-forthing on, you would see that I caught one of my own mistakes, and took steps to correct them. That you think that you cannot be convinced is not a sign of maturity but that, too, is something you can only learn with time, experience and maturity. Good luck with that.Arcayne 07:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: IMDb

Should be interesting to see how it goes. Let me know what turns out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man

You still have any interest vested in cleaning up the first two Spider-Man film articles? I've got the itch, and scratched it a bit with the interesting piece of litigation history that ol' Spidey went through back in the 20th century. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this citation from Variety that might add more detail to the litigation process, but I'm worried about bogging down the production section with unnecessary information. I guess I'm the kind to think, if it's useful, and meets all the policies' requirements, then include it. I was originally using Access World News, but I actually found the free Business Week article by typing golan spider-man at Google Archive News Search. Sometimes things there are free, and even if they're not, they can give you an idea of the timeline of a film project. (I forgot to mention that I used it for the Black Panther film adaptation to figure out when dialogue about the adaptation began.)

I guess to improve the article, we should re-structure it in accordance to the "best there is". I have a subpage called User:Erikster/WP:FA that shows a breakdown of the FA-class film articles by section titling and number of paragraphs per section/subsection. I don't have a suggestion of where you could start, but I can give you Comics2Film, where you can start at the end and backtrack to the most recent information. There may be broken links as you go through the pages, but you could detect certain keywords and put them through AWN or Google Archive News to see what comes up. The Business Week citation in the article confirms Freddie Prinze, Jr. and Leonardo DiCaprio as previous considerations for the role of Spider-Man, so that's a valid piece of information right there. You could also go through the trivia page for Spider-Man at IMDb, as not everything is wrong there. I actually found keywords that helped me shape the production history a little better. You could search for keywords like the names of people who "supposedly" tried out for film's roles, like Mena Suvari for Mary Jane Watson, see what comes up. Lots that can be done.

Also, I'm sure actual production information could be found on DVD commentaries, which wouldn't be accessible by me being deaf. If someone in our circle can check out the commentary and cite it accordingly (like Ace did with the Influences section at Batman Begins), I'm sure we could flesh out the actual production further. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, if you want, you could trim the plot section to be more respectable, if you haven't gotten sick of doing that on other film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the images should be replaced with more "active" images, such as significant events going on in the film, like Spider-Man and Green Goblin duking it out. I think that if the plot's going to be trimmed, we should pick out two images -- I'm thinking Peter/Mary Jane and the aforementioned Spider-Man/Green Goblin battle, as these are the two big story arcs of the film. Also, we should see if we can get any kind of special effects-related shots about the creation of Spider-Man's look, as this is the first film to design the suit and create the swinging effects with SFX. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not from the early Time article that I cited. I just put that information in as a placeholder that could be expanded later, so there is at least some awareness that Maguire underwent the process. I'm working my way to the present chronologically using IGN's film news archive of Spider-Man now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I do believe I'm done for the night. I don't have any Internet at home (broken router), hence why I haven't been around quite so much as of late. I think some good progress has been made, and it's interesting to find out that some rumors (i.e., John Malkovich as Green Goblin) were valid. Have a good one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you did a great job cutting it down. I just see some copy-edit fixing to do here and there, but I suggest going ahead and importing the plot into the article. Nice work! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can minimize the word count a little bit. It was nearly 900, where it should ideally be ~600. I'll try to compress the detail as much as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest using a content fork and putting the content elsewhere. I think it adds unnecessary length to the article. What we could do is create a "Music" subsection under Production when there's enough information (as it seems typical to create Production subsections if there's enough information to warrant one). We'll have to dig up some interviews and such with Elfman, see how he went about composing the score for the film. As for the plot, the word count is 765. I think we can drive it down further, like removing the typical "villain extending the olive branch" act that the Green Goblin does, and maybe sum up the Thanksgiving dinner scene more succinctly. Other than that, I think it would have the appropriate length. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my head around this... and I haven't even gotten to any actual production information yet. How relevant do you think dates are for each piece of information? I'm the kind who tries to be as informative as possible about each event that takes place, such as Maguire's casting, but this tends to break up any possible categorization in the Production section. So where should the line be drawn in terms of dating? Is it too weird to jump back and forth in dates when you read top to bottom in subsections? Let me know what you think. Also, I've moved the Plot/Cast section down, and it seems to fit better in the encyclopedic sense -- how it all started, what the actual story was, and what people thought of it. Pictures in Plot show up, better, too. Let me know your thoughts on that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we can mention, "With great power comes great responsibility" in the plot? It's a pretty recurring quote after Ben's death. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What we could do is ignore the quote for a while, and see if we can trim down the final paragraph as much as possible -- we may not need so much detail for the battle scenes. That should bring us down to around 500 words, and we can add back in the situation with his uncle and the quote. It would seem to thrown on at the end, so if we use it, we should apply it in the proper context, especially in a transition from the second to third paragraph. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In what context did Uncle Ben use the quote? I don't remember, and whatever it is, is it worth mentioning? It seems like if I was someone reading about the film for the first time, the quote wouldn't make sense without a tad more background detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While I didn't really take much away, I tried to improve the transition of the scenes. It's 595 words now, so it's agreeable to me. We can ask Wiki-newbie, ThuranX, and Ace to take a look at it after we do a final implementation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's mostly done, so let's put it out there for some public feedback. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I do think, though, that we should get a new picture showing an unmasked Peter Parker. I realized that the article doesn't show Spider-Man outside of his costume, so it might be good to have that for one of the two images. Probably would be best to find one with an unmasked Peter Parker and Mary Jane. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, but are there any clear shots of them together? All I can recall is the camera going back and forth, and when it has both in the shot, you mostly see their sides. If there's a clear shot, then one would work. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Either that, or a screen cap of the leaked teaser with the helicopter caught in a web between the towers. I think that was more "obvious" than the poster. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case about the leaked trailer, then let's go with the towers-in-reflection poster image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad... but it doesn't show Spidey or MJ very well. Is there a Creative Commons website where we can see if there are free-to-use pictures from the film's production? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reception

