User talk:Millahnna/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

A little clarity please.

Exactly what part of my edit to the V (Tv Series) article is 'tenuous?' Do you deny that conservative pundits have made these arguments? Do you claim that this is an incorrect or deceptive portrayal of the events of the episode in question? Do you deny that the direct quotations took place in the episode? Because in any case, you're clearly, factually wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.119.58 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course some conservatives (and as you note many current conservative pundits) have made these arguments but not all instances of torture in a fictional TV show warrant the conclusion that it is a direct allegory to conservatives. Put another way, the events you noted happened in the show but a connection to some sort of controversy is tenuous and will need to have a source that involves a third party making that connection. Otherwise, it's just original research for US to make it. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the point concerning the connection to controversy and original research: I guess i can agree. As for sourced quotations, they're not going to come from outside the blog-o-sphere though, this just isn't a story at the moment. There are enough clear liberal biases on television that pundits are perhaps reluctant to invite the comparison. As an isolated incident, I could easily agree that this episode's plot arc doesn't necessarily indicate a broad allegory favoring a specific political philosophy. But in aggregate, it's pretty hard not to see. So whatever. Let the Glenn Beck set get their yah-yahs out in prime time. See if I care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.119.58 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well the Glenn Beck set still has a few episodes of 24 left before it's canceled. Maybe they'll settle for that? And for whatever it's worth, I personally shared the same observation when I watched the episode. So the point you were trying to make is definitely not lost on me. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS May 2010 Newsletter

The May 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS June 2010 Newsletter

The June 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Those horrible "with"'s & and"'s

I haven't done that since you told me not to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtMuldoon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you say so.Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for warning me, I didn't do it on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.159.227 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting accident. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise if you make the change it edits the actual article. All my views are sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.159.227 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah not so much. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to be referred to as a liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.159.227 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment edit

Hi, I have made a modification of your comment here[1], so its purely easier to read (some of the coding bugged up). None of your original content have been changed, thank you! Dengero (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Groovy. Thanks for the heads up. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Disturbed's Single Asylum

Actually, I deleted that because I just guessed that the article was fine without the badly referenced quote. But if I'm just not allowed to remove such things, I'm really sorry about it. If there's still something wrong with the article, please tell my and I'll try to fix it. -Rambard (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Millahnna. You have new messages at TreyGeek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vandal???

No vandalism going on here. Could you please state concisely what purpose the Judeo-Christian section serves on the 'Chicken or the egg' page? Why not entertain all other theological world views if theology must be in it? It serves no purpose, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it yet again. If you'l block my IP address, I'll protest it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.111.165 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Caprica Review

Heya. Just curious why you removed the IP editor's edition of that negative review. I figured it would be good for balance since we have so many positive reviews on the page. But I thought there may have been some guideline behind your removal that I was unaware of so I thought I'd ask. Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to find a way to work it back in. I have seen three of these the last few days, an anon IP trying to stick a negative review over existing positive reviews, so I was looking over my edit history to see if I can piece together some sockpuppetry, per WP:DUCK. Didn't get back to it yet, you're welcome to put it back in, but please put it at the bottom.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah I get it. I just looked at the history and I see what you mean now (somehow I missed them as they came in). Later on I'll see if I can find another negative notable review that covers a different angle and pop it in with the one you removed. That should cover the balance angle of what the detractors thought without giving them undue weight in light of the mostly positive response. Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting me.

Bet you don't hear that too often. I should have noticed the name duplication in the Cast section. Geoff B (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol, not too often at all. I googled for 30 minutes trying to verify that somewhere other than a user edited site before I was sure. There does seem to be a spelling discrepancy though; some places spell it Saddam and some Saddamn. Not sure which is right (in real world it would be Saddam) so I guess I have to rewatch to double check. Millahnna (mouse)talk 13:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I checked the credits, it is indeed Saddamn. Geoff B (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh. Strange little flick that. And you saved me from having to borrow the DVD from one of my no-so-favorite-people. Bonus. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedians. We're a helpful sort.  ;-) Geoff B (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter

