User talk:Bignole/Archive 13

Spider-Man
I'm currently using citations we left behind on the Spider-Man 3 talk page. I have an idea: if we get Spider-Man 3 to FA, we could all the Spidey film articles into a Featured Topic. How about it? Alientraveller 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Halloween
From what I could tell, he was being tongue in cheek whenever he was going on about how handsome or great he was. The only information I'd use from that quote is that John and Debra wanted someone more "angelic", but I think Castle was joking when he said he thought he would be better, he was grinning when he said it. BTW, I was watching Ultimate Avengers yesterday. I don't know if you've seen it, but it's basically an animated version of the Ultimates comics, featuring Cap, Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow, Wasp, Giant Man, Nick Fury, and Hulk. It's quite good, a bit watered-down compared to the comics, but still pretty adult for a cartoon. it's been uploaded on YouTube if you want to see it. Paul730 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. My Halloween collection is a bit motley to say the least (bit like the series).  I have two copies of the original as you know (just couldn't resist - there's a four-disc version coming out that I might get as well, what can I say, it's a great movie) and a decent copy of H20, but I had to beg, borrow and steal the other 6 (III does NOT count).  4, 5, 6 and H20 I got ex-rental at my local video store ages ago, and II and Resurrection are taped off the TV.  None of them have special features except 1 and H20.  Of course, after I spent months tracking down these obscure films (this was before the DVDs were re-released in special editions), they bring out a fancy boxset of the whole collection.  Grr.  Anyway, I hope those features are useful, looking forward to reading the article. :) Paul730 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember when I rented Resurrection they had a featurette about the lipstick cams the actors wore. It was a bit self-congratulatory ("We're the new Blair Witch" - if you say so) but it might be good for the film page, if not Michael's.  The remake DVD is sure to have some good stuff on it, since it's all about Michael's psychology.  I really like Danielle Harris, I've seen her interviewed and she's so loyal to the franchise (even though she's not happy that her films got retconned and she was replaced with Josh Hartnet).  I like actors who care about the film and it's fans; Jessica Alba might suck as Sue Storm but she really gives it her all, bless her. ;)  Paul730 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently she didn't like her death, and they were paying her less than what she got in the previous films. Alba does suck, she's the funniest thing in those films and she doesn't mean to be.  And what's with all the gratuitous non-nudity?  She's meant to be the mom of the Marvel Universe, not a stripper! And Reed's meant to be the leader of the FF, not some whipped little bitch! Ben and Johnny weren't bad, not great... Paul730 22:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh. The Thing is my least favourite FFer.  And Chiklis' big rubber suit isn't great.  Heavyweights seem to be a problem in live-action films - Hulk, Juggernaut, and Thing all looked kinda crappy.  Colossus looked good, might have been better if they'd given him a frickin line or two.  Paul730 23:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My first instinct was to check the Halloween (comics) page and see what sources they had there, but there's only a website which says "Coming soon". Very helpful. All the writers and publishers are mentioned on Wikipedia, but we can't cite ourselves. Hold on, I'll have a quick look on Google... This site has some info on Halloween comics, not sure if it's reliable. God, these comics are like frickin gold dust. :/ Paul730 09:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Batman Begins
As you have the DVD, I was wondering if you could make an image. There are two things from the film which I believe would go under actual critical commentary: the blue flower, and the monorail connected to Wayne Tower. I think either would be a great idea. Alientraveller 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn. Well, I'm currently going through the thematic stuff, to compliment your reception section. Hope no one finds it too long come FAC. Alientraveller 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Batman film series and Superman film series are the new Canceled Superman films. Poopy.  I imagine we can do a drive for the former when there's talk about a sequel after The Dark Knight, and the latter... well, we'll see about this cruddy JLA project taking form. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration / brazen infringement
Hi, I'm only moderately shamelessly appropriating your sig format. I'd credit you in an HTML comment but I don't have enough characters to spare. :)  SFT |  Talk  20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Casino
Hey man. There are two places in the film where put options are mentioned. One is when the broker calls Le Chiffre to tell him that his options have expired worthless. The second is when M tells 007 that someone bought massive amounts of put options on the airplane company's stock right before the thwarted terror attack on the prototype plane. Presumably the person who bought all of those options was Le Chiffre.

The point of my post was that the film is a bit sloppy about whether Le Chiffre is buying puts or selling short shares - they're not the same thing! This is the point of the web page I sent you as well. In the following quote you will see that options are specifically mentioned, and that Le Chiffre does use them:

"in the explanatory section, M tells Bond that someone bought vast numbers of puts (options which permit one to make $ if the underlying asset decreases in value) on the prototype's company which expired worthless."

I know it's not the most reliable source, but obviously post of the movie script online is a copyright violation, and I couldn't find the specific quotes... I just referenced that discussion so you would see that other people have noticed the inaccuracy in the movie as far as buying puts and/or selling short shares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diablo1024 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that the movie screws up is irrelevant. What M says doesn't matter to what Le Chiffre says, and his words were 'short another million shares' (probably not the exact number, but the other words are correct). Whatever the truth behind terminology is, what he said was 'short shares'. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)"

I don't understand your logic here. M says that Le Chiffre bought options. His broker says the same thing - that Le Chiffre's options expired worthless. How can you say options are not relevant when two characters in the movie mention them specifically?

"Because you are tacking later dialogue onto something mentioned early. His machinations are summarized as him shorting shares and then attacking the companies he's shorting in an effort to make money. There doesn't need to be any other explaination tacked on about put options. The whole point is brevity. You're tacking 'and/or bought put options on them' to something that doesn't need it. It either is or it isn't. If you have to say 'and/or' then it means there isn't certainty, and everything is mere speculation. If he actually bought put options. If you look at the definition of shorting shares, that is what Le Chiffre did. He anticipated that the stock would fall--by way of engineering a terrorist attack on it--in an effort to make a profit. You can see it at Short (finance)#Concept. Now, maybe he was doing both. Who knows, it really isn't clear what he was doing, just that he used someone else's money to do it and that he lost it all. Maybe the whole sentence should reflect just the put options, I don't know because the movie itself doesn't explain it all that well--probably because what he did with the money is irrelevant to the fact that it wasn't his money to do anything with. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)"

The very fact that it is ambiguous whether he sold short shares or bought put options is itself worth mentioning. It is an inconsistency in the film and the Wikipedia article should reflect this fact. Both positions would make money if the company's stock falls. Maybe this doesn't belong in the "plot" section, but should have its own section at the end of the article? Or maybe there should be a "Trivia" section at the end in which this issue is mentioned? My co-workers and I (I work in finance) looked to Wikipedia to resolve this question after watching the film, and we found no relevant information, which is why I chose to edit the page. Anyone with a financial background who watches the film will have the same questions. That is why I think it's worth mentioning somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diablo1024 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Both ways seem like the same thing, except 'put options' appears to be more of a contract thing between the seller and the broker, where 'shorting shares' seems to be just one person. If you have financial background, I would assume that you would know exactly what true term should be."

Both positions are ways to make money when a company's stock price goes down, but they are really quite different. I won't go into the details because it doesn't seem like you are interested, but they are definitely not "the same thing". Whether the distinction is interesting to the general public is something I think should be discussed on the movie's discussion page, as you suggested. I'll open up a discussion to see what people thing. Thanks for your suggestions! --Diablo1024 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ki ki ki Ma ma ma
Just wanted to say good work for your clean up at Friday the 13th (franchise). Since the series itself is more notable and memorable as a whole than the individual films, I'm sure it'll be a good article. :) And how cool would it be if they ever made that Crystal Lake Chronicle TV show? Doubt it'll happen, but it would be such a good addition to the series. Paul730 15:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think CCC should be mini-season (about 13 eps, like you said). It shouldn't feature Jason too much, maybe just the fisrt ep and the season finale, but the whole show should be wrapped up in the Voorhees mythology.  They could come up with some bullshit Hellmouth/Kryptonite/Cardiff Rift plot device for why Crystal Lake attracts supernatural stuff.  Maybe when Mrs Voorhees used the Necronomicon to resurrect Jason (which is my fanon belief of what happened) she inadverdantly cursed the lake as well.  They should introduce some really good characters, then kill them off occasionally just to remind you that you're still in the F13 universe (have some really upsetting deaths, like Charlie in Heroes).  Maybe even have a cameo from Tommy Jarvis, or at least some of the Z-list actors that the fans will notice, like in Smallville.  What types of characters would you like to see in it?  I think it would be good if they took the typical F13 stereotypes and made them into real people with layers to them.