D'oh. Hope you weren't working on box office information. I just updated a paragraph with its 2002 performance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just really on top of things this week. :) I just got some teriyaki wings delivered here, so I'm gonna go munch on 'em. Have a good one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go to with any winning awards, and perhaps nominations if they were notable (i.e., Oscars). We can begin the trimming process by looking for awards that have their own Wikipedia article, then trim further by removing "commercialized" awards like Kids' Choice and MTV. Awards is a tough call, and I think nominations are useless for some awards (like superhero-based stuff), as there may not have been much choice in that category, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take an off night... I have a bit of work to do this weekend. Do what you like with the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a reasonable way to break down the Reception section. The awards information is hard to write in prose without sounding so dry. I'm thinking that maybe we could do the box office performance and reviewers' criticism under Reception (no subheader), as that particular reception information is pretty immediate after the film's release. We could also make an "Awards and nominations" subsection, as awards/nominations generally come later, and we could dabble in details of awards more freely. Maybe go so far to make a list of the winners and nominees, long as we keep the list succinct. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Spidey Redux

Haha, no kidding... I noticed the user, too. Hopefully we have a good contributor on our hands with this one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel like I'm rooting for this editor... "C'mon, get that word count sucka down!" "D'ohhh, be careful, these brackets gotta be left alone!" —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Icon temp.

Are we going to expand the template to include science fiction icons also? --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Just come & tell me when you are ready to set the guidelines for the temp. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Hi Bignole, I know you're kinda busy with Spider-Man and all, (seriously though, the DVD is no help to me, but that's a different matter with 2), but Jurassic Park is having a peer review and I wish you to give advice. Is that ok? Wiki-newbie 20:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I used the template for the entire book in the References/Footnotes section, then began citing pages from there. Wiki-newbie 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the PR has been up since Thursday when I first told you. Wiki-newbie 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to hop down to the peer review again? I have over 70 cites now. Wiki-newbie 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Aquaman

Bignole, I ever so slightly altered the Reaction sentance, but really, the article rocks. I left a few notes at the request for feedback as well. Davey4 11:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight and McFlytrap

McFlyTrap is an agenda-based editor out to 'get' articels regularly edited by myself and a few other editors, including Erikster, Ace Class Shadow and myself. The start is so far back as to be ridiculous(see here), but was on the TDK tlak page, when MFT replied in a forumish posting to an IP question which was itself arguably forumish, but politely answered. However, MFT's post was a full month and more afer the initial posting, and didn't add at all to the topic. I removed it, and since then, MFT has been on a two week long tirade of attack edits against the page, and user pages, like mine, user talk pages, and so on. So far, the best thign is to revert his uncivil edits and blankings, and leave it be. If he continues or escalates for much longer, though, I may take it to the AN/I pages. ThuranX 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Shivs in Superman Returns