The July 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sin City

I don't at all see how my contributions to the summary is "not needed". I'm touching on notable points that, for whatever reason, is never touched on. Is something like the salesman offering Becky a smoke any more unnecessary than quoting him on making the right turn in Sin City? I really do gotta ask why my contributions are "unnecessary". Please do explain. If not, might I request the liberty to post what might be viewed as valid points in the summary? I sure feel like they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossBladeZero (talk • contribs) 09:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiya CrossBlade. I felt like it was excessive specific detail which is something a few of us watch for pretty tightly on that article as it had a ridiculously long plot summary before. To my eye you seemed to be trying to show that he was likely hired to kill Becky which I thought was already fairly clear by his comment about finding what you were looking for. Now that I reread that paragraph with your thoughts in mind, I can see how perhaps it's not so clear. Perhaps the detail of offering her the cigarette specifically would get the point across without us making any interpretative comments. I'll go do a self revert and a rephrase. Thanks for bringing it up. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

London Gateway

Thanks for your help in reverting what is effectively vandalism on the London Gateway article. It is clear some employee of one of the companies involved in the project is trying to turn the Wikipedia article into an advert. It's all rather pathetic. Better keep an eye on the article and stop it. David (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem....had a feeling that was what was going on there. Cheers! Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

thx for copyedit for Quantum Apocalypse

I do not normally do major plot updates for film, have to blame my friend for forcing the show on me and I cannot stand the original plot summary :(

Just a question, for film plots, mainly to be in the present tense? thx Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it was not a great movie. Not bad for such a small budget but; certainly better than a lot of SyFy channel flicks. But still not great. I wasn't looking forward to re-watching it to do the plot, at all. So thank you so much for saving me from that.
I almost dropped you a note last night about the present tense thing as a heads up. I swore up an down that was actually in a plot guideline somewhere but when I went looking for it I couldn't find it so I canceled out of leaving you the message. Either I read it somewhere that's not a guideline (maybe on conversation on a talk page somewhere) or I didn't look hard enough. I check every plot summary guideline I could find (there's way too many). I mostly see films done in present tense, though, so I think it is the consensus to do it that way. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
lol, thx :) I almost rewatched but spared myself the agony of doing it. Downloading subtitles (they are not illegal, lolx) and reading them is less painful, helps with technical points also! I keep it in present tense as it does sounds more logical also as you are supposed to go forward mainly! once again, thx! Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Doh! I never even thought of downloading subs to do it. I'm supposed to rewatch The Crazies to look for something someone pointed out on the talk page and I've been dreading every minute of it. You are a genius. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome~! lolx! Editing wiki during office hours require some fair bit of subterfuge. A document of words is a good cover! lolx. Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow!

Good one! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still a nightmare though. I've been putting that one off for a while. It's been so long since I've seen it (like 20+ years) that I can't really remember the details. I just assumed what was there was right and hacked away. One thing though, in kid's stuff like that there's always a bunch of trivial non-plot stuff that's there for the "cute" factor (like Snoopy's adventures in the pub). I'm wondering if I didn't delete one or two scenes too many. Meh. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The shorter the better. I haven't really read the whole thing in detail but I'm sure, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, it's detailed and long enough. And as far as cute and "important" details are concerned, I'm sure someone will come along and say "well this is important because I like it" but that happens with tons of articles. I recently worked on fixing the plot of Trading Places from this (note the subsection) to this when the whole brouhaha erupted about the details of orange juice trading. You can read about it on the talk page of the article but I wouldn't recommend it; dry and not very interesting :) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Good grief. Just at a glance that looks like a nightmare. Out of sheer boredom, I'm starting to work my way through the plot summaries needing attention category. I've seen a lot of Anime in my 30 some odd years but this confused the bejeebus out of me. I hope I trimmed enough to justify removing the plot tag. At least the verb tenses are consistent (ish) now.
In other news, I still don't know what to do the with the source problems on the Transformers film articles (I posted about on WP:FILMS talk page but no one has responded). I'm thinking about taking them off my watchlist and giving up. I end up getting squeezed between people who tell me to revert the fansite refs but don't stick around to help keep an eye on it. So now they are all back again. Dag nabbit. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been only quasi-active lately (sorry about that) but I'll take a look at the Transformers issue and see if I can help. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

