User talk:Bignole/Archive/2009/January

Merry Christmas!


CyberGhostface (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey, merry Christmas mate, hope you have a good one. :D   Paul    730  20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm back at work on Saturday, a nice 6 o'clock start to bring me back to Earth. Working in a supermarket is NOT fun at this time of year.  I've got two weeks off in January, can't bloody wait.    Paul    730  23:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Bignole! :) Hope your break has been relaxing! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 03:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! :)  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  10:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I could've swore I read over it many times to check for errors, but I didn't pick up this one. I guess you must've been quite puzzled when reading it! ;)  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  05:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the CoS page, can't you just put a cite next to each season, and ref all the guest stars that way? The way you're going seems to be very draining. If the companion books list them all, why not?  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I feel kinda bad watching you do all this work. If you want, I can do season six, but I might not get started until a couple of days pass. Sound good to you?  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  04:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess my help wasn't needed. ;) The episode reffing was a good idea, and probably faster than the filmography method.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, true. Just one note, shouldn't the publisher section have The New York Times, instead of New York Times?  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  02:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year Bignole! Here's to staying up untill midnight! Elbutler (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Knight (film)
even better. thanks. ThuranX (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What if I got my info from watching the movie?
I noticed that some articles were missing crucial details, so I added them, but then you deleted them calling it "original research". But how the Shadow Realm do you cite a resource when it is the movie itself? And where does this site get all its information from anyway? I thought this site is where people GET information FROM, not vice versa! Jeeze, I'm just not getting along with this site am I? I voluntarily stopped using my account after I created an asinine article that I thought deserved a spot here but I was wrong. 24.65.118.20 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, I didn't even think to look for the Halloween franchise article when I added the H2 info on the Halloween page. Thanks for checking my mistake and leaving a reason why - otherwise I would have been scratching my head.RyanGFilm (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