 * Sarah Connor Chronicles looks awesome, I loved the trailer. The only thing is, I don't count part 3 as canon (it's shit!) so I hope it doesn't rely on it too much.  I know I always slag off fans who dismiss things as "non-canon", but part 3 just isn't good enought IMO.  I'd like it if Sarah and John created a divergent timeline or something, so the series can exist seperately to any upcoming films.  Nothing like a divergent timeline to retcon the crap. ;) Paul730 15:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With CCC, I think the death rate should be pretty high, even for the cast regulars, kind of like Angel. The core cast could be some of the teenagers who live in the area, and are aware of the Jason myth, but don't really believe it (would you?).  Maybe in the pilot, they could go partying at the lake and Jason could slaughter their friends, so the few survivors have to work together find out what makes Jason tick and put a stop to him.  (A bit cliched, but hey, sometimes cliches work).  I'd like to see Elias, find out more about Jason's childhood; they should focus on the tragic aspect of the character, which was one of my favourite aspects of FvJ.  Tommy could return in a kind of "Crazy Ralph" role, trying to protect the teenagers, only he'd be more badass and cool than Ralph. ;) He could even be a cast regular, functioning in a kind of Giles "Mr Exposition" way.  They could have Chris be a villain of the week, somehow I don't think that girl went on to have a very happy future.  Who's Rennie?  The whole F13 franchise has so much unfulfilled potential, it's a shame the films don't explore it in more detail.  The show could end with Jason being taken into the custody of the government, leading up to Jason X.  After all, I doubt we'll be getting more sequels in that continuity, remakes seem more likely.  Paul730 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've not seen Manhattan. :( Seen bits on YouTube fan videos, the bit where he shows his face to those kids is funny. Yeah, I was thinking it would be set, like, right now.  Apparently Jason was captured by the government in 2008, so a TV series set in 2006/2007 would be a good lead up.  Any more than a couple of seasons would probably be pushing our luck.  In the pilot, there could be a couple of Jesse McNally-style false protagonists.  What would the basic mission statement of the show be?  Paul730 16:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Now all we need is hundreds of thousands of dollars and the legal right to the Jason Voorhees character and we can start making it! ;) Lol, I bet some guy from whatever studio is reading this right now and stealing our ideas.  Not that they're all that original in the first place, but hey, since when has Friday the 13th been original?  Paul730 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your Halloween comment above, in case you didn't see it. I was wondering, are you going to include Friday the 13th: The Series in the F13 franchise page? Is it part of the franchise, or does it just share the same name? Paul730 11:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that F13: The Series is part of the Jason franchise? I mean, it says on that page that there was no serious intention of crossing them over.  Also, having the same director/actor doesn't really mean anything.  Several members of Mutant Enemy worked on both Buffy and Firefly, as well as a few actors, doesn't mean they're the same franchise.  Bryan Singer and James Marsden worked on X-Men and Superman, doesn't mean they're the same franchise.  I know that they share the title of "F13", but it seems like kind of a flimsy connection.  It would be nice to include it though, just to beef up the article.  Are you going to merge Friday the 13th (comics) into the article?  Do they deserve their own page? Paul730 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mm, it still seems like quite a tenuous connection. Not like Freddy's show, where he actually appeared, and an episode focused on the Elm St murders (I saw that ep, wasn't much impressed).  So long as you focus on what links it to the Jason series it could work, the show does have it's own page after all.  Good luck with your paper, I'm not really that good at the whole homework thing myself. ;) Usually end up doing a half-arsed job in the free period before class.  What can I say, I'm a procrastanist(sp?).  Oh, and I noticed Erik called you an "argumentative beast".  Lol, that is true, I do appreciate your ability to bulldoze through discussions with your knowledge of policy and essay-long arguments. :P Paul730 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know you're a busy little bee right now, (:P) but mind giving me your opinion on something? Zythe asked me to help him with a rewrite of the Jaime Sommers article. Don't know if you're familar with her (I'm not) but basically it's a character who had her own TV series back in the day (as well as another TV series in which she wasn't the protagonist and a couple of TV films), and now she's appearing in a rebooted version in which she's quite different character. We're not quite sure how to lay out the article in order to deal with the two versions clearly (to clarify, she is apparently completely different in the two shows, so the OOU info will be quite different - this isn't like the Buffy film/TV thing) If you could reply on the sandboxes talk page, that's where we're discussing it. :) Paul730 00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Break
I've looked over it, done a bit of copyediting. :) Do you think you find a different image for that section? I know that one is fair use, but it seems a little repetitive to have the same image as on the Jason page, especially since there's a whole bunch of comics.  It's not a big deal, I know, but it would be a bit of variety. Paul730 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The novel section seems to discuss mostly novelisations of the films, so it would make sense to have a cover of one of those. As for the comics, I really don't mind.  The current series covers are nice and gory, which capture the tone of the franchise.  Isn't this fair use?  It's missing an author, but I don't really know what that means of if it matters.  It's up to you. Paul730 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you're not the only editor, but you know more about images and fair use stuff than I do. And lets face it, that article isn't exactly crowded with editors.  The FvJvA (or whatever its called) picture might be good, because it's a bit more informative than yet another picture of a hockey mask.  The Part III novel cover would be good, because even though the mask looks like crap, the fact that the film was adapted twice makes it kind of notable, like you said.  Paul730 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, is that caption long enough? :P I'll try to cut it down a bit. Why will we have to get rid of the images?  What's the big deal about them?  BTW, I thinking, since we're making a fuss about FvJvA being a crossover, should we have an image of FvJ?  Like a poster or something?  The first and only oncreen crossover of the franchise is pretty notable. Paul730 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, I think you replied on Erik's page and not mine? ??? Duh, I just noticed you were talking about the same thing with him.  Sorry, it's me who's daft not you. :P I cut the caption down to The film Friday the 13th Part 3 was adapted into two novels, with Michael Avallone's original version utilising an alternate ending. but there was an edit conflict when you resized the image.  I think the image is a bit too big right now, it dwarfs the entire section. Paul730 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It still seems huge, but I can live with it. Why are you making it so big, so people can read the writing on the cover? Paul730 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks much better now. :) Paul730 01:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too, I only went and did it because somebody else deleted all the character details; it was basically just an IMDb list. Paul730 01:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Images
I know, I found that out when I tried to restore the non-free images at Fight Club (film) and found that the admin had unilaterally deleted them all. Thus my call for an incident report to be filed. I have to study for two exams tomorrow, though, so I don't have time for this right now. I'd love to hear his explanation for his conduct despite fleshed-out rationales. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal
You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination this year. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual main page will resemble either an excerpted list format or an abbreviated text format. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Future films
Untitled X-Files Sequel is undergoing a discussion to merge, seen here. Feel free to add your $0.02. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are quite the argumentative beast. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of future films, I was wondering if you saw this? JLA is going to be "hip" to the scene!  (You can agonize with the other folks at AICN.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, I've seen these toilets, and they scare me with their furious flushes. Have you seen Teen Titans before?  It seems to be that the film will be that show meets Justice League Unlimited (especially with the rapper Common as a potential John Stewart, I presume).  I'm not one to boycott a film, as I think it depends on what George Miller has in store for it.  His track record doesn't seem to address any of the elements a successful JLA film entails (if one was even possible at all).  The fact that they're forcing this tub of lard so quickly through the pipeline due to the impending strike just adds to the suckitude of this prospect.  It just seems to me that The Dark Knight is the only healthy dosage of DC Comics onscreen that we'll see for a while... I hope these rumors of a Joker prologue clip before I Am Legend are true.  At least we have Iron Man and Incredible Hulk on the Marvel side.  I still want a Captain America film, though -- perfect for contemporary times, especially having part of it in WW2, the transition, and modern-day America.  (How modern-day, hmm?)  The political backlash for the Cap's portrayal would be awesome -- "He's too liberal!"  "He won't let that villain say his thing!"  (I mentioned the latter because there is actually a very interesting academic study about the patriotism of Captain America and how he suppressed the anti-capitalist preaching of Flag-Smasher.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, no problem, and no offence was taken, I assure you. And a hearty thanks for your taking up the issue; I raised the merge proposal with the intention of taking the time to keep an eye on it and argue its merits. Unfortunately, Real Life intervened and I was unable to (though it's perhaps telling that I've spent half the evening (UK time) frustrated by my inability to spend more than a few moments on the 'pedia). Anyway, thanks again; you've put across the argument more coherently than I would have, were I to have been present. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging would be best... I spy its home at the franchise article. Be bold, I say. Oh, and I just watched disc 1 of Season 1 of Jericho tonight... damn, am I hooked already. Can't wait to see the rest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk page of T4's creator. I explained the situation to him, so I hope he's amicable. Also, Near future in film has a lot wrong with it -- there's quite a few films there that are not in production at all, even with release dates declared. I'll see about removing some of the items. Also, did you see Girolamo's request at the bottom of my talk page about a task force for future films? What do you think? I think we already do this to some degree (like, right now, haha), and I think it would be good to continue implementing these merges so that we can have a near-complete mindset that film articles exist when the films enter production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've created a future film watchlist using THR's production listing. Gives us an idea of what exists and what doesn't. Some links are probably too vague (purposely so disambiguation links can be checked for). Feel free to make comments on the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I really took on the mop today... take a look at User:Erik/Clean-up. Do you think that if time was devoted to structure the articles in the correct manner, it would catch on?  Just makes me wonder if new editors look at recently-released films to guide them along in creating new ones. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I swear, this remake fad needs to die the hell down. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy cow, look at EVula's satisfied customers! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Transformers film series
Here, I am preparing articles for the sequel and the inevitable film series page. I am curious where there should; Alientraveller 10:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Seperate listings of the robots' voice actors from their mechanical forms?
 * 2) What about the animated films?
 * 3) Should mention be made of the comics and toys based on the film?
 * 4) A discussion of the film's unique take on the mythology or at least its design aesthetic?
 * I read you have the two disc edition. When you have time, could you list everything you can from Bay's commentary? It'd be much appreciated. Alientraveller 10:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