Re "The Metaphors of Radiation" and Swan Song, I've sent an email your way with the relevant text. There's not much there, but hopefully it will be of some value. - Bilby (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are awesome. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

It's me from BBB. :) Mike H. Fierce! 15:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Heya. I was kind of hoping you'd turn out to be someone I'd run into on here before, just because it would be kinda funny. And now I'm off to try and not destroy Swan Song (novel). Or maybe I'll just be lazy and vandal patrol instead. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey, it's been fun discussing the Silent Hill - Lovecraft thing. This is odd, but I think I found at least one reliable source (very unexpected). It's from the Universiy of London's Game Studies (sounds like a fun academic discipline! haha). Anyway, check it out and let me know what you think. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm enjoying it too. My friends and I have made the Lovecraft observation about both the game and the movie before. I'm sort of determined to find a link we can use to back up that idea for the movie, now. Since so many people have noted it, it'd be a shame if we couldn't find a way to include the concept. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I found an interesting tidbit...the director Christopher Gans released a film in the USA titled....(DRUM ROLL)....H.P. Lovecraft's Necronomicon, Book of the Dead....hahaha. And with both that and the academic article from the University of London, it's pretty clear there is some connection if we haven't found the best link yet.Obamafan70 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Gans definitely has a... focus, doesn't he? Given the connections we're finding that we CAN'T use, I'm starting to be a little surprised that we can't find something that we CAN use. At this point I'd even settle for a decent source that involves someone speculating that Gans has a thing for Lovecraft. Then we could at least say something like, "Reviewer X speculated that the film drew from Lovecraftian themes." Or something. Millahnna (mouse)talk 02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way, there is a Silent Hill (film) sequel in production right now I believe. It's definitely been ordered by Sony. Obamafan70 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Time for a new google alert. :D Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Millahnna, on behalf of the Wikipedia community, I award you this barnstar in recognition of your tireless efforts to maintain the soundness of the Silent Hill film article from excessive vandalism. With admiration, Obamafan70 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandal fighting

Thanks. =) Mike Allen 21:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Got your back bro. :D Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncivility - Reply

Hi there MILLAHNNA, VASCO from Portugal here,

Regarding your message to me about the uncivility bout at Aleksandr Mostovoi, no possible defense on my part, but this: i have ZERO tolerance on vandals (and in my book, which can be very wrong, i think that removing parts of an article, without summary to top it, constitutes such), but my manners leave a lot (A LOT!!) to be desired, i'll have to admit it :(

As you can see, i have an account (sometimes i edit anon if/when i have an idea and don't want to waste any time logging in lest i forget it - also, my anon IP is standard, so i'm easily "caught"), and from it i now send you my deepest apologies and promise to work on my behaviour in the future - will not be easy i tell you that, even though i try my "hardestest".

Keep up the good work, until some other time - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Heya. I know the feeling; I get pretty frustrated too by some weirdness we get on film, TV show, and book articles I work on. And I'd be lying if I said I hadn't snapped on the civility front once in a while, myself. Just be careful. It's obvious you have a lot of knowledge and a passion for the articles you focus on (me too on my end). Better to play as nice as you can so you can stick around and keep fixing the things that need fixing when the oddballs show up with non-constructive edits. Cheers and happy editing! :D Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you read Of Human Bondage and The Call of the Wild? Two of the all-time greats in my opinion - "All-time" being ALL the books i have read in my TIME on earth :) :) - Cheers again, thank you for your understanding and kind - and quick! - reply - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Call of the Wild, yes, but so long ago I barely remember it. I've had Of Human Bondage recommended to me before. Perhaps I'll check it out once I'm done with my little sci-fi post apocalyptic series I'm reading. Always looking for new books to read. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice

Yeah, I know, he's reported me twice now. I'm going to disengage for a while, but this Spanish nationalist edit warrior needs to be watched. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled onto the mess on accident but I think I'll add the page in question for future reference. I don't know enough about to subject of the article to fact check other stuff but I did read up on the ethnic/nationalist issue of Catalonia quite some time ago so I can keep an eye out for that sort of issue. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
He's been blocked now. The IP seems to belong to a Spanish nationalist who's been perma-blocked. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I just went back through the history and found some of the originating stuff on this. Reading about the debate elsewhere was certainly very enlightening. Reminds me of stuff here in the states; I'm a racial and ethnic mutt, including a fair chunk of American Indian and have had some interesting encounters in real life who have some very strong opinions about what my family tree must mean to me (regardless of what I think it means). People are strange. Cheers. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cookies!

