User talk:Erik/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Erik. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Considering it seems Spielberg, Lucas and Ford are all happy with the script and ready to shoot the film in June, I think it's time to overhaul the article with a large Development section ala Watchmen. I'll see what I can dig up on SpielbergFilms.com. too. Btw, hope you had a good new year, I certainly look forward to seeing The Fountain to see how I can help with the current article. Wiki-newbie 10:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

With the date links, I've been doing that with the date areas of the template, but if I do it with the external link it comes out silly.[[2006-01-07]] Wiki-newbie 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, date wikilink. For example, my preference which is default and linking the accessdates comes out like this:[[2006-01-07]] Wiki-newbie 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my opinion? If you decide to remove it again then tell me, where can I add my opinion? Morris Munroe 15:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit, for the record. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I'd like to give my opinion somewhere else. Are there also other pages where I can advance them my opinion except Wikipedia? Morris Munroe 18:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is solved. Well, thanks for your advices. Morris Munroe 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why you'd consider iMDB.com an unreliable source for upcoming films? Isn't that the foremost site when it comes to such information? Afterall, Wikipedia does have direct links to iMDB from each of its movie articles... Ackatsis 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Thanks for getting back to me. Ackatsis 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First, where ya been? I haven't seen any edits with your name attached in awhile, minus the occassional reversion of vandalization. I finally took the time to go look this place up (and save it as a link). That's pretty cool. Sometimes it takes a bit to sift through all the crap that really isn't about what you are searching for. Have you come across any information that had a web link attached to it? I mostly find a lot of older (non-internet) sources. Are you searching by specifics, or just typing in the film name? Bignole 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that's completely understandable. My female company is always around so it isn't like I don't see her often (which is probably your case). Yeah, I just started my first class today as well. For one class it seemed like it would never end. Well, good luck in school. Bignole 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, do you know the page where you can request a user check. I have a anon that likes to use multiple IP addresses and he keeps reverting changes to the Wrong Turn 2 page, and removing {{fact}} tags. There is a registered user, HorrorFanatic that I believe is the real culprit and I can't remember where that page is where you can request a check. Bignole

Yeah, that's it. Thank you. I remember we had that done on the Spider-Man 3 page, but I couldn't find the link anywhere. Thanks again. Bignole 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The user was forgetting to cite today's press release. All done. Wiki-newbie 16:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In future maybe, but being a Future Film it can be basic. In future, if the special effects information overwhelms that of the Production section as background, then spin it off. Wiki-newbie 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

i told you,its on comingsoon.net, go there i dont know how to cite things. it looks way better after i re-did the page, to have all the seperate entries and things Johnpedia 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

shut up and get a life, you wikinazi. it says a lot about your social and personal life with the way you act here. feeling a little powerless in life are we? Johnpedia 05:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The other side of the discussion, for the record. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you head the news that Avatar may not be called "Avatar"? Fox is claiming they own the rights to that name and that they are planning a completely different film with Shyamalan at the helm (an adaptation of a television series I believe). Bignole 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's where I read it. It seems like it will (if contested) end up in court to see who truly owns the name. Tale of two Avatars Bignole 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome for the tip. I haven't really looked at the pages, I just remember seeing that you had it on your page and remember reading the story about Fox and Paramount. I've also address the "Highlander" AfD. I've primarily been sitting down and actually working on my Jason Voorhees page. Right now it's in a chaotic format so that I can easily edit things, and I'm hoping to order a couple "making of" books that will help me with a lot of information. I may be knocking at your door to see if you could read it after awhile. Heck, if you compare my version to the actual article Jason Voorhees, even in its chaos it looks better. I think I'm going to try and complete it and then use the "be bold" and just swap them out completely. Currently, the actual one is so horribly fancrufted that I don't want to try and work around the people. I don't know if you've ever come across a page where the only editors were ones that didn't really care about Wiki's guidelines, only about what "they" thought should be in the article. Bignole 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm hoping they don't gripe and start reverting. I've got no problems with expansions, so long as they are in the best interest of the article. What's clear, and all you have to do is read the article, is that people treat the Jason, Hannibal, Freddy, and other fictional characters as if they were real people. They write the article as if it was a biography. They have this "Character biography" or "Character history", completely with a in-universe tense like it was about someone you could walk up and shake hands with (granted I wouldn't advice that with Jason if it was). Bignole 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why cant I add my Avatar fan site link? It is not spam and it is a worthwile link. As far as I can see it doesnt conflict with Wiki rules. Erik, why does it keeping getting deleted? And how can I go about chaging this? I am new to Wiki, hoping you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthell (talk • contribs) 09:22, January 19, 2007

My site is not self promotion in any way in fact niether my name nor a picture appears. It is about freedom of information, the same as Wiki. It is non profit and is made purely to keep people in the loop when it comes to this film. It is the only central hub for Avatar. It is exaclty what should be found in an external link section. There is already a fan site on the James Cameron page. What makes this site better than another Avatar site is that there arent other Avatar sites, it has a 3D web page and it has a comprehensive collection of articles for further reading. If poeple want to see an independant site for Avatar they should be able to see it Wikis external links, thats why its there. The same for the Cameron page. Its all about learning and fun, something my site does. I would very mcuh like to post the link up again and feel it would be benefit Wiki readers. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthell (talk • contribs) 09:49, January 19, 2007

What does that stand for? Wiki-newbie 18:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted a "See also" section in the same grounds as Piotrus. I'm curious as to whether there is any actual citation of The Fountain in connection with transhumanism, as the "Fountain argument" at the transhumanism article seems to be originally titled. If there is available information, this should be integrated into the Interpretations section of The Fountain. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm probably the person most outspokenly opposed to See also sections, it was nonsensical of me to create one in The Fountain article so I support your deletion. To answer your question, the film has been extensively discussed by members of the WTA in their forums. --Loremaster 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just uploaded the Shooter poster at the exact minute you did. I saw that the article didn't have the picture and uploaded it and when I went back to the article, yours was already there so I put mine up for speedy deletion. Good job beating me to the punch. Keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm been getting some information on the DVD of late regarding the film's production in order to improve the article, and one thing I saw was a news clipping about an attempted version by Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall before 1995. You wouldn't mind finding something about that and dumping it into my reference repository?

On another level, I typed Access World News into Google and found a fair number. Is yours something special for college? Wiki-newbie 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find a thing on that site. Meh. Thanks for the cites, no url though, but unsurprising given the age of the articles. Wiki-newbie 13:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you check out this page. I'm thinking it may have jumped the gun, because they even have one link (that at the bottom of the article) says that the film has not been green-lit, and is still in the development phase. I'm curious as to what you think. Bignole 13:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had seen the page before, and I had heard plenty of rumors. But it was when I was re-reading the Diesel link that says he stepped down from the role, and at the bottom (right after they claimed Olyphant would be Agent 47) it said that the film wasn't even green-lit. I was thinking of nominating it for deletion based on current lack of notability since Wiki isn't a crystal ball and cannot determine if the movie will ever be green-lit (especially when the person Aint It Cool claims to be the lead goes on record saying he doens't know anything about it). Bignole 16:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I will initially place the "merge" tags on the respective places. It has relevant information, but nothing substantial to warrant its own page. Bignole 16:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I placed the merge tag and a quick reason why I think it needs to be moved. Bignole 16:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." No need for the sandbox, grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.169.175 (talk • contribs) 18:21, January 14, 2007

Above user is referring to this and this, as well as the warning, which is a template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, see User:Wizardry Dragon for some current discussion about the topic. Also I put my $0.02 in at the policy page. SERSeanCrane 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I directed User:Wjhonson to the page, he supported my reasoning on at the Darren Hayes discussion page.SERSeanCrane 06:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

much as I hate to say it, ask Chris Griswold. He and I don't get along, but he does care about the comics and film articles, and knows that you work hard on these pages. Try asking him, but use a couple of reference links to the situation, as well as diffs of the edits to remove. Include Raul654's replies to you about the whitelist. Chris is ethical enough that he'll at least give the situation a good looking over before refusing, if he decides to refuse. I doubt it though. It would be useful, however, to then have him post on each page, FF2 and Iron Man, that his is an Admin, and has placed the Myspace blogs listed on those two pages on the whitelist. ThuranX 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added you to the AMA I had requested before the great debate. [Check It Out] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs) 10:14, January 16, 2007

