| Revision as of 18:13, 19 June 2007 editBrilliburger (talk | contribs)123 edits Undid revision 139250389 by The Filmaker (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:16, 19 June 2007 edit undoThe Filmaker (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers7,873 edits Um.... archiving again?Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I just did a fairly quick run-through copyedit; you may wish to look it over and make sure that I didn't make any assumptions. In terms of succinctness, there is probably some room for improvement, but, not having ever seen this series, I'm kind of wary of making bolder wording changes. — ]::] 07:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Serenity Plot == | |||
| Just in case that you were adressing your last comment to me, we arrived at that guideline because of ]. Plus, the guideline leaves loopholes for complicated plots. The guideline is viewable at ]. Thanks, ] 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == '']'' == | |||
| I'll try to take a thorough look at it soon. From a brief scan last night, it looked organizationally okay, but I did see some copyediting issues, in my book; there was one instance a slash was used instead of "or". — ]::] 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like someone beat me to it. Maybe I'll try to give it a copyedit instead. :) — ]::] 05:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll try to give it a look soon, but I am and will be somewhat busy in real life for a while. — ]::''']''' 13:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: As you can probably tell, I'm not here too often anymore. If I'm not mistaken, you've achieved your objectives on this regardless. Good job.--] 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == SWIII: RotS == | |||
| I've tried to make my point a little clearer - that RotS was not the first Star Wars film to have Darth/Anakin played by the same actor, but is currently the only film to do so. It's a small point to argue, but as it was it's an incorrect statement. ] 16:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, sorry, my bad. My mistake. I thought that, as originally filmed, Anakin (force ghost) at the end of RotJ was played by the same person who was in the Darth Vader suit, and on actually putting in some effort and looking I have discovered that this is, indeed, not true. Still a bit of a dodgy point, since we see Sebastian Shaw's face while most of Vader is still in the suit, but I'll withdraw my objection and my edit. ] 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==ESB== | |||
| Hey, I just helped to copyedit a bunch of articles, so I'm taking a little break. I'll definitely pitch in with the League though. — ''']]]''' 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ''Batman Begins'' == | |||
| I know, I know... I slipped up. Couldn't go back and change the edit summary. I was suggesting that ''Superman Returns'' isn't the ideal article to learn from, when it failed the GA test and ''Batman Begins'' passed. Better to learn from the FA-class ''Star Wars'' articles. :) I'm working on shaping up '']'', any suggestions? I might subsection the Production section... not sure if I can make it sound linear in one body of text. There are some FA-class film articles that have some regular Production paragraphs, then subsections with more detailed paragraphs. Any thoughts on that or anything else? (My pride is the Development section; definitely added a new dimension to the film in my mind.) —] (] • ]) - 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, I'll see how Development works as a subsection in the Production section. The Production section is definitely underdeveloped, as you can see that we've only gotten as far as announcing when it would start. Do you think the Development could stand alone if the Production was expansive enough in time? I'm hoping to work in the trivia details somewhere else, definitely -- they were just a couple of cited items compared to the whole bunch that we exported to the talk page. —] (] • ]) - 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == '']'' == | |||
| Hey, I'm really busy in real life at the moment, if you haven't judged by the slowness of my response and the lack of Misplaced Pages activity over the week. Can you find someone else to weigh in? There's ] and ]. Sorry that I can't help you personally. — ]::''']''' 02:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure, because listing a few of the more obvious/common references might make the article more comprehensive. Only a few though; maybe a paragraph. — ''']]''' 05:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned fair use image (Image:Aleckenny.jpg)== | |||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see ]). | |||
| If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. This is an automated message from ] 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Protection necessary?== | |||
| Is it really necessary to protect '']'' purely because it will be Today's Featured Article tomorrow? Or did I miss the memo saying that it was standard procedure to protect an article that will be Today's Featured Article? ] 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The article has only been ''move''-protected so that no one can move the article. There is absolutely no need for an article to be moved during the twenty-four hours it is featured at Today's Featured Article. I've been move-protecting the featured article for several weeks now, but when I forgot to move-protect one. -- ''']''' 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==ESB== | |||
