User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 5

Citation usage

If information exists across multiple pages of a citation, I usually reference the first "home" page of the article. However, if there's only one fact on page 3 of so-and-so article, I just give the direct URL to that page. I think it's a waste of space to cite different pages of the same article, especially when it's likely that the multiple pages are to boost viewers' exposure to ads on that site. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

An alternate possibility is to find a "printable" version of the so-called citation; these usually display the entire article. Sometimes these format badly, though -- lines could stretch across the entire screen, making it difficult to read on a monitor. Depends on how well the printable version can display, I guess. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond

You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I can manage Bond articles on my own. Alientraveller 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TDK

Just leave him be. Let the block kick in and then we can go back and fix it. No need to waste time constantly undoing what he's going to continue to do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, the more reversions you make, the more likely it is that editors such as Leebo will try to hit you with a 3RR violation. ThuranX 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We're only leaving it to the spacing monster, and anything he does can be easily corrected. If it was a one or two time thing I could see reverting, but he's undoing our "undoes" as soon as we do them. No need to tire ourselves out. Has someone warned him yet? I know a block request went in but was he warned?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you'd be in violation of 3RR since his acts were vandalism (by introducing false information). Anyway, it just feels like we don't deal with as much vandalism on these film articles like back in 2006, for whatever reason. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TDK Teaser

The source for that was a blatantly admitted rumor Moriarty posted on AICN. You were right to take it down. ThuranX 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Ludwig van Beethoven as this week's WP:ACID winner

— Pious7_Talk^Contribs 10:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooops..

Ooops..I need to make sure that when I'm adjusting that I pay attention to what I'M doing. Good catch.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just sorry it took me so long. But it seems that the FAC for JP is taking a little while itself. Oh, was "Visitor Centre" your spelling, or the actual spelling? I corrected it to the American spelling, as the film was American, but I wasn't sure if that was the way they spelled it in the film, or if you were just spelling it the English way (like, "theatre").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought about Hammond being British, well, the actor anyway, and that was why I brought it up. I couldn't remember how they spelled it in the film, and it didn't seem like a stretch for them to spell it "re" because of Hammond. If it's the other way in the film (haven't seen it in awhile) then I'd say change it back. If you think there won't be enough to use a subsection that's fine. I know I'm going to have a lot for what I'm doing for Friday the 13th. Personally, I can't wait till I get to start working on Part 3 in the series, because they did a lot of innovative 3-D work on the movie and it's going to be a cool section (at least in my head it looks that way).

Sorry, if I offended by saying "English". I don't know what that would be perceived as over there, probably like "Yankee" here. The irony is that you say "Yankee" for all of Americans, and any southerner would argue with that. Technically, I'm a southerner, although I don't look, sound or act like one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What are we speaking? I'd like to think of it as "English-lite". You're "Draft" and we're "Lite", although I don't drink so my analogy doesn't really work for me. Our language is a diluted version of yours is what I see, that is probably more accurate. That was our final attack on our brothers from over seas; we just said "we're going to change the spelling of words, just because we don't like how you spell...*tongue sticks out*". Well, it probably didn't really go like that, but my version sounds cooler than what probably occurred during the history of the American language spellings. Then again, I should be saying things like "ich benötige ein wikibreak".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a bit harder to make cross continental jokes. I probably should have wiki linked..lol. Anyway, yeah..Spider-Man does need some work. It's kind of sad that the third film, which isn't even out, looks 10 times better than the first two combined.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Road trip

I'll be taking a road trip to NTID/RIT for a festival today (just finished my semester yesterday). I'll be back at my university Tuesday or Wednesday night, but in the meantime, I'll probably be more AWOL than my wikibreak template ever suggested before. Best of luck standing guard! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Longest wait of any life...

I don't know where you are located, but are you part of the area that's getting it on the 23rd? Because it seems like regardless, you'll be able to see it before any of us here in the states, so you'll be able to keep it in check when those other people try and blow it up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than what Erik suggested, which was just to let them have free reign over the plot until someone that understand's Wiki's plot guidelines a bit better has a chance to see the film and make the adjustments. I know that hardly anyone has seen it on the english wikipedia, and we won't able to potentially verify anything until at least May 1, when its released in several markets (as opposed to those selected "special event" releases of the film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How much of the interview was included? I noticed that the interviews with Raimi and Church (granted, not Dunst or Howard) had a lot of supplementary information. External links are for that purpose, which is why there's "The Secrets of Spider-Man 3" there, too. A lot of our references are pretty to-the-point, so if there's anything extra like Church's description of how the "birth of Sandman" came to be, it should be available separately from the list of references that don't have additional detail. Sorry, trying to catch up on my wiki-activities, I like the re-sectioning and the expansion on writing. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the World Wide Web article should be available as an external link, as it has supplementary information and is from an authoritative source. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You know that I'm not trying to go against policies. The links that I'm suggesting to include don't violate any of the WP:EL's "Links normally to be avoided" criteria. Also, the links are "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." It doesn't appear to violate WP:SPAM or WP:NOT#DIR, either. New readers can't differentiate a reference that has minimal information (already used in the article) or a reference that has so much supplementary information that all couldn't be included. Hence why I think these should be included. They probably wouldn't last forever; I'm sure there will be in-depth coverage about the production of the film. Do you have any suggestions for keeping the balance of it? I figure that when the film comes out, we can take out stuff like "International release dates" (which is found through the official site, anyway). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "Design" should go with "Visual effects", but under the subheading of "Effects". It's all general effects, whether it be CGI or make-up, and the "design" section is really thin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys are talking about the all the interviews, how about One Link to rule them all, One Link to find them, One Link to bring them all and in Wikipedia bind them  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

Article British anti-invasion preparations of World War II has been promoted to featured article. Thank you for your help and support. Gaius Cornelius 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as The Godfather.Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

--Crzycheetah 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale (2006 film)

Regarding your edit here: I don't think that's a good idea and reverted. Plot summary is not equal to article summary, and any plot details must have the spoilers tag. —AldeBaer 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to re-insert it, then. —AldeBaer 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

300 (film)

Hello. You have reverted multiple times at 300 (film) in the last 24 hours. Please refrain from engaging in edit warring and instead pursue dispute resolution for your disagreements. Excessive reverts are less likely to cause a resolution, since it will make collaboration less likely. Repeat offenders may be blocked from editing if the problem continues. Thanks! Note that this message applies to everyone at 300 (film), and all three users with multiple reverts at the article in the last 24 hours received it. Dmcdevit·t 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