World's Greatest Heroes
Hey, just fancied a chat. I got Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer on DVD the other day, and I have to say, it's really not a bad movie. I didn't like it in the cinema, but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it the second time. Silver Surfer totally makes it, his voice is so cool and the CGI is excellent. Most of the criticisim heaped on that film seems to be from disgruntled fanboys who are in a huff because Galactus isn't a big purple guy. It's far from perfect, but it's a fun movie. I'd give it three out of five stars. What about you? Paul730 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's a vast improvement on the original. The first one didn't have a story, just Dr Doom deciding "Oh, there's nothing on TV tonight, think I'll go kill Richards and his friends".  Also, everybody used their powers well in the second one - I love the bit where Sue traps the guards in little force field balls.  Very Invisible Woman.  The only scene where Surfer looks a bit fake is when he's summoning Galactus in space near the start, other than that he looks great.  Just because we know he's CGI doesn't make him look fake, he is meant to be a weird cosmic entity.  I liked the SFX, but his voice was what make him.  The bit where he says "All that you know is at an end" is really chilling and cool.  It's kind of sad that the best actor in the film was CGI, but yeah, Doug Jones and Lawrence Fishburne did a great job I think.  Johnny was too much of an ass... the characters were all pretty one-dimensional.  The whole dynamic between all of them feels a bit forced, like they're just going through the motions.  I quite enjoyed the Fantasti-Car/Dr Doom Surfer scene, and I like that they fixed Doom's costume up.  As I said to Alientraveller, I'm not all that fussed about cloudy Galactus, and we'll probably be seeing him in Silver Surfer anyway.  Was that the first time you've seen it?  Paul730 08:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Grr, leave poor Silver Surfer alone. :( He doesn't look fake or cartoony, I like how they made him and his board kind of liquidy and T-1000-y (although obviously noone can live up to the T-1000). The "all that you know" line was cooler in the trailer, admititedly, but I still like it.  I like the scene in the forrest between him and Sue, where he protects her from the missile.  As much as I love to hate Jessica Alba as Sue Storm, her relationship with the Surfer was genuinely quite touching, I felt.  The scene in the torture chamber where he compares her to his alien g/f was sweet as well.  Johnny letting Ben have a night with Alicia would have been very in-character, come to think of it.  In Ultimate FF, Johnny agrees to go back in time and prevent the accident, so Ben can live a normal life (even though it would mean he doesn't become Human Torch).  I didn't mind all the product placement... if it had been Daredevil or someone walking around in that suit then fine, but come on, it's the FF, they're celebrities.  And yeah, Galactus is visible in a few scenes.  I think they will show him properly in a Surfer movie.  Jessica Alba looked ridiculous when I saw it in the cinema, with her wiggy hair and android-like bright blue contact lens.  Anything to hide the fact that she's latino.  The contacts were less noticeable on the DVD actually, do you think they fixed them digitally or something?  Aw, Alba's so useless in that film, but there's something endearing about her.  I like it when she's watching trash TV and they're like "Stay tuned for the Invisible Woman's greatest fashion blunders."  She does seem to have a hard time keeping her clothes on, doesn't she?  Paul730 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Ioan Gruffudd (apparently it's Welsh for John Griffith) is old enough for the part. He and Johnny are too close in age, when in the comics, Reed was in his thirties when Johnny was in his teens (I think).  They tried to make him more assertive in this film, but as easy as Gruffudd is on the eyes, he's not the right actor for the part.  As you said, he's not paternal enough.  I don't think any of the actors have enough chemistry together to convince as the Fantastic Four.  That's why you need a scene stealer like Surfer (or Namor, let's hope!) to make the film.  If Namor's unavailable (coz of his own film and stuff), I'd quite like to see the Inhumans.  Medusa and Black Bolt are really cool, and Crystal could provide a bit of romance for Johnny.  Oh, and please don't compare Surfer to the Hulk.  The Hulk sucked. :P  I expect good things from the new one, though.  Hulk's A-list, he deserves a good film.  Paul730 13:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can barely remember Hulk, which isn't a good sign. Wasn't Absorbing Man the villain or something?  Oh, who cares, it was so boring and self-important.  The SFX were good sometimes, the transformation in the house looked like crap but the desert scenes were better.  Hulk was a bit too much of a pretty boy for my liking.  The Johnny fire thing... what can I say, they wanted to get that Super-Skrull moment, logic really didn't matter at that point.  Doom no doubt made his escape to menace the FF again in the next film.  They could have the FF ask for Doom's help to get Sue through her inevitable pregnancy with Franklin, that's what happened in the comics, only with Valeria.  I'd like them to do something to Doom's voice, he's too high-pitched.  Doom deserves much more of a spotlight, he is the greatest supervillain of all time, after all.  At the same time though, I'm not sure McMahon could hold his own film as the villain.  We need someone else to spice it up. Paul730 21:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the bit where Johnny gets all the powers was inspired by the Super-Skrull. Lol, those crazy Skrulls, ya gotta love them.  They're taking over the Marvel Universe and we don't even know it.  I mentioned Franklin because he'll probably be in the next film, what with Sue's "can we raise kids in this environment" subplot in RotSS.  I heard Alba wants to be more motherly in the movies, and is pushing to have Franklin in it.  McMahon is okay at Doom, but he's a bit too petty.  I get that Doom is a petty character, even in the comics, but some of his mannerisms made him come across so childish, and not the regal villain he's supposed to be.  Maybe it's because you can't see his face under the mask, he was making up for it with body language.  Paul730 22:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember where I heard stuff about another sequel. It will happen though. I was glad there wasn't any sappy stuff between Sue and Doom, was never a big fan of their relationship in the first film. What would you like to see in a third film? What about more X-Mens, any ideas for those? If you've read my conversations with Alientraveller, you'll know I'm a big Emma Frost fan. (Lol, you would hate Emma so much, she's a total bitch) I'm worried though, that another X-film would ruin the series' rep. A great trilogy with a flawed conclusion is one thing, two great movies with a string of crap sequels is another. Paul730 22:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to see the younger X-Men. They're too bland (which is down the film's characterizations, not the characters themselves.  Except Angel.  He is bland.)  Gambit's not my favorite X-Man by a long shot, but I'd rather watch him than an Iceman/Kitty romance.  Colossus needs a personality, stat.  Apocalypse is the only real reason to make another X-Men film, I think.  I'm not too excited about Wolverine and Magneto.  I'm totally sick to death of Wolverine (he's in everything) and a Magneto film just seems so random.  TBH, I think the Avengers franchise has more life in it.  I'm much more excited about that. :) Paul730 22:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry to bore you with my Marvel talk. ;) I saw you and Erik frothing at the mouth about the younger cast or something? Aren't they getting actors in their early twenties?  It seems like that JLA movie is just this big rushed mess, trying to cash in on the superhero fever while it's still hot.  Paul730 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does sound a bit cynical and money-grabbing. I was reading that forum Erik linked to, the fanboys don't seem to be very happy.  Mind you, I think damning the director to hell is a bit extreme.  You never know... it could turn out to be good.  Paul730 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox movie certificates
I'm considering Template:Infobox movie certificates for deletion. I've never seen the encyclopedic value in listing these certificates as part of a film article. It's been up for deletion before, and I was wondering if you saw any merits or flaws in this template. I'm formulating an argument for an eventual TFD, but I'd like to hear what you think about its usage. I'm asking because Pixelface inquired about my conduct in removing this template from Bee Movie, and I explained that some encyclopedic examples of rating information would be Live Free or Die Hard being rated PG-13 compared to its predecessors, the BBFC's rating treatment at Fight Club (film), or something like Disney's first PG-13 film being Pirates of the Caribbean (can't remember if this is true or not). Let me know your thoughts. I may bring up the matter on the WikiProject Films talk page to gauge the preferences of the community before proceeding with the TFD. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