I know, I only did it because it was already Film and I minorly changed it. Sorry. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 January 17, 2007

I noticed on the article The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) you supported User:Dmoon1's reverts. If you check the revert history you will see that User:Mkdw changed the templates to use {{citebook}} and also added the missing publisher, year, and ISBN numbers. User:Dmoon1 reverted those edits also erasing that infomation. Please explain why you support the wiping of useful information, especially when listing the ISBN numbers is a recommended practice for featured articles? Langara College 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not very comfortable with it, Erik, and I will explain why. You are adopting a Defender pov which is not really conducive to neutrality. I would strongly recommend is that you read the book or see the movie before making an edit on a film. Otherwise, its like a person writing about the experience of piloting an airplane after having looked at a picture of one. We are not in the fair and balanced business; we are in the neutrality business. The two terms are not synonymous. :) Arcayne 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Waiting to see the film sounds lieka good idea. A lot of changes - if you are unsure of their neutrality or reliability of sources - should be discussed before making them. It is best to use the community to seek a common ground. That is the best way to filter out POV concerns, for the most part.Arcayne 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see the film or read the negative review? I see. Well, that must make you some sort of expert! 71.34.82.127 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Erik, I wanted to give you a heads up regarding User:Agent Cooper. Using the Username of Yllosubmarine, he's been removing virtually all of his AgentCooper comments fromthe CoM discussion area. I am not sure he is allowed to do this, and I know it is preserved int e archive, but it seems pretty dishonest. As well, Agent Cooper repeatedly blanks his user talk page when anyone comments on it, also a WP no-no. That seems pretty dishonest, too. And of course, there are the multiple accounts: Yllosubmarine, AgentCooper, 71.34.82.127 (you just received a comment from the last one). The editing process is difficult enough without dealing with sniping and paranoia from some imposter who is using multiple accounts to appear as a majority. I would like to request that the person be given some form of time-out.Arcayne 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, do you have any ketchup for this foot in my mouth? Lol! Apparently, I made a mistake in the edit and posting fury that went on after Cooper attempted to blank all of his posts. Yllosubmarine is not part of it, and in fact restored the deletions. The anonymous IP user is still Coop, though.Arcayne 23:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Erik, can we archive the posts in the CoM discussion header entitled Human Project (so as to clear out the excess and unnecessary text there)? Very little of the posting had to do with the header, and apparently some people are now saying that the boat was not fromt he Human Project. It might be addressable under that header, but without all that roiling nonsense.Arcayne 12:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've requested arbitration concerning the "no Catholics allowed" policy Arcayne has articulated. Agent Cooper 12:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're going to find out what it takes to change IMDb. I don't know if you've ever tried this, but I just submitted a change. All you have to do is go to "update" and start changing, and then just give a reason for the change. They will look into it and if they like it then they will change it. So, I submitted a change for the Superman Returns budget, which they list as 270 mill, and I provided that interview with Singer where he says 204 million. I'm curious as to what is going to happen. Bignole 23:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your scratching. I'm going to assume that you were using AWN, but I'm curious as to what key words you used in your search, because I have trouble finding usable info like that in all the search responses. Anyway, I'm still interested in cleaning it up, I've just been busy working on other stuff that I haven't gone back to those two films yet. I'd be happy to follow your lead, just let me know what you'd like me to focus on first. Bignole 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the first thing I'll do is the plot, because it will be the fastest to finish. I can check the documentaries on the DVD, but I don't have any "special" versions of the film, like those box (i mean box as in board game size) versions of Spider-Man that came out. Thanks for the other search engines, I'll check into those as well. I'll work on the plot in one of my sandboxes, so that I'm not doing multiple edits to it on the page, or causing edit conflicts. Bignole 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, shall I look for some better images? Currently there are two promotional posters in the plot section and they really don't belong there. The image of Mary Jane doesn't really best illustrate the whole film. What do you think? Bignole 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as I'm reworking the plot, I'll look for those first two images. Once I'm done I'll let you know so that you can read through it and make any suggestions for it. Bignole 18:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

One of your lastest additions said "layers of substance". I thought that was kinda vague. Do we know what the "substance" is? Bignole 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try and spit out that trimmed plot by tonight's end. Bignole 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made my first draft of the plot, you can read it HERE. Bignole 03:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's there now. I'm off to bed. I won't be able to do too much tomorrow (except early morning and evening), because I'll be in class from 9:30 to 6:30. Leave me anything you'd like me to look into, or work on, on my talk page. Night dude. Bignole 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to re-add some detail about Quest being the rival company, because it was removed earlier. It didn't make sense to not speak up them until Norman kills them all. Unless you want to remove them completely? I could give you a plot that's less than 600 words, but it will be extremely condensed. Bignole 12:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed a bit more (about 50 words). I was also thinking we should do something about the "Music" section. Right now it's basically all listing of the songs. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Ok, I'll work on it when I get out of school (if you haven't done so by then), and I'll try and see if I can dig up some Elfman interviews. Bignole 15:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To address the easiest question (format), I like it. I think pages should always follow the track of the film. It starts with some development, goes into production, post, actual film, merchandise afterward (albums and DVDs). I also like the cast first, because it allows for less detail of each character in the plot synopsis. As for the dating, I think that if you have subsections, it's ok to restart the dating. When you enter a new subsection you understand that you are reading about a new area of the film and you'll be starting from the beginning again. Now, if you choose the route of one section and no subs, then I'd try and keep everything in the same time frame, because that can be confusing. Also, you can have a subheader and not have a whole new section (bogging the table of contents). I don't know if you have ever used it before, but a ";" before a header will create that section header without having to worry about. I used it with the external links section of the Smallville page. It breaks up things into sections, but stays neat so that you know you have ventured into a division of the original topic. Bignole 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've started working on the "reaction" section in my sandbox as well. I'm going to try and use some of the key points illustrated in the reviews (i.e. positive review about the casting). I picked up several sources from that Google archive news that you suggested. Bignole 04:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to include it originally, but I felt that if we did it in the first scene we'd have to explain the context of it. Do you think we could add it to the end. Something like, As Peter leaves the funeral he remembers Uncle Ben's words, "with great power comes great responsibility," and begins to accept his destiny. .... or something like that? Do you think we should try and fit the first instance into the plot? (heading to class right now, will be back around 11:00)Bignole 13:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll read through it some more and tweak it in the sandbox first. It's down below 700 words now. Bignole 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, read through it now. I don't know how amiable others will be to the condensedness of this plot, but it's down to 612 words now. Let me know what you think, and feel free to edit it as you wish. Bignole 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben said his "insert quote" to address a concern that Peter was going to lose control of himself and start down a dark path. That was when Peter was like "you think I'm going to turn into a criminal?" or something to that affect. Do you want to continue to work on the plot, or shall we go ahead and insert that one? Bignole 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the sandbox talk page is fine. I left a reply to your original post, and start one on the awards discussion. Bignole 12:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I tried to find them but it's actually rather hard. I attempted to just load the DVD and print the screen, but even the film didn't give good "together" shots. I didn't think it would best illustrate their feelings for each other to have a picture of them when they were in high school, since they only share a handful of words together. I'm not sure, but what comes to mind would be the scene in the backyard, right before Flash picks up MJ. What do you think? Bignole