| "Mixed reviews" should be balanced enough. Those who disagree need to understand that "mixed" means both good and bad, which ESB certainly received when it first came out (I've read plenty of stuff from that era, saying that it was 'unsatisfactory' or 'worthy sequel'). — ''']]''' 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Finish all your work on the article in the sandbox, and then start a peer review. Then things will get clear for that user. — ''']]''' 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah; but open the peer review at the same time you bring the sandbox contents in "to be fair". — ''']]''' 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Stress== | |||
| I pity you; all the stress you must go through trying to maintain your featured articles :) I should probably go through and give a quick maintenence check for mine, as well. — ''']]''' 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ''Children of Men'' == | |||
| Seeing that you profess in quality film articles, I was wondering if you could share your opinion over a disagreement at '']''. There is a mild conflict between a couple of editors regarding a phrase that appears at the end of the film after credits have rolled. Its thematic importance is pointed out later in the Themes section, but one editor believes that it doesn't belong in the plot, while the other editor believes it to be part of the overall package being delivered by the director to the audience. You can read discussion beginning ], going... a bit of ways down. :) Personally, I'm conflicted, as I originally tried to insert it in an objective light (merely saying that the phrase appeared), and leaving the interpretation for the Themes section. If you have the time, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. —] (] • ] • ]) - 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Star Wars articles == | |||
| It seems the articles still contain those same errors I pointed out.I checked the ] article and it still states the 1997 special edition came to DVD.This is not true. | |||
| Please let's do change it.The 2004 DVD edition is a sperate edition.See ] to learn more.Regards.--] | |||
| Sorry,I didn't know you were away.About the return of the jedi article,I fixed it.The problem wasn't in the article of the original trilogy,but on each movie seperately.It states that the movie was re-released in 1997 on theatres,VHS,Laserdisc and DVD.This is not true.The 2004 DVD editions are '''not''' the 1997 special editions because they carry significant differences to the 1997 editions.True they are special editions because of updates and better special effects,but they are not the 1997 editions. | |||
| I think you should add the articles to you watchlist in case a confused user reverts my edits.I'll even bring this up on the Star Wars discussion page just to clarify.Regards.--] | |||
| ==Outside Opinion Requested: Children of Men== | |||
| Hi! | |||
| I was hoping to enlist your assistance in resolving a difference in edits for the article for the movie, ]. | |||
| The differences in edits is relatively minor but contentious, with low-level edit-warring back and forth replacing one version, then the other. It has even resulted in one of the parties being reported for 3RR violations. And of course, it has strained civility to the breaking point. A third voice (preferably someone who has seen the movie, but not vital) is needed. A request for editor review was requested before from two other editors, without response. I would suggest taking a look at the key points as they have been debated on the discussion page, but the debate has gone on for...quite a bit. | |||
| If you will permit me, the two edits take place in the synopsis, viewed by their diff . | |||
| *One side of the debate (indicated by the linked edit on the left) argues that statements and sounds heard at the end of the film (the sounds of children laughing and playing and the words Shantih, Shantih, Shantih appearing on the screen at the very end) were not specifically part of the synopsis as it was no more a part of the "storyworld" than the credits or specifcally thematic components. This pov statees that the components are solely thematic, and should be only be mentioned in the Themes header of the article. | |||
| *The other side of the debate (indicated by the linked edit on the right) argues that these same statements, by the very fact that they were observable portions of the film should be a part of the synopsis, in keeping with the of the word, further reasoning that casual visitors want an accurate depiction of what was on the screen for the film's duration, allowing for any thematic discussion of the synopsis to take place in the Themes section, either in brief or in depth. | |||
| I thank you for taking the time to read this request, and I hope you can assist us in finding a compromise.] 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==I'm somewhat back== | |||
| Congrats on the House Pilot episode, great work on that. I will copyedit the article tomorrow, and let me know if you need anything for the FAC. I have been moving, changing schools, and getting engaged, so haven't been as busy on Misplaced Pages these last few months. :) ] 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==A Fine Line== | |||
