User talk:Crumbsucker/archive 1

Violation of 3RR

Please stop with your constant reverting to previous versions of articles. You are in violation of the Three-revert_rule, making three or more reversions to the same article within 24 hours. Your most recent revision to the Adventures in Babysitting article (and its associated articles) completely dismissed the added citations you requested, demonstrating that you are more interested in starting an Edit War with your revisions, than actually creating a more positive Wikipedia community. You completely ignored attempts to respond constructively to revisions made in light of your previous article reversions, dismissing the compromise as the efforts of a sockpuppet.

I suggest you brush up on your Wikipedia Etiquette, and Wikipedia's Harassment Policy.

I have documented all of your actions regarding this article and others related to it, and if you continue these multiple instances of abusive behavior in violation of the Three-revert_rule you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Adventures in Babysitting

Suggestions taken under advisement, thank you. Sources now cited and newsworthiness explained. And per your suggestions that it's about promotion--well, every link promotes something, and in this case it is RELEVANT information! And everyone who disagrees with you cannot be a sockpuppet (as you so often like to accuse people of). This page alone suggests that you piss people off to where at least half of your "enemies-in-editing" must be real!

Kristin Kreuk

Kristin Kreuk is considered a sex symbol among her fans. Why can't I write that in the article? What have I done to get reported? Why does everything have to be your way? (Oh behaVa 14:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

1. You put that statement ("considered a sex symbol because of their unusual Eurasian looks or dimples") on several people's pages, including a 13 year-old's. You clearly have an agenda when you go on the pages of several people just to insert that POV statement and use several screennames to do it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or fanpage.

2. It is your opinion, not a fact, that she and the other actors are sex symbols because they are Eurasian or have dimples. And there is no way to factually say that they are sex symbols to all of her fans either because of those reasons (you would have to poll them all and that is impossible). Even if most did think this, it is still a POV statement and not relevant to an encyclopedia (which is what wikipedia is). Most fans of a particular actor think that actor is highly actractive, but it would be silly to insert this in every person's page.

It's true that not everyone agrees who is a sex symbol, but I imagine it requires a higher status in pop culture than a B-list WB TV actor and requires being known to have a sexually-charged persona, image, or body of work (Madonna, Britney Spears, or Marilyn Monroe for example).Crumbsucker 22:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one that is bothered. No one else cares if she is a sex symbol or not. So why do you care? In the next 10 years, she will probably be considered a sex symbol anyway. (Oh behaVa 21:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC))

That's not true, you have been reverted by several people. Look at the histories. That includes the stuff you did using your previous screen names and on other people pages, like Michielle Branch and Kelly Hu. You might as well stop, because you'll be reverted again and again until you do.Crumbsucker 22:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Life After Death

Good work on removing the hyperbole/POV stuff in the Life After Death article. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

All edits I have made have been 100% factual and I would be glad to provide any sources. Please do not revert my edits unless you have counter-sources or atleast a valid excuse. Stanley Ipkiss 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, don't make slanderous accusations. I have not vandalized any article. Stanley Ipkiss 20:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Cigammagicwizard

I've noticed that this user has edited his own talk page and has deleted both your and my comments. If you have raised, or want to raise, a complaint about them I'll join you in it. They called me stupid a while back. Charming. (Pally01 19:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

Stop reverting mine

cigammagicwizard. And who got most of the information? I did. I work for Scary Movie 4.

I don't believe you. You still need a source. Crumbsucker 02:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been yet. But I do really work for SM4. Believe me. I don't want to fight anymore. -cigammagicwizard

2 more images...

Can you also correct these two Scary Movie 4 pictures?:

• [1]
• [2]

I really don't know how to do this. I added it on the page for SM4.Cigammagicwizard 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Scary Movie 4

• Can you tell Pally01 to stop editing SM4. She's changing the official poster to the teaser one. And I stop putting the budget. Look at Scary Movie 4. It looks better. Look at it before you change it. Cigammagicwizard 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Aniston

That looks fine to me. I really have no big problem with the whole Vince Vaughn paragraph, since it was basically next-to-confirmed, or at least written about, by every media source, but editors keep removing it on ethical grounds, and I think they're probably right. JackO'Lantern 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mandy moore

I am reverting it back to it's best version. I already proved with a source that her album sales exceeds over 6 million. I can remove the approximation but It's sourced. Parys 08:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First off it's an estimation and futhermore probually more. Secondly, that is the latest picture of Moore. Don't like too bad. It's current.