That's what I was talking about. I originally wanted the one of them together at the funeral, but by the time you get a view of them in the same frame it's when he is walking away and she is out of focus. I'll recheck the backyard scene, I skipped that in my image search. Chances are that it will be one where you see a front of one and the back/side of the other. But I'll look. Bignole 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should get an image of that Spider-Man poster that was removed because of the WTC image in his eye? It's sort of a collector's item, like the Jason poster that was removed because of potential lawsuit. Bignole 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's your call. the poster, or the trailer?? I don't think a high quality version of that banned trailer can be found. Bignole 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just working on it at the same time as you, but you worked it up much faster than I was doing it. lol. I'll work on finding some reviews of the film, and I'm about to add that poster to the page. Dude, have you been drinking a lot of caffeine and eating a lot of sugar lately??? lol. Bignole

I was curious as to which awards you think we should mention? It was nominated for a lot, and won some as well, but many of the awards are really minor ceremonies (i.e. Kids Choice Award??). I'd like to know which you think should be included; IMDb (yeah..I know) has a list of all of them. Let me know, I'm off to bed. Bignole 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably just work in the sandbox, but I don't know what I'll get done tonight. I'll probably do more at work tomorrow. I'm going to at least try and get the rest of those awards in the talk page and start "striking" the obvious ones we can dismiss. Take it easy. Bignole 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this for the production section? Bignole 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll check on the picture commons. I wasn't thinking about how well it showed those two, it's obviously them, I was more interested in how well it should Raimi's directing, as I've read he is often cited as being an actor's director. As for the "reception" section. I was trying to model it after Jaws. I've seen some featured articles that actually break all that down: criticism, box office, awards; and we don't have to use "subheaders". We can use the ";" to create a visual header that doesn't actually create a subheader in the contents box. It will help separate things in the section. But that's just an idea. I say we fiddle around in the sandbox to see how it would all look including the "list of awards" you suggested. Bignole 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard you've been advised to try and whitelist some of these url's. If you are able to find an effective procedure to get these whitelisted pages approved, I would be interested in helping out --T-rex 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

All I need is the address and why it deserves to be whitelisted. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks, good to know --T-rex 03:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Batman Begins is not a GA candidate, it is already been passed as a good article. The Filmaker 14:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For Spider-Man, I'd suggest moving the "Casting" subsection down to the "Cast" section itself. Otherwise it's kind of redundant, and it'll makes the "Cast" section look better. I don't know, the Development section seems like it could be under the Production section title. But if you can fill out the current Production section, then it's fine. It just seems weird to have this small Production section underneath the Development section, when the two could be merged together. There's also a trivia section, which should obviously be either merged or deleted. :) The Filmaker 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Development section could definitely stand alone, provided that the Production section is expanded. The Filmaker 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The comments I deleted were using the discussion as a forum. This is against Wikipedia Policy so I will continue to delete them whenever I see they have been reverted. Mcflytrap 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. When Spielberg has finished Indy 4 we can certainly make the article more than a stub. Wiki-newbie 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine overall, perhaps a bit long, but not really worth fighting with long editing nights about. MOre important, I think is the next section, about the money the movie made and the lawsuit with stan lee. Let's get taht needs cites tag off? ThuranX 00:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Making it Outpost (film) into Outpost (2007) makes sense, but maybe there should be a link at the top of reversioned Outpost (film) pointing to Outpost (2007)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.74.191.18 (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

As one of them is in production, and the other just rumoured, is that the best way to categorise them respectively? Neil Marshall's outpost may not happen for a long time - or even be called that after this movie.Simoragn 14:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, leave Marshall's other rumoured projects as they are. If another film was made with the same name as any of these, this should then take precedence over one that is just rumoured or in development, and be the main entry. But maybe you're right - it should be Outpost (2007 film). I just think that having the marshall one as Outpost (film) is misleading - as people who are looking for info on the Ray Stevenson version will look at the Outpost (film) page. Simoragn 16:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved Neil Marshall one to Outpost (film II) as this seems in line with current discussion on two films of the same name.Aston1 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's done. jimfbleak 13:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - practically every article on Wikipedia that deals with an upcoming film contains some rumours, whether casting, story, or whatever. I don't see a problem as long as it's made clear they are rumours, and the source is cited. Mikejstevenson 13:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason for the tone of your response, as if talking to a child? Or is it purely because anonymity allows you to get away with it? Anyway Erikster, I give up. I was putting in a lot of time trying to improve Indiana Jones related articles, but responses from people like yourself just make it completely clear that I shouldn't even bother. It's people like you that give Wikipedia a bad name. Do whatever you want to the article - remove it entirely. I no longer care. I shall revert all of my changes back to the original dross. Mikejstevenson 13:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. In all honestly I've grown sick of constant arguments, so I've decided my contributions are obviously not required. Thanks for replying, but I've lost my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia.Mikejstevenson 13:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Superman Returns is on the final list for the nominees in visual effects from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Here is the complete nominee list. The awards will be held in February. Please stop changing the article. --66.165.46.50 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your query on the peer review. Please reply. Wiki-newbie 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Films editing template included on the Jurassic Park talk page notes: "When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references." This order does seem to be the norm for most of the GA and FA articles I've seen.-Hal Raglan 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll take a look at it tonight.-Hal Raglan 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What template should I use for that cite? I certainly liked Jack Horner's reaction to the T-rex, and gives a view of the marketing bandwagon. Still, Joseph McBride's book on Steven Spielberg gives a lot of sources, of which I'd be curious to look for. Or should I simply cite McBride? Wiki-newbie 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll potentially get users onto me though, complaining of being unverifiable if I don't cite pages though. Wiki-newbie 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had as much time as I thought I would have this weekend, so I've only been able to skim through this. But it looks to me like a very solid GA. Before you try for Featured Article status, I would expand the "Reception" section with two or three reactions from notable critics who responded favorably to the film. You note that it only has a 51% favorability rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so probably quoting some negative reviews (again, from notable critics) would be a good idea. The synopsis seems a tad long, but as it appears that the film has a complex narrative (I haven't seen it) thats probably okay. This is really a very impressive article-Hal Raglan 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I may well butt in that I won't be able to give my hand just yet considering my local cinemas aren't playing it. Wiki-newbie 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erik. Thanks. I realised that just after I clicked edit, went back to the EW article and grabbed all the info, tried to add it, only to realise the edit had already been made. You are speedy. --Nalvage 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, am new to this and am unsure how to respond to a commentyou made on my talk section; I most certainly did not delete the plot from Pan's Labyrinth - there was no plot section before and I was about to write one in, but another user beat me to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twenty something (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

I was in error in warning the above user for removing the plot of the film article when it was actually the cause of an anonymous IP's vandalism before this user's edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, but it seems fine for now. Until things get going production wise really. If you're a fan, I'm curious if you know of His Dark Materials: Northern Lights' existence. Wiki-newbie 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read them either: not something I'd have on my watchlist. Going off-topic, Transformers has around 90 references now. There are some things I'd leave until release, but do you think you'd list it as a high quality article in your link repository? Wiki-newbie 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

File:Transparent film reel and film.png

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for December has been published. January's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Supernumerary 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that heading was hilarious for the people who vandalized your site. I guess you must be doing your job to get your page vandalized and threats. Keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 04:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a really interesting backstory for the heading. I've been drifting in out on lots of film articles. I haven't been working on any for GA/FA as of right now though since I've just started classes again and want to focus on those. I'm mainly dedicated to adding infoboxes, updating the newsletter, and attempting to find sources for Oklahoma City bombing to bring it up to GA. However, it's hard to find sources, so I'm thinking I need to buy some books and get back to it later. But if you ever need help with a film article, I'll do my best to help you find information and sources if you want to improve it further. --Nehrams2020 04:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it looks questionable, the edit history is also a little strange, I suspect there is at least on sockpuppet going on there, possibly another one. 68.39.174.238 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 07:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my page. I was in the middle of reporting him. He only lasted 11 minutes on Wikipedia, I wonder if that's a record? Bignole 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn you Scuba Steve!..LOL. You beat me to it, I was just saving and it goes "edit conflict". Bignole 02:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it. I think he was the Anon that was cleaning up the plot just before this account started. Bignole 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the way to do it, we have to wrap them all up in big warm welcomes, otherwise people like Burr Bobb and Shut up Bignole will pull them over to the dark side. Bignole 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I don't know if he's watching the page, so I don't know if he saw the edit summary. I keep checking the word count every so often. I don't dare touch the actual plot until he's done, I don't want to break his flow. Bignole 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I also see FX and immediately think "Special Effects", and not "Effects". My Bad. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was curious as to the policy regarding a User's Discussion page(s). Are they allowed to blank them (the termed they used was "trimming"), leaving no comments at all? I know about archiving, but the user in question hasn't even done that.