From my part, I couldn't help but noticing a deal of hypocrisy concerning those reverts. You reverted my version, twice in a minute, claiming that the previous version has a "cite". What about when someone removed my edit which also came with a source, or rather two. What's your excuse for such a behaviour? Miskin 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fight Club

Thanks for the information. I recognize some of it from the trivia I've removed from the article. I'll see what I can work in. Did the Premiere magazine have any detail about Fight Club being a DVD to own, like what rank out of the 100? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to address the lead paragraphs before re-nominating Fight Club as a GA... what would you suggest to improve them? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club is about a metaphorical fight to define one's self-identity in a society that promotes desires that lack intrinsic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Improving Spidey

I think that an Effects section or subsection could be added to the article. (Weren't there subsections under Production at one point, edited by you? Why the change back?) There are VFXWorld references on the talk page. Registration might be required, so get the user/pass from www.bugmenot.com -- it'll get you in. Also, I know for sure that Raimi became interested in Maguire when his wife showed the actor perform in Cider House Rules -- I think that warrants a mention, since the choice for Spidey wasn't exactly clear-cut at the beginning. A couple of other real-world events circulating this film would be Raimi's choice of organic web-shooters -- he's even mentioned this recently in Spider-Man 3 press... I'll see if I can dig it up. Raimi said that a petition with thousands of signatures was sent to the studio head to encourage the director not to go with organic web-shooters, and Raimi noticed, realizing that he needed to cater to the serious fans, too. (Which prompted him to add Venom, I think -- I'll look for it.) There's also the lawsuit between Marvel and Stan Lee, which I think could be expanded into a paragraph. Here's some other suggestions below:

• Is there a better picture for Spidey vs. Green Goblin? The existing one looks kind of worn out.
• What about cameos in the film, that could go below the main list in Cast? Bruce Campbell was in it, Stan Lee, and I think Thomas Jane made an appearance in the background, since he was The Punisher.
• Might want to change some words to US English: For example, stylised should be stylized. I'll see if I can do this myself, if you can't recognize what needs to be changed.
• Going back to Effects, I think there could be more detail about how Spider-Man was portrayed; the VFXWorld citations should help. Just would like to know things like, how much was Tobey in the costume and all.
• Marketing doesn't seem to be the most appropriate title for the section -- the two paragraphs are about controversies. Maybe they could be called something like that, and perhaps there can be some reaction included to the 9/11 removals. Also, were there any scenes in the film that showed the WTC in the background, but were removed?
• I don't really know if the Music section needs more detail... at most, there should be some talk about how Elfman designed the score, especially since he was responsible for the score of the first Batman. If not, then maybe the two musical articles could go under "See also" with the video game article.

Anyway, I realize that you're asking, how to get the GA status? I don't think that you would have any difficulty at this point; not sure if a reviewer would note the missing gaps of information like I have here. Anyway, take the suggestions that you think would help it achieve the status, but I think ultimately, most of these suggestions should be incorporated for FA status later. It'd be really cool if we could do a Star Wars trilogy dealie with all Spidey films having FA status. Probably could do the same for Batman Begins -- wouldn't it be cool to have that film article as Featured Article of the Day on the day of The Dark Knight's release? Sounds like a project to me... haha. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, in case you haven't tapped this source of information -- there's 32 pages of links here. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Found Raimi's talk about the organic web shooter here. See his answer to the question, "Can you address the anti-organic web shooter? Have they finally let that slide and cut you some slack?" and later in the interview under "So how did you get to the two villains?" He says, "What I didn't tell you is when I changed those web shooters, they sent a petition with 2,000 signatures to the chairman of Sony to have me remove them from the picture. So I'm trying to steer clear of that this time." Hope that's of use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Comics2Film's format isn't pretty... but if you have sufficient Google fu, you could track down some articles using some keywords. A lot of news articles from around the first film's release probably got shuffled due to archiving and whatnot. Need help finding any potentially useful articles? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I just Googled to check, and it turns out that Thomas Jane had a cameo in the second film, not the first. My fault. Also, something else you can do is look at the Spider-Man trivia page at IMDb. A lot of these things have some truth to it, and by determining what could be encyclopedic and following up with some search engine exercising, there could be more content to add to the article. I'll see if I can dig up a print citation from Access World News to back that Dykstra stuff, and I'll look for the Dark Horizons page as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The embedded article should have similar content. Also, the Dark Horizons stuff is mentioned here, though the format is ugly. I recommend this from Comic Book Resources, which exudes more reliability (and mentions that the info is from Dark Horizons). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Raimi still wanted some realism, so therefore all shots are 100% computer generated." This doesn't seem to make sense... can this sentence be cleared up? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, whew, it's definitely a nice improvement. It'd definitely be nice to have an entire trilogy of articles in fine form and recognized as such -- must take you back to your LOTR days! :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Great job on improving the first Spider-Man article. take a look in here to see if there is something that you didn't find. You made a lot of additions, and I'm not sure if there is anything left in the mini-project that Erik and I started. If there isn't then I think I'll just go ahead and blank the page for some other small projects.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Will do. I dumped the rest, because it appears you added it already to the section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment about writing critical reaction, and I really agree. I like writing about the production, since there's a chronology to it. It's more of a jigsaw puzzle to piece together all the different opinions about a film -- which is why I'm still laboring over The Fountain. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. The best thing to do is use Rotten Tomatoes "Cream of the Crop" critics, because they are usually the most well known critics. Then it's just about making sure you are even (i.e. equal number of positives, negatives, and mixed).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole -- from my few attempts to venture into writing Critical reaction sections, I usually focus on the Cream of the Crop reviews, since they're from major news outlets. I don't find them useless, but it's just rather subjective to figure out how to best represent what a reviewer says, especially since it should be limited to one sentence. Box office performance can be interesting, especially for films that have serious legs. 300 is a good example of this, performing beyond expectations in the foreign box office. A couple of examples I can think of are The Sixth Sense and My Big, Fat Greek Wedding, which had consistently strong box office weekends. I think Pan's Labyrinth is a recent example, but I'm not sure. There are articles at Box Office Mojo for recent films' box office performances, more so now recently than in the past. The articles study the box office patterns for you, so it lessens OR in doing the job for you. Just one way to go. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find maybe a couple more negatives, and some mixed reviews. I think that will balance it, and after that I think it just needs some copyediting. We'll need to beef up the "awards" information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Crap, I've been so into maintaining 3 that I haven't even looked at 2. I just bought the game also. I'll see if I can go through and grab some reviews from Tomatoes real quick and then I'll read through them and prose it up later on tonight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoot, by June we could probably skip GA and go straigh to FAC (though I'd prefer the GA first).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you won't see a DVD for awhile, I'm sure. WHat is up with people adding a Sunday gross when the film has even finished playing on Sunday. It's only 1:30pm here, which means not only does it still have 10 hours of play here, but 12 hours of play on the west coast.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I swapped the order of the sections in the Spidey films. It always seems like we are giving precedence to the plots of the films by making them first. Either way, I tried to place things in order of when they occurred, and I've noticed that all of the Star Wars films (which are featured) work in this order as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense to me to have the plot first, it just says "hey, that's all we really care about...if you dont' want to read anything other than that, then don't go any further".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I brought it up on the talk page to see what others think. I enjoy it as well, but without Elfman's music (I didn't care for Young's choice of themes for the different characters, mostly Dark Spidey), and lack of Spidey in the first 2 acts, I thought it didn't quite live up to my expectations. 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they pulled off the sympathetic monster, like when Spidey confronts Sandman in the old train tunnel and you can see that he remembers killing Ben. But, I also thought there was a lack of the dark spidey (not necessarily in costume). I would have liked to have seen more of the arrogant Peter, and the "normal" Peter kind of came off as annoying in his happy-go-lucky attitude about his job as Spider-Man. Maybe that was just because this is the first time everyone loves him, and I could have been channeling MJ's annoyance. I could say that I probably would have had the same reaction of someone comes up to me after I have a big let down, and tries to compare my life to theirs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can't find anything to beef up that section of the article, I don't see a problem with the size. Sometimes there isn't a lot of information in one portion of a topic. Although, the bit about her doing the stunts while pregnant seems out of place with the rest of the information. It's all character portrayal until that moment, and seems like unnecessary trivia tacked on to the end. I don't know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sequels