| On a somewhat related issue, please allow me to pick your brain a bit. When writing a synopsis, there is the need to avoid OR. Where is the fine line between the use of descriptive words in the synopsis which describe a character's motivations and inventing them? In examples, most taken from an FA article: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| All of the aforementioned articles use descriptive words to allude to the perceived state of the characters in the film. Can you explain the difference to me a bit?] 06:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A bit over my head for all that before my first cuppa, but I think I understand yiour point. Of the four examples, 1,2 and 4 were from FA articles. Number 3 was a proposed alteration to the synopsis which would have reflected the intended ambiguity of the ending. The entire film, the viewer is told that the Human Project is trying to save mankind from extinction, and when we finally see them in the final moments of the film, they are not friendly at all. They don't wave, they don't smile; they don't act like Good Guys. A firend of mine said that she thought that 10 minutes later, it could very well have been a horror movie. Add to that the warning that Theo told Kee to keep the baby close, no matter what, and there is enough amibuity for second helpings. Do you see my point?] 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your "helpful" edits == | |||
| Would you please knock it off with the removing sections. It equalizes the House episodes and when anonymous members and regular ones want to place something in a catgoery and it isn't there, they tend to make different names and throw the whole system out of whack.<br>]] ] 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hey! "Borderline personal attack? Grow up. Stop removing content willy-nilly. If you plan to reorganize the way you just ''have'' to have it, '''stop ignoring all the info submitted and file it appropriately'''. Don't be lazy. <br>]] ] 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree. You didn't open any discussion about the articles, you just went through and deleted the sections. Those are big chunks of text and if you don't think they should be there, tell us why. But please don't start blanket editing the articles like that without talking about it first. You can agrue why those sections should be removed and let the community discuss it (because this is a community and a lot of people work on these articles). Until then, I'm going to restore those sections. ] 02:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ESB == | |||
| I'm thinking about taking a break from copy-editing. I gave the lead a quick runthrough, and I'll go through and give it a quick read once I get the chance. — ''']]''' 14:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I decided to butt in really and help out, as I've never really edited a ''Star Wars'' article. Why exactly do you need others to copyedit by the way? I hope ESB and ROTJ are featured by the end of the year. ] 20:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey, I'm afraid that I have zero time for Misplaced Pages at the moment. ''Both'' of my hard drives just got wiped by some bizarre hardware failure — my current guess is that a cable somehow became loose — so I'm going to be spending some quality time getting my system fully up. Sorry that I can't help you this time around. — ]::''']''' 09:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'll take a look later today. Am about to leave the house in a few minutes. Appreciate the invitation! —] (] • ] • ]) - 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Thanks for the message. I'll be sure to check it all out soon. Cheers. ] 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hope the changes are satisfactory. Let me know if anything further is needed. —] (] • ] • ]) - 15:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Meh, sorry about that. I think my eyes perceived a ghost paragraph or something? I think I need some coffee on this fine morning. —] (] • ] • ]) - 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "Be Bold" == | |||
| The article also says don't be reckless. If you see an empty section that no-one has added text to, you can feel free to delete it. It doesn't improve the article to have empty places, you're right. But that doesn't mean you should delete half the page around it as well, including places where there ARE text. ] 02:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Another awesome job!== | |||
| Empire strikes back looks great, only needed very minor copyediting at this point. It has come a long way from before it was GA. I hope to be more helpful on the Return of the Jedi, a personal favorite of mine :) Be in touch! ] 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hey== | |||
| Dear Filmaker, | |||
| I came across your page as I was looking at FAC pages. Six pages in your FA history, quite impressive! I am working on getting the ] page to FA status. So, I was hoping to get your advice on how to get there? Thanks for your time! ] 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==One to go== | |||
| Congrats; one more to go :) Then it's on to individual characters and concepts? — ''']]''' 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Image request == | |||
| You're one of those guys who can make an image off a DVD. I have a request then: I intend on making '']'' FA, and what I need is something from the ] hosted documentary: | |||
| *Stan Winston's company making animatronics. | |||
| *The animatic of T-rex chasing Gallimimuses that made Spielberg and Tippett realise CGI was here to stay. | |||
| Contact on whether or not you can do it. It'd be much obliged. ] 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Aw shucks. What tool is needed to make images as a quick query? ] 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Godfather== | |||
