User talk:TheRealFennShysa - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jojhutton (talk | contribs) at 18:09, 14 February 2011 (→Star Wars Episodes: good source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:09, 14 February 2011 by Jojhutton (talk | contribs) (→Star Wars Episodes: good source)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives
November 2004 – June 2006 July 2006 – December 2007 January 2008 – December 2008 January 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – December 2010

Saruman

You've recently reverted some of my edits on the Saruman page. For now I'll let some drop, but I'll list a few minor edits here, and you can tell me if you have any problem with them:

1) Colin Manlove's statement under the "involvement in themes" is irrelevant, and untrue to an extent

2) In the second para of the intro, there's a sentence "The name Saruman means "man of skill". This point is repeated under the "Names" section, and it breaks the continuity of the para itself. I see no harm in removing it.

3) Then there's a sentence "In 1954's The Fellowship of the Ring...". What kind of grammar is this? It sounds as though 1954 is the name of the author. Any harm in changing it to "The Fellowship of the Ring (1954)?" Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Disney theatrical animated features

I'm curious about this change. You've restored all of the three problems I tried to avoid in my previous revert of the changes by the non-communicative IP editor, and which I noted in my edit summary (tom and jerry unsourced, wrong links for upcoming films, no rationale for date format changes) as well as other arguably good changes. I have no opinion on the date format change (other than noting that using this compact ISO date format seems to be acceptable in tables per WP:MOS), but several of the other changes since that old version are definitely good. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you intentionally removed my message when archiving your messages for 2010. I hope you don't mind me restoring it here. I see you've now restored some of the changes again. I'll comment on these point by point:

As noted above the ISO date format is acceptable in tables, see WP:DATESNO. Like I said, I have no preference, but claiming the full date is required per WP:MOS is incorrect.
While Kokurikozaka kara is unsourced on this list, it is not unsourced at the link target, so removing it seems inappropriate.
The reference for the one film you restored is of course appropriate, but it is less important now that that film has been released, given that this lists tends to only have references for release dates of unreleased films.
The removal of the "wide release" date for The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad does seem appropriate per the target article.
I don't know off-hand if your removal of the word "theatrical" is appropriate. Someone should check that.
I don't know if your addition of the production company Walt Disney Animation Studios for Roadside Romeo is appropriate, but I'd assume not, since the target article doesn't mention it.

I don't wish to edit war with you, I just want to make sure we don't remove good changes in our hurry to revert. --Mepolypse (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't disagree with the above, will you please self-revert these changes in the article? --Mepolypse (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you've chosen not to respond, but you may want to know that this conversation has been moved to Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated features#The revert war, where another editor has also commented. --Mepolypse (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to Star Wars Lego on main Star Wars page

I wouldn't call being at the very bottom of the page, along with things like 'Jedi Census' and 'Star Wars physics' that prominent really. And there's quite a lot of amount of canon and expanded universe stuff in the (dozens and dozens of) Lego sets and videogames. If this isn't a good place, how about a licensees page with links to Lego and books and the Kenner figures and so on? Grahamwest (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (DIC Entertainment)‎/Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (Hanna-Barbera)‎

I created the two articles "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (DIC Entertainment)‎" and "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (Hanna-Barbera)‎" so it's hard for me to be objective about this, but it was after a lot of investigation into the shows, I felt they were two different shows. I e-mailed various people involved in the production of the two shows to make sure my facts were correct, I checked carefully how these things are normally treated on Misplaced Pages, and concluded that two articles make most sense, to me it seems that

they had totally different production companies
they had totally different distributors
they had totally different casts
the animation was done by different people

the only thing they had in common was that they are about the same thing,

My thinking was if we used this approach, surely these two articles would be merged also:

As I see it they were two totally different shows, even the types of episodes were different - in the HB version they just traveled in time whereas in the DiC version they went into space, into books, etc.

Clearly this is just my opinion on things, and as I mentioned, I created the pages, so I am by no means objective about this, but I would appreciate your consideration on this.