Hmmm... my thing is [a] what's a "shiv" and [b] is it really. It seemed to be a fragment of kryptonite. Not fashioned or anything. Just a bit of crystalline rock Lex Luthor had handy. That would be a shard, I think. The Wikipedia article on Shivs seem to suggest they were made from something in a deliberate sort of way, rather than simply made use of by lucky chance. So a broken beer bottle wouldn't be a shiv, or a piece of broken glass. Or am I missing something? Besides, is the term an American colloquialism particular to criminals? Never heard of it before.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yep, I understood what you were doing (and not doing). I'd made the "shard" change way back when, because I had no idea what a "shiv" was. I think I get it now, and am open to corrections. But yes, it didn't look like a knife to me! Anyway, cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jason

It looks so much better that I'm pissed that I went through the trouble crunching the character history just to know you did it better. But I did do it also to get the {{in-universe}} tag yanked off, so can it be said that I did that much good? My only nitpick about how you've constructed the article is that you have Jason as a serial killer when it's clear that he's a mass murderer. I hate to be anal about that, but... well, I'm anal so what the hell you gonna do? I'd also like to point out that a lot of the uncited stuff from the "Men behind the mask" section I culled from the official Jason Goes To Hell and Freddy vs. Jason magazines. I just haven't gotten around to adding the specific sources. I've also been humming my brain to the tune of adding something on the changing look of Jason throughout the series. I mean, his look from clothes to facial features are never the same throughout all the films, so I think it's a worthy aspect to put a section to... right? Let me know whether I should persue that or not. --Bacteria 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't lean on the description of the films in this case - the term "serial killer" is more common in popular culture and just about any character who has killed more than one person in a film is a serial killer from this standard. He isn't, however, because they tend to kill in relation to some sexual habit. Their victims are usually executed in similar fashion (so as to fulfill a fantasy) and done in sadistic fashion (Jason doesn't appear to get off on his killings). Jason also doesn't exercise "colling off" periods, as he would clearly keep killing if he'd stop being incapicitated all the time (god damn kids and their will to live!). If you're optioning for technicality, then he's a spree killer because the definition straddles the defining elements of the serial killer and mass murderer. As for what I meant on the look, the clothes would be minor, only a good mention of the change in Part 3 and minor bits about alterations in the last two entries. I meant more along the lines of how the Savini's design in the first film has been used as a template for the other versions, though noting how they vary from film to film. I also thought I'd make a note - very minor - on how that hatchet mark from Part 3 is a part of the mask's design except for Freddy vs. Jason. It would also note other varying features such as the head on his hair, and physical design (such as the purple skin and longer fingernails in The Final Chapter). This seems trivial, but the fact that virutally every film interprets his looks is notable, especially given the continuity of the films and how other slashers don't make such noticeable alterations to their icons. You didn't really give me a "go ahead" or "go to hell" to the idea. I can try to help on the "morality defender" thing (shouldn't be too hard), but I'm not sure how much help I can be on the pop culture thing. I recently did surgery on that section in the live article because it came to the point where it was threanting to turn into a list of every pop culture reference, and that would be worthless. I can only applaud that direction it's going now on your sandbox, as I think the Lifetime Achievement thing is a notable plus on how the character has impacted pop culture. I'm just not sure off-hand what I could add that wouldn't turn it into a big list. Overall I like what's been set up so far. I noticed a couple of minor errors (I'd go in and edit them, but I don't want to seem intrusive), but am majorly iffed that the literature section doesn't mention anything about the canoncity of these off-film ventures (like the Jabba template). I'm also not sure the vacant reception section will serve a purpose. But I am wondering if you think that there's any merit to something about the "early life of Jason" thing. Can there be something that can tackle the debate over whether he was born deformed or transformed via the "regeneration fuck-up while in the lake" thing the novelisations sing? Can this have a place without unbalancing the article's quality? --Bacteria 15:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I've been igorning you. I've just been busy and generally needed to get my shit together. The issue of his classification as a killer is going to be tricky. I see you've used spree killer now, which I feel is most appropriate, but I have no problem with the thought of removing the bit all together. This still leaves the general category open, however. I don't believe there's a category for fictional spree killers, and if neither serial killer or mass murderer categories are applied then someone will keep adding them. Of course, it's all whether you want to get technical. I mean Hannibal Lecter can be categorised as a serial killer because there's both internal and external references backing that up as a fact; slashers aren't generally made with the specific definitions in mind. As for the appearance thing, I'm still not entirely sure we're on the same page. If you're open, I can write a draft concept of what I'm thinking of and you can look at it and either rebuild it into something reasonable or simply cannibalise it for what you have in mind. As for bringing up Jason's deformity, I was thinking of the in-universe explantion that's never really been clarified. I'm not suggesting it be written that way, but something similar to what I have in the early life section in the current article. The deformity is explained in the novelisations as result of the regeneration ability. It's never made clear, however, if the incorporation of his regenerative ability in later films is an attempt to canonise this backstory without being explicit. I'm asking if addressing this issue in the article is of some degree of importance. I suppose it really harkens back to the issue of canonical appearance and info that the article needs to touch upon. And while it's in my skull, I was also wondering if you put in consideration into cleaning up the article on Jason's mum. It's not quite as messy, but the character history section is mushed up and I fear sprinkled with a dash of original research (schizophrenia?). One more thing I wanted to bring to your attention, though of a much less importance, is my thoughts on a Friday the 13th userbox/category thing. A way to identify fans of this film series is long overdue. By the way, I just recently ordered the two books you're using (and a little something myself). Aside from possibly helping out, I got them in part because I've had my eye on them for way too long and you helped persuade me to finally get them in my possession. --Bacteria 11:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My rough idea on the userbox is an image of a hockey mask (a donated illustration due to the use of images in contrast with articles) to the left. The text would be Ki-Ki-Ki Ma-Ma-Ma. I'd like the addition of the box to categorise the user as "Wikipedians who like the Friday the 13th films". I haven't really thought of a colour, but I'm leaning toward some variations of red and/or black. As for the novelisations - I only own and have read one: Jason Lives. It goes into Jason's backstory and includes the information on his regeneration. The thing to keep in mind is that this might also be from the Part 2 novel. I'm aware of this because someone from one of the IMDb message boards posted sections that I recall to be verbatim. I can cite Part VI because I have this on hand, but the Part 2 novel may give more insight. I'm fairly certain the posting was reliable since Simon Hawke wrote both of the novelisations, but it wouldn't hurt to look out for a copy poping up on eBay. Of course, I'm also interested in seeing how the other novelisations handle it, especially the more recent films. I also wanted to apologise for adding the "teaser" thing to the Jason Lives plot summary. I wasn't attempting to write it like that; I just wanted to add the information about Jason not being dead by the film's end. However, that was my first attempt to write one now that I understand the guideline of plot sections. I'm looking to re-do the rest soon. The only thing I hate is you know someone's going to come along and try to expand it. --Bacteria 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jasongoestohell.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jasongoestohell.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 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That picture's kind of low-grade. How about this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Just saw it pop up on your talk page and thought I could do better. And that's some colorful sig, by the way. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Friday5.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Friday5.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 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rifle topic