| The new version looks a lot better, for sure. — ''']]''' 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure! I'll take a look :) ] 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==CineVoter== | |||
| {| align=center class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #000000; padding: .5em; margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 95%; width: auto;" | |||
| | style="padding-right: 4px; padding-left: 4px;" | ] | |||
| | You voted for the ], and it has been chosen as <br/><big><center>''']'''.</center></big>'''Please help improve it''' to match the quality of an ] Misplaced Pages ] article.</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| <small>This is an automated notice by ] 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I have added the summary of the special effects from watching the doucmentary and an online source and have added the complete awards section which I have sub parted in reaction as it looked too big,. THis may need writing into the text further I don't really mind. I plan to take an image of the rig for the Ventian house used while filming to show the mechanics of the baloon and cylinders -this would give it that bit extra to show - look we really know what we are talking about here. I plan to add a small section on technical specs type of cameras used etc. When this is copy edited it a bit then I want this up for a featured proposal. It is becoming an excellent article ] <sup>]]</sup> 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Other users seem pleased enough with the progession so far but it may need to be cut down slightly I don't want it over 60kb ] <sup>]]</sup> 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Why delete all three? At least one ] <sup>]]</sup> 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If the character is so unimportant why does he have his own wikipedia article when most of the others are on merged lists? ] <sup>]]</sup> 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In many film articles the film not only has an image of the dvd but also the soundtrack. The poster is the dvd ] <sup>]]</sup> 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| An image of an award win is used in ] in exactly the same way which I helped get to an FA. Of course it is not essential but are any of the other images truly essential? I am trying to improve this as much as possible and believe images really help fit the full picture. I don't like articles with no vidual media whatsoever but also don't like clutter. I thought it was fine at least with one of them] <sup>]]</sup> 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I do find it very odd that you beleive that the gun barrel image really adds something absolutely amazing to the plot but an image of a major award win in the award section isn't. I think you'll choose anything to suit your own opinions. Can you tell me staight and honestly you think that gun barrel image tells something remarkable about the plot. It is in the plot section. I don't have a problem with it but that does not really add anything significant to the plot. Images help to put it into its context. ] <sup>]]</sup> 10:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OK then but I am returning just the dvd image then -this like the main poster is part of the campaign for the dvd promotion which constitutes a sepreate paragraph. DVD release is very important an an image showing it is not a problem and helps the article. Look I am trying to improve this and I can't see that an image or two is really damaging to the article. ] <sup>]]</sup> 10:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| How does the image of the gun barrel help the article? ] <sup>]]</sup> 14:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Look life is too short to argue I would rather work together friendly to get it to FA status rathing than wasting each others time when we could work ogether properly. but are you saying an image of the key to the plot Mr White is not helping to create "the look" of the film. However little he appeared in the film this was intentional to create an air of mystery. He even has a seperate wikipedia article when 90% of the other characters are on lists. How can you say he is not important to the film? I'll forget the award image but i diagree with you about the others. The question is what is stopping this article from becoming an FA? ] <sup>]]</sup> 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OK I'll leave white out but if I find the proper dvd cover not the poster surely you can't argue against this? Some Bond articles like Die another day have unneccesaary images of both soundtrack, book and dvd. An image of dvd is the most important that those others. ] <sup>]]</sup> 11:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to see these following improvements until it is ready for FA nomination: | |||
| *Intergrate award list fully into written text and avoid redundant repetition. | |||
| *Copy edit the article fully -most notably in the reaction and release section where some wording is not quite polished enough -too many short sentences and some phrasing is still quite clumsy. | |||
| *Try to intergrate a bit of basic summary of the screenplay into an existing section basic differences from original novel -the similarity to Flemings and original charcter and plot also needs at the very least mentioning. No quoting but some mention of the dialogue in places might help -Judi Dench's character is even more hostile this time and she uses stonger language than ever before in fitting with the "darker Bond". | |||