Stop vandalizing the Mandy Moore article. It has sourced info. Don't just remove what you don't personally don't like. Thank you `Parys 20:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you are just a vandal. It is from GQ i have sourced it already. Revert Mandy's article for bs again and i will report you. Parys 02:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually YOU don't know how to use it. The Coverage image is copywritten just to let you know. You are merely vandalizing, and i am so going to report you ta ta, Parys 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not when it is MY talk page. Parys

Katie Holmes

Greetings, Crumbsucker!
Thanks for going through and adding web-links to several of the articles I cited in my notes. I need to go look at Roger Ebert's site (rogerebert.com I think is the link) and add links to the rest of his reviews. But my computer is very slow for some reason today; a task for another day. Again, I thank you for your help. By the way, did you vote on the peer review for the article? It is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice vandal fighting

Crumbsucker -- WikipediaWriter, WikipediaEditor, all around vandal-ass kicker. ;) Good work. Here's a mini-barnstar × -feydey 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rosario Dawson Copyvio

Thanks for the information, I'll be sure to look around more carefully anytime I have doubts. --Impaciente 03:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Portia de Rossi

Regarding: "De Rossi is openly gay." This is a NPV fact. On many occasions, Portia de Rossi has voluntarily chosen to make the fact that she is gay a defining part of her public persona.

same sex marriage

I cannot find any reference to that poll on the newspoll website. Are you sure that information is reliable? Xtra 01:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK?

What's with the vandalism warnings on my page? It looks like vandalism on your part. Stop it unless you wish to be blocked. Kalmia 19:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How is this: "Richard Simmons is pretty ghey for her." (your edit to Barbra Streisand) not vandalism, Kalmia? Good AfDing for Ellen Degenerate, Crumbsucker. Hynca-Hooley 01:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking

On 01-Mar, you blanked Ellen Degenerate. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If you believe the page should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 00:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Madea's Family Reunion

I'm not giving out opinions - I am merely pointing out the numbers involved and the historical value that a film of this type has. It is an independent film, made outside of the Big 6 Hollywood studio system, and it has the type of numbers only studio films, with their overinflated budget and marketing, usually produces (although with this production and also Saw II being so popular, Lions Gate Films may soon make it the big 7). The Passion of the Christ (produced by Mel Gibson) and My Big Fat Greek Wedding (produced by Tom Hanks) are the the only other 2 independent films that will beat current projections for Tyler Perry's latest installment of his 7 picture deal from LGF. This is an online encyclopedia. Part of its mission is to display the historical perspective of events that may not be apparent to future generations. In that regard, a picture that plays so heavily into a socio-economic minority but has success usually only sustained by its majority counterparts, is something that should be worth noting in any medium.

And what do you have against justified text? It's there and available. Printers used to have to do this by hand, but HTML has provided a way do it in a fraction of the time. I love how you re-edited the page in question with the information and links I provided.

Additionally, your current edit listed this film as LGF's 2nd highest opening, but that could change. You should be writing to have the text always current without changes being made to the vernacular ("to date" would have been proper wording in this instance). I didn't originally list LGF because it's really not a financial concern, but rather a market observation - it doesn't belong in this section.

Furthermore, this isn't my opinion. I read tons every day and these critics I'm talking about are on Variety, USA Today, etc. These are actual sources, so don't go deleting everything just because you feel like it.

If you're going to keep revising the page every time, at the very least keep the updated numbers that I put in there instead of a wholesale deletion. That's not being professional - that's being just vindictive.

