Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Filmaker (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 19 June 2007 (archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• User talk:The Filmaker/Archive1
• User talk:The Filmaker/Archive2
• User talk:The Filmaker/Archive3

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)

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?