Also, While I was blocked, I received the oddest email (transcript is at my talk page, and I was wondering if anyone can shed some light on what is going on within the noggin of the sender...

Lastly, I have seen a few instances where someone had specified a link being 'here' and a page-within-a-page symbol took me to that link. How do I do that?Arcayne 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I read your link; I'm gonna take a look at trying to integrate it. Appreciate the help, --Tractorkingsfan 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out the article now. I've eliminated the trivia section all together and integrated the majority of that information into the rest of the article. It's not perfect, but it's better. I left out some of the trivia that I didn't think could fit anywhere else and really wasn't that useful in the first place. See what you think. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, either tonight or sometime tomorrow my plan is to take a look at smoothing out the style, transitions, etc., a little bit. Its biggest problem at this instant is that the writing, though acceptable, lacks some finesse, and my merges made it a little more choppy. So yes, I'll get around to it in the next day or so. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Erikster, I have been working on the article, but I have a problem. I made four or five edits that I considered quite helpful, but then had to revert them all when I noticed that, somewhere along the way, I had caused the second paragraph not to have any line breaks but to go on as one long line straight through the infobox. I'd like to restore the article to the way it was up until my reversion of everything I had worked on, but properly formatted. Can you take a look and tell me what happened? Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 08:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the links, much appreciated. The page is still bollux, but it's about half as long. I will finish editing tomorrow...I mostly deleted a bunch of really unnecessary info. any more tips are appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesney (talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

As far as I can make out it covers all aspects of deafness.--NeilEvans 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but they were already replaced with better quality ones. I just didn't pay attention to it when it happened, so I never deleted the images I put there. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it. The Orphanbot just reminded me to delete them. Yeah, the sig is colorful now; I figured I'd model it after school. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, read through the Fair Use stuff (dense, that) and I am still trying to figure out a clear, concise, step by step, simple way to upload the pictures in the discussion area. They seem to fulfill the criteria necessary for posting, and certainly illustrate the points being made.Arcayne 05:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on CoM, and your talk page about the "what rifle it is" and "you can observe it" theory. I think it falls under the citing oneself section. It was kind of a similar debate (though it ended at the edit summary stage) at the Transformers page over Optimus Prime. Editors would say "it's obviously a Peterbilt truck", or "it's obviously blah blah blah truck", and so forth. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 07:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was Kenworth. I'm not sure of the notability of such an inclusion. Arc said it himself when he stated that it wasn't like they invented a gun. I mean, should be go to every action film and list every type of gun that was used? It seems something reserved for some fan trivia contest than an encyclopedia. I mean, if someone could get a citation to verify that it was, and there was some part in the plot section that mentioned it (though I think it would be erroneous anyway) then I could see putting it there. But I don't know. I just don't see the notability of including a specific assault rifle from a film. Was there one? I haven't read the entire debate on the page. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well my thoughts are that looking at a picture and saying "it's obviously this.." would be citing onself as an expert instead of providing a source that verifies. I think, it may be something that won't be "verified" until the DVD, even then I think notability should play a role. If everyone thinks it's notable then I think verifying it should be the priority, but, if the subject of notability has not come up then i think that should be addressed. If it's agreed to lack notability than I think it's all moot about whether you can verify it. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

All that being said, I would like some advice on how to present the image in the article's production header.Arcayne 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I've been sort of lagging myself lately, but I'm supposed to be getting two non-fiction books in that should help me finish up that Jason article that I was working on in my sandbox. I was doing stuff for Spider-Man at work, but the company's internet protection people figured out their software wasn't working and fixed it back to where we can't look at "entertainment" pages. Good thing Wiki doesn't count as that though. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

“

Whedon misspelled "consistant" in his blog entry. Hence the usage of sic after the word (read the article if you're not aware what it means). Quotes are not supposed to be altered. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

”

Sorry about that, I was using Lupin Spellchecker to edit articles. I will keep an eye out for that in the future. Regards. Wiki Raja 00:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware you dislike Latino Review, but do you think their script reviews are verifiable enough? I ask considering they have read the spec screenplay that Joel Silver snapped up for the former Joss Whedon flick. Wiki-newbie 20:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page now. Wiki-newbie 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The most ironic element is that it winds up only two hours. Detour question: is it fine to cite the toy packaging for Transformers characters? Or am I just going nuts? Wiki-newbie 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It was more to do with personality: Ironhide's meant to of 6/10 intelligence. I'll leave it for the actual character article though, and you're right, why get myself in a twist when it's months away? Yeah, I'm going insane for July. Wiki-newbie 21:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw this, but it seems "The Flash" has a new Director already. In case you didn't see already. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 07:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Replacing the same edits is growing a bit tedious, esp. when they are coming from the same person. We discussed the Wastelands stuff just yesterday, and Viriditas purged it without replacing it in themes. It is a part of the movie, an important part (otherwise Cuaron and the studio wouldn't have paid for the words Shantih, Shantih, Shantih to be in the film) of the theme and plot. This is what I was concerned about with the idea of removing the trivia header so quickly. I understood the reasoning, but it appears that deletions were performed without their incorporation into the text. This needs to be addressed.Arcayne 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Youmentioned in the edit summry of one of your edits "Mention of violence and why Theo doesn't carry a weapon)". I think I missed the explanation.Arcayne 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You added back "as previously noted" to themes after I removed it. I rv, but you made additional edits as I rv. —Viriditas | Talk 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict of some kind, and I self-rv on top of it. I'm not contesting the ref at this time. —Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for making you lose your edits. I think I'm going to stay away from the undo button for now. :) —Viriditas | Talk 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'm off to lunch, so I'll review later. Might be a good idea to group things from the general to the particular or in reverse, depending on the context. —Viriditas | Talk 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you fellers could allow us to come to some agreement before rv'ing every alteration I make. It makes me think you don't love me anymore when you gentlemen clamor over each other to remove my edits. I am willing to discuss them, but I think it a bit unfair to combine to remove my edits without discussion, and run close to 3RR. I've asked for an independent opinion here, bc I think it has become helpful to obtain.Arcayne 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely, because even if it doesn't get passed which I think it should, it will still gain some good feedback. -- Wikipedical 02:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the change, I didn't realise if I was doing wrong. I'd added the link to a couple of zombie related flicks. The link for 28 weeks later was to just a thread but a thread which contains more information, images and links than any other. Exclusive images etc where also within that link, as such I thought it would be a useful link. If possible could you please add it back, it might be worth your time having a look at the forum that was linked (www.zombie-nation.net/forums) as some films/people etc may very well benfit from having the ZN included. I am not the admin for the forum nor do I do earn anything from doing this, just thought it was helpful. My apologises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.39.145 (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for the quick response. Sorry if this is the wrong place/way to respond. I didn't realise that about forums and sources, not a problem and totally understandable. I'll leave it you to decide if a link could go somewhere with relation to zombie films as I have noticed that other sites/forums have a link and those have less information than what I have collected myself for the various sections/threads on the ZN. If possible one somewhere would be very welcome. Thank you again and once more sorry for any bother —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.39.145 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

All done. Mind, we don't know who is really important to the plot, and the extent of The Flying Dutchman's crew this time round. I removed the comic relief of The Black Pearl though. Wiki-newbie 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned something about a Google alert that you used to find sources on Children of Men and the direction (I can't spell his name, so I'm not even going to try). I'm looking up sources for Jason Voorhees right now, and I was wondering how you set it up. Did it involve downloading their toolbar or something? Thanks for your time. :) Disinclination 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, alright. Well, I do have a Gmail account.. so I'll set it up and we'll see if I get lucky. Lol. Thank you for your help very much Erik. :) Disinclination 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to restore it to what it was before an anon changed it. It was originally set to "High" back in November.