Is there a way we can point viewers of Spider-Man 3 to the Future section at Spider-Man film series? It's not linked to very much, and I think for the sake of current ease, there should be something that points there. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

...to rule them all

Jeez, I hope I didn't just subliminally suggest new projects for you! :) I personally like genesis stories, when characters are just starting out. Of course, TTT was good in its own right -- that opening scene where Gandalf dives for the Balrog is extremely hardcore, along with the Battle of Helms Deep, especially when the Riders of Rohan come to save the day. Bah, now I feel like I need to go on a trilogy binge when I get home from school next week. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly useful tip

Not sure if you'll ever use this tip, but I thought I'd let you know. If you ever use an article that contains both production and synopsis information, you can backwards-reference the citation that you use. Before, it was required that the first reference in a multi-reference should go before the other references, but now you can place the full reference in any rank. This can be set up so that the full reference goes into production, and the simpler multi-reference tag can go into Premise. That way, when the Premise section is blanked to write a full Plot section, the reference tied to production information won't be lost. Just a geek thing I can across today, editing all these drama films lately. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Spielberg's initiation of E.T.

This has got to be a mistake. His parent's divorced in 1964. 75.35.115.45 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I just got back from the store, so I need to tidy that up, but as soon as I can I'll read through the article and let you know what I think. I'll try and read through it as if it is the FAC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I passed its GAC, and left a bit of FAC reading. I didn't go into detail with it at the moment. I'll save specifics for the FAC, and because I didn't have time to go through every sentence. It looks good, definitely an easy pass to GA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You been watching the Shrek 4 article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I merged the two ET images, so that a caption could be written for both under the same image. It saved a bit of space as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably look at E.T. more in depth this weekend. I have an 8-10 page paper due Thursday (first week of class, how lovely), so I won't be able to do something as big as reading an entire article, because I'll need to do that in one sitting. But, I'm watching the FAC, and taking note of some of the objections. If it cannot get FAC by June 11 (and you'd have to request it be on the front page for that day also), then you might want to look into getting it on the "Did You Know" section of the mainspace. It could be: "Did you know......that exactly 25 years ago today, Steven Spielberg released ET for the first time"....or something like that. the JP FAC seems to be going better the second time around.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, (just looked at them) the DYK seems to be focused more on newly created articles, or heavily expanded ones. You might be able to convince them that since you've expanded it a lot for the FAC, and because of its 25th birthday, that it would make a good DYK.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Raul is the director for both the FAs and the Today's Featured Article. When it gets closer to June (because then you'd have an idea of how the FAC is going), I might send him a message personally to see if he would keep that article into consideration for June 11, if/when it makes FA status. Tell him you'll still put in the standard request on the TFA page, but that you'd like it if he took into consideration the implications of it being a TFA for June 11 (it being the 25th anniversary and all).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the JP promotion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some work on the article, you can go over it and see what you like or don't like. I haven't done the last two sections (kinda hungry). There were 3 things that I didn't change that caught my eye; I didn't know how to handle them.

Thomas' auditioned dressed up as Indiana Jones, and was not doing well until the filmmakers improvised a scene with him, with his convincing tears inspired by thoughts of his dead dog. - I don't understand what this means? Did you go in dressed as Indiana Jones to impress the filmmakers, or was it something they did to him?

MacNaughton auditioned eight times, sometimes with boys auditioning for Elliott, becoming unofficially cast. - Do you mean sometimes with other people auditioning as Elliott at the same time he auditioned as Michael? and what is "unofficially cast"?

'E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was previewed in Houston, Texas and premiered at the closing gala of the May 1982 Cannes Film Festival. - were these two separate events, or was the Cannes Festival held in Houston?