C/E response

 * I know of no one in particular that is specialized in this task yet on Wikipedia. Could you perhaps help out, or ask someone you know that is good at this?  I really would like to do as much as possible to resolve all issues on this article as it moves forward towards being a Featured Article.  Thanks again for all of your help so far.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Okay, I think for the moment I will try to work on some of the recommendations you gave yourself at the FAC page. Would you be willing to reevaluate your opinion as far as FAC as the copyediting picture changes ?  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Responded on my talk. Thanks again for all your help so far.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Hello again. I see that you bolded Neutral, at Featured article candidates/Trapped in the Closet (South Park).  Did you mean to cross our your bolded "Weak oppose", further up on the same page?  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

Film certifications
Like I wrote on Erik's talk page, the reason behind MPAA ratings can be found at mpaa.org and other sites. Film critics and sites like Yahoo! Movies typically repeat the information. If you insist that ratings come with reasons, that can be achieved by citing the source and inserting a quote in the cite web template. I think the ratings do have meaning, because it limits who can view a movie in a certain country and affects box office grosses. I do not think that listing the American rating of a film produced in America is biased. Nothing is preventing other editors from adding other ratings to an article. The BBFC gives a reason behind their ratings as well. --Pixelface 05:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that mpaa.org lists reasons for newer films. And I don't think the reason behind a certification is always necessary. Film articles don't have to contain information why a film is 120 minutes long or why it was released on a certain date or why one actor was hired and another was not or why a film contains a certain scene. --Pixelface 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

MOS:FILM says nothing about film certifications. You seems to have a problem with them, so perhaps you should discuss it on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines or Template talk:Infobox movie certificates. --Pixelface 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I will let you or Erik bring it up, since you are both opposed to it. The guideline says nothing about the template. The person who opposes the template and wants to forbid it's use should bring it up. I've already mentioned it before on the guideline's talk page. Infobox movie certificates is used on 287 articles and is perfectly in line with policy. WP:NOT says "consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists" and that is what it does. You have a nice night as well. Thank you. --Pixelface 06:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Debated topic of s' or s's
What do you think of this highly-debated topic of the letter s? Would you apply this to any of your articles, such as Jason Voorhees? Flyer22 20:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about HP7 film
I've raised the question at Erik's talk page, and figured you'd probably have some good thoughts on the matter, too. Would be grateful for any comments. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Yes I saw the edits on the Tila Tequila page. But I didn't make them. So I'm confused about how they are registered to my ip address. Reachable at Luet. 99.237.239.193 —Preceding comment was added at 00:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A trivial manner
I thought you might find this interesting: Maybe there's a WikiProject Episode Articles on the horizon. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture


 * Not sure if the marquee is bothering you as it did for me, but here's a way out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the [dismiss] button wasn't there for some time, then after I added the coding, I saw that it was finally there. Oh, well.  As for the Friday the 13th images, any chance you can widen the images some more and make the captions more succinct?  It's rather thin and long the way it looks now, at least on my PC. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks more balanced now, though I am wondering: Is there anything established about the appropriateness of non-free images used as identification in a section rather than the whole article? I remember some discussion taking place in the past, especially about soundtrack covers for the soundtrack section of so-and-so subject.  What was the outcome of that?  Just want to make sure that the images are appropriately placed and also would like to know for future reference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I saw the discussion about quotes... do you think if I put "May the Force be with you" on User:Erik, George Lucas's lawyers will come and pwn me? Sheesh. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the behavior of our old friend Annoynmous at The Incredible Hulk (film)? I think that I'm too close to 3RR to fix his needlessly POV edit, not to mention that the anonymous IP is probably him, but wouldn't be easily obvious to tie into a 3RR report if he persists. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh... no, but I do hear a collective crapping noise over the project. I'm looking at his profile on IMDb, and he seems to have an OK background. What's the headline? I haven't gone through my RSS feeds today. (I have 400+ Google Alerts to sift through, sigh...) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't the worst news I've heard; I'll see how it develops, but I've read movie blogs bitching about how they would pull it off, especially with the budget, and I have to agree with them. For just Superman, they spent $200+ million... how the hell will they do multiple superheroes?  It's bitterly amusing to see DC Comics find their finger on the reset button to restart a storyline, even in cinema.  Here's to hoping they don't try to tie Nolan's Batman films into it somehow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nightwing
Hi. I just became aware that you were unfamiliar with the history of the name 'Nightwing', which had been used intermittently by Superman for decades before the first Robin took it. I added some material to the discussion over at 'Superman' concerning it. Argentarthropod 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Superman
What's your opinion on the Clark Kent/Superman merge proposal? I'm leaning on the side of "merge", but then again, Clark Kent is kind of a seperate character. When you say "Clark Kent", you think of the glasses-wearing dorky guy, not Superman. But then again Bruce Banner is very distinct from Hulk, but he's a redirect. You're the Superman expert, what do you think? Paul730 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm like you, I'm on the fence. The only thing which is really pushing me towards "merge" is the state of the Clark article.  I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I'm interested to see how it turns out.  Yes, I did notice the F13 series section, well done.  The connection between it and the Jason series is apparent enough to warrant mentioning it in the page.  Did you notice the whopper of a response we got at Talk:List of Angel episodes?  (Brian's one)  It made me feel kind of guilty.  I'm losing interest in that whole debate because it's so obvious they're not going to be merged.  It's a shame, because I doubt the pages will ever be cleaned up.  Paul730 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ew. I read Brian's response.  "For all practical purposes, Wiki is already an episode guide, a film database, a scientific repository, a Who's Who, an CIA fact book, an geographical database, a collection of maps, a discography list and much more. I don't see why it can not be an episode guide AS WELL."  I guess I'll put some of the Star Wars fan fiction I wrote back in middle school, since Wikipedia is so welcoming of all sorts of content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, hypocrisy? I actually think he made some decent points, although I disagree with his opinion on the merge.  If the consensus is so against us, how can we insist the pages be merged without becoming "dictators"?  I agree that it's a shame that the majority's opinion is detrimental to the pages.  It seems to be a quantity over quality case of "Angel is a great show, so it needs as many articles as possible".  I've also noticed some fanboy rivalry of "My show is better than your show" when we use the Smallville pages as an example.  It's so frustrating, because I don't want the Buffyverse pages to look like shit.  I admit to being rather jealous that the Smallville pages are in such better shape. :P Paul730 00:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, "pissy tirade". :) I dunno, I guess you're right. The 13 against 3 thing was a pretty crap argument, when you consider that many of those arguments amounted to "Leave the articles alone, I like them!"  It's just kind of hard to tell a whole bunch of people that they're wrong when you're in the minority without feeling like a dictator. :/ Paul730 00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling? Oh, you spelled "tirade" wrong, no I was laughing at the phrase itself, not the spelling. It was funny. :) Yeah, I noticed, that's pretty cool. Although I don't watch the show.  Do you think they'll like bring him out of the movie or something?  I think they did that in Charmed, only it wasn't Jason, it was Generic Hockey Mask Killer.  Either way, it'll be fun to see their interpretation of him, not to mention being a cool addition to the article.  Paul730 00:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Or they could rip off Buffy and have somebody dress up as him, and then be turned into him. I remember wanting to watch it when it first came on, but I never bothered and just kind of forgot about it.  I heard Amber Benson played a vampire in it.  Paul730 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed. I was going to merge it myself last night since no one seemed to care, but I thought I'd leave it to you since you proposed it in the first place.  My thoughts on the video game are that it's definitely worth mentioning in the franchise page, I'm not sure it deserves it's own page?  It has a few external links, some walkthroughs and a couple of reviews.  I doubt it would be very controversial if you decided to merge it.  As for the timeline... the fanboy in me kinda likes it, but the Wikipedian hates it.  It doesn't hold much encyclopedic value and is no doubt riddled with OR.  Maybe move it to Wikia rather than lose it completely?  It seems to be a reasonably popular page, you might find some opposition.  These kinda timelines always contain OR, see Chronology of the Doctor Who universe.  That's a far better quality page, and Doctor Who warrants a timeline more than F13/NoES (since it involves time travel).  However, it's failed Featured List nominations due to dodgy soures and IU issues.  Paul730 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just merge the video game page TBH. The proposal only going to go ignored like the comics one did.  I'm not sure what to do with the timeline.  Maybe nominate it for deletion or something, and then suggest that it be transwikied?  I think if you just suggest it on the talk page with no other action, it will go ignored.  Paul730 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about just "Popular culture" or something? I'm sure there are sources somewhere discussing the F13 series' impact on pop culture.  You could mention Saturday the 14th and Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth, I find it hard to imagine they weren't some kind of homage/rip off.  Also, aren't there some series of films about a guy called Trevor Moorhouse?  He's like a Jason rip-off or something?  EDIT:Trevor Moorhouse, I knew it. Paul730 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, the video games are mentioned under pop culture in Jason's article. You could have a "Video games" section provided it wasn't too stubby. As for "Other media"... what other media would you include? Like actions figures and stuff? My local Forbidden Planet just got in some rubber machetes and Jason masks marketed under the F13 license, you could mention those. Lol, trust Bignole to know the obscure horror movies. Shouldn't Trevor be mentioned in Jason's article? I only just remembered him. Paul730 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A video games section seems like the best solution for the franchise page. As for Jason's page, I'm not sure.  I was wondering that, actually, when I was writing my Faith sandbox... there's not really enough info to warrant a "pop culture" section - she only had a handful of action figures and one video games appearance.  What do you think?  Paul730 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the thing, I don't know if I can even flesh out an "IPC" section. It's basically "She has action figures and appeared in a video game.  End of."  Anything else which would belong in a pop culture section?  I don't think she has any references in other shows or anything.  BTW, I added some timeline links to the franchise page.  Feel free to delete if they're unnecessary or something.  Paul730 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. On a totally unrelated note... do you like Ghost Rider?  I'm fond of the character, but I haven't read his books or seen the film (but I want to, it looks good in a "don't take it too seriously" kind of way).  Paul730 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All I ever hear about Ghost Rider is that he's a great visual but there's nothing under the surface. It's a shame, because he is a really good visual.  He was great to play as in Marvel: Ultimate Alliance.  They should give him an A-list writer to breathe some new life into him.  As for that director... I liked Daredevil.  It wasn't perfect, but I thouroughly enjoyed it at the time and it made me want to read the comics.  I think it's underrated.  Lol, that Jason game was so pointless and annoying. :) Did you just stumble across it looking for other F13 video games?  Paul730 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because I was unfamiliar with the comic book at the time I appreciated the film by itself. I thought Elektra was one of the coolest things in the film, Jennifer Garner was good in it. I actually liked Ben Affleck, I don't know why but I just don't share this contempt that the rest of the world has for him. He wasn't brilliant in the role, but he wasn't terrible either. I liked the costume, I liked the inexplicable breaking of the laws of physics (it's the Marvel Universe, who cares?), I liked the emo rock music. I just enjoyed the whole film, I don't see what's so terrible about it. I liked it more than Blade. I was looking forward to that film (not in the cinema, years later after I got into Marvel) because I thought "vampire slayers in the Marvel Universe, what could be better?" I found it boring and humourless, with no likable characters whatsoever. I couldn't even sit through the sequel. Oh well, one man's meat is another man's poison... Paul730 00:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do like the big orchestra music from Supes, Spidey, and X-Men. I think the reason I didn't like Blade was because the characters were all these macho-posturing assholes.  There wasn't much sympathy or humanity to them, IMO.  At least Punisher, (which was even worse, depressing much?) had Rebecca Romijn (sp) to inject a bit of humanity to things.  Lol, your fascination with all things Ryan Reynolds.  Isn't Dracula in the third one?  Paul730 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are certain things about Blade which I respect. I like that they took a crappy Z-list Marvel character and gave him a new lease on life, gave him a new fanbase.  As a Marvel fan, I'm glad that the films did well and that the character is respected, but the films just felt so empty to me.  I loved the opening rave scene, but the film just couldn't sustain my interest.  I don't think having Dracula in it would be a copout (although, as I said, I haven't seen it).  Dracula exists in the Marvel Universe, in fact Blade first appeared in a Dracula comic as I recall.  I know what you mean though.  For ages, I hated "Buffy vs. Dracula" because I just thought it didn't feel like the Buffyverse.  I still hate the episode, but Dracula redeemed himself in the Tales of the Vampires comic book.  There's this really funny story where Dracula kidnaps Xander and hypnotises him, and Buffy has to come to Transylvania to rescue him.  Anyway, it turns out Drac only kidnapped Xander because he's lonely and wanted somebody to talk to.  Buffy convinces him to let him go, but Xander's still "under the thrall", so theres this cute scene where Dracula has to "break up" with him.  The whole thing was so tongue-in-cheek and ridiculous that I couldn't help but love it.  It's canon too, lol.  Paul730 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, you do buy a lot of DVDs don't you? :P I spend most of my cash on Marvel comics. And yet, I'm still a few graphic novels behind on almost every series.  I've meaning to get Spider-Man 3, that's my next priority DVD-wise.  Paul730 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everybody Loves Raymond? That's a random one. :) I mean, I like the show (I used to watch it in the morning before school, now they show Just Shoot Me!.  Urgh) but it's not something I'd buy on DVD.  I've not seen Seinfeld, it's not something which airs a lot over here, unless you have digital TV, which I don't.  I've seen a few episodes of The Dead Zone, it was quite good.  Incredible Hulk, lol.  I've only seen the TV movies of that with Daredevil and Thor.  It's so cheesy.  They were gonna do one with She-Hulk but that actor guy died!  Oh well, Shulkie's too good for them anyway. :P  CSI is cool, I used to watch that all the time, but I kinda stopped for no reason.  I liked Nick in it, he was hot.  Paul730 01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do like Raymond, it's something which gets funnier the more you watch it, the more you know the characters. Marie is hilarious, although ya gotta love Robert. I've not seen The Death of the Hulk one, I liked the DD one more than Thor (just coz I prefer DD to Thor in general). Wow, you've really got it in for poor Daredevil, haven't you? ;) I got into CSI through the NY one, but eventually I grew to like the Vegas one more. Never liked Miami.  The Vegas one is more interesting, they seem to have wackier storylines.  Paul730 02:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed it after I saved my comment. I don't know the character, although I notice she has similar powers to Siryn. Since you like sitcoms, I'm surprised you don't have any Friends DVDs.  I have a few here and there but I never watch them anymore.  It's repeated constantly, but it's one of these shows I always sit and watch if it's on.  Kind of like Simpsons, which I'm not a huge fan of surprisingly.  I like it, but Family Guy and South Park are better.  Paul730 02:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, you'd buy Seinfeld and not Friends? And you call Family Guy irrational? :P  Urgh, you're one of these Family Guy haters who can't appreciate the randomness of it all.  Who cares if it doesn't have a coherent plot?  It's fucking funny!  It's funnier than South Park, although I prefer South Park.  I'm not sure what you're asking about the franchise page, the section is obviously crap.  Gimme some context here, are you asking if the section deserves to be there?  Don't DVD releass have to be notable in their own right before they deserve mentioning?  The Spidey/X-Men film series don't have DVD sections.  Paul730 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you were right to delete it. Friends doesn't make me laugh out loud anymore (I've seen every episode about ten times), but it does make me smile.  I'm fond of all the characters, especially Phoebe.  Have you ever seen Doctor Who?  I don't know how popular it is in the States.  I only like the new series with Christopher Eccleston/David Tennant but it's really good.  Paul730 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You should give it a chance, it's too easy to be snobby about it. I remember I was like "God look at the crap SFX, it's so cheesy" but when I started watching it I realised how fun it was.  I'm going to bed now BTW, speak to you later.  Paul730 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Break
The games could go in "Tie-ins" but what about the action figures? They're not really an "Appearance". Paul730 14:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean when the Faith article is finished? That probably won't be for a while.  I've not been working on the Buffy articles lately, I'm just not in a Buffy mood.  I tried doing some minor edits to Faith last week but I got bored.  I'll get back to them, there's no deadline after all.  I'm in more of a Marvel mood right now, and talking about the franchise page has put me in a Jason mood.  I was watching clips from part VI earlier today, it's totally the best film.  Paul730 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought Jason only took you a few months. Don't know why.  Part IV is good, but the teenagers get on my nerves.  That "dead fuck" guy and his stupid boyfriend, they were insufferable.  Part VI is better, it ticks all the boxes; camp counsellors, zombie Jason, Tommy Jarvis, humour, funky eighties music. :P Why makes you say Part VI is the best? Paul730 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, but he still annoyed me. :P Jason does look cool in Part IV, I must admit.  He's the best human Jason by far.  Do you not like zombie Jason?  I think the best make-up is a toss up between FvJ and Part VII, he looks damn cool in Part VII.  Duh, I'm so stupid.  That guy added a big ugly infobox to the franchise page, and I reverted him, then left a comment on his page saying how there had been a prior discussion.  I was thinking of the comics, my brain obviously isn't switched on ATM. :P Paul730 21:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You just seem more of a fan of human Jason. I find human Jason more scary actually, the final act of Part III is great because he's a speedy bugger.  I prefer zombie Jason, but he's so far-fetched by that point that he's no longer scary.  The make-up in Part VI is a bit crap, he's too dried out.  He's all soggy in Part VII, which is good since the legend is that "Jason will rise from his watery grave to exact vengeance".  Paul730 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the Jason actors left that much of an impact on me. Looking back, I think Hodder probably is the best, but I can take him or leave him. I'm very fussy about Michael's actor... Nick Castle is the best because he was so casual, the rest acted like they had rigamortis (stupid H5 guy, holding the knife up as he walked). The guys in Halloween 2 and 8 weren't bad. I'm yet to see Tyler Mane. Paul730 22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't watched 8 in a while, but I wasn't totally disgusted with Michael's body language in that film (which is a compliment). The mask was okay, the eyebrows were a bit plucked looking but apart from that.  The H20 mask was terrible, the hair was gigantic, his eyes were in plain sight, and it seemed to change from scene to scene.  It even looked CGI at one point.  It looked good in the final scene though, randomly.  The H5 mask is an abomination, they didn't even tuck the neck in... oh, it upsets me to even think about it.  The remake mask is alright, it's not as blindingly white as the H4 one.  Not sure about the stitches/cracks through.  Paul730 22:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I kinda see what you mean now about the 8 mask having features. Oh great, thanks for making that movie even crapper than it was before. ;) Lol, fat face, I know what you mean.  Not fan of the Wilbur Michael.  I hate his body language when he's getting shot down the mineshaft.  His body is constantly tensed up, like I said, rigamortis.  Tyler's Michael is the best visually since the first two.  BTW, are you gonna keep that infobox image for the Michael article?  It's not very good, only a tiny percent of the picture is actually Michael, the rest is staircase.  As much as I'd rather have an H1 picture, this is probably more encyclopedic.   Paul730 23:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He's very hunched up, it's like he doesn't have a neck. That's what I meant when I said he was so tense.  I liked that other picture you uploaded, but it got deleted or something?  The current picture just doesn't identity the subject well enough.  No, I hadn't seen that guy's sandbox.  It's good that people are trying to fix up what's currently a terrible article.  What are you going to say to him?  Paul730 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, isn't it kind of mean to let him continue working on a page which is already being written, then stealing his work behind his back? Oh, and the H20 doc was only 20 minutes or whatever, but the H1 doc was 1½ hours. :P It's okay, though, it's not like it was some horrific task.  Paul730 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You could ask him if he wants to help you, since your sandbox is further on than his. Do what's best for the article, morals be damned.  If you want to steal it, go ahead. >:) What are you talking about?  The Region 2 Halloween: 25th Aniversary Edition DVD has a documentary which is an 1½ hours long.  The Halloween H20 DVD doc was only 20 minutes long though, I'm not denying that.  Paul730 00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that guy's sandbox copies some of your sandbox (the bit about Westworld) totally word for word. In that case, feel free to steal his stuff, lol. What else are you planning to do to the franchise page? Are you going to have more production info on the films, or are you leaving that for the film pages themselves? Paul730 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, a rivalry is heating up. :P Are you going to have a "Critical reception" section? Or will that just be included in the devlopment section, "the failure of Part V led to the return of Jason in Part VI", etc?  BTW, I'm watching the first episode of that F13 TV series.  