Misplaced Pages

You're very welcome! I was pleased to see it come through the day relatively unscathed, with only a couple of queries on the talk page—testament to the time and effort you put into it. All the best, Steve  08:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fashion Architecture Taste

Thanks for the offer Steve. I think it may not be finished actually for quite some time. :) But I'll try to be patient. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to FAC The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Thanx for the edits Steve!! I was exhausted yesterday when typing it, so I did make a lot mistakes. Also in the The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie#Filming section can you revise this awkward section: Draper explained that the the production would often "sneak into locations and run". Thanx! ATC 22:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also in the lead, the problem is some sources say "Family Feature Film" and others say "Best Family Feature". I called the festival and they said their is no such thing of a "Best Family Feature" award and it's a "Family Feature Film" award. ATC 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I went ahead and made those tweaks; sorry for jumping in to do the copy-edit without doing you the courtesy of asking first; this morning (UK time) was my only opportunity, and I guessed you wouldn't be around until this evening. All the best, Steve  22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I had stuff to do, so wasn't around barely at all when I sent you the message. Um...I know I might be making a little bit of a fuss about it, but in the interviews with Polly and Michael; they both said it won the "best family film award", so I'm not entirely sure what that means. Maybe when announced as the winner, the announcer said: "It's one of the best family feature film awards given out."? I'm not sure exactly. What do you think? ATC 00:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to pin down exactly what it's called, as Google returns no overwhelming consensus. However, the Hamptons Festival website does call it the "2005 Family Film Audience Award", if that helps. Steve  00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another listing in another category does or did call it "children's feature film award" and a blog site, which took all the photography at the Hamptons Film Festival that day for all of the screenings. The lady I spoke to on the phone said that is not a category, so it must've been typo. (Also, just so you are away, I tried retrieving pics and the lady on the phone said they don't have any copyright permission to lend photos, and the copyright permission belongs to the blog site.) Anyway...maybe if we had more people see this, we can get more ideas. ATC 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

HI Steve! I'm contacting you to let you know that I've restored your recent edits to the article, some of which were lost after subsequent edits went in. As per Tony's most recent comment here I was wondering if you have time to make the final copyediting push before the FAC is closed? Your edits were good, and I seem to have lost perspective with this article because I've worked on it a little too much. Thanks in advance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A section in particular that can use a little work is the Casting section. Thanx Steve! Oh, and thanx, Truthkeeper88 for all of you hard work. You have worked a lot on the article, and appreciate it. ATC 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of your edits have been great Truthkeeper88 and I think the article is almost perfectly written. ATC 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Changeling

Just wanted to let you know that I added an image of Eastwood at the Cannes Film Festival to the release section in the article. I asked the author to let us use the image back around the time that the article was at FAC in the hopes of getting you another free image for the article. Unfortunately, the author didn't get back to me until today. Anyway, better late than never. Feel free to reword/adjust the image as you see fit. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that looks great to me. Kudos for going through the hoops required to let us use this image and for those you've located for use in other articles. Thanks, Steve  18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Godfather

The IP from Heat (1995 film) is editing the genre at The Godfather. Wanted to give you a heads-up. Erik (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out, but my hands are a little tied button-wise. I can't semi-protect the page (not that that's what you were suggesting) because I've expressed an opinion on the talk page about what the genre should be (unlike Heat, where I only entered the conversation afterwards—at the time I protected I didn't have a particular opinion either way). I'm sure it'd be OK, as the IP is likely a block-evader, but some noise could be made of it per WP:UNINVOLVED. The IP is editing outside consensus, so if he/she continues to edit war I think a report at WP:RPP might be successful. Steve  13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot that you weighed in. Does not seem to be further activity at this point, so it may not be an issue after all. Let's hope I haven't spoken too quickly... Erik (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the IP passes the duck test as being a sock of Pé de Chinelo, so I wonder if it would be out of the question for me to wield the hammer based on that alone... Steve  13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, get someone else in on it. Regardless of the IP's block-evading, genre is a valid issue that the IP is just causing trouble over. Erik (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes

It looks like the wording and the linking we originally set up to report Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes may be off, and I think our language has proliferated a little bit. :) See this discussion. Erik (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SECR K and SR K1 classes FAC attempt