Yep, the edit dispute over the type of truck in Transformers is a good example. (The other side of the argument was Kenworth, right?) I compared Arcayne's screenshot to the XM8 article, and they seem similar. I'd just rather be able to support the piece of information with a citation. I tried to Google it for myself, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of it. I actually saw a forum message that said, "What's with all the H&K XM8s in recent films?" which leads me to wonder how relevant the weapon type for Children of Men is (though it's not a valid argument to present). Thanks for the heads-up about that particular section, though I don't know if it would validate my argument. The rifle sentence is like one of the old trivia sentences in Spider-Man where they intentionally drop a reference about some other character in the Marvel universe -- it's not relevant enough to be placed in the plot summary, so it gets dumped in Trivia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We never really got into discussing the notability of the fact itself, though we continued the discussion on Arcayne's talk page. It just got late, and nothing was really finalized. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's no fun to go through the heavy-handed clean-up process... I think I just got sucked into editing this film article 'cause it had other editors' attention, which makes the editing process a little more interactive. Also, I apologize about not returning to work on Spider-Man -- I think I burned myself out a little too quickly, but I still want to get back into it sometime soon. Still want to put in the Writing subsection for Production. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks for helping fix the citation, Big.Arcayne 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Can you offer an example of what you mean there? and how did you change your sig line to include colors? I canna ken how ye kitted that out. lol! Lastly, is there a method by which to better place images in articles? I am wondering if there is an easier way than trial and error...Arcayne 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SpiderManhangingComparison.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:SpiderManhangingComparison.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 06:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Smallville 309 asylum.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Smallville 309 asylum.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 09:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Flash

Thanks for the heads-up; I've added it to the Future articles list. Can't imagine how The Flash with current technology will turn out -- lots of blurs, or not-so-exciting slo-mo fights. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

More CoM

I must have mislaid/misused a slash. Where was it? Oh, and btw, thanks for correcting what was probably my cut and paste, run-with-scissors approach. lol.Arcayne 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I think I know what you mean, Big. Were you referring to the slash in the second </ref> of the script for references?Arcayne 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I presume the 24 hrs are up now?Arcayne 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sent the requests for Outside Opinion. I am guessing you specified those three bc you have worked with them before?Arcayne 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Peterbilt

It's Bay's official site, and Nelson is basically number two. I trust it. Wiki-newbie 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Texas Comics again

