User talk:Erik/Archive 10

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchmen
There's some good links here: Alientraveller (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Wilson hasn't gained weight, but they'll just be doing the washed-up angle, as it would be hard switching back-and-forth in time with one actor. Unless they're using a fat suit. I hope to reread the book too, though next time I'll probably skip all the romantic bits. I found the real meat of the story in Manhattan, Veidt and Rorshach. Alientraveller (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's easy to sympathise with Rorshach's view though that killing all those people was still bad. But yeah, they're all really interesting characters, Peter Sanderson's essay on it was easiest to read (and is a good source for obvious comparisons, eg. Batman = Nite-Owl, Silver Surfer = Manhattan). Alientraveller (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I fret, but I reckon the costumes look too rubbery (except for Rorshach and Silk Spectre). Still, it's going to be a good film. Alientraveller (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam links
I hear you. There's nothing that steams my fleckmans more than when someone is asked not to create a mess and they do so anyway. Times like this the site drives me nuts. There's another user who is hell-bent on creating nanostubs relating to a cartoon series. They've all been clobbered but one. His answer to me was to blank my concern from his talk page. Kids nowadays. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Times like this I wish I were still an admin. Too much insanity, too few keepers. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

IPs, 3RR, and Hulk
Erik, if you would like to continue our discussion about IPs started on my grand-grand-userpage, I'd suggest you move it here. Your page is easier to remember. --87.189.93.245 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can do that. :) By the way, not all of us are in total agreement at The Incredible Hulk.  We're trying to play around with solutions to see what works.  Anyway, feel free to respond to my last comment. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for (sorry, but I have to say: finally) taking a look at what I described the whole time. Seriously, thank you. --87.189.93.245 (talk)


 * I'm not sure if I know what you mean. :-P Bullets are still being used?  I was aware of your complaint about the whitespace early on. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:87.189.121.82 for context.

[...] If you feel that any editor has been unfavorable in their approach, you can file the relevant report. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [...]
 * Sorry, I can't. Been there, done that, such reports from IPs are never taken seriously. You lot can inflict whatever you want to IPs, they are defenseless. --87.189.117.71 (talk)
 * [...] Anyway, if you believe that IPs lack credibility, why not register an account? Seems like it would save you grief, if you believe there's a lack of credibility. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [...]
 * You don't seem to understand: You think they lack credibility, I don't. I think everyone should be judged by its actions, not by its lack of a username. FWIW, I have an account (even a very old one), I just don't want to be part of a group such as the current editorship of Wikipedia. --87.189.117.71 (talk)

(outdent) Considering that violating 3RR is disruptive behavior, I don't believe I was inaccurate in describing the meaning of that breach. Like I've said, though, I was mistaken. Regarding IPs, I don't disagree with your perspective. I think that the fact that most disruptive edits come from IPs don't help the mindset, even if it's clearly not true in every case. Maybe it's just me, but having a user account seems appropriately contractual with an intention to edit Wikipedia. Of course, it's not imperative for all contributions to be centralized, but I think that the pros outweigh the cons. However, I'm not sure about the benefit when you reflect that the disdain goes both ways -- lack of respect for IPs, and your opposition to being part of Wikipedia's current editorship. How come this is the case? The situation at The Incredible Hulk is unfortunate, but conflict is inescapable in Wikipedia, even for those who just want to edit out of pure enjoyment of sharing knowledge. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

End of copy.


 * I can accept the fact that I have to prove my good faith on every page I start working on; I understand that this is part of the deal. What I won't accept is the unconcealed bad faith I encounter on every single step. IPs are just not deemed worthy; case in point: Nobody even bothered to answer attempts (see section Quote) to discuss the matter.


 * I have some bad experiences on en:Wikipedia, the worst maybe the removal of spoiler warnings. It basically went like this:
 * A group of admin decided to remove spoiler warnings.
 * They changed the policy.
 * They immediately started changing articles.
 * If anyone complained, it was ignored.
 * If anyone reverted, they were eventually blocked.
 * 3RR did not affect the admins since they did not act alone.
 * Unblocking another admin's block is considered offensive.
 * Eventually, a discussion started.
 * The only argument I could find: Spoiler warnings are unencyclopedical; clearly IDONTLIKEIT.
 * Also, very aggressive behaviour during the discussion.
 * During the discussion the changes continued.
 * Eventually, new status quo, inertia settled in, case closed.
 * I don't want to part of a society where the rules support the bullies.


 * Another case is User:Durova: He should have been thrown out. Abuse of power on that scale simply cannot be tolerated. Instead, this very statement is possibly against policy as a personal attack.
 * I don't want to part of a society where the rulers support the bullies.