These are three things that I wasn't sure about. After I eat, I'll come back and look at the last two sections. Let me know if you don't agree with something I did, I'm far from perfect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Computer-generated imagery was used for new shots of E.T. running and elements of the spaceship, perfecting shots that had bothered Spielberg since 1982. Was it used to perfect shots of E.T. running and the spaceship, or were they done along with perfecting other shots?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Ah..did he look frustrated having to keep coming in? Is it that important? I don't know how to explain "unofficially cast", and I don't think there is an article on the term. If Spielberg said something like "oh yeah, I forgot to tell you, you got the part", then that could be said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Did he mention it then? I'm trying to figure out how it can be written to better explain it. Something like, MacNaughton believed he was unofficially cast, because Spielberg never actually told him he got the part. ... or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Was there actual video footage of the three actors auditioning for their roles? If so, it would probably be better to get those images of the actual auditions. I wasn't sure if they actually showed that on the DVD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have the DVD. I have power DVD (although I've found that some films won't actually save screen...must have a block on them). I was just thinking of anyway that would help make any "concern" about images go smoother.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Iron Man

That new image is disgustingly good. And don't you love being proven right over that Shaun Toub rumor crap? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

GAs

Hi, we are VERY close to achieving our goal of getting Season 8 to FT status, and we currently have several GACs. It would be much appreciated if you could take a look at some of them and do some reviewing. Thanks for the time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Liam Neeson image

I've replied to your message on the Liam Neeson peer review discussion. As I said, there's no free images that I can find of Neeson for use in the article. Can you give any suggestions to an image that would be considered fair use? Thanks again. -- My NameIs URL 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

300 Soundtrack Image

Future Perfect is attempting to delete the 300 Soundtrack image that you uploaded some time ago as "purely decorative" and attempting to cite WP:Nonfree as his basis for doing so. I've reinstated it, requesting Discussion before he does so again. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frenzy (Transformers Film)

Go to http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246640&page=434 and go down near the bottom of the page. You'll see a better pic of Frenzy behind Sam. Just a suggestion of replacement for the pic of movie Frenzy. I'm asking you because I can't do copyright stuff.

Removal

Why do you keep on removing the material I added about the history channel stuff in his bio? I know it's a fictional bio, he's a fictional character. The material has relevance since it talks about the spider bite. (Ghostexorcist 10:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Nelson Mandela Good Article?

Thank you for looking over the article. I will work on the points you raised - see comment on Talk:Nelson Mandela. In your opinion, are there any other reasons keeping the article from reaching GA status? Zaian 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now addressed all of your original points. I'm not sure which parts you are referring to when you say "Longer paragraphs with compound sentences makes reading easier" - please clarify on Talk:Nelson Mandela. I'm sorry you moved to Fail so quickly - a bit of discussion would have been useful first. Also, does a Nelson Mandela biographical page even fall under your area of interest? Zaian 12:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - they have definitely helped in improving the article. I'm going to take another careful look through it for other possible sticking points before re-nominating it, possibly in a few days time. Regards, Zaian 19:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PotC: At World's End#Cast

WP:EMBED states that articles should consist of prose. by using the ; instead of the * the cast section appears more like prose and therefore, using the ; is better (its a better format). Considering that I did not change anything else, I have no idea why you undid my edit. I do not want an edit war but I will make those changes again, unless you can convince me otherwise.--88wolfmaster 22:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Hi, sorry to take so long in getting back to you -- I was about to put another "out of the country" box at the top of my talk page when I realized I'd never replied. I've had a look at the article and I think it's splendid, so I can't be of very much help in terms of offering a critical appraisal. I do think the "production" section is a bit on the long side; e.g. "Spielberg also excised a sub-plot of Procompsognathus escaping to the mainland and attacking young children, as he found it too horrific." What's actually important and what isn't, however, is a question better left to someone who's seen the film; and I, sorry to say, have not. Best, --Javits2000 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you kind of jumping the gun here? Raul hasn't closed it yet. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, congratulations, then! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the price of working with future film articles... the upkeep isn't recognized until the films come out. I'm sure we'll get pretty green pluses for Spider-Man 3, maybe even stars for all of us down the run. All the crap we went through keeping it polished, we deserve it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading trailers

Could you provide how it was misleading, that would be even more helpful. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good example of why synthesis is bad for film articles. Oh, in case you weren't aware, Spidey 4 has been both redirected and fully protected from editing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...that's a good question. I don't know how it would fair in a GAC, because we don't have any "impact" other than box office info and some reviews. If it fails (which, really I don't think it would) then we can wait longer. I see the time frame being the only glitch in the GAC. So yeah, week 3 will probably be fine. IMHO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The first time's always painful

If you get some free time (free time on Wikipedia..LOL, yeah right) could you take a gander at this FAC. It's my first nomination, and I'd appreciate any input for its improvement. It's on the Aquaman pilot, so it won't be a long article to read.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Thanks. I can't delete all the subpages because it would delete the page. They work off the subpages. If I ever kill the page I'll be sure to "db-author" all the subpages. If only every individual episode article could find that much information. When is the 25th for ET? I'd go ahead and nominate it for GA status, because I think it's clearly up to that level.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's how you want to roll with it, then go ahead and nominate it now. FACs can take months, you're best to nominate it now, and allow the FAC to work out the kinks in the article. Remember what's happening with Jurassic Park. If you want to get to FA before June 11, then it needs to be nominated now. Let me know what you nominate it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For E.T., I was thinking, wouldn't the 20th Anniversary information really be part of the "Release" section? It was a third release of the film, technically. I could see it being a subsection of that area, but that's just what I happened to notice as I passing by just now. Just thought I'd share. Oh, if there is a way to get it to you, I took care of that image for you, hopefully you can view it here. If you can, then you can save it on your computer. Yes, it is THE image that was in question, I just went ahead and did what you asked because I couldn't find it and I don't know if you have the first DVD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realize I deleted part of the tag. Have to go back and check the others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Politeness, and I think Common Sense...those are two important tests.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Symbiote

It's possible. We can use the information about Arad convincing Raimi to bring in Venom (stupid decision, I say) as a base for expansion. For example, do we know if Raimi planned a black suit Spider-Man at all? Because it'd be pretty significant to say that the inclusion of Venom brought in a darker theme, with symbiote and all. I'm not sure if I can help much today, though. I'm going back to my university to pick up some things for my internship this summer and to attend a friend's housewarming party. Don't think I'll be on Wikipedia much for the weekend, if at all, after this next hour or so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And dude, you made a quote box for what Church said! That was exactly the idea I had to use for a quote box a few weeks ago! I like the other quote box, too. They really help break up the monotony of the pages without using images, since we have this image "crisis" going on. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you know I wouldn't add my own interpretation of it. I just think it's apparent that the inclusion of Venom influenced the story arc, and we should find the references that mention that. If they say something else, that's fine, too -- I guess this seems most obvious what happened. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been used to supply IMDb with some trivia, too... you should check out what the trivia bit about the usage of sand was, it was hilarious. It's so clearly user-submitted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What were the citations that were used, anyway? Just wondering -- I fell out of the habit of being involved with speculative discussions on forums. I blame Wikipedia for making me objective and letting the facts speak for themselves. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A request for more tips regarding Kung Fu Hustle

Hello.