Since the new Wildstorm series is introducing new family members and other characters in the continuity of the remake, if they are important enough to the series, should they get their own articles or should they just be added to the film series main page?--CyberGhostface 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is the Wildstorm series is creating entirely new characters for the series, such as a group of FBI Agents and at least one new member of the family. If these characters prove to be recurring and major in the context of the series, would they deserve their own articles? I mean (hypothetically speaking) lets say one of the agents becomes a major antagonist to Leatherface and even kills a family member or two. Would he warrant his own article?--CyberGhostface 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks...do you think the characters of Luda Mae Hewitt, Sheriff Hoyt and Old Monty are relevant enough to keep their articles though?--CyberGhostface 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually the user who made those pages. I guess if the articles for the other family members (such as Drayton and Chop Top) are merged I wouldn't have a problem with it, providing that the brunt of the information isn't lost in the transfer.--CyberGhostface 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try making a page just for the various family members. On retrospect after looking at the articles, not all of them are that big so I should be able to trim them down to each a paragraph.--CyberGhostface 02:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright...you can see my 'rough draft' at User:CyberGhostface/Rough Draft. Thoughts?--CyberGhostface 04:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Smallville Edits

It appears that you have history with this Freddie1988 person. Has he even watched the series? I ask, bc practically anyone who has watched the show knows that Clark is not flying not because he is incapable of it (since we have seen him tooling about in the upper ionosphere as the "reprogrammed" or posessed Kal-El ep) but because he:

• doesn't consciously know the mechanics of it as of yet, and
• knows that it means he is no longer tied to Smallville, and isn't really ready for that as of yet.

Granted, that is supposition, but pretty clear metaphorical evidence. Arcayne 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who the Researcher is, but I supported some user's assertion that hovering should be included if Kal-El flying could be included, too. If hovering is considered to be just some random bit of trivia, then Kal-El's romp through space should be handled the same way. Freddie1988 14 February 2007

Thanks

For being cordial in your comments. Mcflytrap 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deciding which original research to delete...

...an either OR case. Wahkeenah 04:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're right. This comment was merely intended to be funny. Almost as funny as the OR itself was. Luckily you took the OR into the OR did some surgery on it. :) Wahkeenah 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What kind of world are we creating? Well, I don't know about the outside world, but for ourselves, we're creating a world where we spend more time reverting vandalism and ignorance than we spend writing new stuff... which is not why I got into this racket. 'Tis a puzzlement. Wahkeenah 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've seen some user pages where they will say "I believe IP addresses should not be allowed to edit", or something along those lines. I agree with that. During the typical day, IP addresses on the pages I watch are probably at least 75 percent vandalism. What a hassle. OR and POV stuff, as you say, are a different story. I like lively debates, though. The problem gets to be when someone won't discuss things (I can't claim to be blameless in that regard, but I do try.) Wahkeenah 05:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Good grief, what a hassle. I can only imagine what's going on at the Evolution page. That's one I won't go near. That would be an absolutely hopeless battle. I wonder, though, what it would take to change wiki policy from "anyone can edit" to "any registered user can edit". I'm guessing a significant portion of vandals wouldn't bother creating a user just to mess with one article. And if they're serial vandals, they're easily stopped. Stopping an IP address is tricky, because it could stop everyone in that subnet (as I found out the one time I was blocked, much to my shame). Whose decision would such a move be? And I can't believe it hasn't been asked and rejected many times already. Wahkeenah 05:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I expect Wales would be the guy, and I'm also guessing he wouldn't take any action now if he hasn't in the past. We'll see how things continue to go. Wahkeenah 05:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Wish for vandalism to force action? An interesting concept. Fortunately, wishing for it won't do anything. Unless you have a Jeannie. :) Wahkeenah 05:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: First Look

• http://www.superheroflix.com/news/65/17465.php
• http://www.canmag.com/nw/6638-spider-man-3-preview

These what you mean? Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like they took interviews with the cast/crew and spliced it with the existing trailer footage. I'm expecting the special effects to be an improvement by May. That one shot, of Peter trying to pull off the symbiote, bothers me 'cause it looks so fake. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends on a few factors. Since it's going to be a commercially big film, I'm sure that there will be theaters captioning the film. It comes out in May, and I finish school April 19th (early dismissal because of the type of classes I'm taking now). So it depends on where I'll be that week. I'm seeking out an internship for the summer -- checking out Freddie Mac, GAO, Merck, IBM, Cook Medical, a few other companies. Hopefully if I'm interning by the time SM3 debuts, it'll be at least somewhat close to a captioned theater. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, my impression of the celebration scenes is that this is at the beginning, when Spidey's clearly enjoying life in the spotlight. Obviously, he turns dark, and he's backsliding from his good reputation, and has to redeem himself (with a couple of villains in the way). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