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Image:Philip Seymour Hoffman.jpg

Hi, I noticed in your edit summary for Philip Seymour Hoffman you questioned whether or not this image qualifies as fair use. What exactly do you think might be the problem with it? It seems like a perfectly suitable publicity photo to me. Just wondering. Thanks, Thebogusman 07:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscar templates

I put them on the top in the same spirit as the olympic medalists have the medals at the beginning. But I am opened for a discussion, where shall we put it? Wait with reverting for a while, ok? Regards, --Tone 16:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly

Thank you for creating a separate page from the controversies section! That should have been done long ago as it detracted terribly from the encyclopedic nature of the main article. A separate playground for the endless ranting is a good step. --Kbh3^rdtalk 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscar boxes

Your thoughts appreciated Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Oscar_templates. Regards Arniep 01:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete cite article links

Please do not delete external links on articles as you did on February 20, 2006 to the John Paulk article. The edit has been changed. The incident involving Paulk was an important part of his life, and impacted his influence with Exodus International. If the link is no longer accessible, please note this and another Wikipedian can look the source up and properly cite it as a hard copy article. Stude62 13:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the broken link. Stude62 14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I Wanna Be Annoyed

Look it boils down to this, you don't want to face the fact that I Wanna Be With You got numerous criticism. And it looks like the work was done for me. These aren't just random no name places. This is from MAJOR places, so if you don't like it... too bad. That's like me removing the Child Molestation section from Michael Jackson article. I don't like it, but it happen so deal. Parys 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No what's laughable is that you feel that you can remove things that you personally don't like and choose not to believe. Numerous sites state the very same thing i was about I Wanna Be With You MAJOR sites. You, see them, you revert it and hope it's unnoticed. Parys 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I'm having the same issue with this user. He doesn't like what's written and then gets it into his mind to revert it. Doesn't appear to listen to reason. Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Editors 08:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Madea's Family Reunion

Didn't mean you - I should have placed my note below MarcyU's (I'm convinced that the two IP addresses are hers). I appreciate what you're doing on the page. She's the one being a dick. Mhking 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for third party review, plus gone to the wikiquette area to ask for assistance; but with her picking multiple IPs to post from, I'm tempted to suggest that she's using sockpuppets to stay under the radar. For now, though, I'm going to leave it be -- let her hang herself. But thanks again! Mhking 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like she's at it again - having reverted the page (including her paragraph-justify tags) for at least a third time that I can count. I refuse to be baited into a violation of 3RR. Mhking 22:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't you just accept that other people agree with me? I guarantee that they're not sock puppets.

Reverting

I believe you reverted my stuff first. You are in the majority, though. It appears that everyone wants to crucify this lady, and I don't know why. She may have upset some powerful people, but I don't think she warrants this sort of hatred. Wallie 17:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. If it is your intention to lessen the attacks, then at last I have an ally. Lets work together. Wallie 17:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

RMS

Well, no, he was not officially banned. But yeah, he has about a hundred different anon IPs he edits from (I'm sure you've seen Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com). He usually edits with whichever POV. Even if they banned him, he would still come back, so I guess that's why they never tried. Otherwise, people mostly just tolerate him, or revert. JackO'Lantern 06:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

btw, I noticed you worked on one of my favorite (if not the favorite) RMS125 edits, June Lockhart. You can't imagine for how long I stared, open-mouthed , at the screen, after reading his addition "June Lockhart has never remarried, presumably in accordance with her presumably Catholic religious beliefs." JackO'Lantern 07:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

my mistake

I did it at only a couple pages. Feel free to revert em, and thanks for telling me the rule. Peace, --Urthogie 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Billie Joe Armstrong Quote

I am curious as to know why you removed the quotation template from the Billie Joe Armstrong article and stated it was POV, why was it you did this? A couple articles (words) rarely makes an article biased, and a template, well, that's just impossible. The Wikipedia editors didn't create the QUOTATION template for nothing, and it's for exactly what it states. So, I restored it. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for spotting and undoing the vandalism on the John Wheeler-Bennett page. A.S. Brown 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

Don't call yourself a liberal. Censors don't get to apply that label to themselves.