 * Last, while working as an IP, again and again other editors break all kinds of guidelines or policy, most of all AGF, NPA and BITE (which is always assumed to be pertinent). At first I used the relevant channels, but I never had any success, it was either ignored or removed as vandalism. OTOH, I almost never get an apology even after it is agreed that I was right from the start. (Yes, I do apologize even as an IP.)
 * I don't want to part of a society where policy support the bullies.


 * So, I don't use my username. If I would, I would agree to the situation. As an IP, I can contribute to the content without contributing to the society. --87.189.93.245 (talk)


 * I'm not surprised about the spoiler debacle being a primary force; I saw a lot of discussion and hostility. I was fine with the spoiler warnings before the whole situation, but I didn't have any issue with them being excluded.  While there were good points on both sides, I perceived its removal as a Gordian knot to bypass a case-by-case criteria about what to mark as spoilers and what not to mark as spoilers, based on the enormous differences found in fictional works (age, scale, visibility, etc).  I really do wish there was a technical solution available, like a show/hide for a section to show the beginning of in-universe information and clicking "expand to see all of the plot" or something like that.


 * I don't blame your issue with admins, though. I've been aggravated at the occasional unilateral approaches, especially regarding non-free images in film articles.  I've met a lot of reasonable admins, though, so I can't really argue that adminship is entirely anti-productive.  For all the bad decisions by admins that we rail against, I think there's a lot more positive decisions that aren't necessarily so visible.  For an issue like the spoiler debate, its scale makes it very, very difficult to shape any kind of bottom-up consensus.  I've generally stuck to the mainspace, editing film articles, because I perceive Wikipedia as a hobby.  Some people want to help dictate Wikipedia's path into the future, and that's fine with me.  I don't see myself taking on that kind of responsibility in a prolonged manner.  I like to learn and write about films and share that knowledge with all.  Sometimes an issue crosses my path, like the spoiler warning, in which I'm compelled to take a part in it due to my involvement.  For the most part, though, I prefer smaller forms of collaboration where constructive criticism goes back and forth with ease.  (See a group-effort draft of Citizen Kane in the works.)  Sometimes there's friction, sometimes there's all-around amicability.


 * I like that quote, though: "As an IP, I can contribute to the content without contributing to the society." It's a good summation of your thoughts.  I suppose I like having an identity, considering that I access multiple computers as a student and that I collaborate with other editors more than once. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
Hello Erik. I just wanted to say thanks for your note on the filmproject page. Actually, I have removed external links that don't meet wikipedia's criteria a few times in the past. One of these caused a long and involved situation that was quite a hassle. So now sometimes (though not everytime) I like to get other editors input so that, if the spamming editor gets a little cranky, we can point to a spot where, along with leading them to WP:LINKS, we can show that other editors have agreed on the removal of their links ahead of time. Thanks again for your time and for the idea of keeping the warning templates handy. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 05:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with sources on recent expansion?
Hi Erik, I recently expanded The Secret of Treasure Island from a stub and put it up at T:TDYK, we'll see what happens. I looked through a bunch of different places for sources, but I would really appreciate it if you could find any more? Cirt (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, no prob, thanks for trying though. I have a few more places for additional sources that I can check, and I placed one academic source that I haven't yet gotten ahold of on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

10,000 BC
Hi Erik,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I've updated the section in question with a reference. Please let me know if you have any questions about my citation!

Thanks,

Webbbbbbber (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the link to Fight Club (film) as an example for how to properly use non-free images in a film article. I think the images I included nicely illustrate the similarities between 10,000 BC and One Million Years BC.  What do you think I could do to modify the Influences section, so it doesn't look like gratuitous or decorative use of images?  Webbbbbbber (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the citation dump! How did you do that?