I love cookies! Thanks! Silivrenion (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail this user

Dear Millahnna! You have written, that "E-mail this user" does not function. Did you input your email address correctly into your preferences? Possibly the email will come in as spam and so you didn't notice it. I'm sending you a test wiki mail, that you can prove it. Cheers, Doc Taxon (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hit and miss and, I suspect, not an issue with wiki at all but just emails getting lost in cyber space as happens sometimes. In one series of test emails with another editor from WP:FILMS, I missed two emails out of a series of five or six that he sent. They never showed and my guess has always been that it was just a hiccup somewhere in the intertubes. So I ask people to give me a heads up just in case their messages don't make it to me on the email end. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pricer1980 and a film's country of origin.

His edit here basically sums up what I wanted to talk about. The removal of Fox Atomic is vandalism, unless perhaps they only did distribution? The addition of Spain as a country of origin might be justified given the presence of the Sociedad General de Cine company credit, but if so, and if Fox Atomic did help produce the film, surely it deserves to be a US/Spain/Brit production? Your confusedly, Geoff B (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got me. So far, most of the edits to the production and country stuff on films, unless it is blatantly obvious (like someone trying to make the Matrix a French film for example), I leave alone and let way more experienced editors handle. In the few discussions I've read about the country stuff, I've gotten so confused that I basically decided to just let other folks play with it. Based on what I do know, I think your interpretation is correct. If Atomic actually helped produce then the removal was wrong. If all they did was distribute then the removal is fine. If I recall correctly, the consensus is that IMDB makes a decent resource for this element of film articles, at least. So we should be able to start looking there, I would think. I'll start poking around and see what I can find. Maybe we should harass the lovely WP:FILMS folks for input? Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Last I heard, it was the nationality of the production company that determined the film's nationality. However, I can't find it in the style guidelines (or anywhere else) so that may be outdated. I don't know what we do if there are multiple production companies with multiple nationalities, or multiple production companies with a majority from one nationality. I will ask the nice people at at WP:Film and see what they say. Pricer1980 does make the good odd edit, I think, but he doesn't communicate at all or cite sources, that I've seen. As for my best sentences, I believe they should be recorded for posterity. Geoff B (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Fox Atomic r distributor according to Google. Geoff B (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:Film sez this. Doesn't look too complex. I think. Geoff B (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable enough. Thanks for the update. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth

Hey Millahnna, my name is Anthonylupton and I think you may have deleted a contribution I made to Pan's Labyrinth yesterday - it was my first attempt, so I'm guessing I did something bad, but I'm not sure what! Would you mind giving me a quick heads up about how it works and what I did wrong? I'm not very technical! lol Thanks! Anthonylupton (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Thank you!

Thank you so much for the pointers; you do yourself a gross injustice, they all made perfect sense! Thanks for the welcome section too, really helped. I owe you a coffee!

Also, I hope I have put this in the right place on your page; its appearing at the top- is that right? Told ya I was a Cyberdunce! I do know a little bit about films though! lol. Just feel free to be blunt 'til I shape up!