If you think you are going to censor any edit of mine you do not personally like, for no valid reason whatever, just by using some mindless boilerplate (a la Demiurge); you are sadly mistaken. Brandubh Blathmac 01:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com for some background information on this user. Demiurge 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be very good at keeping dossiers on people, Demiurge. I would hate to get on the wrong side of you. Wallie 18:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for reverting me

Thanks for reverting my edit to Black people. I remember doing that, and I remember having a "this makes sense" feeling in my head at the time... but in fact it did not make sense, and I can't figure out why I did it. --Allen 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for reverting me 2

Thanks for reverting my edit too. NOT! I have come to expect little else from your good self. Wallie 18:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"out-of-control picture"

LOL! I can see it now... "attack of the giant photo".... JackO'Lantern 22:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Alba

I believe I must have gotten it from this site, a website of Itlian actresses - [3] but not necessarily - It says "Alba's ancestry on her Mother's side: her Grandfather is Danish, her Grandmother is half French, English and Italian; on her Father's side: Mexican, Indian and Spanish." Now that I'm looking for it - I found the same thing here too [4]. And in a couple of sites on this search [5] (the ones that didn't come from Wikipedia, that is). Either I or a site I was looking it must have made the mistake between "Irish" and "English", so I'll change that. JackO'Lantern 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Edward Norton

I've no qualms with categorising him as a film actor, as that certainly is what he is best known for, but might it be possible to keep him in the more general category? He certainly began his professional career on the NY stage, and even won an off-broadway award since his film career, so he certainly hasn't worked exclusively in film. Amo 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

FYI...This article is up for vote on AFD. OSU80 01:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Alexis Fields

I guess I must ask directly. What is wrong with saying Alexis Fields is an African American actress? Isn't that what she is? Donmega60645 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, on both her sister's and her mother's pages, their ethnicity is listed. Hmmm... Donmega60645 14:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've misjudged you. I looked up the policy and you're right. I'm gonna join the struggle. I've already fixed John Henton's page and will fix any others I come across. Equality for all (I'm typing this with my left hand and my right fist raised in the air)! Donmega60645 14:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Denzel.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Denzel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

—Arniep 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kloken.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kloken.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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.

Religion of Jack Nicholson

Thanks for providing a religious reference and source for Jack Nicholson's religion (or lack thereof). I've been waiting for one a long time, as I have previously removed the atheists category because of lacking sources. I was about to do it again before I saw your reference to Vanity Fair. Aaрон Кинни (t) 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"How Many Times, How Many Lies"

Hi, I do not have a link/source that says that "How Many Times, How Many Lies" will be the next single, but I wasn't the one who added that. I just was on the "Buttons", and noticed "Wait a Minute" to be the next single, and when i clicked on it, suddenly "How Many Times, How Many Lies", was there. So I thought the song may actually be the next single, but the person who added that information forgot to change the "Wait a Minute" name to "How Many Times, How Many Lies". So I did that for that person. For the rest I don't have anything to do with it all. I just renamed the article. -- Luigi-ish 09:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Accents

No, this is not vandalism, and i'm not going to talk about people's ignorance about accents even in their mother tongue, in any case, that's the correct accentuation according to Castillian and French rules, and, besides some of those people are dead and those rules change some times. If you don't agree, it's OK but as i told him, you have to redirect any article with an accent to an article without accents.

BESIDES, we can have some problems later, as the problem we found with Antonio de la Gándara, it was accentuated in the Castillian wikipedia, but not in the rest of Wikipedias, so the bots didn't fnd it and it was twice once, ay ay ay

If i wanted to be vandalic, i'd do more interasting things, don't you think?

Gaudio 10:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to follow those rules with all the articles, and you're not doing that, but well, it's up to you, if you don't want me to make more contributions you tell me and that's all, you don't have to talk to me about mysterious rules Gaudio 11:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not damaging people's editions, to the contrary, if you know nothing about Spanish accentuation, it's not my fault, if you guys want to block me, just block me and stop saying stupid things about my behaviour. I didn't find a place where it's said it's forbidden to correct people's orthography. I told you there were some limitations about accents and you can find some family names without accents, when they have.