| *Mentioning the dates of casting - it was actually done in September 2005 and the final decsion for Craig for made in only a few weeks announced in October although the production team had had their eye on Craig since 2003. | |||
| *One final image please. of the actual DVD COVER from than the poster. I'll forget about the award and Mr White. | |||
| What do you think amigo? ] <sup>]]</sup> 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have restructured sentencing and phrasing considerably with more professional wording throughout the article now removing a few sentences and words which affect the integrity of the article, the release section was repetitive before also and 3/4 of the US section before was about the UK -it should appear more readible now it has been rewritten. I also hope you like the Special effects section, which I see as the missing gap in info and having watched the doucmentary several times on behind the scenes I can confirm it sumarizes all the important information fully and I beleive it is a very useful asset in learning about the film. I would like to add a final image of the venice rig set used at Pinewood whilst filming though but I have mostly finished my work and appreciate that you all allowed me to improve it where I was intially reverted within seconds!!! I hope you and everyone is happy with the developments and won't re edit it too much. If there is no objection I now think it just about ready for FA proposal. ALl the best ] <sup>]]</sup> 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC). | |||
| OK whatever. I am amazed at your distaste for images!!!! I figure at least one image in bottom section helps and was very appropriate but never mind. Whatever the case I have rewritten the article and am proposing it for an FA today. Thanks for your appreciation anyway even if we can't agree on the images!!!! ] <sup>]]</sup> 09:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hey ok that fine mate. I just thought it might help the article. The important thing is that I have rewritten the article and it is hopefully up to FA. I beleive we already have one or two supports already - beleive me I couldn't care less about the images if this is voted an FA without them. I only thought it might help improve it. The main thing is that people are happy with my work and are aware that I have an ability -that people respect my work and everybody else combined who have made the article are respected too for their efforts including yourself. All the best ] <sup>]]</sup> 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==James Blond== | |||
| I have addressed the James Blond in the intro. THats the best pplace to mention the protest against Bond the casting section should discuss the actual decsion making process beofre going on to production. I wish you had quickly told me that you saw it as a problem before opposing and it can be quickly rectified ] <sup>]]</sup> 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Personally I consider in my view 5'10 is short and I don't really consider 6'1 all that tall I'm 6'4 1/2 and in my view Craig is pretty rough looking!!! but amzingly he does seem to have that quality of a bond which is beleivable. Those possible pov issues have been worded to show it is the view of fans who threatened to boycott the film rather than saying he is short or is blond. It is very difficult to attempt to please verybody but I agree that the briefing helps considerably and his highly appropriate ] <sup>]]</sup> 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| But remember it is from my view. 5 ft 10 I believe is even slightly above average in the UK let alone other countries (except Holland) so of course its not short compared to most of the population -but it depends on whose perspective!!! THis same thing applies in the article people see things from different persepctives. Anyway I hope the brief helps fill in the gap Saludos ] <sup>]]</sup> 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. ] <sup>]]</sup> 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Somebody has removed the section I added. Even if the sources are removed we have to mention the controversy at least in a sentence or two. It is very difficult to accomdate everyone!!!] <sup>]]</sup> 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have restored the brief but rmeoved the website reference. Going well so far 6/6 in support. ] <sup>]]</sup> 10:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===New section:Title sequence=== | |||
| Another sub section summarizing details of how the credits were designed and the reasons behind it would be even greater | |||
| *http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4511 | |||
| ] <sup>]]</sup> 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Private == | |||
| Sure thing. My IM is SonOfYoungwood, and my e-mail is SonOfYoungwood@aol.com. — ''']]''' 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Godfather == | |||
| That debate seems to be going about the same as always, which means it will probably result in a delete. — ''']]''' 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Jurassic Park FAC == | |||
| You wouldn't mind making a comment at ]? It'd be much appreciated. ] 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello? ] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == CineVoter == | |||