I'll have a dig around for external sources for the comparison and get back to you.Anthonylupton (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries Anthony. You'll get the hang of it. I bork something around here just about everyday. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Success! Doug Cummings in Filmjourney (2007) identifies the connection between Cria Cuervos, Spirit of the Beehive and Pan's Labyrinth. The review is under Cria Cuervos on Rotten Tomatoes. The film has a 100% rating:

Quote "Critics have been summarily referencing Spirit of the Beehive (1973) in reviews of Pan’s Labyrinth, but Saura’s film–at once a sister work to Erice’s classic in theme, tone, even shared actress (Ana Torrent)–is no less rich a reference point." 81.156.177.77 (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's you Anthony. Nice! Great find. I'm going offline for the night (I've spent way too much time on here today, how embarrassing) but if you don't add it in I'll try to grab it tomorrow. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Milahnna, yup it was me - thought I'd signed it but looks like I messed up!lol. Feel free to call me Tony, by the way, its just that username tonylupton was already taken. Sounds like you have to spend forever on here! I'll give it a go on the edit now- let me know if ok. Anthonylupton (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't have to spend forever on here. I just find it strangely entertaining. I get sucked into stuff online and then do a LOT of it for a while. And then I go outside like a normal person eventually. :D Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe how addictive it is! lol Only been here three seconds and I'm a bit obsessed! Particularly now my first edit is up! ;-D. Thanks again for the help.Quick question - should I add/ amend footnotes in an entry myself or does that get done by someone else? I notice they have been amended on that entry - should i have done that and saved someone else the time? Anthonylupton (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I knew what was up I went ahead and filled in the reference.
Normally, it's probably better that you do it yourself, particularly if it is something that is referring to a specific person. The policy on biography of living persons is that unreferenced claims shouldn't go uncited. Sometimes if you mention the source in your edit like you did, though, someone will come along and fix it for you. You can always ask for help and dig through some of the help links I left in that Welcome menu. Most people use either "ref tags" or the "cite web template." "Cite web" seems to be preferred because it has more information and won't just show up as a bare url in the references list. In the advanced editor, there is a sort of wizard thingy (look for "Cite" with a little drop down arrow) that will help guide you through using the cite web template. Sometimes, when I find a link that might be a good reference for a page, I'll just drop a note on that article's talk page that I've found a possible reference for something that could be added to or is already in the article. Since I started out just playing with text (plot summaries and copy edits mostly) I still bork references a fair bit.
What I think is really cool about editing on the site (and this is probably why I got sucked in so badly) is that I feel like it's made me better at using the site for actual research. After a short while, you start to get a feel for text that looks off or might be disputed. So I'll go to look something up on say a movie or politics or whatever and read a bit and think, "hm, someone thinks that is a fact but I bet it's debated." Then sure enough, I'll find no source for it or a heated discussion on the talk page or some questionable bit of editing in the page's history. That might be just me though; I have this pattern finding thing in my brain that just sort of works that way sometimes.
Nap time for me over here on the USA west coast. I'm still pretty much a noob here myself, but if you need any help can can't find what you're looking for, feel free to ask me. If I don't know I'll either have an idea how to find out or know who to ask (maybe). Have fun! Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Thank you for the references and warm welcome. Regards. BoredextraWorkvidid (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If I can be of any help, let me know. Happy editing! Millahnna (mouse)talk 07:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

final destination 3

hi erm , i noticed you reported me for updating final destination 3 when i done nothing wrong and stuck to the guidelines , inform me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonno'11 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You, are removing sourced material. That is not in conjunction with any guideline I know of. I warned the IP editor who was engaged in identical edits minutes prior to your "update".Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

i only removed source edit as updates left gave the film more negative reviews and no positives ones but when i added some , they were reomoved. but thnaks for helping anyway :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonno'11 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It sounds like you were trying to balance the reviews along the lines of WP:UNDUE. A better option would be to find a positive review from a notable reviewer and add their material. Since we indicate the film as having a mixed reception, it WOULD be good to balance there. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

yes , that was what i was trying to do :) i felt there needed to be at least one positive review in there rather than all bad :) thanks for the pointers ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonno'11 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. If you find a good review to use, I'd be happy to help incorporate it if you need assistance. Just let me know. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