The conflict between Arcayne and Viriditas is over the final sentence in the Plot section, about mentioning the phrase "Shantih Shantih Shantih" at the end of the film, after the credits. Arcayne thinks it's appropriate to have the phrase mentioned, Viriditas doesn't. You can see all their discussion on the film article's talk page. The phrase has been interpreted by a reviewer in the Themes section to be tied into the Upanishads and The Waste Lands, but Arcayne is seeking to have the phrase mentioned at the end of the Plot section as well. Hence the conflict. However, since I don't consider 3RR time-out a way to kick around for 24 hours until you get to edit war again, I've removed Arcayne's recent addition (as he full well knows Viri will contest him). I really wish that The Filmaker or Hal Raglan would step in and just express their expert opinion to seal the deal either way. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm fine with it going either way, especially if it's mentioned in the Themes section. No idea why the film article editors I contacted aren't responding. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you are interested, check out or look into how the story continues into the credits in a film like Smoke (film). CoM doesn't do this. —Viriditas | Talk 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Smallville Edits

Are you noticing the recent addition of the silver kryptonite reference again? Is it the same user that added it the last time before it was removed as OR?Arcayne 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The jealous comment was classic - lol!Arcayne 20:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh!

A really satisfied customer... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. You read the single addition on my editor review? He wrote that the day we had the conflict and thought I was trying to apologize to him. While I could've been more civil, he never backed his own edits with anything but his own judgment. Makes it feel like an unnecessary blight on my record from a GIPU. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, how come you get all the love? Not fair, not fair.Arcayne 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who works with you knows you are a great editor and contributor to Wikipedia, it's just trying to figure out how to say so in more than just that sentence.

How about "I love you"? Ha ha. Better be off to bed now, I feel high. Wiki-newbie 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Best 5 minutes to waste ever! For Stomp the Yard, the message is, "Becoming a better person through the development of character and intelligence is the goal of education." Check out some of the others -- Children of Men has, "Never give up hope." Fun reads, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear God, I thought people like that were just sketches of Saturday Night Live...Arcayne 01:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mixed Topic

Hey thanks for teaching me some fine points about wikipedia. I have an important question how do you find peoples usernames? Anyways again thanks a bunch and I really appreciate your kindness.Oh sorry about edit summary didn't see that until a second warning was posted.--Bloddyfriday 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Superman Returns

• David S. Cohen (2007-02-10). "'Superman' navigates digital environments". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Don't know if you're trying to clean up the article, but thought the above citation might be useful. Kind of wish I joined Wikipedia early so I could've helped ensure Superman Returns grow appropriately from ground up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I find future articles easier to clean up because there isn't as much information. That's my problem with stuff like Spider-Man and Batman Begins -- there's too many useless resources to sift through. We're getting much better results with the their upcoming sequels, slowly growing and tending to the articles. I'm hoping to help keep the Superman Returns sequel in shape, if it ever enters production. I'm also hoping to improve Ghost Rider (may not bother if I'm too busy), 300, and Sunshine by the end of March. I'm trying to tackle the films on my release date subpage chronologically, as I figure there won't be major focus on most film articles months before their release as opposed to after. I was thinking about a goal for 10 GA-class articles by the end of 2007, haha... that would be a decent accomplishment. Of course, time and rest of life's a factor.

I'm holed up in the library. Got a marketing exam tomorrow (yep, Sunday exams at this school), finance Tues., strategic management Thurs., and strategic management on Sat. Long week ahead of me. Marketing won't be so bad; focusing on finance at the moment. Price of being a business student, I guess. I just charged up with some Rock Star energy drink, so I'm going to tackle some net present values... after I go through my watchlist on Wikipedia, of course. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I didn't need access to the Internet for files to help me study... Wikipedia is like crack -- I can't help but refresh the watchlist every once in a while and get involved if there's a new contribution for better or worse. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com Similarities

I am wondering if you have noticed the similarities between the WP article, Guy Gardner and an article by the same name here. If someone wrote the article, bringing info over from Answers to here, the entire article might have to be rewritten, to avoid NOR.Arcayne 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jason

I think it looks really good. I'm assuming that you will be breaking up the movies into sections? If I find any relevant citations (and are not fancruft), I'll be sure to help you. :) Thanks! Disinclination 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Saw characters

A large chunk of the Saw articles have been marked for deletion by overzealous editors. If you could help this, I'd appreciate it.--CyberGhostface 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