Trust me, if I was using POV editing, I'd leave it Top; I'm a huge fan of the film. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What is involved with seeking a couple of independent opinions?Arcayne 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The post regarding diegetic comment was not directed towards you; I thought it bore mentioning, as the language was a bit vague on that point.Arcayne 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am cetainly not calling anyone a troll. While I disagree mightily with the type of Viri's edits (and the method by which he chooses to discuss them), that is all it is, a disagreement. I would very much like to keep this disagreement civil. Ergo, no troll.Arcayne 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Any word from hal or thef ilmmaker?Arcayne 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this disagreement between Viriditas an myself requires a bit of elevation. After the reverts, i took a moment to count them up, and he broke the 3RR two separate times, and I have reported it. I have tried to address the issue on his talk page before reporting him for 3RR, but he has chosen to not address the issue, instead calling me - yet again - a troll. What is the procedure for escalation?Arcayne 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you had the chance to view the Spider-Man 3 First Look video, whether on the web or in a theater? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do)

Yeah. I was watching it, and I'm having some "ehhs" about the look of the film. It may just have been how it looked on my computer, and the fact that it wasn't the actual film, but the look during the ceremony made me think of "made for tv". I was curious as to what you thought about it. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there was really only a couple additional scenes, which weren't really new scenes, just extended scenes with more dialogue. It's was just those scenes where he's hanging upside-down at the festival, and then the one where he's swinging through at night, above the crowd of people. It just seems so "non-chalant". I don't know, I'm sure I'm just looking too far into it and that it's all about the context of the scenes. Are your theaters going to have a captioned version ready the day it is released? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was curious if you could come back to the peer review to continue commenting on any progress. However, more importantly, is the existence of the article on a potential fourth film: it seems too much like crystal balling. Wiki-newbie 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Magneto

I recently found the page on crystal balling. Magneto certainly would be a worthy redirect later on, but that [comic] article is already overlong. Wiki-newbie 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might read what I wrote before reverting, Erik. This is not an edit war. My additions were an observational exposition of the film. Had read the edits in their entirety, you would have seen that the basis for the inclusion of the Shantih ending in the earlier words of Jasper to Kee. It is specific dialogue from the movie itself which supports the text at the end. Because you have not seen the movie yourself, I point you to the script (p58, Scene127) wherein Jasper says the words himself, and for once, the script and the movie dovetail. Ergo, there is basis for inclusion into the movie, as it was preceded in the movie by something that happened during dialogue between the characters. Jasper's prayer for Kee's baby is echoed by the ending of the film. This is not OR. It is simple observation of the movie itself, supported by the "official" script. I believe that this adds to the article and assists it in bceoming an FA level article.Arcayne 13:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some additional citations. I figured I should show them to you. While I am starting to wonder if I am not running into a WP:OWN -type situation, wherein contrary edits are simply excised automatically, I figured I would let you see these and ecaluate them on your own for their proper merit:

http://www.visualhollywood.com/movies/children-of-men/video.php

(wherein the review speaks directly to the sounds of laughter and playing of children at the end of the film)

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmRlMmI2NDViZWI5MDdjZGFmN2MyZTliOTM1NDZjYWM=

(wherein the "context-less cant of Shantih Shantih Shantih..." speaking to the appearance without reference at the end of the film of the words.)

http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s1756310.htm

(interview with Clive Owen, nice quotes for production)

http://www.hollywoodgothique.com/childrenofmen2006.html

(directly addressing the issue of the long shot, debunking the myth of the stitched shot via CGI)

On a side note, I seem to recall an early edit that replaced the word panick (sp) with the proper spelling of that word. In doing research on reviews of the film, I discovered a commentary of the film that also contained that same error here, suggesting that there might be copyrighted material being entered into the article. Thought you might want to know.Arcayne 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read them, well some of them. Lately, I've been ignoring them (them = the talk page comments and reverts) because it's just so back and forth and so exacerbated that I can't follow the point of the discussion. Originally, I saw it was mentioned in the "Theme" section and thought that it should provide a compromise to both parties. But, after Arcayne added both the mentionings from the film, I could see how it could be added to the plot. In it's context, with the one guy saying it and then the film repeating it at the end, I can see that working. But, does it need it? I don't know. I can see a lot of things that "add" to a plot, and to the article as a whole, but I can also see things that might add, but are also not relevant in ever section (that goes for all film pages in general). As I told Arcayne, I have not seen the film, nor read Eliott's "The Waste Lands" (in fact the only Waste Lands I've read were King's), and so I cannot make a subjective call (which is what I think this is) on something I haven't experienced. I told him that I believed he should wait for the 3rd party, but it seems we are having trouble finding a 3rd party. I'll see if I can find someone to come in. Maybe if we all contact someone, we'll have 6 parties. lol. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 13:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There are Hindu (shantih), Buddhist (jewel in the lotus), and Christian chants (see Tavener ref in themes) throughout the movie. It has nothing to do with a plot synopsis, nor does the interpretation of the credits. Any such interpretations, including the interpretation of the emotional look on a persons face (I can't believe Arcayne added that) doesn't belong in a plot synopsis. That Arcayne is absolutely obsessed with adding original research to the article, and has continued to do so for some time, should tell you something is wrong. —Viriditas | Talk 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Usually The Filmaker is good about responding. The only thing I can think is that either they saw the discussion and ran screaming, or they were/are taking a wikibreak and are just backed up with other stuff. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I could clearly see how that Anon wanted to be, and could be your neighbor. I saw the addition when you added, and went and read what he did...lol, that was some piece of edit he left for you. I'm still waiting for you to inspire an entire user name. Don't worry, at your rate, you'll please enough people that it'll happen. ;) BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do)

Yes, I did read the addition on your review. What a nice guy..lol. Actually I've wanted to add a comment, but I've been struggling with how actually address those reviews. Anyone who works with you knows you are a great editor and contributor to Wikipedia, it's just trying to figure out how to say so in more than just that sentence. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading it right now: it's bloody amazing. Which even makes me wonder how the heck it's going to be done. I kinda feel they may have missed a mark though by not putting a post-9/11 context on it though, ala V for Vendetta.

Erm, hang on, this isn't quite about improving an article now is it? Wiki-newbie 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Citizen Kane, a thought occurred to me regarding past films. I recall you saying you're not able to access DVDs, but why not simply use subtitles? Wiki-newbie 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame, but far as I'm concerned, only Disney DVDs have no featurette subtitles. Unless my memory of past DVDs is foggy. Wiki-newbie 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. Wiki-newbie 14:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hold on to it and see how I can work it into the page. It's never too late for you to help out with the page, after you get done with all your other pages. I know you clean up and take care of a lot of pages though. Those two books that I was waiting for, for the Jason article, Making Friday the 13th: The Legend of Camp Blood and Crystal Lake Memories are not only going to help out with the Jason article but with the film articles as well. I think I may have enough information to make all of them, at least GA status. The first one has already given me casting information, development information, and location scouting, and that's like the first 20 pages. I'm going to wait and finish the Jason article first, and then work on the film pages afterward. All that after I deal with the new car I'm trying to buy, and how I'm going live down the fact that my mother is actually on the phone right now trying to find the manager that basically treated me like shit to my face. I usually let things go, but she is quick to lay down the law..so to speak. How are you exams coming? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Business. Good luck with that. I've already had one Abnormal Child Psychology exam, didn't go so good...I think I'll actually read that book from now on, and I've had one Advanced Sign Language exam that I think went quite well. Good luck with all of yours and your goal of 10 GA articles. I understand what you mean about keeping it clean from the getgo, instead of trying to repair it after it's been around for awhile. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do)