its fine , it was mainly my fault. could you help me addding a review to it? a want to do it but a want to follow the guidelines too :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonno'11 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. First step would be to find a review that was positive. I haven't done this in a while but I used to start by looking at Rotten Tomatoes' notable critics here. Ideally, in the "Reception" we sort of summarize the overall response to the movie with selected reviews. So what we want to do is pick out a positive review that seems to reflect an element that many who liked the movie found good. An example would be that many people praised the lead actress's performance (though we have already noted this in the negative review). Another theme I see at a glance in the positive reviews is the idea of it being fun in spite of plot holes or a guilty pleasure. From there we can pick a quote (or just summarize) that point from the review and add our reference link.
I'm starting to lose my focus at the moment so I'm not sure how well I'm explaining this. In a few hours or maybe tomorrow, I'd be happy to just dive into this. That section could use a little fleshing out and I could use the practice. But in the meantime, if you spot a review or two you think looks good for our purposes, drop me a line and I'll take a look later. If you feel WP:BOLD and decide to add it yourself, make sure you note in your edit summary (just below the box where you make your changes to the article) what you're trying to do (something like "adding a positive review to balance mixed opinions). That way if you get something a little off, another editor will hopefully see what you tried to do and fix it instead of reverting. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you! i will find reviews and get back to you , thanks again :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonno'11 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely spaced this today and I have a job interview tomorrow. But I'll do some looking as soon as I get a chance. Let me know if you've found anything, Jonno. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ned Beatty

Hello, regarding the recent aditions to Ned Beattys bio, they were written according to a source from the British UK Daily News from the 1990s. Anyway, I understood that you gentlemen dont agree to them. Sorry to keep trying to post them. I understand I must respect Wikipedias policy. Sorry for any inconveniences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryluizdalazen (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that they are written in a completely POV fashion and incorporate details that aren't needed to understand the point (to the extent that they border on being WP:UNDUE weight). Really, as they are written, they are completely unencyclopedic in tone. The text that is currently there gets the same point across just fine. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear sir, you are right about that. Accept my apologizies, I never wanted to vandalize wikipedia. I hope to contribute in a positive manner to this place. I guess the way I expressed myself, constantly trying to add info without greater care, made you gentlemen understand as vandalism. Please, accept my apologies, and I promise to have a better care regarding Wikipedia's rules. Ary Luiz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryluizdalazen (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sig

I read your respone, amongst others, at WP:Pending changes#Other_responses. I'm afraid I am red-green colourblind and found your sig very difficult to read. I find the colours confusing, particularly the (mouse) in red which makes it look like a redlink. Could you please consider changing it per WP:SIG? It's no big deal, but it did genuinely confuse me, which is why I am here saying so; I've never encountered you before so I imagine we must rather edit different kinds of articles, I am just asking you politely to consider that your sig is confusing to those with slight visual impairments. Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I'll go fix it now. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Testing Millahnna (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
None of the colours are bad in themselves. I think about 10% of the male population has red-green colourblindness (Daltonism), and 1% blue-green colour colourblindness. It was more that I clicked on the red link wondering why it was a red link, and indeed it was not a red link. I imagine it was a slightly different colour from a red link, but not very different.
I'd say stick with your scheme, but if you introduce a space betwen your username and the talk then it will be much easier to differentiate. Colours are fine.
Thank you for realising I was asking you in good faith. Si Trew (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception

Looks like someone updated the plot on the page was that you? It looks great concise without missing any important information. Valoem talk 18:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not I haven't had a chance to play with it. I know Luminum was doing some work with the notes I had copied into my sandbox and I saw him (her?) make some changes on the article. I think it's a combined effort between Luminum and some other folks. It IS looking a lot better though. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You recently rolled back my slight alterations to the plot outline of INCEPTION immediately after I entered them, and sent me a note calling my changes a "test" (which flat-out isn't the case) and telling me to use the Sandbox to "experiment further." I wasn't goofing around; the film ends SHOWING the top continuing to spin and the article's current ending "Cobb spins his top to test reality, but is distracted by the reunion" is simply incomplete. Please explain? 69.231.211.133 (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you'd read the editorial note and the talk page, you'd realize the summary ended as it did for a reason. Millahnna (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did. The editorial note (by you, I assume) asked not to add unnecessary details to plot or speculate about the ending. My edits were neither unnecessary nor speculation. Unless you have no other reason other than you simply prefer your own editing to mine, you have no basis for pulling administrative rank to remove them. 69.231.211.133 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking this to the Inception talk page. Millahnna (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The top does wobble slightly - thats the whole excitement about the ending, but it cuts to black before you can see its fate. Maybe you didn't pay enough attention in the movie? because a wobbling top is no speculation at all, its actually part of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.62.103 (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think I see a wobble, too. But since many people are convinced that the screen cuts to black before any wobblage, we approach it with a "just the facts we can confirm" touch. I'm hoping that the creators or one of the actors will come out and say either way (maybe on the DVD release). I've been through this with other films such as Shutter Island (where everyone's interpretation of the end was different) but in this case the wording is a bit trickier to keep it so neutral. It would be nice to simply state it witha source and be done with it. Millahnna (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem!