Thanks for reviewing the Kung Fu Hustle article. I've replied to your comment in the peer review page, and would be grateful if you take another look at the article and check for more room for improvement. Thanks.--Kylohk 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Backlog

Well, I revised 11 future film articles in the course of a week, and there's 12 of that kind in Article focus. Not too impossible. :) The already-released film articles will take longer, obviously, but it helps to see them and think that I might do something about them someday, haha. The home life is slow; I have an internship out of state in a couple of weeks, but in the meantime, I'm just kicking around. Probably should get off my "wikibreak" -- that was just to cool off from my little tussle regarding non-free content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Capone Rising is in reasonably good shape, but I guess I want to see if the history goes any further back than 2004. Also, I want to see if the gaps can be filled to explain why the first director moved on. It's funny, though -- the two directors mentioned were also attached to American Gangster at one point. I also agree with you about Sweeney Todd; it sounds kind of odd in concept, but I'm gonna check it out anyway. I'll scrounge around for Curse of the Black Pearl stuff. Did you find American Cinematographer articles for that film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that in a preliminary search for Black Pearl stuff. Are you still not wanting to use VFXWorld? There's a three-page article about its production. I'll keep looking. There's also a book called Pirates of the Caribbean: From the Magic Kingdom to the Movies (ISBN 0786856300) that looks like it has a chapter on the movies. Don't know how much access you have to books, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek. IMDb headlines might lead you to actual articles. National Geographic compares the film's pirates to real pirates. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Forest Whitaker article

Just wanted to say thanks for the GA review. It's my first!--Vbd (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Curse of the Black Pearl

Why on earth did you remove my addition to Pirates of the Carribean? I looked though your contributions... all you do is undo other people's contributions. When you add something yourself, you don't describe it in summary, offer no explanation, and fail to provide citations. Why do you persist in destroying the constructive work of others? Do you even read the passages you are so quick to undo, or is it merely territorial pissing on your part?

With regards to the Curse of the Black Pearl page, you have not offered a single summary for your countless edits to the page. You have made the vast majority of the recent edits on the page, yet you do not explain what it is you are editing. The only time you do offer a summary is when you are removing the contributions of a user like myself. If you truly are contributing anything, then you should offer an explanation in the summary.

By deleting the contributions of myself and others, and thus effectively monopolizing the Curse of the Black Pearl page, you are impeding the natural flow of information and compromising the integrity of Wikipedia and the breadth of its content.

Seamus Ryan 06:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My friend, simply because you do not know about something doesn't mean it's not true. If Wikipedia were based upon your knowledge alone, it would be a small encyclopedia indeed. Include summaries with your contributions... otherwise, they are suspect.

Osirus 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would probably say to include one of the ship fights. I hesitate to say to show the skeleton crew, since that seems borderline spoiler-ish. Maybe just a picture of one of them, like Barbossa, in withered form? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indy IV Citation

Hello, you removed that New Haven, CT part because it was uncited. Sorry, I do not yet know how to cite things. Here's the article New Haven Register

Cast secton list to prose

Since you know what you want, could you explain on the talk page of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly what the cast section should look like? Perhaps you can just give me a link to an article you like. BTW, I like your new nick. —Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes you requested, but someone named User:Attilios is reverting me, claiming that it violates the MoS. See my talk page for more info. Can you contact him or fix the formatting? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark

From what I've seen of film articles, such as Casino Royale, production goes above plot. It seems to be the convention. ColdFusion650 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry on that. My confusion. If Raiders is that way, the other Indy articles should be changed accordingly to maintain continuity. It's kind of weird that Bignole is an active reader of this talk page. ColdFusion650 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Amendment

I'm sure you saw the message I left on Erik's page, but just in case, I'll leave it here. I'm trying to get the Crystal Ball policy amended to be more specific, so that we don't have to deal with these types of AfDs (e.g. Spider-Man 4). The discussion is here. If you would like to voice your opinion, it would be much appreciated. I don't care if they amend it to say that any information regarding a future film could constitute its own article, I just want it to be clear on how to handle them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Batman Beginsq

Apologies for failure to cite. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Film series

Thanks for your contributions to the film series subpages! You're absolutely welcome to get your hands dirty in any of my projects. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you've helped with the subpage, I'd like to ask your opinion about its setup:

1. Should we mention the 1966 Batman film? It's directly based on a TV show, and the following Batman films sort of establish their own theatrical universe.
2. How do you think the sections should be sorted? Chronologically, or mention all the successful films first, then follow up with the failed projects? And where would the Reception section fit in?
3. Do you think the subpage needs to be renamed to anything else? I'll be moving it to the article mainspace today.

And one last thing: Are you going to write about Schumacher's involvement? I know that the Burton/Schumacher series is a work in progress, but I wanted to ask in case you had resources available to you that I don't. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a film series article for the Pirates trilogy and whatever may come after? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think my beef with Canceled Superman films was that it was a mess and struck me as a fanboy-style article, solely bringing these failed projects together and writing in too much depth about the scripts that could have been. I just think that a Superman film series would be broader and more encyclopedic and a good "base". In fact, for the film series subpage, we could also create a Future section using the stuff from Superman Returns#Sequel and the links in my Future articles subpage. We could do that before we move it to the article namespace. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

Where the hell did you get the idea that Natalie Portman's Erdős–Bacon number is "uncited" and "slander"? If you had bothered to click the wikilink in the sentence, you could easily have seen more than adequate citations supporting the statement. If you were new to Wikipedia I would have simply reverted and overlooked it. But you've been around a while. Please do a minimum of checking before deleting a statement. Otherwise it is considered vandalism. Ward3001 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Aarrgh...storm the projectors