Damiantgordon (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Series often have different production companies behind the scenes, and animated series change casts all the time. When I looked at things, I noticed that both the IMDB and the Bill & Ted official website considered them to be one series. The official site was the clincher - if an official entity calls it one, not two, then I think the case for separate series is shot down. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, thanks for that, I really was over and back on whether it was two or one articles, but I think your reasoning make 100% sense, cheers Damiantgordon (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

George Lucas

I have not violated any copyrights so why do u User talk:TheRealFennShysa always edit  
my contributions that I have made to George Lucas page ? please email me at bdarazs@rocketmail.com

Why? Because what you've been adding is original research, largely incorrect, poorly formatted, and frankly unnecessary. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

here is my source (talk) :http://www.bestwebbuys.com/George_Lucas-mcid_2115371.html?isrc=b-authorsearch. Their is a webmaster getting back to me about my permission if I can use this source. Star Wars, Episode VI Return of the Jedi -by George Lucas Paperback, Dark Horse Comics (April 2008) But to show that I am trying to make my contributions on wiki I am learning how to use this site more.This is and accurate source and cite so tell me if that is wrong or not when u check out the link I just put up there. Bear (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)User Bear620 (talk)Bear (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I got your message

Hi. I got your message. I'm new -I don't know too much about how things are run here. I am not here to incite problems or cause trouble-that was not my intention. Thank you. Mavericker (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars

I have begun a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing films#The original Star Wars trilogy in which you may be intereted in. Thanks and I look forward to reading your comments on the matter.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

Please see the WP:ANI discussion on this very issue. The original IP blanked the talk page back in December and it should not be restored. Reverting the blanking is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy and could result in your suspension of editing privileges if you continue. —Farix (t | c) 14:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

inre Dreamscape (2007 film)

I've taken this one under my wing, and will be working to address your concerns. At this point my work is by no means complete... and there is much yet to do... but when I am done with expansion and citing I will ask you to revisit the article. Thanks. Schmidt, 07:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

While I agree with your removal, it's because the content was trivial and poorly written; mere (non-)canon status is not, as you suggest, a reason to include or exclude material. --EEMIV (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kato (Producer/Artist)

I see that you have restored some tags involving a neutral point of view. I think the article is fair and does not make statements without citing credible sources. Is there anything in particular you saw that might say otherwise? 24.196.224.69 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion vs. Fact: Re: Kramer

Please see if you can lend your assistance here as a neutral party at http://en.wikipedia.org/Edward_Kramer. I have to no avail. And received a warning for it.

How does one deal with opinion vs. fact when both are in print? One example is the "riot" where investigative reporter Cohen at http://atlantajewish.com/content/2004/edkramer.html notes that there is no record of any such riot. The aforementioned article quotes witnesses of an assault. Is is incorrect to provide balance according to TOS? Please note that a 3rd party had previously evaluated the content and removed inappropriate content from OrangeMike, which he has now replaced. OrangeMike has been a past critic of both Dragon Con and Kramer prior to 2000, and his commentary reflects this bias. I have been to Dragon Con, have followed this case, but consider myself neither a close friend nor associate. Aeneas (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Message Board

I have contributed to the topic about me on the Wikiquette board and i have apologized for calling you an idiot, but you deleted it. I didn't mean for the incident to spiral into edit warring and is now being discussed on LXG's discussion page. I do feel we can work this out and hopefully help each other out with the improvement of the project like i've been doing with the Notable Deaths sections of 2003-2007. Please express concerns about my actions on my talk page and i will work to improve on them. Please accept this apology. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:22 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars Episodes

I have noticed in the past that you tend to revert references to the two films The Empire Strikes Back, and The Return of the Jedi, as being released under those titles. You appear to have the point of view that the actual titles of those films included Episode, at time of release. My question for you is; Do you have a reliable source for this, or are you solely relying on each pictures "in movie" scroll for this information.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The films themselves are the reference - both Empire and Jedi included the episode number and name in the crawl on their original release - but if you wanted to get really picky about it, the films were never marketed simply as The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi either, as both of them had Star Wars as part of their logo... However, if you need a cite, there's a Time magazine cite from May 1980 (dont' have it handy, but it's probably already on one of the pages) which specifically addresses "Episode V" showing up in Empire.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have found ample citations referring to the movies, marketed and otherwise, as simply Return of the Jedi and Empire Strikes Back. I have also seen the article from 1980 and its only reference to "Episode" in it, is that it will be included in the opening scroll, but not that the movie will be titled as Episode V. So are there any good reliable sources stating that the films were actually released with the Episode in the title, because I haven't seen any.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Time reference specifically states: "...the movie is identified as Episode V. Since it is the immediate sequel to the original Star Wars, that opus has been retitled Star Wars: Episode IV, raising a meteor shower of questions." Being in the crawl makes it part of the title.... "Star Wars", the the episode number, then the subtitle... this is a standard naming convention. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well your right it does say that. I must have seen another source. How does this single source trump, however, the hundreds of thousands of other sources, including George Lucas himself, that say the complete opposite?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)