H2
My holiday was okay, how about yourself? We've not chatted in a while. The mask looks interesting, I take it the hole in the top is from Laurie's gunshot. Not sure how to interpret Zombie's promise that Michael will be "bigger, meaner and more psycho", I hope he doesn't make him totally "Hulk smash" and we actually see an element of sadism and intelligence from him. Steph Hutchinson recently revealed on a forum that he was working on a script for H2 before Zombie came back. He said, "The title I was writing it under (which wouldn't have been the final one) was 'HALLOWEEN: RISE OF THE BOGEYMAN'. Hokey, I know. But it was basically a story building on the transition from Michael Myers to bogeyman, but keeping in with the aesthetic and in-your-face brutality of the first film." You won't be surprised to hear that I really wish that had happened instead of Zombie's inevitable gorno. But whatever. :P   Paul    730  00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just starting my holiday, no time off in December where I work! I'm thinking of getting back into Smallville, actually, since I have free time.  I'm going to pick up some DVDs of The Office tomorrow though, so it might have to wait until I finish those.
 * I think Hutchinson could handle a screenplay. He clearly understands what makes Michael Myers tick and seemed willing to follow-on from Zombie's vision instead of rebooting it with his own.  We could have had a nice character arc for Michael, as he truly became the Shape.  Have him kill off NotLaurie for good measure.  Obviously he wasn't a guarantee of a good film but I think replacing Hutchinson with Zombie was a bad idea.  Yes, comics and films are a different medium, but I think anything Hutchinson produced would be better than Zombie's.
 * Where are you on season five? What did you make of "Buffy vs Dracula"?  I hated that episode for a long time but now like it because the comics have turned Dracula into a hysterical comedy character.  He's portrayed as a jaded celebrity suffering a mid-life crisis.  Check out "Antique", a canon short story from Tales of the Vampires.     Paul    730  03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That Smallville trailer was pretty cool. Nice having characters from the future with knowledge on who Clark becomes and his legacy.  But ew, what's Lana doing crawling back into the show, I thought her ass was history.  The PTB really have a hard time letting her go, don't they.
 * I think Hutchinson is friendly with Malek Akkad via the comics, so maybe it was just a theoretical thing they were discussing. Who knows.  He never finished his script and says he isn't too bothered about it because he's more interested in the comics.  I guess it's not a big deal but I'd rather have a good movie than one that makes loads of money.
 * I'm with you, I'm not a fan of Dracula appearances as well, they're very cheesy. That's why I never liked that episode.  However, I think the Buffy comics have made it work by making the character largely comedic and rather frustrated that nobody takes him seriously.  His role in Buffy S8 is very funny, he becomes a reluctant ally to the Scoobies for Xander's sake and generally behaves like a diva.  He becomes very sympathetic and almost heroic.  What did you think of "Antique", that comc is unpopular with many fans for being too OTT and cartoony, I love it.  I don't like the actor who plays Drac, I think that's why I prefer him in the comics.  Same with Connor in Angel.     Paul    730  03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do they explain Lois' absence in the show or is she just in some unexplained limbo? *Sigh* It's season eight, how much more closure do they need?  I thought this season was all about moving forward, not beating a dead horse.  I'm sure there's more to it than that but geez, when will Lana just fuck off already? :P  The Legion sound cool, was it you I remember worrying that they would be too similar to the JL?
 * Lol, JGtH was never a good idea. I remember reading an interview where the writer was basically like "It was a Jason movie without Jason... wtf was I thinking?"
 * That comic was a one-shot story in an anthology series about vampires. There is no backstory besides what you saw.  S8 elaborates on it a little but it's just a tongue-in-cheek kind of thing, Dracula just kidnapped Xander because he was lonely and because it's funny.  That was actually the first canon Buffy story since the end of the show, which is why I think fans were so confused by it.  It's funny you should mention Vlad III, in S8, BuffyDracula mentions that he was totally evil even as a human.
 * Dracula aside, how are you enjoying season five? As usual for Buffy, it takes a while to get going but I do enjoy the early appearances from Harmony.     Paul    730  04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just can't imagine many viewers actually caring about Lana recieving closure. You and many other viewers have commented how better the show is in her absence and dredging the character up for more angst just seems like boring TV.
 * These expositional "origin" horror movies are always interesting in theory (Freddy's Dead, JGtH, H6) but they rarely work out. They're usually overly complicated and miss the point of what made the character work in the first place.  JGtH barely felt like a Friday movie at all, I don't hate it but it is my least favourite of the series.
 * Once you reach "No Place Like Home", it's more or less a straight run of brilliant episodes. Especially after Riley leaves.  In fact the only dud in the whole season is "Out of My Mind", and possibly "Buffy vs Dracula".  Glory is far and away my favourite villain in the Buffyverse so that's a big reason why I love season five so much.  This was also the year the writers finally perfected Anya as a character.     Paul    730  04:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant closure for her character in the series. Audiences were glad to be shot of her, why inflict her on them again.  One episode, maybe... Five?  You're pushing it.  Jason X was more in line with the hack-and-slash formula of the other movies.  And I felt that the video quality and CGI added to the futuristic feel the film was trying to evoke.  In a crappy but likable way.
 * But Anya has changed for the better. I can forgive the inconsistencies in her devlopment through seasons three and four because she improves so much with every season.  From season five onwards, she has this utterly endearing innocence and wholesomeness that contrasts hilariously with her ex-vengeance demon status.  Riley is likable but bland.  He's a semi-villain now, a minion of Twilight, so we'll see how that turns out.  Lol, it's actually pretty refreshing to hear criticism for Tara because she's like the fucking holy grail amongst Buffy fans.  You can't say a bad word about her.  I like her, but I wish she had more to do than be just Willow's girlfriend.  I guess you won't like "Family", which is a Tara-centric episode.  I really like that episode, I find it quite emotional.     Paul    730  05:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only imagine the kind of pathetic shippers who want Clana back in Smallville. Jason X was a highly enjoyable installment in the Friday the 13th saga.  Just in case you didn't know my stance on the matter.
 * I've said this before but Anya was a work in progress. She wasn't planned out in advance like most of the other characters were.  The writers were just impressed with Emma Caulfield and worked the character around her and other aspects of the show (such as the Cordelia-shaped hole in the cast).  It took them a while to understand who the character was, which they finally did by season five.  From then on, she's just as consistant as the other characters.  Sometimes it takes a while for a character to click; look at Jason, he didn't start to work until Part III.
 * Tara is pretty whiny in "Family", but we begin to understand why that is. It's basically the episode where she is accepted, both by the Scoobies and by the audience.  The character was extremely unpopular in season four, mainly because fans were upset that Willow was suddenly gay, so I think "Family" was deliberately written so fans could embrace her.  Obviously, it worked.     Paul    730  06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was being sarky about Jason X, if that wasn't clear. :P I think I can compare Jason to Anya. Some characters, like Michael Myers or Spider-Man, arrive fully formed in their first appearance.  Others, like Jason, take a while before they find their niche.  There's total inconsistencies with Jason; the character in Part II is unrecognisable physically from the pop culture icon he became.  It wasn't until III that he really became the character people know and love.  The same can be said of the Hulk.  At the beginning, he was gray and only transformed at night.  The iconic green/anger aspects weren't introduced until later.  Even characters in Friends, Joey doesn't really become stupid until a few seasons in when the writers decided to give him that trait.  If I remember right, Superman couldn't fly in his early appearances.  It happens all the time, you just have to forgive it.  If me, a total stickler for canon and continuity, can look past it I would have thought you could.  What is it specifically that jars with you about Anya anyway?
 * Tara's voice doesn't bother me and neither does the Willow/gay thing, but we've discussed that before. WillowXTara 4ever!!! ;)  Paul    730  17:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being sarky about liking Jason X, just about you not knowing my stance on it. It is an enjoyable film, damn it!
 * You're missing my point. I'm not talking about a writer coming along and altering the established formula, I'm talking about the original creator taking a while to perfect his creation.  In his original appearances, I think Superman's powers were limited to strength and jumping.  His iconic powers weren't introduced until later.  The Friends example was more analagous to Anya; Joey isn't stupid in the early seasons, Monica isn't uptight. It took a while to establish their personalities.  Anya is different from Xander because she was always a minor background character.  Nobody cared about her original personality because she was just some one-dimensional monster of the week, Xander was a main character from the beginning so his personality was already set.  In late season three and season four, they experimented with the character by making her Xander's love interest.  By season five, she was a main character with an established personality.  It's basically a retcon, get over it. :P Does the inconsistency in her character bug me?  Sure, a little.  Can I accept it as a quirk of fiction?  Yes, because those initial teething pains resulted in one of my favourite characters. I get what you're saying, I just think you're being a little nitpicky.    Paul    730  21:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still vaguely analagous in that the original character was inconsistant with the publicly known and popular version. Unlike Michael Myers or Spider-Man, where most if not all the crucial elements were in place from the beginning.  I meant nitpicky because you seemed particularly annoyed by the inconsistency but I know you like the character. :) Have you watched any further?  Btw, not sure if this interests you as a fan, but All Star Superman won CBR's best comic of 2008, with Buffy at number 9.  Apparently it's the best Superman story of all time.     Paul    730  22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (Oops, I meant to give you a link... I guess you found it) Hey, I'm proud of the Buffster.  For a supposed TV tie-in comic, which are generally considered worthless merchandise, to get into a top 10 list of the best comic books... that's quite an achievement.  I'm happy for Superman too though, it's nice the character has a book that actually does him justice.  Quite disgusted that the X-Men didn't get more attention, but I haven't been happy with their current direction so they probably don't deserve it.
 * What did you make of "Family", being a Tara hater and all? How can you not love that scene at the end... "we're family".  "No Place Like Home" is excellent, I love Glory's introduction (bickering with Buffy amidst kicks to the face).  I think it's funny how Dawn suddenly becomes really creepy for no reason to try and mislead the audience.     Paul    730  23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, for some reason I remembered "Family" being before all the Dawn/Key stuff. I love how Glory just completely kicks Buffy's ass, she's not even remotely threatened by her.  I actually find Glory quite scary in some scenes because she's so powerful, as soon as she's in the room you know everyone else is in real danger.  I feel that way about Caleb as well, he's quite an intimidating character.  After "Family" you have "Fool for Love", probably the best Spike episode in either series.  That's definitely the point where I fell in love with Spike as a character.     Paul    730  00:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, yeah, Tara getting punched was funny. Spike and Tara have some funny moments together, there's a surprising about of "Spara" shippers out there, as unlikely as that seems.  I liked Spike saving Buffy from the invisible demons, a sign of his genuine redemption. And ya gotta love the cheesy Sabrina moment at the end where they're dancing.     Paul    730  00:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Featured Topic
I noticed that Bryan Singer and his films would make a good Featured Topic. Singer's X-Men films are Good Articles thanks to Wildroot and Alientraveller, The Usual Suspects is a Good Article thanks to J.D., and Valkyrie is in good shape thanks to Alientraveller, me, and Steve. It looks like Superman Returns is being eyed by you and/or Wildroot, so what's left are Apt Pupil and Bryan Singer himself. We don't have to start a drive at this moment or anything; just wanted to plant that FT possibility in your head for later on. :) — Erik (talk • contrib) 03:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror
I've noticed you are one of the more active folks on WikiProject Horror so I thought I'd ask, in case you knew: who is the current WikiProject coordinator? The  template is grossly outdated and in need of work and I can't remember the last Collaboration of the month project. Also, the emphasis has certainly been placed upon horror films and not fiction, which almost makes it a glorified task force of WikiProject Films. I'm not really complaining, just curious if you might have answers or explanations for these queries. Thank you. hornoir (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I started the discussion and it can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror. I think an important next set is to contact all 169 members and let them chime in by making them aware of the discussion.  I guess I know what I'm doing for the next hour or so.  hornoir (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror needs your help
 : You've received this message as you are listed as a WikiProject Horror Participant. As you may have noticed, WikiProject Horror has suffered from a lack of direction and coordination of late. A suggestion on how to improve the Project and maintain it as a viable resource has been placed up for discussion here. As a member of the Project, your voice is valued and your input is requested. Thank you, hornoir (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the help Bignole. kingdom2 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Was not aware of that but will definitely keep it in mind. kingdom2 (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You know you love arguing with people. :P   Paul    730  04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, my typical work day consists of bickering about films with my boss. It's a lot more fun than being nice to each other. ;) What did you think of Riley's departure and the Anya-centric "Triangle"?  "Checkpoint" is such a kick-ass episode for Buffy as a character, the way she shows the Watchers who's boss.  (I just noticed you deleting the double-spaces from the horror articles... that's probably my fault, I was taught to type that way and it's a hard habit to break).     Paul    730  06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Riley is very blah, but "Into the Woods" is a good episode and I do have some involuntary sympathy for the character. I guess I pity him, especially in season five.  "Triangle" is one of my most watched episodes just for the Willow/Anya banter.  A lot of fans say Willow was out of character in that episode (too bitchy) but I think anyone who thinks that probably doesn't know Willow as well as they think they do.  I love Anya manufacturing a human identify for herself for the Watchers' benefit, and baking them cookies.  DeKnight has written some of the poorest episodes of Buffy and Angel as well as some of the best.  "Blood Ties" is excellent though, it's the mid-season episode where it all heats up, which are always good.  Glory is on top form, and there's loads of great character development throughout.
 * I get your reasoning with the spacing, it's just a habit I have. I just do it without thinking.  I figured since it doesn't show up on the page, it doesn't matter that much anyway.
 * Btw, do you like The Office? Weren't you and your girlfriend going to get into it or am I thinking of someone else?  I'm watching through seasons 1-2 right now and I've never laughed so hard.     Paul    730  07:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend came over as I was replying to you so apologies for the brief message on the wrong page. As for the smoking, we've had this conversation before, but they can breathe they just don't need to.  If it's inconsistant (the CPR thing), big deal, Harmony's "oh god, sorry, didn't see the sign" line more than makes up it in comic value. :D Besides if they couldn't breathe they couldn't talk so it's kind of necessary.  Harmony is Spike's girlfriend offscreen throughout season five, she leaves Sunnydale after "Crush" and her story is continued in Angel.  Do you like Harmony?  She tends to divide fans.     Paul    730  22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The "no breath" thing was a continuity problem over in Torchwood as well, with the character of Owen Harper who became a zombie and thus couldn't perform CPR on someone. I reason that since vampires are mystical creatures and therefore don't conform to scientific laws, it can be glossed over, but I'm not sure how to explain Owen.  It's just a plot device to emphasise the characters' helplessness (in both cases) so I guess it's forgivable.  Spike's scar is actually James Marsters' scar, they just worked into the character later.  One of the non-canon books suggested the Slayers' sword was enchanted which is why the scar is permanent.  Harmony is brilliant, I love how she's not grown as a character one bit since her first appearance.  In the comics, she unwittingly outs vampires to the media when the paparazzi catch her biting Andy Dick, and recieves her own chat show as a result.  That issue is out tomorrow. :D  Apparently Britney Spears was going to play April the sexbot, so thank god she didn't for whatever reason.  "The Body" is quite simply one of the finest hours of television ever.  Tell me what you thought.     Paul    730  01:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys might want to deal with this: Halloween 2 (2009). Serious work needed. kingdom2 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They probably thought it made him look more badass or something. I remember a SFX documentary where the make-up artist discusses how they added the scar to his vamp face prosthetic instead of covering it up altogether.  "The Body" is a fascinating episode, and probably one of the most frightening because it's so disturbingly realistic.  My favourite scene is Anya's breakdown in Willow's bedroom.  I also like when she says "I wish Joyce didn't die.  Because she was nice and now we all hurt" and the fact Buffy accepts that as a sincere sentiment. I've heard a lot of critics claim "The Body" is a more real depiction of death than any "realistic" show (ie, not supernatural) because of how mundane it is.  The scene where Buffy has to clean up her own vomit, for example.  It's quite uncomfortable to watch and you really forget you're in a supernatural world.     Paul    730  01:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I love how the whole episode consists of four continuous scenes with people just standing around talking.  There's no villain to fight or world to save, it's just Buffy having to go through the same "chores" that any real person would in that situation.  Some have found the vampire at the end to be innappropiate but there's so many ways to interpret it, external factors intruding on Buffy's grief, a personification of death for Buffy to struggle with.  The episode is just a masterpiece.  The next one is pretty good as well, SMG gives a remarkable performance in the last scene.     Paul    730  02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's plenty to interpret in the episode. How about the fact that Dawn is learning about negative space in art class when that's what the episode is about; not Joyce herself but the people she leaves behind.  She's just a body.  Or how the Scoobies feel bad because they're so helpless, then when Xander gets his hand stuck in the wall, they feel better because they have a problem to solve.  The episode is teeming with symbolism.  Last time I checked, being a talented writer doesn't make you a narcissist, and I don't think Joss patronises his audience in the way you're implying (ie, having to "remind" viewers that Buffy fights vampires).  I love that Angel came to support Buffy, that was a quietly powerful cameo.  "Intervention" is a largely comedic episode and highly enjoyable, with some huge character development for Spike.  After that it's an epic roller coaster ride to the finale.     Paul    730  04:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most of what Joss writes is intentional. It's fairly obvious that much of Buffy was meticulously planned years in advance, with the foreshadowing of Buffy's death as far back as season three, and the very gradual development of Willow's magic abuse (which you'll see progress in your next episode).  That said, Joss has admitted that some metaphors were accidental; there's a moment in "Restless" where Joyce is hidden in the wall which can be viewed as morbid foreshadowing of her death. He says that wasn't the case, the metaphor was that she was separated from Buffy (as seen throughout S4).  A lot of the Willow scenes in "Restless" seem to relate to her sexuality, but again Joss says that was coincidental and the intent was to examine her self-esteem.  Joss has admitted his mistakes before, such as flaws with his Astonishing X-Men run and the poor handling of Warren's resurrection in Season Eight, so I don't think he believes "nothing is ever their fault".  That was obviously a reference to the movie, which was a solid script executed horribly. I think you're doing Joss a disservice by underplaying his actual talent and making him out to be more egotistical than he really is.  As for "The Body", those were just two examples I could think of off the top of my head, as I said the episode has a lot going on subtextually and is one of the most complex and well-written Buffy episodes.  The episode's events also tie into the whole "death is your gift" theme of season five, as it affects Buffy's views of death and her own upcoming sacrifice.  Lol, the Bob Barker line is very funny.  I love how Anya and the Buffybot get along so well with each other, she's someone honest and simple that Anya can relate to. "How is your money?"/"Great!  Thank you for asking!" Lmao.     Paul    730  06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you're totally right. I like "Crush" but I don't think it's a very flattering look at Spike at all. That's actually Drusilla's last appearance in either series (flashbacks aside) so Spike could have killed her and it wouldn't have affected future storylines. I'm not sure if I'd have wanted him to though, it might have lessened the impact of "Intervention"? Considering that Buffy was supposed to end after season five, "Intervention" was probably written as the culmination of Spike's arc, where he finally redeemed himself. He and Buffy are mostly friendly for the remainder of the season. Of course, when the show came back in season six, they complicated his relationship with Buffy again and took his redemption storyline further. You're right in saying it's his first truly heroic moment, and probably one of the characters' best.  Paul    730  15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So where are you with Buffy? Finished the season yet?     Paul    730  01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't a big fan of "Weight of the World" at first, it's one of those metaphor-heavy episodes like "Restless" that leave you scratching your head when you first see it. Now I appreciate it a lot more.  I think you're being very unfair towards Buffy.  Think of the trauma and the pain she's endured this season, not to mention the knowledge that "death is her gift".  She tried everything in her power to protect Dawn and failed, and she was standing in front of the bodies of the people Glory killed in Dawn's name.  The knowledge that she couldn't save Dawn and was basically killing her herself caused her to go catatonic with guilt (which probably isn't medically accurate, but who cares, it's Buffy).  The fact that she was crippled by guilt shows how compassionate she really is.  The poor girl had a mental break-down, cut her some slack, it's not like she did it on purpose.  And the fact that Willow had to save her somehow takes away from Buffy's own heroism?  Sorry, I don't agree.  It's been reiterated througout the series that Buffy's friends are the source of her power, and the fact she had to rely on them at her lowest moment doesn't make her weak IMO, it makes her human.  You say "heroes don't give up", that's a fairly black-and-white stance and won't apply to a grey character like Buffy.
 * What did you think of Buffy's sacrifice? That's one of the best moments in the series.  I like how it was partly selfish; yes, Buffy was saving the world and her sister, but she was also tired of living and death was the release she needed.  Remember in "Fool for Love", Spike told Buffy that Slayers have a death wish and when they die, it's because they want it and not because they did something wrong?  Like I said, she's a very grey hero.  As much as I like "The Gift", I prefer "Chosen" as the series finale because it's a more hopeful note to go out on.  See this character study on Buffy  which articulates this better.  Also, Did Buffy have a death wish?
 * Willow's attack on Glory is so cool, I kinda wish she hadn't got her ass kicked so early. Apparently Willow was supposed to go fully dark in season five and would have been the one to bleed Dawn instead of Doc.  Glad it didn't happen that way, I prefer the season six version.     Paul    730  02:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * She gave up subconsciously and only for a second. Like when you think an awful thought and then push it aside because it's not how you really feel.  The coma stemmed from the guilt of that subconscious moment, it wasn't like she just went "Oh well, that's Dawn fucked, I'll just go for a vacation in my brain since I can't do anything."  The Buffy that Willow spoke to on the astral plane or whatever was her subconscious self so you can't take what she said too literally as though she was regular Buffy.  It certainly wasn't a filler episode, and more about viewing Buffy's mental and emotional state in the midst of total chaos, and I think what we saw meshes perfectly with the rest of the season.
 * Um, of courses heroes can be grey. If they were white, then they'd be pure, without faults.  Buffy has plenty of faults, and they're getting more obvious as she grows older (in S8, she's stepping into anti-hero territory).  Buffy is not morally ambiguous?  Hah!  She used Spike as a mental and physical punching bag for the better half of season six.  I'd say all the Scoobies except Tara and perhaps Dawn are morally ambiguous.  Unlike black and white, there are shades of grey; Buffy is purer than Faith, but they're both grey.
 * Yes, Buffy has a death wish in season five and recieves that "gift" in the finale. Season six is about that gift being ripped away, and Buffy after months of depression, accepts life in the season six finale.  The person is saying that Buffy did have a death wish, but basically got over it.  What you say about Buffy being content to remain in heaven is true, and that's what season six is all about; her overcoming those feelings and learning to live again.     Paul    730  03:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Break