I'm afraid the only thing that you know how to do is exposing your narcisisms and all the things you KNOW, but there are lots of people who know things.Gaudio 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were, none of them told me to stop in that case, actually no one but you and Doc (i don't know if he is). There is always this remote possibility that people do not how to use accent in a language, you must trust my intentions, i know Castillian, i even redirect articles with accents to articles without accents, for instance Gloria Estefan or Emilio Estefan, can't remember. I also want this to work. If you want me to put references about Spanish accents, you tell meGaudio 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing? I think your behaviour must be considered vandalism, you're rederecting even articles with accents of people who use them, you have to be right, right? No one but you corrected my redirectings or movings or whatever, to the contrary, they have used them to redirect or move other articles, i have to be very sure to do what i do, it's a shame you do it because you're stubborn or... I remind you that this is not only a project for the USAGaudio 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alina Maria Hernandez

Well, some, i have no time to review all my changes, i'm busy, i saw this was one of the latest ones, you can see her name as Hernández in the internet database, and María is written like that to separate the diphthong, but as i told you the only thing that you have to do is following the Castillian accentuation rules, they can realise later even, and they can change it or whatever, and as i told you again there was a limitation about typewritings.

You take care

Ciao Gaudio 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Pirates

Look, Boxofficemojo.com is hardly reputable anymore. Anyone that registers can add to their site, and they usually just post the initial reports that are released and never update their information, and provide no sources. The site you provided even says they get their information from BOM.com. The-numbers.com provides sources and is usually closer in accuracy than BOM. BOM still lists Superman Returns with a 260 million dollar budget, yet Singer has already debunked this. BOM also has Pirates 3 budget at 225 million (the same number as Dead Man's Chest, ironically) and yet the movie is still being filmed. If it's still being filmed then the budget could be more or less than that. Please stop using BOM.com as your source, they have already been deemed unreliable on other film information, no need to think they would start being so now. No one else is reporting this 225 million number. Bignole 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

They didn't get those from the studios. Most said "the studios aren't willing to admit it", which is usually a sure sign that it isn't true. They said the same thing about the 260 million Superman budget, and it turned out that it was right, because they didn't spend that much. Your first source lists "the-numbers.com" as it's source, but that budget isn't what is listed there. None have any link to an actual interview where a studio head said so, or the director for that matter. The closests was "they finally admitted it", but why didn't they link it? They are not reputable. They cannot prove what they are saying. Why is BOM.com listing Pirates 3 as even having a budget, no less that it is having a budget exactly like the second film? Bignole 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If BOM gets their stuff from direct quotes from movie heads why do they not name their movie heads? Why is Superman Returns still at 260 million dollars? Because they are fan edited, all you have to do is register. The-numbers.com usually lists their sources (which I have sent an email to them asking where they got their Dead Man's Chest info). The sites you provided either cited BOM or indirectly said it was the studio, with no other link to an actual interview. I think the best thing to do is to remove the budget altogether until verifiable sources can be made. That means contacting BOM.com and the-numbers (which I have already done) and requesting their sources for their information, and then following their sources to see if they were just relaying information or if it was an actual interview. Also, note the date of the interview, because BOM.com is notorious for using outdated information, which is why Superman is still at 260 million, because that was what was rumoured a long time ago. For specific information, such as budget numbers, I think we need actual interview cites, and not hearsay (whether it's hearsay from BOM or Numbers or any other site), we need actual interview dialogue. That way we can be accurate in what we post. Bignole 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BOM has the same thing. It has incorrect budgets. As I have already stated, it has Superman at 260 million, and Pirates 3 at 225 million. They haven't even finished the movie, yet BOM has a budget listed for it. That is why I just suggested the above to you. It doesn't take much to find the sources. BOM.com and The-numbers both rely on fan information to be provided to them. They have a section that says to email them if they have incorrect information. It seems to me that both have incorrect information for more than one movie. Bignole 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I just got this email from the guy over at the-numbers.com, though I would share it.

Hi Tim,

We're looking in to this one. Buena Vista originally announced a production budget of $300 million for Pirates 2 and 3. There were subsequent news reports that BV "spent $450 million" making the movies, but it's not clear if that total includes print and advertising budgets.

I've seen the $450 million number thrown around a lot recently, including in usually reliable trade magazines (Variety quoted the number the other day). But I can't find any analysis of that figure.