Have you ever watched it?  Paul730 02:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is quite good, surprisingly. It's not quality or anything, but's it's enjoyable horror nonsense.  I choose to count it as canon in the Jasonverse.  I was watchin it on youtube, they have the first episode up there.  It was about an evil doll that convinces a little girl to murder people.  Hardly groundbreaking stuff, but as I said, enjoyable.  Paul730 03:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Being affiliated with Friday the 13th makes it better somehow.  What can I say, I'm a sucker for cynical marketing ploys. ;) Paul730 03:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably not. Superficial, I know, but there you go.  The Jasonverse seems to include a lot of series doesn't it?  The Nightmare movie and perhaps the Evil Dead movies.  And then if you count Army of Darkness Vs Marvel Zombies, the whole thing is part of the larger Marvel Multiverse.  And then if you count JLA/Avengers as canon, the DC Universe is included as well.  Confusing.  I choose to take whole thing with a very large pinch of salt.  I'd rather have the Marvel Multiverse separate from everything else.  Paul730 03:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I'm bigoted towards crossovers. I actually like crossovers, but only when they're between two universes that could feasibly exist together. I'm not sure I'd like Michael to crossover into the Jasonverse. The Marvel Multiverse is ridiculous, they have all these crazy worlds like Duckworld and Mojoverse. That's why I love She-Hulk, her series just pokes fun at the ludicrousness of it all. She's a lawyer, and she has to deal with cases like the Watchers getting sued for being peeping toms, or a superhero with love powers being accused of date rape. It's just great, silly fun. What's your opinion of She-Hulk? I'm always going on about her, and you've never once said what you think of her. Paul730 03:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why I don't want a Michael/Jason fight, because I know Michael wouldn't stand a chance. Jason would just decapitate him with his machete, end of Michael. :(  She-Hulk is funny.  Dan Slott is a really good writer, he has a talent for taking silly, underused characters and making them funny and likable.  He did that with the Great Lakes Avengers (who are basically the crappest superheroes in the Marvel Universe).  I <3 Squirrel Girl.  She could kick Superman's ass!  Paul730 12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, she's not that superficial. Besides, she has plenty of nuts of her own in her nut sacks.  Face it, Superman's ass is grass. :) Paul730 21:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure she could handle a little cold, she could wrap her tail around herself to keep warm. *Sigh*  When will you accept that no stategy can defeat Squirrel Girl?  Nobody knows how she does it, but she can defeat anybody, it's just who she is.  She's defeated Thanos, I'm sure she handle a little Krptonian. :P Paul730 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that Superman died in the first place just goes to show how inept he really is. Squirrel Girl's never died, and she's faced the worst of the worst.  And let's face, resurrections are hardly something to write home about these days.  Look, I know there are a million ways Superman could defeat her, but it just wouldn't work.  I'm sure Dr Doom could handle "a few squirrels", yet when push came to shove... "For each one I fling away, a dozen more vex me!"  Lol, I love how long this ridiculous conversation has been going on for. :) Paul730 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, mate, you've really crossed a line now! ;) And you'te only kidding yourself because I know you're a Marvel fan. I'm disgusting even myself here with my geekiness, but according to the Marvel website, Thanos' intelligence, strength, durability, and energy projection levels are all 7/7 on the scale.  That basically means he is physically omniscient and can command of all forms of energy.  Lol, don't even diss the Marvel villains when Superman's arch nemesis is a bald dude with no powers. :P Paul730 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. But then again Marvel always was more concerned about personalities than powers. What can I say, we just have more depth to us. :P I don't think anyone has 7/7 in all categories, not even Galactus. You really underestimate poor Squirrel Girl. The JLA would be lucky to have a powerhouse like her on their side. Paul730 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Break 2
That was sarcasm I presume? She is a powerhouse, that's the whole point of her character. Irony. I can't see the timeline ever being fixed up well enough. The very premise of a FvJ timeline, two largely unconnected series with vague continuity, just makes it impossible for it to ever pass policies. I don't know why that guy is so determined to keep it. Paul730 23:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just watched that South Park episode with Jason in it (Jason and South Park, how could I resist?). It's part of a trilogy, and only the first 2 eps have been uploaded, but Jason was very funny in it.  He had a really gay voice; when another character said he wasn't evil enough, he was like "I cut out her eyeball, that's super hardcore!"  (Think we should stick that in the article?) Lol, I loved it. :) He isn't mentioned explicitly by name, but considering he's with a whole bunch of copyrighted characters (Wonder Woman, Flash, and Joker make appearances, amongst many many others), it's completely obvious it's him.  EDIT: BTW, the timeline got deleted, just so you know.  Paul730 01:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, I love how Jason won too. :) She-Hulk vs Power Girl - Marvel vs DC! Dude, watch South Park on Alluc, you'll love it.  Season 11, episodes 10 and 11.  It's super hardcore.  Paul730 02:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Urgh, I hate that video. She's not as orgasmic and creepy as that in the comics.  Paul730 02:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to expand "Development" to encompass the development of all the films or just the first? In the main picture, you included New Line as a copyright. Are you sure that's right? That particular boxset only has parts 1 - 8 because they were the Paramount ones, it doesn't include JgtH, JX, or FvJ. Or do you mean because New Line own the rights to Jason that they still have to mentioned? The lead is better, but it could be improved (a brief summary of the plot would be nice), I assume that's not your finished version. I like the stuff about how the title came before the film, and the poster you added. Not sure about that FvJvA comic image though, I know it was my idea but it just seems too minor to warrant an entire image, especially since there is a crossover film which doesn't have an image. Overall the page is coming along really well. Paul730 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The start of the development is good, as I said. I'm not sure if it should come before overview?  You once told me that, if a reader doesn't know what's going in fiction land, they won't understand much of the behind-the-scenes stuff.  I'm not hugely bothered, but it's food for thought.  TBH, I hadn't even noticed the lack-of-infobox.  I knew something looked different, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.  Looking through the history, it did seem a bit skewed towards the films as opposed to the overall franchise, I don't object to it's removal.  I think a brief plot summary in the lead would be good, not for the individual films/novels/comics/games but the series itself.  Regardless of the media, it's about a hockey-masked killer murdering camp counsellors.  If you look at the lead, you ask who is Jason Voorhees?  What is this series about?  I know it's not Jason's article, and we have an overview section, but a little context in the lead couldn't hurt.  As for images, how about this one?  I know it's not especially notable, but it sums up the series pretty well.  Also, I might be wrong, but I think it's the first comic with the "F13" title.  The book image should stay, it's one of the more notable novels.  Paul730 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the image looks much better, and the caption you wrote seems to justify it's existence very well. I'm happy with it. :) I added some plot to the lead, but I'm not too pleased with it.  Tell me what you think, I plan on going back to fix it.  Oh, and I'm sure it was you who said that about structure (I think it was in reference to the Jason article), but I'm fine with the current layout.  Paul730 23:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you prefer "UberJason" or "Uber-Jason", because there's some inconsistency on his page and I want to know which the proper spelling so I can change it. Shouldn't we mentioned UberJason in the "Appearances" section as well?  I know he gets mentioned a lot later on, but since it's the gimmick of the film... Oh, and I switched the poster on the franchise page to the left because we're supposed to alternate images between left and right.  Yes, the page is coming together.  Just need some sequel info in "Development", flesh out the music section, and a section on the series' impact on pop culture.  Then it's just a matter on ironing out the creases?  Paul730 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, I wasn't trying to rush you. No, I meant in the films section, just during the plot of Jason X.  On second thoughts, it's not too important because Uber-Jason is explained in detail later in the section discussing the make-up.  I was just reading a review of the lastest X-Men comic, and they said "It's very continuity heavy, so readers who are unfamiliar with recent stories should go on Wikipedia to catch up."  I was like "Argh! Wikipedia is not a plot summary!" Lol. Cool, that film you're watching has Leo from Charmed in it, I like Leo.  Paul730 00:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow... and I thought Leo was a family man. Guess he brings new meaning to the term family man. ;) Dirty?  Lol, exaggerate much?  It was on IGN, they're doing a 13 Days of X-Men feature to celebrate the big crossover X-Event this year.  They have a tribute to Cyclops and why he's so cool, so they're alright in my book.  I can't wait for this storyline, it's called X-Men: Messiah Complex, it looks really good.  Lol, kinky graverobbing Bignole. :P Paul730 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure Leo's parents are long dead, you filthy bastard. :P Paul730 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whitelighter. I think angels are a seperate entity in the Charmed universe?  Lol, you're bringing out the Charmed fanboy in me.  I did use to like that show, but it just got so repetitive, it felt like you were watching the same episode over and over.  And the action was so static, they just stood there while Piper blasted things or Paige orbed stuff around.  Paul730 01:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think whitelighters are a specie as well as a job. Paige is half-whitelighter because her father was one, but she didn't start working as one until the later seasons.  Yeah, Leo was in WWII, he's like 90 years old or something.  Paul730 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really know what you mean. He can teleport and visit the Elders, who exist in a wierd, other dimension-y place.  I don't think he can cross over into the afterlife.  He basically is an angel, just a different "Charmedverse" angel.  But I'm sure angels were in another episode. Lol, why are you so facinated with whitelighters?  They are cool, the orbing SFX was one of the better aspects of Charmed.  Paul730 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another break
Think we should link the characters in the franchise page to List of characters in Friday the 13th? Is that page even going to be kept? You kind of implied when I made it that it was a little unnecessary. Paul730 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are the main characters in Part VIII, the ones worth mentioning? Think we should add that little boy from Part V?  What about Steve (?) from JgtH?  Paul730 03:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The list. But I'll link them if they're on the list.  Paul730 03:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Part VIII film page confuses me. Jim and Suzie are listed top on the cast list, but the franchise page says Rennie and Sean are the survivors.  So is Rennie the only one worth having an entry on the character page?  Yeah, you probably should summarise that info because the film are still going to have individual articles.  Don't want to include everything on the franchise page.  It's good that there's lots of available info though. :) Paul730 03:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently, the list is all the final girls, as well as a few randomers who are notable in their own way like Ralph and the robot from Jason X. As you said, it's a bit subjective as to who "deserves" to be there, but at least now we have all the lead characters.  (Except Lori, her page got deleted, I'll go add her.)  Did you enjoy your weird incestuous were-vampire film? :P  Paul730 03:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The video game cover has been re-added to the franchise article. I've started a discussion on the talk page about it. Paul730 15:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've replied at the franchise talk page. I don't hate the image, but it's hardly crucial either.  Paul730 16:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I kind of agree with you now. It's just clutter.  I think the only reason that editor wants it on the page is because he uploaded it and wants it to have a home somewhere.  Paul730 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that image discussions really taking off. I don't want to lose the main DVD image, I like how it shows the majority of the series.  I don't see what's so important about that game image though.  Paul730 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to moan at you during the discussion. :( Can't we just keep the video game image? I mean, is it really that big a deal?  Paul730 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's just keep it for now, and then if it becomes an issue later on we can remove it. Paul730 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The specific sentence in your comment which came across as rude was when you were like "Wow, what a great caption" or whatever. It may not even be an issue in a review, and if it is, then you'll have more of an reason to remove it, because you say "it was brought up in the review".  Until then, just relax and focus on something else.  Paul730 19:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If it proves to be an issue in the review, you can say "oh well, other people have brought this up so there's a reason to remove it". Sorry, I missed out the word "can" and the sentence didn't make much sense. :/ Paul730 20:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to ask you about something. I just finished re-reading the Marvel comic Civil War. It's quite a controversial storyline... some people think it substituted genuine political debate for shallow superhero fights. Others think the fact that a superhero book was so political in the first place made it better than DC's "we have to save the world from aliens"-style storylines. Some American readers thought the fact that Captain America eventually stops fighting for freedom because of the damage it's doing was out-of-character. They even called him "Captain France" because he gave in. Anyway, I was just wondering what you thought about the debate, since it's a confusing and interesting issue. (And I know you love a good argument :P) Who's side are you on? Was Captain America right? I assume you haven't read the story, but there's a decent overview on the page... Paul730 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Cap wasn't being criticised for being anti-reg, he was criticised for giving up in the final issue. He sees New York practically destroyed from the Civil War, and hands himself in.  The fact that he stopped fighting for freedom for mutants and superheroes is what fans were angry about.  What do you think of Cap's death?  There was a news reportabout how he was no longer relevant in the modern world, which was kind of a theme in Civil War.  Some of the pro-regers were surprising - Spidey was manipulated by Iron Man (who he sees as a father figure) into being pro-reg, and unmasked himself to prove his loyalty to the superhuman registration act.  When he found out that Stark was keeping anti-regers prisoner in the N-Zone, he switched sides.  Also, Aunt May is on her death bed after she getting shot because Peter's identity is known (I think the Spidey unmasked thing is getting retconned BTW).  She-Hulk made a good argument - police etc have no secret identity and have to be trained properly before being allowed to do their jobs - why not superheroes?  I like how the X-Men were neutral - Iron Man tried to recruit them and Emma was like "Why should we help you?  Where were you when we were under terrorist attack, when have you ever helped us?"  I found myself surprised by the fact that I was pro-reg.  To clarify, only superheroes have to register, civilian mutants don't.  Paul730 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the government are not the most reliable of people to train new superheroes. Also, if the heroes are working for the government, who will they be fighting against?  Will they be used to save the world, or to fight other countries for oil and stuff?  The pro-reg team employed dangerous villains like Bullseye, Green Goblin, Venom, and Deathstryke to achieve their goals.  However, Tony Stark also claims to take personal responsibility for training the heroes, and he's an old-school superhero.  The Marvel Universe currently features many young superheroes, such as the Runaways and Young Avengers, who rebel against the authority of the Avengers.  Are they really responsible enough?  In the real world, would you really want to entrust your life to a bunch of kids who've only had superpowers for five minutes?  Remember, the disaster which fueled Civil War was partially caused by inexperienced, fame-hungry heroes.  On the other hand, the Runaways are some of the more intelligent and mature characters, whereas Cap and Iron Man were beating each other up.  The new pro-reg status quo has organised teams of superheroes stationed in every state across the country, rather than just in New York.  Imagine you lived in the Marvel Universe, wouldn't you feel safer knowing that superheroes were under control, rather than running around wild (think of the Hulk, for instance, who recently caused many deaths during a recent rampage)?  Paul730 03:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are the reasons why I was originally anti-reg, and why I would still be agressively anti-reg to a mutant registration act. Homosexuals, jews, and black people are civilians, and like the mutant civilians in the MU, they should not be forced to register as it is a violation of freedom and human rights.  However, supeheroes are people who willingly engage in a battle between good and evil, they appoint themselves as the protectors of the world.  The world has no say over who is protecting them, which is a bit weird in a democracy isn't it?  The New Warriors caused an explosion which killed 600(?) innocent people, and shouldn't the government do something about that?  (Although, as X-Factor Investigations argued, it was really the villains the Warriors were fighting which caused the accident, and would they have been able to stop it even if they were experienced?)  The registration act means people are being trained in their abilities and have to pass a certain criteria before being allowed to work as superheroes, just as police officers have to pass tests before they are allowed to carry guns.  The Young Avengers aren't brats, they're actually great heroes, but the concept of untrained teenage superheroes is worrying.  Basically, in the Marvel Universe, it's now illegal to operate as a superhero without a license.  Those who do will be arrested.  The Runaways didn't register, and are now fugitives (which continues their themes mistrusting authority and being runaways).  I believe Spider-Man is a fugitive, although I'm not up-to-date on Spidey continuity.  I'm not saying that the pro-regers are completely right, or that the anti-regers are completely wrong, it's all shades of gray.  But realistically, superheroes should be held responsible for their actions, because nobodies forcing them to do what they do.  Paul730 03:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with their genetic make-up, it has to do with the role they choose to play in society. They're not saying that superheroes are second-class citezens.  The arguments you're making apply to mutants, not superheroes.  A person or mutant with extremely dangerous, unstable superpowers is not required to register provided they do not choose to use those powers to fight crime.  If they want to use those powers to fight crime, great, they just have to register.  Somebody like Kate Bishop, who posesses no superpowers whatsoever, is required to register because she chooses to go out in the streets and fight crime.  Without a license, she's a vigilante.  Perhaps the actual term of Superhuman Registration Act is unclear.  Interestingly, Captain America's anti-reg team included three blacks and two gays.  I wonder if that was deliberate.  You say the world isn't a democracy, well the SRA only applies in America, which is a democracy.  The superhero union you describe is kind of similar to what's happening - estbalished and experienced heroes are monitoring the noobs, they're just doing it legally.  Whether it will be successful is yet to be seen.  If they're the heroes they say they are, then why are they hiding their identities?  Cops don't.  Yes, superheroes have to register their identity, but it's not public knowledge; Spidey chose to do that to prove a point.  I like the arguments you're making about minorities, but I don't see the SRA as some bigoted regieme.  Maybe I'll be proved wrong... Spidey and Shulkie have already  defected against Iron Man.
 * Yeah, I saw the music section. Do you want to put that Manfredini quote in a quote box?  Or would it look cluttered sandwiched between the tables?  Maybe you could put those little quote mark thingys round it?  Paul730 04:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