smiles--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

RE Edit to User:Adamfinmo

Thanks for keeping an eye out for vandalism. You reverted a change to my user page here. Thanks for doing that but I made the edit. I have a bad habit of editing without logging in.--Adam in MO Talk 06:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry bout that. I actually debated with myself when I did it; it didn't look like typical vandalism. Then I figured if it WAS you, that you would just let me know. Guess I was right about that bit, at least. :D Millahnna (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Albert Pyun

Thank you so much for your help in cleaning up the Albert Pyun page. I'm new to Wiki, and as I learn, I hope to be a help here. Thank you again> ~~ HeMat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.97.32.78 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I tried. I think it's better but it still needs a lot of work. I'm still learning too; I don't work on people articles much. So hopefully I'll be more of a help there soon myself. :D Millahnna (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Atheism section

I labeled the section as "undue weight" for a variety of reasons. Though, the article is inherently about a minority viewpoint that there is a link between atheism and totalitarianism, there is far too much "expert opinion" and not enough statistical data. A criticism of this magnitude surely would warrant at least some empirical evidence as a matter of principle. The only data of which I am aware suggests the opposite, in fact. For example, the Scandinavian countries, the most atheistic societies in the world, also happen to be considered the most utopian and have the strongest predictors of societal well-being.Obamafan70 (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean. For an atheist, I sure don't know much about my own critics. Heh. Millahnna (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
They don't know much about you (us) either...or their own doctrines (in some cases). A Senator from Arkansas who proposed a bill which would require the Ten Commmandments to be taught in school failed to name more than one commandment(which he subsequently referred to as "Don't Kill").Obamafan70 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I heard about that. I love how that type always conveniently leaves out the first five or six that have nothing to do with any laws when they talk about how our laws are based on the 10 Commandments. Cracks me up. My grandma was kind of fundy (in a really weird way, didn't believe in organized relegion or trust Southern Baptist preachers but still was pretty literal about the Bible). Even she acutally knew all 10 of them and knew they had no basis in law. Millahnna (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS August 2010 Newsletter

The August 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheism example

I looked at your example here and it seems to show a success rather than a failure. You appear to be the first pending changes reviewer and correctly kept it from going live. Looking further one good edit in last last few edits did get through and no vandalism did. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the edit was accepted by a reviewer and went live before I came along to unaccept it, putting it back into the pending cue. I then reverted so that it would be listed as a page with pending reviews. Millahnna (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No one accepted this edit. Pending changes did not fail in this example. It was in the cue when you arrived by the look of it. You did not accept it. You were the first to review this edit. The person who made the vandalism was User:Brockatista who is not autoconfirmed thus needs to have their edit reviewed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, the edit was accepted. It had the "accepted by" text next to it, though I did not note the reviewer in question. When you click unaccept it is readded to the queue and the "accepted by" text is removed. I clicked unaccept and, when I realized this simply readded it to the pending changes queue to be erroneously accepted again, I went ahead and undid/reverted as well so that it would no longer be the top edit. Millahnna (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If an edit is accepted though it should show up in the history listing who accepted it? There is no record of this edit being accepted.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the edit two above yours you seen one followed by [accepted by Prestonmag]. This was than reverted but that fact that Prestonmag accepted it remains. Your edit in question does not have an "accepted by"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because I didn't just revert. I clicked "unaccept" first. Again, this removes the "accepted by reviewer name" text from the edit and adds it back to the queue. This has been complained about extensively in other conversations about PC. Millahnna (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah okay. Obviously something that needs to be fixed. If a editor accepts something this information should be not lost down the road.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I read the conversations where this was discussed previously, but I think a reason was given for not fixing it at the moment (other things take priority or some such). I know it's why many asked for a "decline button". I did not verbally contribute to that conversation since I had nothing new to add but count me on that list if we keep it. Millahnna (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A prophet plot summary