Um...I'd like to see it early, but I don't want to deal with the crowds. I probably won't see it till next week, sometimes during the weekdays when there are fewer people at the theater. I'd go to the midnight showing, but it's 10 minutes shy of 3 hours, and if you add trailers for upcoming films and all that stuff..you're looking at over 3 hours of sitting in one spot. What about you?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't like lots of people around me when I watch a film. You end up with laughter that drowns out the sound, or those "nice" people that like to make snive comments while watching a film. It's one thing to do it in your home, I do it myself, but not when I pay my $7 to see a movie for the first time. Depending on the film, I'll avoid them if I can. Spider-Man...no, I love those movies so I'll always see them when they first come out (midnight showings), but if Raimi is gone from any future films....then they will probably be relegated to delayed viewings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there hasn't been a lot of problems with the article, so I don't see why they would protect it. I understand concern about it when it is released, but they will want to wait till something actually happens. As for spoiling myself...no. It will be just like Spidey, when it was released on the 1st, and I had to wait all week before I saw it. I'll avoid it, and then wrangle it into shape afterward. I think that actually worked with Spidey. That's one of the few times I've seen the plot of a major film, especially one 2 1/2 hours, barely break 600 words. Maybe we can keep Pirates 3 in check too, but from those reviews you posted, it seems that it's going to be so complex that we will be forced to right more than we may need.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. I didn't find 1 complex at all. 2 wasn't "complex" but they add a bunch of things that I didn't care for, namely the whole Jack/Elizabeth/Will love triangle. Personally, it's one thing to have 1 person pine over another that is in a relationship, but another to basically make Elizabeth "possibly" become attracted to Jack. I mean, she really came off as a harlot in the second film, and I hated it. You can be conflicted about your feelings, but they presented her as really wanted to be with Jack instead, and I think I saw that as a business move by Disney since Jack had become such a fan favorite. You know that when it comes out, everyone is going to be like "we need to say this in the plot, it's important".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but ESB was better. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's "Decemeber" not "December". lol. Thanks for catching that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

POTC3

Thanks for the advice.

• Have you watched the movie yet?
  • If so, could you help edit the article. It really is difficult to write since there's so much "action" in the movie... I'm continually editing the plot so I hope it will be more 'clean' when I'm done.
  • If not, I hope you enjoy it when you do...

Shermoo 11:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• What you call "prose destruction", I call "easier to read". No content was changed. Please reconsider the layout and paragraph flow in that section of the article. SpikeJones 13:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dominic Scott Kay is a boy, that's true. That doesn't at all mean that Will and Elizabeth's child is a boy, however. I'll find you a citation to prove that the gender is deliberiately indeterminate. --Bishop2 18:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

Looks like that Pirates 3 plot is growing. Anyway, I've initiated a discussion at one of the Smallville season pages. It's about merging all (minus 1 so far) of the individual episode pages, into the season pages. I'd appreciate your thoughts either way on the matter. In the discussion, I've placed links to two of my sandboxes, that show a new format for the season pages and what the pilot episode will look like on its own. That's what I'm basing my opinion to merge on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

Hi there. I see that you've put the "Unnamed Transformer" under a Real Gear heading. Do you have a citation that this is a Real Gear transformer? All the buzz I've read on the net seems to be steering toward the opinion that he's not. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notting Hill

Thanks for nomming it, is was going to get around to it eventually, but wasn't entirely sure as to whether it was ready. But if you think it is, then that's fine by me. Thanks! Gran² 18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Batman

Certainly it needs to be mentioned, but I don't think it needs its own section, and the section as it stood wasn't all that great. In lieu of that, I've been weaving mention of Gotham City throughout the article instead. I might insert more about it into the "Personas" section, citing discussion of it as a reflection of the character.

By the way, what's your opinion on making the "Homosexual interpretations" section into a separate article called "Homosexual interpretations of Batman"? Obviously it's quite notable, but the way I wanted to rewrite the section in order to better complement the article as a whole would result in me ditching a lot of quality cited material. My solution is move and expand the section as is in a separate article 9and there are plenty of sources available if others want to expand the article), while reworking what we need into a three-paragraph or so main article summary for the Batman page. WesleyDodds 18:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is the perception of Batman as a homosexual character is one held by few (I certainly don't adhere to it), but homosexual interpretations and readings of the characters have been extensively studied and commented upon in both academic circles and in popular culture. A book I just checked out for academic reference for the article, The Many Lives of the Batman, has a 15-page essay devoted to such an interpretation. I think a separate article can exist; my main worry is that I personally have little interest in working on it past splitting material from the page and citing a few things, and I wonder if anyone else will be willing to work on it and prevent it from msot certainly degenerating into a mess.

Oh, and I have no intention of bringing the page to FAR. We did that not too long ago anyways. With the right books and focus I think I can bring this up to code in a month. WesleyDodds 18:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my intention is to fit it into the popular culture section. But I would have to massively edit the section, and like I said, there's a lot of good material there it would be a shame to throw out. WesleyDodds 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