 * What I meant was you can't treat Subconscious Buffy the same as Regular Buffy. Subsconsious Buffy said she killed Dawn and gave up fighting.  It's true that's how she feels, but that's not the same as her consciously voicing and acting on those feelings.  It wasn't like she made a self-conscious decision to give up, her feelings of hopelessness overwhelmed her and she suffered a break-down.  Willow realises this and says "It's a feeling and it's important.  But it's not more than that".  Buffy's actions in the real world are what counts.  How would Buffy have explained what happened to her to the group?  Why would she?  She overcame it and she has a world to save, it wasn't a priority.
 * Buffy's character fault intruded on her mission? Did she not come out her coma (yes, with Willow's help) and save the world in time?  If she had rejected Willow's help and allowed Dawn and the world to suffer, you'd have a point, but she never.  No lead up to the breakdown?  Things have never been so bad for Buffy in her life.  Her mother is dead and she's been told that "death is her gift".  Does that mean that she'll have to kill Dawn to save the world?  That all she is is death?  She said that when Angel turned, it was still clear to her what she'd have to do.  With Dawn, it's not.  That was Buffy's darkest hour (at that point) and she buckled.  Briefly.  No residual issues from the breakdown?  Her death wish is the residual issue.  "I don't understand. I don't know how to live in this world if these are the choices. If everything just gets stripped away. I don't see the point. I just wish that... (tearfully) I just wish my mom was here."  If Buffy hadn't broke down so completely, I don't think her decision to die in "The Gift" would have been as understandable.
 * You misunderstand me about Spike. I said she mistreats him in season six.  In that season, she exploits his love for her as a cheap thrill because she's depressed.  She basically uses him as a form of self-punishment, and treats him like scum in the process.  Constantly saying "you're disgusting".  In one episode, she hits rock bottom and uses Spike as a literal punching bag when he's just trying to help her; he takes multiple episodes to recover physically from her abuse.  What people forget when they condemn Spike for his attempted rape is that he has been the victim of continous mental and physical abuse; she basically drove him crazy and he cracked.  You're right that pre-season six Buffy is much more of a white-hat and that's largely why season six is hated by so many fans and SMG herself.  I love it. :D  In Season Eight, Buffy has mostly shedded her human side and becomes all about the mission.  She ignores human laws and makes her own, everything is about her Slayer army.  I trust she'll redeem herself though.
 * Yeah, I get what you're saying about the death wish article. Still, I like to view it as part of the hero's journey because I think "The Gift" would have been a poor way to conclude the series and the character.  He's analysing season five with the foresight of season six, it's a little messy but still interesting. :P    Paul    730  05:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But the coma wasn't deliberate on her part, so I don't think you can judge her integrity as a hero on something she has no control over. Besides, at the end of the day, it was just a stupid plot device to get the audience inside Buffy's mind so they could tell the story about her guilt.  You're focusing too much on this catatonia and acting like it was some horrible sin Buffy actively committed.  As for the severity, I'd say the latter half of season five is the most severe danger the show had ever portrayed at that point.  The threat is (or feels) a lot more epic and hopeless than any of the previous seasons, and I don't think any previous event in the show rocked Buffy's world as much as Joyce's death, so she was still extremely raw from that.
 * You're right, I was confusing some of "The Gift" with "TWotW" there, the part about Buffy having to kill Dawn (since that possibility was revealed after the coma). My bad.  I meant the "death wish" part of her sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much, because we wouldn't have seen how broken down and tired she really was without "TWotW".  That episode helped us understand what she was going through in her mind.  How would it have been a gap in the story if the audience knows?  The world was ending in like an hour, I'm pretty sure the Scoobies don't care what was wrong with Buffy so long as she's okay now.  Willow could have even filled them in offscreen, so the audience doesn't have to sit through exposition they already know.  You said Buffy wasn't a morally ambiguous hero, you didn't specify S5 Buffy. :P
 * Lol, there was a fan on some forum who said during the Buffy-lesbo scandal, "Anytime a writer thinks a story might upset fans, he/she just shouldn't write it". What an amazingly stupid thing to say.  That said, I know I could be handling the X-franchise better than Marvel are right now.  It's really quite frustrating.     Paul    730  07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Willow explicitly refers to it as a coma ("We'll think of something, don't have another coma, okay?" Lol). I don't think Buffy was quite aware of what was happening, like when you're in a dream.  It took Willow's blunt encouragement to kind of snap her out of her dream-like state and realise the truth of the situation.  To me, actually going inside Buffy's brain and seeing everything from her POV is a lot more interesting than Buffy crying in front her friends.  Guess we'll just have to disagree about that one. :P
 * It was really quite simple what Marvel had to do with X-Men. They had this book about the junior mutants, New X-Men, that had been going on for years and was incredibly popular.  In that series, the characters had underwent this amazing arc from students, to trainee-superheroes, to full-fledged X-Men.  In last year's big "X-Over" (X-Men Crossover), the New X-Men actually saved the X-Men's ass, and Cyclops disbanded the main X-Men.  What should have happened after that was the New X-Men should have inherited the main Uncanny X-Men book and functioned as the proper X-Men.  Instead, Cyclops reformed the regular X-Men a few months and the New X-Men scattered across various books, some going into limbo.  So instead of getting fresh stories with the next generation of characters, we're getting tired old shit about Wolverine and Colossus while these promising new characters fade into obscurity.  We keep having all these junior books like New Mutants and Generation X, but because Marvel don't want to take marketable characters like Wolverine out of the book, these so-called new generations never have a chance to actually BE X-Men.  It's sad that Marvel are too afraid to take a chance with the title, when it was such a bold move that made the X-Men popular in the first place.     Paul    730  18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt the Buffy writers give a toss about the difference between a coma and catatonia. Especially since they always refer to Willow as a "Wicca" when the correct term would be Wiccan; Wicca is the religion itself, which I don't think Willow even follows.  Quite a few real Wiccans have been upset about that.
 * Well, I don't claim to have the imagination to actually come up with original stories. I'm more of a disgruntled observer who thinks "Why did you do that, you were doing so well and then you just blew it!"  Which is how I feel about the film series as well actually, they had a solid series going and then they just had to force Magneto and the cure storyline into X3 instead of letting Phoenix have her moment.  I'd like to be some kind of editor, directing the series rather than actually writing them. Which sounds kind of lazy, but hey. :P    Paul    730  21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, most of it is just Buffy-speak; as much the characters confusing the terms as the writers. Lol, Doctor Who and it's spin-offs are so guilty of meaningless technobabble. If you ever watched that show, I could see you bombarding me with loads of "That could never happen!" messages.