Hey, I updated the summary on the talk page. Please look at the whole situation before any judgment. Ring Cinema has made some false accussations against me. For example:

Valoem is seriously mistaken. Don't believe his criticism, since it's hopelessly misplaced. In fact, he didn't even read my summary before he jumped in with his self serving accusations. For the record, there are NO inconsistencies. My edit is a complete summary of the film's main points, without the unfortunate bloat and inferior style of Valoem's already rejected edit. We'll stick with mine for now and let Valoem make his case here on the discussion page where he can make a good contribution. Many thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk)

There were many inconsistencies if you look at his version here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Prophet&oldid=382412980

There are many errors (which I explained on the talk page he has yet to respond). I feel that my updated version is better because it still falls within acceptable length and contains more details thus allowing readers to understand the summary better. If you see any more grammical errors please point them out. Thanks for your support!!! :) Valoem talk 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I noticed and am impressed with your demeanor here. Keep up the great work! Erik (talk | contribs) 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey just a quick question, do you see anything particular wrong with my version? If you agree with my version don't edit just to appease Ring. Also if you feel ring's version is better you do not need to change anything to appease me. I was just looking for a none bias opinion. I do not mind being wrong at all, just the baseless accusations from Ring. :) Valoem talk 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You've both got some text flow dysfunction going on, but that's a thing I pick up on fairly easily. I truly see merit in what both of you are saying on behalf of the versions of plot you'd each like to see. Which is why I volunteered to help. Hopefully I'll actually be, you know, helpful. No worries. Millahnna (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of A Prophet plot

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on A Prophet plot, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You have not identified what A Prophet plot is. Brambleclawx 19:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open

The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Psych Cast Reply

I understand. I've had my problems with the same guy in the past. I was just asking because no one's ever brought it up before. I don't mind adding them if we need to though. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cat People

Hi, Millahnna. I'm in a dispute with another editor over piped links at the article Cat People (1982 film) - I wondered if you could comment? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 help

I know you occasionally monitor the Spider-Man 3 article. Currently, I'm engaged in an unfortunate edit war with an unregistered user who wants to add a section about Spider-Man 4 and the Spider-Man reboot. Besides being an unreferenced and awkwardly written section, I argue that Spider-Man 3 has nothing to do with the reboot and shouldn't have it mentioned in the article. And it doesn't have anything to do with it since its reception (box office or critical) did not lead to the reboot. Also, Spider-Man 4 is well-covered in the Spider-Man (film series) article. I was wondering if you could weigh in?-5- (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter home media

I think that a section within the newsletter would work. Right now mentioning the theater releases is helpful, but probably only for the North American viewers. The list doesn't take into account foreign films (well, foreign to me), so may be kind of unhelpful for a fraction of our readers (I only go off of the 2010 in film list anyway, so that's probably why there is not that much diversity among different countries' films). I'll add a brief section this month after the theater releases to state five-ten of the month's releases to home media, hopefully to encourage more members to watchlist them (or buy/rent them with the intentions of further improving the article). Thanks for your suggestion, I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cinema of" templates

Hello! A discussion about the use of {{Cinema of XXXX}} (like {{Cinema of France}}) in individual film articles has opened here. Your input would be greatly appreciated! BOVINEBOY2008 08:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A Prophet plot summary

Hi,

People have been removing the tag, I was wondering if you have create another version or if my prior version was sufficient. Valoem talk 14:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have the new one in there either tonight or tomorrow. For now, I either version should work fine, I'd imagine. They're removing the tag because it took me too long to finish. Real life is being pesky right now. But don't worry about the tag if folks are taking it out. They're just following policy and I'm still gonna do my thing either way. Millahnna (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool, no rush I would like to restore to my version but an edit war would ensue. Valoem talk 15:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Millahnna/Archive_2&oldid=1191082714"