I wasn't aware you left a request for image for Pirates 1. I don't watch the page. I only watched 2 and 3 because of the secrecy surrounding the budgets and I don't Box Office Mojo is reliable when it comes to budget information. I think they are fine for box office info, but they don't cite their sources for the budgets they list, and that concerns me, because that makes them nothing more than IMDb.com. People were always adding 225 million for Pirates 2, when Disney has never formally said anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OOOOhh.. I did, I missed Erik's comments too (the batman teaser). I had a bunch of people message close to each other when I was out and I didn't realize that I got more than 1 message. If it has to do with cropping a watermark off, then I can't do it. I mean, I can do it, but I can't legally do it, because technically I would be violating IGN's trademark by systematically "cutting" it out. They captured that image. I can't view it while I'm at work, but I'll take a look at it when I get off in about an hour and a half (if you still need it that is). I'll search for a non-watermarked image. I'm sorry I missed it earlier. As for the budget, BOM.com is using a quote from the studio that was an estimation given for both of the sequels (450 million), and they simply divided that by two. Unfortunately, when you start writing checks like that, it's never as simple as give 50% here and 50% there, especially when they were estimating the budgets for two films they hadn't done any work on yet. Then, after Pirates 2 was released, they had 225 million for that one, and 225 million for Pirates 3. It would honestly amaze me if Verbronski (sp) made Pirates 2 for exactly 225 million. It's like saying "sorry guys, we have to stop filming, because we've reached the halfway mark in the funds. we have to save the rest for a film we haven't done yet". Then, I read several articles about how Disney hasn't told anyone what their budget was, for either film (more so the third film) because it's reached past the 300 million mark. The only thing Disney has said is that they feel that their money is well spent.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you know when I get home (going to send myself an email so I don't forget). Generally, even with screenshots, cropping off a trademark is bad. It can be hard to prove, since technically you can capture the image yourself, but what it boils down to is bypassing their trademark. They obviously want people to know that that screencapture was taken by them. So yeah, I'll check it out and hopefully I'll be able to find a replacement that doesn't have the watermark.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I just wasn't aware that I had that many comments, I normally don't get hit that hard in just a couple hours. I didn't even know Erik had sent me a comment at all until I just happened to be looking at his contribs and saw my name. When you mentioned an image for Pirates 1, I immediately jumped over to the article too look at the "request an image" tag...lol, but there wasn't one. I couldn't figure out what you were talking about. Then you were like "here's a pointer", and as I was reading it, trying to figure out what "the pointer" was, it hit me that you had left a comment when I glanced up and saw you meant literally a "pointer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to keep searching, but the IGN image is taken from a 20 minute behind the scenes featurette on the DVD, and not the film itself. I did find The Flying Dutchman. I'll keep looking though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You might find these sites helpful: [1] [2] - I know you want the IGN one, because it's a non-operational ship, but unless you have the DVD, I don't think anyone took that image other than IGN. And if they see the same image, obviously cropped closer to avoid their watermark, then it could cause problems. Not saying that they would actually care, but the legal ramifications could bring potential problems. I don't personally have the DVD, otherwise I'd be happy to capture for you myself. Sorry. If you want, you could probably just save it and throw it in Microsoft Paint and "Copy to file" a box that excludes the IGN logo. Do you have a spam email account, I'll send you something.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood Institute

As you are reviewing the article, I think it's best to tell you that I've done all four points: conception, header change, rationales, citations for characters. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Internship

I have an internship that starts this morning (got up at 6:00 AM, it's now 6:51 AM), so I've been busy the past few days. I drove a 15.5-hour road trip from my home state to New Jersey (breaking up the trip over the course of three days), and I've been settling in at an apartment complex with interns. I've been meeting them and getting to know the area, so I haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. I'm sure, though, that things will slow down, and I'll find myself coming back to work on articles in due time. Don't worry, I'm not fading quite yet! Also, I hope to see POTC 3 captioned in this area, I found some available theaters already, so I'll check it out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:My Wiki-sense is tingling

I'll put Smallville on the backburner for now. I'm still waiting for more people to actually discuss that merger for the indy ep articles. Oh, if you could also voice your opinion on the new season formats in the subsection that would be great. I realized that I left myself open for challenge because I was only really requesting opinion about the merger, and not the new format. That happened to us with Spidey 4, where we were doing one thing and someone said "sorry, didn't go through the proper channels with the other". Anyway, I'm in school all day today, but I'll try and get on it when I get off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where to next?

Don't know, I originally planned working on The Godfather series, but there is a user over there that is protecting those articles from any of my edits.... long story. Basically it's the first time I don't feel like arguing with someone. I'm considering either The Matrix or Indiana Jones series next. The Filmaker 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• (starts chanting) Indy! Indy! Indy! Indy! The Wookieepedian 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It kind of seems like a long way from now, at the moment, I may also work on the main Star Wars page. But I'm thinking I want to take a break from Star Wars. We'll see, on the one hand, The Matrix films need a lot of work, on the other hand, it'd be nice to work on something that didn't have a lot of controversy surrounding it. I'd also think that two editors on an article is better than one. But anyway, we'll see. :) The Filmaker 16:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New Simpsons Movie soundtrack info

I'm not blaming as you didn't add it, but the track listing is the same as the fake one that was near constantly added to the page a while back by the The UPN Vandal. I've seen it resurface on NoHomers.net recently, and then the Hollywood Reporter article came out. So what I mean is, I'm pretty sure that Absolute Punk just got the info from their or somewhere else, and it isn't true. I mean, how can the film possible have space for all of those songs and a Zimmer score when its only supposedly 90 minutes long? Gran² 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You can see for yourself if you like, its where I got the info for the Green Day single [3]. It mentions three things being released, which I took to mean the Zimmer score in two different forms, and the Green Day single, as if it was a soundtrack like the one recently added they would surely have mentioned it. So I don't think that this Fallout Boy, Obie Trice and others soundtrack is real. Gran² 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

300 FA nomination

I would be delighted to. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Mission accomplished (and when I say that, I actually mean it. :) ) -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bionicle 2

I improved the article per the GA review :) Judgesurreal777 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Completed your new notes too Judgesurreal777 19:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow!

I noticed your sandbox project about the fictional character; looks good so far. Just thought I'd give you the heads up, if you weren't aware -- Jack Sparrow was caricatured in Epic Movie (2007), something you could maybe use for the Popular culture section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind... the existing article should have more than enough popular culture references for you, just set up in a trivia format. I guess I was under the impression that this was something that didn't exist before. Should get some coffee before my pre-internship wiki-time... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Erik's comment and have already "watch"ed your page. It's coming a long quite nicely. I've finally finished all my book sources for the casting of the 12 odd men and the various design changes to his appearance. Now it's all copy editing for flow, and finding good pop culture information. I saw a couple things in your work, but I find that it's easier to get all your information into a particular section first before you worry about copy editing. Makes it easier, because you may end up copy editing something that will need it again and again, if you add more information to the section. Why do I like Jason? He's one of the first cinema characters that I was exposed to as a child, I grew up watching Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, all the famous horror/slasher films. I loved them. I can't really explain why, it wasn't like I ever (even at a young age) thought that they were real, or that it was anything more than goofy, bloody (pun intended) fun. I also like Howard the Duck, so my tastes vary a lot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Itchy and Scratchy, that's some good stuff. Yeah, like Jackson...or Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy. I like Saw too, but it doesn't have the nostalgia (sp) of those 80s slasher films. They aren't good pictures, they are just classic American entertainment. Gore never bothered me when I was a child. I do remember that the only time I have ever closed my eyes (or left the room) for any of those films when I was young, was for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It wasn't the gore (because there isn't any), it was the chainsaw. The chainsaw itself, literally freaked me out, because it was so loud and my imagination could come up with more horrible things than they showed (which was the intention of Hooper, when he opted to not show any real gore).