| {| align=center class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #000000; padding: .5em; margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 95%; width: auto;" | |||
| | style="padding-right: 4px; padding-left: 4px;" | ] | |||
| | You voted for the ], and it has been chosen as <br/><big><center>''']'''.</center></big>'''Please help improve it''' to match the quality of an ] Misplaced Pages ] article.</small> | |||
| |}--<font style="background:Orange;">]]</font> 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == What topic within the DST debate isn't being covered? == | |||
| Thanks for your contribution ] to the DST talk page. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by the "debate as to whether to discontinue" DST? How does this differ from the topics currently covered in the DST page's ] section? ] 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == POV Pusher == | |||
| Looks like he's stopped for now. — ''']]''' 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've warned Venom-Smasher for 3RR, since he's one edit away if not over the limit for today, but something tells me that it's not going to stop him. I'll keep an eye on those articles too, since I feel they are neutral, but hopefully we can all come to a solution on the problem that won't result in a bunch of 3RR blocks or worse. ''''']]<sup>]</sup>''''' 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I saw what happened back in December, but wasn't really up to getting involved other than trying to revert him back once or twice. I guess the only thing we can do is wait right now since I reverted back to the original versions on both Episodes I and II. His incivility is getting out of hand though, and that can end up in a much bigger block than 3RR if he keeps it up. ''''']]<sup>]</sup>''''' 04:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == New section "Politics" added to Daylight saving time == | |||
| Thanks for your ] dated April 25 on ]. I've added a section ] that I hope addresses the issue. The page recently came up as a Featured Article Candidate, and two reviewers agreed with you on exactly that point—good call! Please see ] if you'd like to weigh in on the latest version of the article. ] 23:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==ROTJ== | |||
| Star Wars articles take second highest priority, so I'll pick at it for the next few days. — ''']]''' 19:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == SW languages == | |||
| Hi. Just to make it clear, I wasn't trying to bring a chuckle, it's fact: . But maybe it doesn't belong to the infobox. I'll try to put it into the article somehow. --] 04:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hello!== | |||
| How's it going? What have you been up to lately? Need someone to help with ROTJ soon? All the best! ] 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Star Wars image == | |||
| Policy has lately been clarified at ] per the new foundation licensing policy. In short, the situation is not the same as before, and non-free images are no longer used on the MainPage. I believe the building to be a satisfactory image, as it represents a very prominent location in the film (i.e. the hero's childhood home), and would be familiar to any fan. If you have another suggestion of a free image, I would of course be glad to hear it.--] 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately, we cannot post "non-free content" on the main page because of legal nonsense. — ''']]''' 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:Lead == | |||
| It doesn't say anything like that on ]. I hope this was an innocent mistake, rather than an attempt to mislead a newbie. ] 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Star Wars Film Title Acronyms == | |||
| I have replied to your comments in the 'Appropriate Tone' paragraph on the discussion page for A New Hope, be interested to hear any further thoughts you have on this. ] 15:04, 26 May 2007 | |||
| == Where to next? == | |||
| I wonder, after getting ROTJ to FA, what film series would you like to focus your attention next? ] 09:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Cool for Indiana Jones, I've always been whipping '']'' into shape. ] 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think you could work on '']'', because those articles need a lot of work. I can keep tending to Indiana Jones, though I will request your help if I really, really need it. How does that sound? ] 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "please do research before removing information" == | |||
| No. The burden of proof is on the editors who add information. If the link is all that it takes to clarify it (although I'm still dubious on this whole "canon scale"), then the editor should include it. What I saw was information "substantiated" by an unreliable source; it was fine for me to remove it. --] 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: "Manos" title == | |||
| '']'' was the title of the page when I first came across it. I changed it to '']'' because no one could give a good reason at the time for that particular form, and that was the title being used on IMDB. In actuality, if you check around on the internet you will find that there is no definitive form of the title that everyone seems to agree on, I've seen it as ''Manos, The Hands of Fate'' and ''Manos - The Hands of Fate'' as well. | |||
| Recently, however, I was reading a critique of the film, and the author stated that he choses ''"Manos" The Hands of Fate'' as the "real" title as that is its form in the opening and closing title cards of the film. That made up my mind on the subject, and when someone else changed it to that form in the body of the article, I thought I might as well change it back to the way it was. -- ] 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Do Not Want == | |||