Well, I heard the script was solid and Fox were like "We need a Magneto story, that worked in the first two movies". So they had to shoehorn the whole cure story into a movie that didn't have room for it. Ratner's problem was he didn't care about characterization, he just jumped from one action scene to the next with no tender moments in between (which X2 was really good at). Meh, you shouldn't really listen to fans. If that was the case, we wouldn't have got Daniel Craig as Bond, and RZH would have been Halloween 9: The Return of Thorn. However, some ideas are so bad that the PTB should have the common sense not to carry them out. Like Spider-Man: One More Day, that was just plain awful story-telling. Or Ultimatum, where Marvel have gotten bored of the Ultimate Universe so they've decided to kill off all the characters because they're too lazy to write good stories about them. It's quite worrying that these people are being paid to produce this shit.  Paul    730  00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I could see the DW nonsense being distracting to you. There's an episode where Earth is transported through space, yet the people aren't harmed by the lack of Sun or any atmospheric changes.  There's loads of possible explanations (Dalek technology), but none provided onscreen.  I tend to just embrace it, it's always been a lovable and well-known part of the show.  If it bothers you, go watch Star Trek, is my stance on the matter.
 * OMD was simply awful, but the thinking behind it (get Spidey back to simple, fun superheroics) was valid. They took the easy way out with a destructive retcon instead of finding a organic way to tell the story. Brand New Day is critically acclaimed, but I'm still not sure the ends justified the means.  Why does Harry need to be back?  That's what I was saying about X-Men.  How about instead of bringing back the popular characters from the films/TV, you create new characters who could become popular?  Having recurring characters is okay, but simply rehashing the past is lazy.  I've not read it myself, so maybe I'm wrong, maybe they're doing new things with Harry.  As for Ultimatum, the Ultimate Universe isn't meant to be original.  It's meant to be the classic Marvel Universe updated in a simple and accessible way.  Marvel completely lost sight of that, and now they've resorted to killing the characters for empty shock value.     Paul    730  01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's my point. If the implausible science of Doctor Who annoys you, go watch Star Trek because that's more realistic.  Lol, your comments about Star Wars reminds me of an episode of DW where the characters are on the moon, and they hear these spacecraft landing.  On the commentary, David Tennant pointed out that they would make no noise because sound can't travel in space, and the director was like "Who cares, it's more dramatic!"
 * I see the Batman situation as being similar to the Captain America one, where Steve Rogers is dead and his old sidekick is now CA. I sincerely hope that Steve Rogers remains dead permanently and Bucky is given time for people to accept him as Captain America.  I'd support DC to replace Bruce Wayne, especially since (IMO) Batman is more of a symbol than a person and it doesn't really matter who's wearing the suit.  I don't follow the series so I can't suggest who might take over.  I doubt Bruce or Steve's deaths will last though, it's comic book world. :(
 * Btw, I just watched Diary of the Dead for the first time. It was really good, a very modern take on the classic zombie formula.  I loved the bleak commentary about the media and how detatched we are from what we see onscreen.  I decided to buy it after finally seeing Cloverfield and being very impressed by the whole POV camera thing.     Paul    730  03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Break 2
(Starting a new section so those big paragraphs above will get archived) I always enjoy the Doctor Who commentaries with David Tennant because he's such a lovely man and a genuine DW geek. He knows all the prior continuity and gets into discussions about canon so it's quite fun. Commentaries with cast members are usually better than those with crew because you're more familiar with them.