LOL, i understand that feeling. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

look at the "historical inaccuracies" and "criticism section" in the talk page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siavash1989 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

yes thats fine Siavash1989 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well I still can't figure out how he got the protection to actually go through. As for my summary, I was wondering if anyone would pick up on it what I was talking about. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just went and checked what he wrote, and he made it out like the section was already there and that we were vandalizing the page. Still surprising someone didn't just do a history check and review what was going on. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It was Seinfeld. In the episode The Outing, Jerry and George are outted as homosexuals, because of a joke they were playing. They constantly deny they are gay, but every time they say so they follow up with "not that there's anything wrong with that". I saw your petition. Does it serve any good to get back-up on it, or should we just leave it with your lone endorsement? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, what can you do. It appears the Anon isn't going to respond, or at least they've gone to bed for the night. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if Viri has a few helpers this time. I am not sure if he just lost his cool by accusing me of sock-puppetry, but it seems rather trollish to me. As I certainly don't really know enough about how to even make a sock puppet, how do I ask for someone to check on this to verify that my IP isn't even similar to the anonymous user who posted something on the Shantih business sometime earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 05:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't have put it this way if it had been a real user behind those edits. But it was essentially a vandal in disguise. Miskin 15:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's unprotected now, thank goodness. Gosh, I seriously hope things like this don't escalate come July. I'll be having to take a break then as to avoid spoilers considering the film is out later in the UK. Will you promise to really take care of the article and make sure people don't remove too many cites, so I can eventually reshape the article?

In the meantime, I'm aware you're not familiar with the multiverse, so do you think you could comment on my work so far on Transformers (fiction) from a newbie's POV? Wiki-newbie 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

27th July is the UK release date. In all honesty, considering it was a Brit who kept the franchise interesting during the 80s/90s when the toys weren't such a big force, it's a painful irony. As for the fiction page, would you like it to step away from describing each fictional universe's storyline? Still, the page can be longer. What sort of pictures would you like? Wiki-newbie 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want the article to be a mere jumping off point. Certainly I'll give it more work. Wiki-newbie 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know that in the DVDRama article, Gans states he is making Onimusha, and Roger Avary is making Driver. When Avary is finished with Driver, he will script Silent Hill 2. The Scifi article is incorrect. --Beanssnaeb 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also added a clearer source on the Driver (film) article to show Roger Avary is director. --Beanssnaeb 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read them all, and I read that annoucement for a potential series. I also noticed the wikipedia mention in there. lol. Excitement and sadness follow at the sound of that. Have you read them all? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 04:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mini-series would be better if you are trying to incorporate as much as possible, but with 7 books it would be an extremely long mini-series (ala Band of Brothers). A film series would be good. You could probably get like 8 films out of the books, because some of them would probably need to be split into two films, while some would simply be short films in general (like "The Gunslinger). BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the "BC" talk, and the vandalism to your page that was reverted. I kind of find it hilarious that he's debating the political correctness of a film title. That's like a film being called "Gay" (not that there's anything wrong with that) and someone saying "HEY!, they can't say that, it has to be 'Homosexual'". It's not "The Empire Strikes Back", it's "The Local Government of Judicial Review Correctively Challenging Anarchy". Yeah, my take home test was due today but the prof. canceled class so now we have till Thursday (which btw, I have another Sign test). I'll have to check your contribs to see what kind of massive overhaul you did to the other articles. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it just comes easily. Good night, and good luck on the test that you will eventually have to take. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do)

Hey, how does the Manual of Style address referring to dead people referred to in an article?Arcayne 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know; I checked the Manual myself, and asked in the off-chance that you might have encountered the situation before. I've a contributor in Nancy Reagan who apparently has edit-warred over the use of the late in the PETA article, and has started the same thing in the Nancy article. Someone pointed out that recently dead folk are referred to as "the late", while deader folk are assumed dead (unless they are Highlanders, of course).Arcayne 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I really am finding this site hard to navigate. Currently I'm finding a few cites given in Joseph McBride's book on Spielberg. The one I am looking for is 'Spielberg's Lizards Eat E.T.', dated 1993-10-18 by Leonard Klady. It isn't showing up on Variety's search. What gives? Wiki-newbie 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it'd just be easier then to cite McBride's book? Wiki-newbie 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik, drop me a line after you've taken a look at this link. Pay close attention to the last few paragraphs. Tell me what your thoughts on them are.Arcayne 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While we are addressing the Lead, why did you remove my addition to the Themes section? The source apparently bothering Viriditas now is a statement made in an interview with Cuaron about Children of Men. As he has said at least twice in other interviews, the film is about hope, and the cited interview states that children are importan to his notions of hope. And while Viriditas seems entrenched in the idea that children are not part of the film called - oddly enough - Children of Men, about the first baby born in almost two decades, I think it probably meaningful to include that little cited tidbiot in there. Maybe I'm wrong, but including reasons why seemingly unrelated things happen, like children laughing at the end (when in the plot there aren't any children - plural - in the entire film) and whatnot.Arcayne 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I had this concern a while back. Guess my Drama teacher isn't a reliable source.

I'm not too sure if you're aware of my Ref repository. If you find any citations regarding a lot of various films, feel free to drop it in, especially Jurassic Park, E.T. and Titanic which I plan to turn my attention to soon. Wiki-newbie 18:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Like the other editor says, it's in final negotiations. While I agree it's all but a done deal, that stil lmeans it 's not. Give it a couple days. If he actually says yes, then it'll be all over. ThuranX 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ThuranX 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That was so long ago, how did you even know? do you stalk my page? I changed ONE word, it was harmless, and the person changed it right back. It was a while ago, you missed the bus. I don't understand why you bothered.Johnpedia 09:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

well sorry buddy but stay out of it. you're not needed. Johnpedia 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Namor (film) was recently made. I've switched it to a redirect to the film section fo the character page, as you'll see when you click it, but I suspect we may see some tenditious editing there, so I'd appreciate it if you could watchlist the page, and help me keep it a redirect till there's sufficient ACTUAL information to create a true page. Right now, Namor's just a pipe-dream for Marvel. ThuranX 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Could use a hand on a page... Composite Man has a LOT of troubles. I've tried explaining introductory paragraphs, sectioning, images, spelling, and so on to this guy for weeks. He's thoroughly unwilling to budge on anything. take a look at his version and mine, and let me know what you think. He's had a habit of removing templates and such as well, but I think i've broken him of that. ThuranX 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice catches on the spelling issues. I've missed a few, because there were so many. The editor there is incredibly resistant to assistance, and I started out REALLY nice to him. lately, it's been more forceful, because no matter what I say or do, he reacts with vulgarity and profanity. (And while my spelling's often lousy on Talk pages, I'm more careful on articles overall.) Thanks! ThuranX 17:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't find muc hbecause there isn't much. I think he was in all of two, maybe three issues of the series? Not enough to matter much, and I'm in fact supporting the merge, but I want the 'better' version of the page considered when evaluating how and what to include. I've nominated that trading card image for deletion as well, wich hopefully will 'force' him to start paying attention, though I wouldn't be surprised to see him instead just re-upload it. ThuranX 17:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. ThuranX 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm strangely ok with this. LOL ThuranX 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I already removed it and placed it in the Discussion area, to encourage the guy to properly cite his/her work. they are a new user, and just need a bit of direction to edit the right way. :) Arcayne 15:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

sent you an email. Didja get it?Arcayne 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