If you see anything, please let me know. Likewise, I'll send you information if I find something more specific. For now, I'm sticking with $150 million, although I'm pretty sure the actual cost was higher... just not $225 million.

Thanks, Bruce

Bruce Nash The Numbers - Box Office Data, Movie Stars, Idle Speculation www.the-numbers.com Bignole 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If that was the case then the Superman Returns budget would be closer to 270 million. Either way, it is incorrect because you cannot include the money spent from a failed project with the money spent on one that didn't fail. In that respect they are wrong, and wrong in their number. Second, studios don't write a check for two movies that are not filmed together. Why? Because if the second movie does well they want to spend a little more. The LOTR for example has different budgets for each film, and they did get one big check. But they didn't spend the same for each movie. If you simple divide some number then you are saying that both movies are exactly the same, when certain shots costs more. Since they are filming P3 now, how can they already have a budget fixed? What everyone is doing is using information that was supposed earlier in the production of Pirates 2 and not following up after the movie was completed. Have you at least email BOM to find out who their source is? You keep saying "they use studio heads" but you haven't provided any example of who they talked to. I can say I talked to a studio head, but if I don't provide an actual source then it doesn't mean jack (no pun intended). If this is the most "reputable website" on said information why do they incorrectly label things? If you aren't going to find out if they even have sources then I will. Bignole 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. Why do this still have Superman wrong, and Pirates 3. You can't have a budget fixed for a movie that isn't complete. The-numbers guy said his was probably low but that they didn't think either was 225 million. Variety and Newsweek were also among the magazines that incorrectly guessed Superman's budget. You are acting like them and BOM are never wrong. Where are their sources, why can't they provide them? Have you even emailed to ask? Probably not, because you know they won't give you any. How do I know that, because I emailed them already and it's been 5 days an no response. If they are so professional you think answering a little email would be simple, especially when it deals with sources. The reason it doesn't make sense is because for one, studios usually only write one check if you film everything together, which they didn't. When they do, it's hardly a split down the middle. You are saying that they just reach 225 million and someone goes "up, we have to stop, we reached the halfway point of our money and can't spend anymore", or "we've only spent 200 million and we're done shooting, quick spend 25 million". I don't think so. LOTR had one budget and those movies spent different amounts. What happened is the studio probably said that the budget would be around 450 million for the two movies and never elaborated on it, because they weren't made yet. From there everyone simply just divided the budget because that was all they knew. 150 million isn't correct either, and probably should be removed, but there is no source for the 225 million. Do you actually have a source that uses an interview (a recent one, after the movie was released). You can't judge a budget till the end, point in case would be Superman. The budget was supposed to be 184 million (which some people reported), but it went over budget and it didn't get publicized until after the films release, by the director. You can't just put up any willy nilly number and never go back and check it. Bignole

Nelly Furtado

She said she was attracted to women and found them sexy thought everyone was basically gay. Somewhere in there she is saying she is bisexual (not in itself at all an unusual thing). Look at the headlines if you do a google news search: it seems you are out on a limb hermeneutically. It should be in the article. Part of why she said it, I guess, is to further tolerance - to declare solidarity with gay fans. It is part of her biography too, don't you think? Pliny 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. If you want to rephrase it, do, but it is still a significant part of her career history. Fans are always the last to accept any piece of information as true - in general they seem to prefer 'stars' to be anonymous Pliny 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot get to consensus and think that some one ele's opinion can also be important i don't know what you are doing making articles for wikipediaGaudio 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, try to dialogue

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

PiousPratt 02:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)PiousPratt

Edit wars

The pages that you and User:PiousPratt are involved in have been protected. Please discuss this with the user and notify myself or another admin when you've reached an agreement. You may use WP:RFC if you would like community feedback on this issue. --Chris (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please try to avoid such situations in the future. Work out the issues with another user in a civil manner instead of edit warring. If the other user continues to be difficult, involve another user or an admin before the problem escalates. --Chris (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PSP Greatest Hits

Why did you delete the whole "Greatest Hits" Page? Do you know how long it took me to MAKE THAT PAGE!!!--Ideal4real 08:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, do you want to justify doing that TWICE, please? --C civiero 00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)