The anonymous editor who was trying to add the Criticism section with unreliable sources requested page protection and was granted the request despite four editors contesting him with valid arguments. I've placed a request for unprotection, and I've dissected why the GIPU's addition does not adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Feel free to add anything further. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your $0.02. By the way, this edit of yours got a burst of laughter out of me. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can't recall the origin, though I know it's in pop culture somewhere. SNL? I'm petitioning a request for unprotection, as this seems to me a rather blatant act of retaliation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Seinfeld, that's it. And I probably wouldn't pursue the matter further; Wiki-newbie can catch us up with more top-notch edits when it's unprotected down the run. I guess it's a matter of if the GIPU ever comes back to address the issues. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you were right; the admin appears to have misinterpreted our reverts as vandalism, saying that he "misread the talk page". What a fuss that was. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering all the fan hooha over the Transformers designs in the film, could you really take care of the article for me? Come July I'm taking a break to protect myself from spoilers as the film is out in the UK on the 27th. At least keeping all my collected citations so I can eventually reshape the article. Wiki-newbie 18:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to keep as many citations as possible so I can reshape the article eventually. I just want a head's up because I've taken good care of the article and don't want too much dissaray. Wiki-newbie 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

By the time the film is out everyone will know what a Transformers looks like, but sometimes citations can show extra bits and bobs of what a producer was thinking at one time, before the eventual official decision. Look at the V for Vendetta article's information on the conflicting reports on how they got to shoot three days in London. I just want a head's up as I won't be viciously keeping the article on track in July, yet I want the good work to be kept up. Wiki-newbie 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Tower!?!?!!

Did you read this? You've read the series, right, since you mentioned to Arcayne that you've only read The Waste Lands by King? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually have not... I stopped somewhere in Song of Susannah for some reason. I can't remember why. Must've been the turtle. The books are at home, unfortunately... will need to stop by and pick 'em up sometime (probably spring break). Not sure how it could be made into a film -- a miniseries like the recent Nightmares & Dreamscapes might be better, but not sure if the effects would be quality. I don't know if it'd look goofy onscreen, either, what with the Dr. Doom ripoff werewolves and all. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Band of Brothers is a great, great miniseries. It'd be awesome to have an epic film series for the whole line of books, though I'm not sure if it has legs for the mainstream audience (to keep making films after a certain #). I guess we'll see if this pans out or not. If it does, I suppose I'll have to figure out how to retrieve my books. Also, you should see all the contributions I made today -- my exam was cancelled 'cause of the bad Midwest weather, so I improved on The Dark is Rising, The Spirit, Alice, Castlevania, Jumper, Pattern Recognition, and some of Next. Check out the odd edits and the talk page discussion at 10,000 BC, too! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA! It's not "The Empire Strikes Back", it's "The Local Government of Judicial Review Correctively Challenging Anarchy". You sure put out some gems, pal. Definitely a keeper. I'm off the Net for the night, so have a good one. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You could find the comic book of the Dark Tower series, as it was just released. King has complete control over the content, and it is a pretty interesting read. The way the books are being adapted here might be a good instance of how King is looking at approaching a film adaptation.Arcayne 08:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Big, could you check out something here. I am still messing up references in the Nancy Reagan article, and while I think there might be some manky templates there, I'd like to make sure I am not screwing things up as well. Look at the edit of the linked page...Arcayne 12:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a pdf of the comic. If you want me to email it to you using YouSendIt (it's a 16 mb pdf), just give me an email to pop it off to. Thanks for the reference fix. You didn't see any odd templates in place on the article page in question, did you? SlimVirgin mentioned that there seemed to be some lazy template crap thereArcayne 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

I don't have any idea who the other editor is, and I only find out about the reverting of my edit when I read the article. We spent quite a bit of time discussing the flying thing and nobody else had anything to say. If the other editor was interested in the outcome, then they would have contributed something. If they are interested in discussion, then they should respond sometime in the near future, because I have given edit summary after edit summary of why it should be removed and haven't recieved a single response in return. I would be happy to discuss the matter, but I don't even think that the other party will be willing to participate, besides talking about me to you (Ok, so I do think I have an idea who the other editor is). Freddie1988 14 February 2007

P.S. The only reason I deleted those things off of my page was because I am in the process of creating a user page, and my idea of customization doesn't include blockage messages taking up the majority of my page.