He did have a point that the lead I began was skimpy. I've expanded upon it. I've got $20 that it will be reverted before dark, and that it will be all my fault. :)Arcayne 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the vandal. I think it was the same little someone who sent both me and an admin the same letter. (Frankly, I am not sure whether to be amused or offended that I received a death threat form letter - lol).Arcayne 00:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to remain. Your contributions to the article are solid and constructive. I attribute my earlier Shantih arguments to not understanding how to contribute to an article better. I am a better contributor because of you, and I would still like to work with you to finish the article. If my responding to Viriditas' questions has been impolite, I will not reply to any of hus questions. The article under his stamina-based edits will be less than it would be with you leading.Arcayne 02:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to hop down to the peer review again? I have over 70 cites now. Wiki-newbie 22:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. Good work, and thanks! It appears as that was coordinated by several people, or by one person with a... very... dynamic IP. Gracenotes ^T § 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, nab the cites. Wiki-newbie 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik, I wanted to point out that on numerous occasions, the Shantih stuff was reverted from the synopsis (an overview of events in the movie), using the same words you did, 'citing redundancy with themes'. Now, I think that removal due to redundancy was as valid an argument then as it is now, and the idea of avoiding redundancy should be consistent. While I think it important to address the symbolism the director was looking to insert, I think that background music that only says the statement "arbeit macht frei" twice throughout the song isn't enough on its own (as well, we don't know the title of the song until we see it in the credits). A more solid referral to the song or the intended symbolism is needed. I am addressing the point here, so as to avoid the perception of reintroducing the Shantih argument in the Discussion area.Arcayne 17:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would, but the little creep has now taken to essentially equating my edits with the fall of Wikipedia and Western Civ. I am trying to stay civil, but the kid is begging for a smack from an admin for uncivil behavior.Arcayne 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik, I hope you change your mind and come back to the article. I just noticed that you changed "and in the scene where the refugee bus enters the internment camp" to "stripping/beating". You might be interested to know that this is the same scene but worded differently, and you can check the script for the context. That is to say, the stripping and beating occurred in the scene where the bus entered the camp, which is precisely why that music was used. I'm not sure why the information explaining the term was removed. —Viriditas | Talk 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you know about that article?? I saw it on an AfD and was like "omg, I've read so many votes/responses that looked just like these." BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no...I know you added it to your page, I just wasn't sure if you had seen it before then. I came across one just an hour ago that tried to play the number card. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good one. It's interesting to see what could be considered an advancement of POV. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Racist edits? Are they vandalism? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with 300, though the film looks cool, but isn't it based on a graphic novel (i.e. a big comic book)? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand some people some times. It seems to me like it would be like someone saying Spider-Man 3's Eddie Brock makes photographers look bad, and thus the film is discriminatory. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen. I thought that might eventually happen. Yeah, let's see if we can finish sprucing that article. You were right when you said it's much harder to go back and fix an article, than it is to make sure it's done right from the beginning. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how interested you are in copyediting. But I'm desperate for people to copyedit The Empire Strikes Back. If you could look it over, I'd really appreciate it. The Filmaker 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

- Okay, I feel that the article is ready for FAC. However I've been wrong about prose before. Please feel free to copyedit as much as you see within the article, even while it is in it's FAC. The Filmaker 08:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  - There is a hidden section inside the article right now dealing with video games, I was wondering if you could copyedit while I'm sourcing it. :) The Filmaker 15:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That's your choice and I can respect that, it's just that I think certain anons (probably just the same person) are taking advantage of the "review this editor" to make personal attacks against you. The first review, though it contains what could be considered "constructive reviewing" seems to have an undertone of a personal attack, and the second one was nothing more than a retaliation for your comment that you didn't agree with their opinion. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 14:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I can't really think of too many negative things, or general critiques of your work that aren't exemplary. I figured you might want someone to come in and say "hey, you're doing a great job 'but'...", and other than the "great job" I don't see any "buts" to your work. I think Wiki, Ace, ThuranX and myself (and probably any other editor you work with closely that I don't see) generally give you the pat on the back often that we'd probably sound like broken records on your "review". But, if you are looking for any feedback, even if it really isn't going to nitpick anything that you do as an editor, I could probably find plenty of empowering things about your editing style. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes I'm quickly trying to catch up on what's been going on and I will just revert without explaining. I try and make sure I only do it for things that are obvious as to why they are being reverted (i.e. poop, i hate this movie, or other things clearly vandalism). Sometimes I'm just doing some many things at one time that I just do a quick revert. But, yeah..I tend to leave the summaries blank, and should probably work better that making sure I get those in for those that don't see the "obviousness" that I do when I revert. I've seen you get "fired up" over things, but like what happened over at CoM, I don't think that I've seen you just lash out at unsuspecting anons. I think it's usually when it's the same thing over and over again that gets annoying and can plague anyone's nerves. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your outstanding work on The Fountain (film). I went away for a couple weeks, and came back to find the article had gone from mediocre to excellent. Keep it up. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have time to comment directly right now, but when I'm less busy I'll let you know what I think. Cheers --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am watching the movie this evening. I also came across the GN for it, if you are interested in a copy. I'll read the article tomorrow. Arcayne 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik, have you ever read the books that this is based on? I read them a long time ago, and still contend that the Harry Potter stuff ripped off large parts of Cooper's books. That aside, the Old Ones aren't immortal, they are simply very long-lived. Will Stanton is the last of the Old Ones to be born. The Old Ones, as a group are wizards/mages/whatever. I think the immortal descriptive is going to be misinterpreted.Arcayne 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF, There is a teaser trailer coming out for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End on March 9th, 2007 during the 300 film. How come when i add that on there, you delete it. I want everyone to know when the trailer comes out, Stop deleting members edits unless they vandelize them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apocalypze (talk • contribs)

You did vandalise it, though. Bubba hotep 21:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How did i Vandalise it??? All i put down is On February 10th, 2007 an announcement was stated for teaser trailer to be released on February 16 during the Ghost Rider film. But during an Interview from Ifilm.com with Gore Verbinski, He said he never said such thing. Then Gore Verbinski calmly announced that the POTC3 teaser trailer will be attended during the 300 film on March 9th, 2007.

Thats not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apocalypze (talk • contribs)

The entry which I linked there certainly was vandalism. However, your previous edits were in good faith but were reverted because you did not cite your sources. Please try to keep cool in these situations. Replacing pages with obscenities is not the way to get noticed. I apologise for taking this up on your talk page, Erikster. I will reply to Apocalypze directly from now on. Bubba hotep 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Bubba Hotep, Can you please put...

On February 10th, 2007 an announcement was stated for teaser trailer to be released on February 16 during the Ghost Rider film. But during an Interview from Ifilm.com with Gore Verbinski, He said he never said such thing. Then Gore Verbinski calmly announced that the POTC3 teaser trailer will be attended during the 300 film on March 9th, 2007.

Under the title Production since im not aloud?

I will provide possible improvments for the article as soon as I finish this message. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I just read a review of the script. I normally don't do that as most reviewers turn it into a spoilfest but considering the film has been in development for so long I gave it a go. Do you think there's any way we can include this, even as an early draft that's likely to change? WikiNew 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I added it. Seems worthy for comparison to a hopefully finished film. WikiNew 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the movie, though I don't have any "special edition" version (if there is one), just the plain run of the mill $10 DVD. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It does have commentary. Is that what you are looking for, the director commentary that plays along side the film? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've been thinking of watching it again lately anyway. How soon do you need it? I have an exam on Tuesday, so I'm going to try and convince myself to study for it (could be a stretch, but a needed one), so I might not be able to watch it until Tuesday evening. If/when I do watch it, are there things you would like me to look for (other than the Nietzsche and The Graduate influences?). Should I just bring a big legal pad to the couch with me, and copy down just about all that he says? lol. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first chance I get I'll watch it and just try and take note of everything. This way, since you are more familiar with the page itself, you can filter through all the extraneous information. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 18:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me you would. lol. How about you tell me which you think would be most beneficial to you, and I'll watch that one. I have a feeling that it would probably be one of the first two you mentioned since they tend to involve the people more directly connected to the film. Oh, and I think removing any adjective from that sentence in the reception (currently "underwhelming") would do fine. If you read it without one it is kind of clear that their relationship didn't sour because the performance was great, and I think that if have already talked about how much it made domestically then that will further clarify the sentence (IMO). BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make myself a note to use that one when I watch it. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I should be able to pop Fight Club in tonight and watch the commentary for you. Is there anything specific you'd like to me to look for. I mean, cause if there is, and it seeming like they aren't going to talk about that then I could try a different commentary. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was following the discussion. I'll keep a note at the top of my legal pad to look out for it. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I'm going through this movie (I have about an hour left) it's becoming more and more clear that I'm not sure I'm going to get a lot of useful information for you out of this. I have gotten some that I think is really good (I did get a bit about Tyler representing Nietzsche's (sp) Zeolism (something that sounded like that..this is the time when I wish, as you do as well, that they caption the commentary because I can't clearly make out exactly what they are saying...but they do mention Nietzche and some other themes about Tyler and the film itself). What I'll do is just put everything I get on the talk page for your sandbox/Fight Club and you can use what you think will best help you. There may be better stuff on just the director commentary (I've also found that occassionaly they just ramble about some funny events that took place), but I won't be able to watch it again right away. It's actually rather hard to watch a film with commentary, because really you aren't watching the film, but just listening to them talk as the visuals occur. lol. If I can, I'll try and watch it again later on with just the director to see if that will be better. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 23:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's ok. I think there is some useful info in there. I really wish you could watch it, because it's getting really hilarious toward the end. They constantly talk about what's going on, but not in a "themes" kind of way, but more of a "Tyler looks kind like a rocker right now" thing. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