Hello again. As you previously assisted with the SECR N class FAC by reviewing the article and making suggestions for improvement, I'm wondering if you'd like to review this article as well? Any prose tightening and identification of areas that require explanation would be most helpful. Thank-you, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! I can't promise I'll get around to it right away; barring the odd drop-in review, I'm taking a couple of months away from FAC to pen something of my own. In week or two I'll hopefully have got it out of the way, so if I get around to any reviews after that, I'll make SECR K and SR K1 classes the first. All the best, Steve  23:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant illustration

This gave me a smile :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I nearly laughed out loud after reading it. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Although you've got a grammatical error in there... what would Tony think? (thread hijack) If you've got time at some point, could you take another look at The Search for Spock? BrianBoulton was nice enough to give it a stiff copyedit, but he was concerned about the level of detail in the production section, specifically the special effects. I'm loath to cut content... but I thought a second opinion couldn't hurt in regards to that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that I profoundly like your extremely elegant example. --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If I send you chocolates or barnstars or scotch, will you follow me around and correct my prose?  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably owe Steve chocolates for setting such a good example with Changeling (film). I am starting to unstand how much effort he put into that article while putting together Up in the Air (film). 8-) --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh ... hey, don't go putting me on any kind of pedestal when it comes to writing, you two. :-) I made 951 edits to Changeling (film), and I reckon at least half of those were copyedits to my typically-overwrought prose, hoping it'd get the Tony1 seal of approval at FAC—I consider his "satisfactory" high praise indeed. ;-) Steve  23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie (1990 film)

Hey there Steve, I'm not sure if you read my response on Sandy's page; but after you read it, I just wanted to let you know, the article is really coming along. I added numerous additions using that so-called gold mine of information from the Google Books search to the Production and Release sections. The article is almost at FA Status.....lOl.......But by the way, I did look into that "American Cinematographer" link, and for me to retrieve it; it costs like $75 to buy it!!! Its not free!!! .....So we'll see about that....I'll let you know ....lOl... Mike Tompsonn (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I also forgot to mention; Good Work on the American Beauty film article. I see your 600 edits in contributing to the page. I look for insight from it, in improving The Rookie article. I'm sure your article will be ready for FA Status fairly soon. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.130.66 (talk)

Hi, sorry for not replying sooner; Wikitime has been limited recently. It looks like you've added some decent stuff to The Rookie article. Hopefully more will follow (it's a pity about that American Cinematographer article ... $75, wow). Rather than take it straight to FAC when you feel it's finished, it might be a good idea to go to the lower-pressure zone of Peer Review; if you drop a note at WT:FILM at the same time, inviting comment, I'm sure you'll get a couple of decent reviews and some constructive remarks—at the more confrontational (by design) WP:FAC, you might simply get a few people saying "Oppose, not ready" (as the recent submission proved), and you'll be no better off about what needs improving. And thanks for you comments about American Beauty; it's not quite finished, but I don't think it'll be too much longer. Good luck, Steve  21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Will do. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve, since we last spoke, I made numerous corrections to the page trying to enhance it. Unfortunately, I never got around to getting that American Cinematographer issue from '91 because of the steep price to retrieve it. However, thanks to your help and insight, I included pretty much everything I could from the Google Book searches. Following my edits, as it stands now, I have almost 10 books as references in the article, plus a few new reviews in the critical reception area. The Production and Release sections are now vastly improved. Take a new look at it to see my most recent changes. I've been thinking about what you've said as far as Peer Review is concerned; but I really feel I can skip that step and take it to the FA level. You sounded skeptical before when I mentioned other film articles with slim content making FA status; but here are two FA examples for you: November and Dog Day Afternoon. I think the Rookie article actually contains more text and has a stronger intro than either one of them. Plus neither of them have even WP:ALT text for their main image!! Give me your expert opinion and let me know what you think. And just keep these few bullets in mind about the article:

• Strong Introduction
• Main image includes WP:ALT
• Plot is in correct format and composition while being properly detailed but not too overly detailed.
• Production and Release sections are greatly expanded and now feature thorough referenced content.
• The References section is correctly punctuated with Dated info. (And of course, the rest of the article is well-written too)
• It has all the necessary External links without going overboard turning it into a LinkFarm
• It is completely categorized correctly for Police Detective, Buddy Cop, and Los Angeles setting films etc....