I'm not a big Batfan so I don't really know what I'm talking about. To me, Bruce Wayne always seems kind of flat and the series was much more about the villains and supporting cast. He's certainly not crucial in the same way Clark or Peter Parker are, whose personal lives are very much the heart and soul of their respective titles.

I liked the back-to-basics element of Diary where it was all just starting. It kind of felt like the Dead series was getting a bit far-fetched with Land, it didn't seem as relatable (although I haven't seen that movie yet so maybe I'm doing it an injustice). I have to say from glancing at it's wiki page that Island looks like one of the dafter ones, but don't judge a book and all that. Cloverfield didn't make me feel sick at all, maybe cause I saw it on the small screen. I kind of preferred the raw footage, as opposed to Diarys edited feel, but they're different movies so whatever.  Paul    730  03:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I already have Long Halloween, I just haven't found time to read it yet ("Long" is a very apt title). I can't say the Bruce Wayne character every really clicked with me; the Nolan movies did a great job but he's never been an interesting to me as other heroes.  Not sure how willing I am to rebuy the whole F13 series, they'd have to be some pretty good extras.  I might consider picking up III for the 3-D gimmick, which I've actually never experienced.     Paul    730  04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant I'd never seen any 3D movie before. :P I've got four copies of Halloween and rebought all the Buffy and Angel comics in paperback, so I can't really judge you. I'm just not sure I want to pay £20 for a movie I already own to listen to some Friday the 13th actress remembering how cold it was when she shot such-and-such scene. ;)     Paul    730  04:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't planning to. Though I nearly picked up the original the other day out of curiosity, any good?     Paul    730  05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really know anything about it beyond the title. Yeah, 3-D is a nice idea but I heard it gives you a headache and is more effort than it's worth.     Paul    730  05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Series continuity
I understand where you're coming from, but to follow this same pattern means that Batman & Robin should be preceded by Batman Begins. I don't have the fortitude to push a rock up the hill that is wikipedia conformity, but I'm just pointing this out to you since you're making the campaign. Because I'm sure as hell am not going to string those things together - because then I'd have a bunch of people up my ass. No, thank you... but good luck to you. --Bacteria (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh, the assbackwardness of wikipedia formality. Another thing to reminder as to why I barely contribute here anymore. Well, while I have your attention on the subject, and I have - what you call it? - respect for your opinions, I thought I'd throw this one out here: just for the record, at least in your opinion, would a remake be classified as a "follow-up", if said original film didn't spit out one sequel? --Bacteria (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Redesign
Since you seemed interested in helping (or doing) the redesign for the Project page, I thought I'd drop you a direct note. I've been checking out both the WikiProject Films and WikiProject Novels formats, since both are well used Projects and — theoretically — our Project is derived equally from both. I've been checking out what I think works and doesn't work in each and trying to think of ways to incorporate elements of both into a new Project design.