YES! Those are the two things I wasn't sure what they were saying so I didn't know how to accurately spell them. Also, sometimes it's just hard to hear what they say, because it appeared that Pitt, Norton and Fincher were in the room together (where as Carter seemed to have done her bit separately), and the three of them kept trying to talk at the same time, and sometimes certain trains of thought were interrupted (and usually forgotten) when the louder, or more persistant person won out. But yes ,those are the two things. I still have 30 mins on the commentary, but it's midnight here so I'll probably look at that tomorrow after work. I hope you can use some of that stuff. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How's it coming together? I'll try and get that last 30 mins this evening, and my spring break is next week so I'll see about doing the director only commentary. Oh, thanks for the talk page inform...I hadn't realized it had gotten so large. I meant to archive it around header 50. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You could probably put the "opposition to materialism" in with "violence as a metaphor" because, I know in the commentary (and I hope I put that in the talk page with the rest of the stuff..I may not have been clear) was that some (if not all) of the violence was attacking the materialism rather directly. You have Tyler and the narrator whacking luxury cars with bats (which they commented on directly), and (a personal example that I can't recall them addressing, but the beginning of the film seems so far away at this point) the explosion of the narrator's "catalog-esque" apartment. His apartment was the epitome of materialism, and Tyler (really the narrator) blows it up. So I think you could put those two things together. Hopefully, since the last 30 minutes are really the narrator realizing that he is Tyler, they will comment on that aspect that I just mentioned about the apartment. I'll also go back to that scene and see if they mentioned it but I just didn't pick it up. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is more of what Helena saw in "why" the narrator chose to make Tyler a male when he was engendering this person. This was more her interpretation as to why this happened, because she saw it as the narrator believing that he couldn't fulfill a relationship with Marla, but Tyler could, so let's make Tyler a man so that he can. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching (it's on my list), and I'd have to say you're doing a magnificant job at fixing up this page. As you add more stuff in, from other sources, I've been reading and going "hey!, they said that on the commentary too!". I feel good that some of the commentary stuff is reflected from other sources as well (though I find that those other sources are better because you get more written dialogue, and less group dialogue that you have to keep rewinding to make out more clearly). BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do)

With all the work you are doing for it, I think it would be a great addition to the FA list (once it's all finished). We need more featured film articles that contain lots of themes and underlying tones. It's great to be able to see the production work that went into Halloween, but let's face it, there wasn't much to that film except some stalking and killing. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. Way more description then they gave in the commentary. I'm just glad I wasn't just reading into something and just happen to catch a few words of nothing. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That quote seems to reflect the commentary about the narrator and Marla being kind of the same person (not literally, but character wise) and how, when he chose to call Tyler, he didn't go with Marla because of her "similarity" to him. There was that comment about how she reminded him of his own lies, and he couldn't stand those lies, and that's why he chose to go with Tyler, even though he should have been with Marla from the beginning. That part where the quote says "he can go toward that more seductive approach...........Don't go towards what you know already" seems to be refering to the narrator going toward Tyler (the seductive) and avoiding Marla (that which he already knows). That last line, I'm not sure and I don't want to interpret it because then we'd have to deal with original research. I think just leaving that last bit as a quote is fine, but the first part is clear correlation to Marla and Tyler as has been described in the other information that you have on the page. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the wikibreak tag. I know how it can get, especially when you work hard on something and you know you have to leave it to the "wolves" while you tend to your real life. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to say I've not seen Fight Club, considering it's violent for a nervous wreck like me and it's rated 18. I do wish you good luck with making the article worthy for one of your favourites. I certainly know how annoying that can be. Still, ask Bignole or Arcanye or a real life friend with the DVD. WikiNew 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the pic of Pitt and Norton shows up fine. WikiNew 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be modified to not be so in-universe. I do like to get away with sneaking extraneous aspects of a film into other section. WikiNew 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you look at this, Friday the 13th Part 11‎. I'm thinking of nominating for deletion. There are no sources for anything, except IMDb, and that isn't a reliable source when it comes to future films even being released. The only thing that I've read that is in the works is a sequal to Freddy vs. Jason, and a new television series. I'm curiou as to what you think should be done. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot that there is a "proposed deletion" before the AfD. Thanks for the incite. I still can't believe JP IV was kept. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove my page???????????? And could you please stop vandalizing my talk page. THANKS Jonny B67456 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Page in question was Stephen Bruce, removed due to non-notability. Talk page "vandalism" is this. User has been blocked for disruptive edits. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody designated you as the 'all-knowing' user. Quit changing every article to your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruva2007 (talk • contribs) 22:26, February 27, 2007

User is referring to my revert of his POV edit. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just kidding! LOL! I was hoping to get your input on something. I have been working on the Braveheart article a bit and I needed to revert a couple of changes. how do I revert back to a version a few versions back.Arcayne 06:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never said the Shantih was free, but you earned it. Here you go. Beware of the edges; some people find them abrasive. :) Arcayne 18:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I dedicated today to improving the article. What do you think? WikiNew 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Magneto

Pictures

Magneto

Indiana Jones 4

MK Devastation-Discuss page

Angels &amp; Demons (film)

Access World News

Avatar

CTOA

The Fountain argument

Shooter

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Hitman (2007 film)

Sandbox

Thanks for the support

admin

AMA

The Mummy 3

The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)

Children of Men edits

IMDb

Re:Spidey the first

blog.myspace whitelists

Batman Begins

Deleted Comments

Re: Lincoln

Spidey

Outpost

Red Tails

Indiana Jones 4

Superman Returns

Jurassic Park (film)

The Fountain

Avatar ref

Pan's Labyrinth

Re: The Hobbit

Welcome to WP:Films!

Satisfied Customers

War (film)

WP:Films Newsletter

Thank you

A Few Admin-Type Questions

Thank You for Smoking

Spidey

WikiProject Deaf

Images

Rifle topic

Link to response from CBDunkerson (eom)

RE:Misspelling

Wonder Woman screenplay

The Flash

CoM

Rv

Re: Star Trek IX

28 weeks later

Re: POTC 3

Google alert thingy?

Huh?

Shantih

Spidey First Look

Jurassic Park I and IV

CoM Additions

Your name must be Mister Rogers

Re: Watchmen

Wolf Man

Re:Superman Returns

300 (film)

Re: My 1 1/2 cents

CoM, Again

Re: 300

Re: Transformers

Driver + Onimusha

Re: The Man in Black fled across the desert

Finding citations on Variety

CoM question

LOL

TDK and Eckhart

Johnpedia

another for your watchlist

Angels & Demons (film)