I can take the heat if it doesn't pass, but if those other 2 films made it, I don't see why this film in its current state can't either. Let me know.....Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 5:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I see you've already submitted the article to FAC, but just a note that those two film FAs you cited were promoted years ago (2005 and 2006) and may not meet today's FA standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Steveeeee, looks like the show is over....lOl.......I'm not sure if you saw my last comment on the FAC page, but I made a few major tweaks to the final look of the page. The References section was cleaned up and I added more sources to the paragraphs within the Production section that were lacking. The article is close to being the best I could make it. Hope you like it in its current incarnation. Thanks for the help. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I do like it, no matter what I might have said about the article elsewhere; you've done a fine job. All the best, Steve  21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gr8, thanks. Oh hey Steve by the way, do you remember the American Cinematographer issue we spoke about? And the steep price??? ...... Well You know, I was just looking on eBAY, and I saw a private merchant selling that older back issue for only $3.99!!! ... So I bought it! ... I will look through it, and in the coming weeks, I will expand the production section with additional info. But next time around, I will first visit Peer Review. We'll see where the article ends up. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank god you didn't pay $75 for it; I'd have hated to have recommended the issue for it to contain only one small paragraph about the film. :-) Still, all the American Cinematographer articles I've read/used have been pretty in depth, so it should be OK. Good luck, Steve  22:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Akira

Helloes. I see Akira Kurosawa has just gone up for peer review. Apparently they would like it to be an FA in March as it will be the centenary of his birth. I support this, as he's a legend, in't he? I know you're very involved with film articles and do peer reviews, so I thought this might interest you. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hallo! I noticed your comment the other day about becoming more involved in content review; GA, PR and FAC are always backlogged and could definitely use it. As for Kurosawa ... I'm relatively inexperienced with bios (I think Pappworth is my only one), so I don't know what standards the various WikiProjects have, but Kurosawa probably needs an overhaul before FAC-submission. I can't find any other director featured articles to compare it to, but if you look at something like Phil Hartman (which got its gold star last year), you'll see the difference—fully cited, nicely presented, written, etc. A "finished" Kurosawa article would probably be five times as long. Still, I don't want to be too down about it; it's a decent start and while time's a bit limited for almost all web activity at the mo', if I get a chance I'll throw some useful comments the way of "Dylanexpert". Cheers, Steve  22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

American Beauty Overflow

Hi there... just seen the requests for you to edit down the article. Bugger, eh? I can see both sides but my sympathies most definitely lie with the folk who go to all the effort to create the content as opposed to the boringly correct people who complain of length. So I'm here wondering if you'll perhaps shunt all the stuff you remove onto the talk page? I think it's what I would do. It's like a compromise; you please the length nazis but you keep the content as near as it can be to the article. Waddya reckon? (Rhetorical question; no need for reply, just an idea). Best --bodnotbod (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, Awadewit was right about the length; co-nom Erik had urged me to make similar cuts too. At the time, I figured, "screw it; the more information the better", but it's not just a case of its overwhelming the reader; there are technical problems with too-long articles. Load times can be an issue, especially when trying to edit the article, and it may have even caused the difficulties you saw with the reference links. As Awadewit said, the material that I cut would perhaps be more appropriate for an Interpretations of American Beauty sub-article one day. Thanks again for your review, Steve  10:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"City of Blinding Lights"