I strongly encourage you to something similar and then we can compare notes, perhaps building a better design because of it.

Drop me a reply at my talk page, please. hornoir (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn, I totally missed noticing your message on my talk space… sorry about that. As for the sidebar, I like the method the WikiProject Films use, where it hides the less important information and thus doesn't dominate the page quite as much.  One thing neither do that I think might be good is to include watch links to the important pages (done with [ watch], which would be a link to watch your talk space).  I think it is really important to get our participants to watch appropriate spaces.  I can't remember if either Project had Ratings Squads in addition to Clean-up Crews, but I think they are important too (as are Notice Boards in addition to To-Do Lists).
 * It sounds like you've got a leap on the redesign front and, sadly, I think I'm going to be stuck as the intermediate coordinator (and, if that's the case, I'm going to need one or two assistants… interested?). My gut-feeling timetable-wise is that the Project should be completely back on it's feet within two months (that means getting straying participants back and actively gathering new membership).  Once a dedicated crew are assembled to the site, I think then we can hold an election.
 * Thoughts on everything? hornoir (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think every user should watch the To-Do List, the Notice Board, the Newsletter page, and the Collaboration of the Month page. Otherwise, there shouldn't be too many modifications after the initial "re-growing pains".
 * A Ratings Squad/Crew ideally should focus on all ratings, not just B-Class Criteria, to ensure a consistency of ratings delivery. They should also place articles up for Peer Review, Good Article Nomination, and Featured Article Nomination as they see fit.  Ensuring the average participant doesn't have to concern themselves with these things but that they get done seems like a solid plan.
 * Ah, school. No worries.  I'll be glad for any/all help I can get.  I, afterall, do have work getting in my way from time to time.
 * Thanks again for all the help. hornoir (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Things I like from Project Novels are:
 * 1. Announcements and open task template (it looks nice and organized)
 * 2. The tighter five department Job Centre
 * 3. The work in progress section (as opposed to making part of the Job Centre)
 * I see you dropped me another link, but I've got to go to work… so I'll check it out later tonight.
 * Thanks again, hornoir (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked out your base page work for the Project… nice stuff. I may go in and make some edits and the sort, just so it can be shifted over in a fully live capacity.  I've got more work to do today, but I'll try to donate some stuff to the design later.  hornoir <span style="font-family:CarbonType,American Typewriter,Bookman Old Style,Courier;">(talk) 15:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I got a chance to modify the Sidebar a little bit… tightened the number of departments to the ones we need, leaving some of the others to be things that are done under the notice board. If active membership can be increased, then maybe the number of departments will increase too… but it should be good for now.  Couple of other minor aesthetic changes, which I think you'll probably like.  Also modified the Participant watchlist list to have watch links instead of talk links.  I'll plod along with other stuff as time permits.  <span style="font-family:CarbonType,American Typewriter,Bookman Old Style,Courier;">hornoir <span style="font-family:CarbonType,American Typewriter,Bookman Old Style,Courier;">(talk) 17:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for the FA, GA, etc. lists. I think listing the date it was placed into that category is standard.  Date created is unnecessary.  Main author(s) is a bit biased of a decision to make, but I'm okay with it.  <span style="font-family:CarbonType,American Typewriter,Bookman Old Style,Courier;">hornoir <span style="font-family:CarbonType,American Typewriter,Bookman Old Style,Courier;">(talk) 17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jor-El in Smallville
Please take a look at what I have done. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would have been nice to keep my changes. I added references, even if they were just from the series and not outside sources. I went back and fixed that.

The problem hasn't been solved, but at least there are references. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know for sure there's no "real-world" information?

I did notice some of the Jor-El information is unsourced, or at least I didn't remember which episode or episodes are the "source". Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added back a few absolutely essential details. There's no other appropriate place for them.

I'm looking for other Wikipedia articles where the reamining information might fit, but at the very least, the opening paragraph of the section, which lacks a source, is needed if it's accurate. That's my opinion.

I have little knowledge of the show other than considering The CW Lounge a second home. I actually enjoy that site more than the show itself, but of course it's inappropriate as an actual information source. People there might be able to provide me with what I need. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

H2: Halloween 2 page QUESTION
Hey! Since there's casting and production information and a release date, do you think we can set up the H2: Halloween 2 page yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halloweenluver (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry to seem like a turncoat but I have a proposal for how to deal with all these H2 edits. People obviously come to this site looking for information on the film, so why don't we add it to the navigation box with a pipe link to the franchise page?  I know it's not ideal, but it's a temporary solution until we have an article, and at least people will be redirected to the information they want (since not everyone might think to check the franchise page), which might stem the constant "H2" articles that are cropping up everywhere?     Paul    730  00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just going to suggest "Upcoming film" or something.    Paul    730  01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Horror Project Coordinators
"I didn't think we had voted on any coordinators yet" Actually, I thought we came to the conclusion that we would have just some people act as temporary coordinators until we come up with elections.--TFunk (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess I had the wrong impression. If you and Hornoir need any help, I'll be here. --TFunk (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I'll do that. --TFunk (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You undid an improvement to the Jason Voorhees page
It said it is not explained how he is resurrected in Jason X, and I said that Freddy vs Jason explains how he was resurrected. This might cause a lot of confusion among people who haven't seen the films. They might make the mistake (as I once did) that FvJ takes place AFTER Jason X, because the former was released after the latter. What do you mean you don't write about continuity? It's a character biography of Jason. Shouldn't it explain unknown situations? What, Fredddy vs Jason non-canon? Then how do you explain FREDDY KRUEGER pulling Jason's mask into Hell in Jason Goes to Hell?