I figured it was him, but I didn't want to start anything until I knew. The only problem is that I have Smallville on my watchlist, and I wasn't aware the edit had been reverted until last night, and I check everyday (maybe I just didn't notice). My only concern with the discussion thing is that the other guy won't even bother discussing it because based on what he has been saying about me, it doesn't seem that he holds a very high opinion of me and has thoroughly misunderstood my position on the whole thing, and I think you might have, too. I don't know. If someone wants to discuss, then that's fine. I'm just not going to start discussion on the matter and then have my suggestions go unheeded and edits be made anyway without anyone else's consent but their own. Freddie1988 14 February 2007

Nahhh, Freddy - you're aces with me. :) Arcayne 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the Smallville edits about the Giants? That was a hoot.Arcayne 00:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that the link to the Smallville episodes is no longer there? Was that a choice, or an error?Arcayne 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC) the main smallville series link had (I think) a link to a subpage of episodes. I don't see it anymore.Arcayne 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering where the link to this page was.Arcayne 18:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arguments to avoid

Yep. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually hadn't before then. I also uncovered WP:WTA. I guess the learning goes on still! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably not huge in our line of work with pop culture stuff, but this could help address any controversy that we come across. (I expect to use it for 300 -- there's already a bunch of 300-is-racist edits, and the film's not even out.) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's more along the lines of POV edits saying, "This film makes Persians look bad!" There's been a number of attempts to add criticism where there is yet any to be had by a reliable source. I'm sure we'll get some reviews that are critical of it, so it'll be tricky to determine if certain reviewers are already biased from the start. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Want to get back to work on Spider-Man? I've ditched Children of Men — it's not worth my time and energy to deal with the difficult environment. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Editor review

I know, and I've responded appropriately to both the new "review" and the first one. Take a look. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The new "reviewer" even responded to my request on the first reviewer's talk page, concerning his rather righteous accusations. I wouldn't be surprised if they were the same person, with this kind of follow-up and the same tone. I'm not worried, though -- the editor review isn't required for adminship, which I doubt I'd ever be seeking. I have more fun editing film articles on Wikipedia then participating in on the bureaucratic side of this place. Some positive reviews would be nice, but I don't think I've encountered many actual editors in my line of work. I guess the gap leaves for a rather resounding negative review by a couple of GIPUs. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that I produce quality edits, but I know that I am not as hospitable as some of Wikipedia's nicest editors. The first review I received was indirectly helpful, once I sifted through all that hostility. I know all of us have reached our boiling points at one time or another. Sometimes I forget that Wikipedia, in the end, is really not a big deal, especially film articles of all the articles that exist on this site. That importance scale really bugs me, though -- it'd be nice to get rid of it from the film articles' talk page and keep it within project boundaries.

I know you would heap large amounts of praise on me (at least, I think you would), and I'd do the same for you. I think the only criticism I would have of you is the lack of edit summaries on occasion when reverting vandalism or clearly POV edits. I personally don't think it's a big deal, though others might. That's pretty much the only thing that comes to mind -- I know your blood pressure's risen on occasions like mine has, but for the large majority of your interactions, you are very, very hospitable. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

War of the Worlds

No problem. It has been difficult getting all the disambiguation right (and I still wonder if the other two 2005 films might need further clarification but it works OK for now). The thinking in this area is that most people will either want to go to the novel or find the other films (as they could end up at the wrong one quite easily). There is another solution that might give us the best of both worlds: Template:Two other uses as in: {{Two other uses|the Spielberg film|other WotW films|The War of the Worlds (film)|all other WotW things|The War of the Worlds (disambiguation)}} and if that works better for you then add it in and I'll update the other three films to match this. Your choice. (Emperor 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

Titanic

My second sandbox is being used to deal with the currently monstrously long plot summary of Titanic. Its too good a description though, so I need someones extra pair of eyes to go in and cut it up a bit more. What do you think? WikiNew 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears someone went and cut it down on the actual article. So thanks, but well, people are bolder than me. WikiNew 17:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Friday the 13th

I would suggest following the proposed deletion technique. Say in the summary that no reliable sources can be found, and that IMDb indicates that a decision is supposed to be made in 2008, which is clear crystal balling as to the film's nature. This should be more easier than JPIV. If someone removes it, put it up for AfD. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

It was not an edit war. I was trying to keep the page clean, I'm sorry if it keeps getting changed back - if you look at the edits you will see that I was correct and used correct refrences. I gave my reasons for editing, which he hasn't and refrences to point out why I was editting. I wont change it back, I don't want to be bannd, but please do so for me. 86.138.125.156 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"I did notice that the last revert you did actually corrupted the citation format" My last edit I only returned what was taken out, I didn't check the citation fotmat, as it was correct before. 86.138.125.156 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Sandbox

Thanks for informing me of that, but there's just one more thing...I forgot how to make a user sandbox... ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)