Wow, thanks so much for doing that copyedit on "City of Blinding Lights"! It's exactly what the article needed, and it couldn't have come at a better time. Thanks a bunch for it! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome. I saw the opposition on the FAC page and stalked followed your contribs to see if you'd found a copy-editor yet. Noticing that you'd asked Malleus to take another look, I thought I'd see if I could give it a quick polish before he read it. :-) In the end, it was only a light copy-edit, as it looked like you'd already resolved most of the FAC issues; I don't claim to be a great writer, but hopefully it's enough to push it over the edge. Good luck! Steve  16:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if it does end up passing, that light copy-edit will have definitely helped in getting it there. Thanks again! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Howdy. I don't understand your edit summary for reinserting The Economist book review of an entirely separate piece of work which, on one of its many pages, happens to mention The Revolution Will Not Be Televised in passing ("Mr Nelson finds contains many manipulations"). The page is about a documentary and we need to stick as closely to sources that discuss these details entirely in the context of the Irish film. Otherwise we are turning every page into a battleground by repeating arguments from 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Will you kindly justify your edit on article talk? Thanks. Wikispan (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I don't have a lot of time to get into this on the talk page, but as explained in the edit summary, my edit was not intended as support (or otherwise) of the sentence, it was merely providing a citation for text that was already in the article and had a {{cn}} tag. Steve  23:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Others say only a few thousand. How did you land on "hundreds of thousands"? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gunson, Phil (May 1, 2004). "Director's cut". Columbia Journalism Review. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)—this says 500,000. However, respecting the fact that march figures (anywhere in the world) are often disputed, I decided to be vague about it and go with "hundreds of". Steve  00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no link to that and a subscription is required in any case. Can you do better than that? Something for us non-elite editors that don't have special access? Or do we have to take your word for it? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Charles, I have a copy, and FWIW, it does say 500,000 and Steve is summarizing it accurately-- it's a very short article, so he can't leave out much! Also, estimates of the march that day range as high as 1,000,000, so generically saying "hundreds of thousands" covers it nicely, but on the low side, which shouldn't ruffle any feathers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you stopped posting everywhere I do, Sandy Georgia. It gives me the creepy feeling that you are following me around wikipedia. Also, I object to you calling me Charles, even though you finally got the name right. It seems like you know me, and you do not at all. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, well, I've been posting to and following Steve's page for a very long time. I'm sorry my presence troubles you so much, and I'm not going to type out Charles Rodriguez every time I address you, so I just won't :) Gee, I was coming here to offer to e-mail you the article, but I guess I don't really want you to have my IP address, if you still can't be nice. Toodaloo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. I've just see User:Unitanode threatened with a block for not using another editor's first name. When exactly did the lunatics take over the asylum? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You already know the answer to that :) I've had things said to me multiple times daily over the last month, that would have seen you blocked in a second. I've never been so aware of the double standard that troubles you as I have been since I resumed editing Ven articles ... they can say whatever they want to or about me, and nothing happens! Heck, you'd be banned by now if you had done a tenth of what I've endured this month :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, SandyGeorgia, or should I call you just Sandy :) , just because you have posted here before does not mean you have to comment on my every post, does it :) ? Or is there something that compells you to respond to every post that I don't know about :) ? Some wiki rule or what ever that says you must respond to each one of my posts, no matter where? Is there :) ? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that SandyG was trying to be helpful, but that you're determined to be a dick. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just falling head over heels and can't live without you. BigStupid

I'm certain you must be replying to Mr Rodriguez, not to me. In reply to the point you made earlier, about me being blocked if I'd done what others have done, I received some good advice after my last daft block, which in a nutshell that those who come to my talk page waving their civility warnings around do so to deliberately provoke a reaction from me that will in their eyes justify a block, a reaction that they're not going to get in the future. Apologies to Steve for wasting this space on your talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

you know I can't format my indents correctly !! Ha, ha, leave you guessing. But look how well I've trained you to leave a space between posts for my eyesight :) Steve won't mind (I hope) ... I recall once a very fun conversation with him here ... besides, he's off watching a really boring movie, so he'll have some entertainment when he gets back ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I can only hope that you, Steve, are sincere and not part of this Twitter generation (as above) who seem not to take wikipedia seriously. :) I see that SandyGeorgia, sorry Sandy (perhaps he/she prefers that), has the habit of drowning anyone who edits in a way she (he?) dislikes with endless posts. :) Enough of that. I shall not post here again. If you, Steve, want to contact me please do on my talk page. This is silly nonsense here, and I do not believe that most wikipedia editors engage in this nonsense, but I may be wrong. :) Misplaced Pages is not at all like what I thought to edit. I realize that most editors here carry the power and don't give new editors a chance.  :) I have been told of that. :) And now I see it is true. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Awesomeness

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		You are so awesome! Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)