User talk:Wildonrio

1

Image copyright problem with Image:Deja Vu Timeline.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:Deja Vu Timeline.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deja Vu

Wildonrio, although I put your theory back into the article, it was as I feared; it, in its way, will inhibit a promotion on the quality scale. However, all it needs is a trim down to size. I am not familiar with the theory entirely, and do not want to remove vital information from the article. However, since I am itching for progress on this, I might try if you do respond. I could use your help in this sector. Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Nehrams2020 suggested.

". For the current state of the section, if it is to remain being included, then it needs to be trimmed down (it is currently longer/same length as the plot itself). There is a lot of redundancy in the last three sections, and there should be a simpler way to correct this. I'd recommend not even describing the four timelines in full detail, as a brief summary along with mention of the writer's take on the different timelines should be sufficient (especially since the image already replicates the information in the section)."

--Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, although I think Rossio and Marsilii's take on the theory could be added as a seperate subsection also. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think quotation is necessary, but based on Nehram's observations, only brief summary of what their comments of the theory should be sufficient. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, and for your theory in general. I think this may aid its passage through the good article nomination process, and if the film ever makes it to featured article status, the film may very well receive the exposure that you are searching for. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Well, I don't think the section is necessary; we could put the information in with the Reception section. It would seem more clear in that area.

And Scott really dropped the f-bomb on the writers like that? That is interesting. I always perceived the occupation of movie-making as a sterile business, but I guess I was wrong. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 00:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, Wildonrio. I got your message.

In my opinion, I think it might better clean up the article. However, I still think that editors might challenge the article and put it up for deletion for a possible violation of the "significant coverage" criterion in the general notability guideline (click the inline reference link given to see examples). Based on your argument to reinstate the article, though, I think that the references provided may not be a real problem.

It's worth a try, but maybe a second opinion from a different editor is a better methodology that will solve the problems present. I'll contact Nehrams again. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 07:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nehrams contacted me...he says that it wouldn't stand very well on its own, due in part to how undocumented it is. He said that people could bring it down on basis of not having enough reliable sources. In essense, it would be a permastub; he instead suggested work on other sections in the article. You can see the analysis on the bottom of the section linked here. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 14:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap...If you happen to drop by, you should know that the article's been caught in a snag. That snag is the timeline theory. If you can get back to me by tomorrow, please, we might be able to work something out. Until then, I'm going to move it to your talk page; it is in hidden text. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only solution I can find is if you talk to Marsilii and Rossio and conform what you have written to their standards. This might have passed with the article, but the biggest reason it didn't was because the writers disagreed with what you put up on several points. This kills, and I truly don't know what to say. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 16:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deja Vu for Good Article status

I think it's ready. I'm going to nominate it--I just wanted to notify you of the fact. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 07:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Films and directors section

Nice work, especially with all the digging for references. I'm sorry about dropping off the grid for the past few days. Thanks for giving me the heads up. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 03:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe he just accepts the fact...I dunno, I don't think there really is any way to see what he thinks; if that comes up in GA, I think that argument works well enough. If that's all that can be found, then that's all that can be found. We could just tone the section down so it comes a bit closer to a neutral point of view. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Not On Board

Don't worry about it! I understand you are a new user, and are trying to help improve the article. Thanks for the help! :) CTJF83Talk 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I must have just reverted all your edits to bullet form, not realizing you added other information. Go ahead and readd it, with no reverts from me. I'd change "The song that plays while Peter is defending his stupid actions at the airport to Lois" to "The song that plays while Peter and Lois are at the airport....". The "defending his stupid actions", just doesn't seem right to me, as far as Wikipedia guidelines go, although that is what he was doing. CTJF83Talk 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I linked you to where it said paragraphs are preferred. You can propose anything you want (propose please! not just changing), but I know the major Family Guy editors, and they won't agree to it. If you look at all of my The Simpsons Good Articles on my user page list, and all of Qst's Family Guy good articles (at the top of his user page), you will see they are all in paragraph form. I hate to tell you this too, but after a week or two, and once we get references for the cultural references, a bunch of them, and all the unsourced ones will be removed. So, if you want to propose a change to bullets, instead of paragraph form, do it here. CTJF83Talk 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you the one that put it up in the plot section to begin with? CTJF83Talk 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wildonrio, I just reverted a couple of edits you made and wanted to explain why. The bits you added about Planes et al and helium rings is mentioned in the plot section of the article. Whenever possible, things like this should be covered there, rather than in a catch-all section like "Cultural references", as some argue that those types of sections don't belong on Wikipedia. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a message. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look at it in like 5 hours when I get back. Probably not though, we try not to have a bunch of random useless references. CTJF83Talk 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President-elect

I tried to clean up that section to make it a little less confusing. Please feel free to edit it further or comment on the talk page if you think it could use further improvement. Sorry for the confusion. Robert K S (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick note

removing the "exportable to GH5" from Band Hero's list was fine to just "exportable", but just a comment on your rationale: "exports" are those that go out, "imports" are those that go in. so "exportable to GH5" is technically correct. No biggie, just a note. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]