She-Hulk: "Imagine the number of convictions a super-powered policeman could make-as opposed to someone with a secret identity, who can't even leave their name on a citizen's arrest form (Shulkie is a lawyer, and many supervillains go free due to the unofficial manner in which they are defeated) And most of all, imagine the acceptance that would exist between the human and superhuman communities if heroes were out in the open, and acting as public servants." Fantastic Four - No SIDs, loved by public. Spider-Man - SID, hated and mistrusted by large % of public. The SID thing is more of a DC thing, TBH, hardly any superheroes in the MU have them anymore. It's a rather outdated argument, and one that Captain America tries to use, because he's out of touch with the modern world. There's a story where social services try to take the FF's kids away from them due to the dangerous envirorment in which they live. Reed and Sue eventually made them realise that, while their lives are dangerous, they have the means to protect them and will take responsiblity for doing so. Mind you, tell that to Aunt May... Paul730 04:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, I tried forming a coherent reply to your last comment but I'm too tired to think. Yeah, I know, excuses excuses... I'll get back to you tommorrow.  And the FF are not tools, how dare you! ;) Why are they tools?  Paul730 05:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing (the ki ki ma ma thing, not the FF thing). I remember ages ago, I thought it would be good idea but then it just kind of slipped my mind.  How will you get one?  Paul730 05:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Overlink issues