I'm back

Yeah, but it says wait three months to post it for review, and I was more ticked that Raul ignored my input (I might do it soon). Anyway, thanks for the welcome, and congratulations on Jurassic Park, and pretty soon E.T. too it looks like.--Dark Kubrick 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello! Just a friendly note. I notice that you don't always leave edit summaries for your edits. I would try to leave something, even if it's brief. I'd say this is more important for edits such as this, where 7,000 odd characters were removed. Of course, this was a good edit, but it probably would have been useful to say something like "shorten /copyed per WP:FICTION", to help newer users understand your changes. On a less altruistic side, percentage of edit summaries is something that some users will take into consideration in any RFA... Keep up the excellent work. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Webbing the slinger of great reviews

I finished most of the work for the criticism section. I kind of followed the Jaws set up, because an "Awards" section by itself would be small, and the awards it wins can be reflects by what critics thought of the film. I think you rarely see films win many awards (unless its just for visual effects) that were destroyed by the critics. Anyway, I had trouble with the "negative" part, because there are only 2 in the Cream of the Crop, and the others either won't pop up when you click their links or they just aren't that professional. But your thoughts are needed before I'd replace the section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm removing what was in the sandbox. I figure, we can get it to GA, and then worry about tweaking everything and finding more information for the FAC (whenever that happens).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is funny. I'm looking forward to reading that Jack Sparrow article when you are finished.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, get that stuff nominated at the right time, don't want another E.T on our hands, where it goes down to the wire. Anyway, I'll read through it once I've had a chance to go see the third film. I don't want to ruin anything, then again, I haven't seen it yet so that concern isn't that tremendous.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

300 edits

The removal of the the Daryaee statements does seem to be following consensus, which it seems you were a part of. Have you changed your mind on the topic? I was simply backing your play, but now that Nottheman...is asking what's up, I guess I am wondering as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to get a response to my question, as the fellow reverting in 300 may have been reverted without cause. If you could get back to me about this, I would appreciate it. To recap, the user was removing the Daryaee statements that you, I and t least three other editors argued to remove entirely. As the article is prepping for FA review, I would like to get his matter resolved as quickly as possible. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So, your opinion has changed since this post? I'm not married to removing or keeping the comments, but there seems to be substantial reasoning to remove him completely. I've already removed two other, smaller references to his work (he was over-quoted; all the other reviewers/commentators only got one reference). Perhaps instead of a complete removal (which is favored), there might be some small value to his comments somewhere inthe article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So, was the diff relating to the additional comments, or the comments completely? It was my impression that you were advocating their removal entirely. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, so you were simply advocating the removal of the multiple commentaries, not the large block of statements? Just making sure we are on the same page here. The fella was acting on what he thought was a consensus that you agreed with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

...and btw, I got the comment PotC:WE. I think my brain, if licked, would taste like mangoes or jackfruit. Either that, or just another brain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Raptor Red

Hi, you recently passed Raptor Red, and the main image is missing a fair use rationale. Could you please leave a message on the talk page for the editors to add one to meet the GA criteria? Thanks and keep up the good work with the reviews! --Nehrams2020 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Crappy PotC template

Well I am sorry that you feel that way and I'm sure you could have come up with a better descriptive word for it. Many character templates from series' have this format! Example...Harry Potter, ect. You're tastes are also crappy.

User Talk: Hpfan1

That infobox for Sparrow, and I guess the rest of the film people contains things it shouldn't. Eye and hair color is strictly in-universe and has no bearing on the creation of the character. It isn't like Jabba the Hutt's size, which is part of his characteristics. Also, you shouldn't have "gender" for a character whose gender is obvious. "Obvious" things do not need a place in an infobox. This is a fictional character. The fact that he's white is obvious, you can see that in the picture. "Bounty"? What relevant encyclopedic information does that hold? I'm coming to you because I'm not sure where to bring this up and Hp's comments got me to look at the characters infobox. I'm basing this on what's written at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes, where it talks about "in-universe" information that is "essential" to understanding the character in context to overall fiction. I'm bringing this up because it would be things I would look at during an FAC for a fictional character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just reading your contribs and apparently you shared the same concerns. Didn't notice that initially.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart edits

Slow-going. I've read tons of the reviews (I am constantly amazed by how many people can muster up something to say about the movie), and know what i want to say in Production and Awards, but work has been kicking my butt across the room, up the wall, across the ceiling and down the other wall. Disaster Management gets crazy at seasonal changes. I am forcing myself to take a day off on Friday to take care of a number of errands that have been piling up around the house, and I am including writing the Braveheart article to be one of them.

Within the article, I have been getting input (some of it actually quite helpful) from who I am guessing is an actual Scot; most of his other contributions are about Scottish sports and the like. There is another guy who has recreated a separate page for historical inaccuracies (the link to it being in the Lead, which is incorrect, I know); it runs the same problem of being OR by Synthesis, and I am thinking it will eventually get axed yet again. However, i will cross that bridge when I come to it. I am determined to learn the ropes of article fixing through this; watching how you, Big and Erik do that is quite valuable to me in terms of averting disasters here and there.

More than you wanted to know, eh? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Fountain of Youth

I have changed the speedy deletion tag back to a prod, because "No proof" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Hoaxes are typically difficult to speedy delete away, as there's a gray area between "believable hoax" and "patent nonsense". Prods may work best, but if the prod is contested it would have to go to AfD. Leebo ^T/C 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Milton Keynes

Hi. You recently reviewed History of Milton Keynes and failed it's Good Article Nomination. However, you only highlighted one area of weakness. If it was only the one area, wouldn't it have been better to place the article on hold? Alternatively, if there is more than one area in which it fails, could you please give more detailed review comments? Regards, Severo^TC 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, a GA can be on hold for 7 days which really isn't that short a time to put citations in just one section. What's more, whilst you said the section was uncited, it does have 3 citations—vastly undercited I will agree—but not uncited. Finally, was there anything else wrong with the article which will prevent it from making GA when it is renominated after the section being cited? Regards, Severo^TC 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your review. For future reviews, so that the people working on the articles that you review aren't as confused as I was today, perhaps you could read through Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and give more extensive feedback. History of Milton Keynes will be renominated within the week :). -Severo^TC 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)