Point is, Jason dies in Jason Goes to Hell, and reappears alive and well through "unexplained resurrection". After Jason X is released, another movie is released that takes place before Jason X: Freddy vs Jason. In this movie, set after JGtH and before JX, Freddy and Jason are both in hell (because they died in Freddy's Dead and Jason Goes to Hell, respectively) and Freddy resurrects Jason, who clearly survives at the end of the film and goes on to carry out the events in Jason X. Thus, Freddy vs Jason explains the unexplained resurrection that occurs between Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X. I hope I got my point clearly across, cause neglecting it is an injustice to the Jason timeline. Maybe Jason Voorhees will kill you... lol Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Secret Life
I know you are probably busy with Smallville, but I was hoping if you knew a good site to find ratings for The Secret Life of the American Teenager.

I was also looking for pictures, and Im not that good at that part of Wikipedia. If you can can you look  for some and upload them? You dont have to do any of it just needed a little help. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Status of WP:FICT
Bignole, what is going with WP:FICT these days? Discussion seems to have gone on and on and on with it. We haven't bent to the will of those who want to write nothing but plot detail, have we? — Erik (talk • contrib) 23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is hard to say. You can view what is currently the "proposed" guideline right now. The problem is that we have both sides clamoring for hardcore/liberal loose criteria and it isn't helping the overall goal. I don't have a serious problem with the current wording, but some have brought up that it contradicts WP:RS because it doesn't require a reliance on "third-party, history of fact-checking sources". There are like a dozen discussions going on, they all seem to start a new one just to say the same crap all over again.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th
And last I heard, you never owned the copyright to the pages. I should be free to edit them, and not have any disruption. So please stop reverting my edits. FMAFan1990 (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're starting to accuse me of original research? I think the facts speak for themselves. FMAFan1990 (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you are not assuming good faith. There are all kinds of sites which post the info. I shouldn't have to be in this argument with you. FMAFan1990 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Kickboxer 2
I found the substantial reviews you were hoping existed. I listed a few at the AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ianto Jones
Hey, it's been a while since I dragged you into one of my arguments. :P I'm currently battling some fanboys at Talk:Ianto Jones (one of whom has no edits besides commenting in this debate... sockpuppet?) who oppose a source because they feel it is "biased" towards the character. They believe the opinion of this author is invalid because he "hates" Ianto and is a Jack/Gwen shipper rather than a Jack/Ianto shipper. Pretty ludicrous, right? I've tried explaining things to them, but feel like I'm repeating myself, do you have any opinion on the subject?  Paul    730  10:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. :) I felt like I was talking in circles. How are you anyway?  Planning to see the new F13 at the cinema next month?  I think I will, but since none of my friends will sit through a Jason movie, I'll probably be a sadcase and go see it alone. :(    Paul    730  12:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Need to leave for work, reply later. :)   Paul    730  13:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your birthday or her birthday? (It occurs to me that I've known you for like a year-and-a-half and I've never said happy birthday so "happy birthday" whenever it is/was).  Lol, I love how she doesn't know she's getting dragged to this film.  Oh well, they say horror films are good date movies, has she seen the previous ones?
 * I'm fine, same old same old. My internet was down last week, which is why I wasn't online for a few days.  Nice to see nobody missed me. :P If you're talking about that editor who commented me, I thought it was strange they were asking me when I rarely if ever edit the Smallville articles.  I think it's weird when random editors come to my talk page asking me about topics I know nothing about.  I had one a few months ago asking why we didn't have an article for some movie that didn't even exist.  It makes me wonder why they chose my username.      Paul    730  21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I make some of friends and family watch movies and TV shows that I like, so I know where you're coming from. My friend does it to me with comic books, and so far a lot of them have been hits.  (Note: Y: The Last Man is excellent and you should totally see the film if they ever make it.)
 * I remember you showing me the preview, I don't know if you gave me your verdict. I guess that makes the glasses canon then... do you think they'll be introduced on a regular basis or will it be a "final episode" kind of thing.  I can't see them wanting to put glasses on their "hot" lead actor.  That Garth character looks cool, I have a thing for electric characters.  If I could have superpowers, that would totally be my choice.     Paul    730  01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, another H2 editor? I knew Halloween had a big fanbase but jeez, talk about over zealous.  Why are they so desperate to have a whole article for the info that's already on the franchise page and a crappy poster?  It's not going to make the film come out any faster...  I see a couple of other editors stepped in to back you up, I was offline last night or I would have commented. Thanks for your support at the Ianto article, I can't believe how controversial this is getting.     Paul    730  13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted exactly once. You have reverted twice. It is uncalled for to give me warnings for "approaching the 3-revert rule" after a single revert. I have been a freqent editor here for years, please do not treat me like a newbie. I do not understand why you are invading my personal page to leave rude messages saying, "stick to discussing this on the talk page" when I have not said a single word on the issue anywhere BUT the page in question. "Stick to" implies I have not done so, which is hypocritical considering you are the only one who is refusing to "stick to" the talk page. In future please restrain yourself to the discussion in question. Queer Scout (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I made one edit, to remove a single unsourced sentence stating, "in X episode Jack says Ianto is less important than pizza." You then added a new paragraph including SJW's opinions on the character, which I reverted twice. My first edit was on an entirely different subject and did not mention SJW at all. I fail to see why you would come to my personal page at all when I was already engaged in a discussion on the article's Talk page. It is hard to see how, "stick to the talk page" (when you were the only one refusing to "stick to the talk page") could be interpreted any differently. Queer Scout (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Fine. I have no hostility towards you and accept you have none towards me. I prefer to keep discussion to the issue at hand and on the article's talk page, please. FYI I do not edit anonymously. Queer Scout (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

H2
Excuse me, but exactly why are you asserting this when the movie is well into production and already has a release date and poster? I went to great lengths to begin the movie's page setup and I don't appreciate someone blanking it when it took me time to gather information and pictures. Horrorfan78 (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's ALL SORTS of information about the production on IMDB if you've been keeping up with the film's news. It more than passes any kind of test for a film to exist and have its own page. Horrorfan78 (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And I am in the process of setting it up with other information I've gathered, so please do not insult my research. Yes I put up the words already made just for the first paragraph, but I am working on the other parts if you will kindly step aside and let the page commence. Horrorfan78 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, IMDB is a very credible source given all the information that comes into it, and it also lists sources for its information, if you visited the site you would know. Horrorfan78 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)