 * This is insane. There is no policy that says you can't have more than one link in a section, just suggestions. This is just you and erik trying to get your own way on this article.


 * By the way it's one editor, not several and I'd appreciate if you'd let me an erik work this out on our own. annoynmous 23:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He did not revert me, he reverted another editor who reverted erik. You see there is another editor who agrees with me. This issue is absurd. It's not going to hurt anything so why not just leave it be. I'm starting feel this about you guys getti g your way. annoynmous 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a pure lie, I didn't make any of those edits and I resent the accusation. You have no right to take a suggested policy and pass off as rule to force your own private views on the article. annoynmous 00:12, 24 october 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm at the point where if I pursue this matter I'll get hit for violating 3RR. So I'm going to sign off for know because I'm to tired now to argue about this extremely stupid matter. Believe me though, I'm going to take up this issue tommorrow. annoynmous 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.69.65 (talk)

You admitted that it's only a suggested set of guidlines and not a strict policy. Anyway the overlink policy wasn't meant to be interpreted in this extreme manner. Th policy is so that every word in the article isn't linked, but in the cast section of every article with someone who's an actor and directors, both art linked. You are not going to get away with using wikipedia policy as an excuse, this is an issue of your personal taste and you know it. annoynmous 13:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

After citing WP:OVERLINK, providing an independent perspective from WP:3O, and citing Template:Infobox Film, he still doesn't listen. Should we do a RfC? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another angle on the Angel thing
I responded to that Brian guy; I may have done more harm than good, I dunno. I see above you guys are already giving up, which is how I feel, too (even though I've not been very active in the debate).

A thought I had, though, was to RFC (or something) the whole project itself. It's one thing when all the episode articles break guidelines, but maybe quite another when an established WikiProject is endorsing it? A Project might be higher-profile enough to get some sensible voices in the room.

Probably wouldn't work, because the sensible folks would be drowned by members of the Project. But after reading what these people have to say on the Angel page, I feel like doing it out of spite. SFT |  Talk  02:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Highlander: The Raven episodes
Hello, I have addressed your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Highlander:_The_Raven_episodes. Would you care having a look and see if you are satisfied ? Thank you for reviewing this list. Rosenknospe 11:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have addressed your comments.Rosenknospe 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Highlander: The Series image issue
Hi Big (long time no talk)! I just received a message regarding the fair use of the image, and i cannot really make heads or tails out of '10c". Could you explain the issue they are having with the image to me? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for getting back to me so quickly. you and erik have consistently been lightning quick in your assistance, and I wanted you to know that I am overwhelmingly appreciative of your help. You guys are very awesome, and you especially are - when i first started at Wikipedia, I was little more than a lout, and even edit-warred with you. You have forgiven me my previous errors, and have helped me to become (I think) a better, more helpful editor. thank you ever so much, Big. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I've reduced the image size as per your suggestion. As I was preparing to "Upload a new version of this file", I saw that it was looking for a new summary and all that. I don't mind pasting the new summary and all that from the pre-existing image, but if I do that, won't it appear that i am attempting to sidestep the fair-use flagging alert? I don't want the appearance of trying to sneaking around the rules. Thoughts? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see how that works. i just didn't want to bollix up the way it was in place, as proceeding without knowing might endanger the image itself. Anyway, it works, so yay!

So, I know that erik is a student, but you are a working stuff like me, right? You already know I work in Disaster Management. What is it that you do? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)`
 * haha - fortunately, I don't edit that much during work. However, the rest of the cads here are pretty much into Halo multiplayer, so when the boredom sets in, we head out 'to frag some bugs'. Your tax dollars at work. Sleep safely, America. We're on the job. ;) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FirstF13.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:FirstF13.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight
Take a look at the end of Talk:The Dark Knight (film). It's a valid comparison. I found another citation today. I was thinking that when Halloween arrives, there should be some verifiable coverage from reliable sources about the picture, then we can use the comparison citations to complement whatever the so-called surprise is. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)