| Is or (encyclopedia dramatica link blacklisted) good enough to cite as a reference? I couldn't find a news article or anything like that. If it's not, I'll just be quiet about it. ] 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"Unfortunately, no those will not work. Websites with information that is submitted by everyday joes are not allowed as sources for Misplaced Pages. The Filmaker 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)" | |||
| ::Ironic, isn't it? Basically a Wiki by that definition can't be a source for a Wiki. Anyway, nevermind then. ] 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image (Image:Star wars episode one the phantom menace ver1.jpg)== | |||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ]] 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Infobox== | |||
| I don't really have an opinion on this one; it has its advantages and disadvantages. However, the synthesized budget numbers and whatnot will need sources. — ''']]''' 00:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Return of the Jedi == | == Re: Return of the Jedi == | ||
Revision as of 18:16, 19 June 2007
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Filmaker. |
Re: Return of the Jedi
Hey. I've worked on some FA pushes (i.e. Final Fantasy XII). I am looking forward to working with you. I am usually interested in FA pushes. Can you help me out? I am considering some articles for my self-nomination. All Wikiprojects always stride for GAs and FAs, remember? By the way, thank you for your comments both on the Return of the Jedi article and on my talk page. They are much appreciated. :D Good luck and regards. Sjones23 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've halted the FAC on the Return of the Jedi until these issues that you explained are resolved (see Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi#FAC). Thanks. Sjones23 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would need some help in finding sources, especially for the production section. I will need some people from the League of Copyeditors for the copyediting. Thanks. Sjones23 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've done some copyediting on the article, placed a copyedit request at the WikiProject League of Copyeditors and added a "copyedit" tag, but is there anything else left I can do to help with this article on becoming an FA status? Thanks. Sjones23 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I would be very much appreciated if you help me find a copyeditor or find reliable sources for this article. Thanks. Sjones23 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would need some help in finding sources, especially for the production section. I will need some people from the League of Copyeditors for the copyediting. Thanks. Sjones23 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've halted the FAC on the Return of the Jedi until these issues that you explained are resolved (see Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi#FAC). Thanks. Sjones23 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
AfD
I've made my recommendation, but I have to say that it unfortunately looks like the AfD will wind up for keep or no consensus. These processes are usually a WOFT because most editors don't know what arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I think, also, the general rule of thumb is that the longer the AfD page (not in terms of votes recommendations, but back-and-forth discussion), the less likely a consensus is reached. Also, quid pro quo, would you mind checking out Road to Perdition? I've been expanding it (still need to rewrite the Plot section and add a decent Critical reaction section), but thoughts on the structure would be appreciated. I still have citations on the talk page that I'm incorporating into the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. You basically said what I said, just (as I reflected on it when I put it back) with a little less "tone". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Made in America (The Sopranos)
In regard to your recent edits to the article, I noticed you changed the section title "Plot summary" to "Plot". The addition of "summary" was to clarify that the section is meant to summary, rather than the entirety of the plot. The shortened title is also dwarfed by the subsection that proceeds it. Just64helpin 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Made in America (the Sopranos)
You deleted a submission to the Sopranos article adding only four letters to describe your reasons for doing so, typing 'rv or', i presume you mean 'original research' - the contribution was as follows:
"Most interpretations of the ending scene take no account of the song playing in the diner as Tony first enters - "All That You Dream" - its chorus is - - "I've been down but not like this before - Can't be 'round this kind of show no more" - Given that Chase has said he will make no further comment, the significance of this is up to the viewers."
If you had bothered to cut and paste these lyrics into the web you would see that by now thousands of people are discussing this. the only section of the contribution that could be qualified as original research is the final sentence, stating that given the writers will make no comment, the viewers are left to interpret its meaning for themselves.
So why did you remove it?