 * Well, I think the similarities are definitely there between the two films, but who cares what *I* think, right? :-)  Hopefully I can find some reviewer who makes a more direct comparison between the two movies, other than just lumping them both under "Caveman Flicks".  Webbbbbbber (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Linkspam
D'oh!  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs
Hi Erik, I've been improving the article Reservoir Dogs lately and I know that there is still a way to go, but I would like to go to FAC eventually. I didn't get any comments at PR so I was thinking of contacting a user personally. I remembered you from the deletion discussions so I wanted to ask for your help. Can you take a quick look at the article and tell me some other ways in which it can be improved besides the obvious "fact" tags in the DVD and Cast section? I would greatly appreciate your help, thanks! The Dominator (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. One thing, what exactly do you mean working the quotes in? Do you mean using blockquote, or like "Critic so and so said "I liked it very much" and called it "excellent and ingenious""? The Dominator (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you here? The Dominator (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, if you have something right now then I would be glad to receive it, but don't go searching for anything now cause it'll probably be tomorrow evening till I get back here anyway so no rush. The Dominator (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My crappy E-Mail has only 10Mb so either send smaller files or I'll register somewhere else as well. The Dominator (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot. The best way to do it is, send me the first half (up to 8Mb or so) on the E-Mail that I have registered at Wikipedia, then wait a few minutes and send the other one. The Dominator (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, they're really good, hopefully I'll get around to improving the article soon. Are there any specific issues with the article now? Is something major missing that all film FA's have? The Dominator (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen his work and I'll definitely contact him, but first I'll try to make full use of the sources you sent me. I'm searching myself, but if you find an interview or other news report that says the info that is unsourced (about Mr. Orange's casting and Madsen's disturbance) then send it to me. What sites do film FAs link to? RT, AMG, Box Office Mojo? Do they usually have a "see also" section? The Dominator (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really need anymore reviews or critical analysis, what would be more helpful now would be something about production. I don't have access to a RD DVD, but there are interviews on there which could be helpful. I could try to cheat the system a bit and look for the respective DVD commentary reviews on YouTube and then just cite the DVD commentary... I'll also search Google Books for a Roth, Madsen and S.L.J biographies for the casting info. The Dominator (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don the 40 year old virgin
Have you been watching our faithful friend Don Murphy and his glorious comeback to Wikipedia? How about his CIA-like demand that his World of Warcraft minions find dirt on Gb, Steve, and myself? LOL.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And BlazikenMaster, apparently. I love the comment, "find out who they are illegally and where they work so that their school and employer know that they are a cultist". Don is basically announcing that he plans to slander our names to our schools and jobs..lol. I wonder how that's going to look if that ever occurs (which I highly doubt).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just noticed that he left. That's sad, because it just gives Murphy a reason to continue, because he'll think that if he presses hard enough we'll just run away. Interestingly enough, someone might have sent an email to the National Enquirer asking if they thought it was interesting how Don Murphy spends his free time...and providing them with a link to his forum where he rants about finding the true identity of us "cultist". *gives innocent look*   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just hope that whoever sent such a thing in did it correctly, because I "heard" that when they submitted the statement the following screen didn't return a confirmation...it just went white. If that's the case, I don't think it would be difficult to attain the link again and write a similar response. But, we'll see if there is an email confirmation coming to show that it went through.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee, you guys lead much more exciting Wikipedian existences than I! Jim Dunning | talk  02:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is said Steve got upset and left, but I think he's stronger than that. Returning would be a good way to ignore bullies like Murphy. The producer is just bitter Bay revealed he had little involvement in the finished film once Spielberg and di Bonaventura came on board: what does Bay keeping his backfee have to do with the article's discussion of the film cutting costs? And to be honest, I'd be proud to be outed as a Wikipedian. In fact most people I know think it's cool I do well here. But I think the people on his forum no better than to follow him during his childish mood swings. Most of them are only there because Roberto Orci chose to post at his forum instead of the official movie site. Did you ever read Murphy and DeSanto's treatment? It was lame: an origin of the Transformers that ripped off GoBots and Optimus flying in truck mode. Alientraveller (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly what you're saying about losing interest in some film articles once they're released, though I stopped with Cloverfield more because I just didn't have the time for checking over the sheer number of edits I'd see for that one when checking my morning watchlist; it tended to overwhelm everything else. Also, hello! I've swallowed my pride, buried my petulance, desysopped my anger. With the help of a friendly admin I've followed your recommendation and excised some of the more revealing edits in my history, and I now feel re-energised and ready to come back. Still slightly embarrassed about my reaction to it all (it was more out of anger than any fear that "ColScott's" ineffectual threats would actually lead anywhere), but the time off has allowed me to refocus my attentions, which had drifted somewhat in the preceding weeks. Expect to see a more committed editor (both in mainspace and beyond) from now on. It's also allowed me time to actually read this site of ours; I've lost count of the number of brilliant, interesting, unique articles I've read these last few days, flitting from article to article unhampered by the need to be fact-checking, grammar-checking and policy-checking as I go. I must have read several months worth of WP:AN and WP:ANI too; the politics of this place are far more complicated than I ever imagined. Anyway, trying not to make a big deal of this (it's not), so I'll shut my hole now and get back to editing. All the best, and thanks. Steve T • C 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Commenting here while your talk page is still protected.) I haven't seen Cloverfield yet, so I think it was all the discussion about nailing the Plot section down that put me off. For other films, like I Am Legend and Spider-Man 3, they were relative disappointments for all the work I did on both articles.  I used to be reallyyy up-to-date with film articles, but now I set up headline alerts and try to implement multiple headlines at once.  There's probably a few films on my user page that I shouldn't bother editing, like Death Race, but I have the alerts so I can do "citation dumps" for anyone that may be interested.


 * I'm glad to hear that you've been able to review your contributions. In retrospect, it's true that such threatened actions are likely ineffectual.  It's just that at the time, it feels very real and potentially damaging.  Wikipedia's a fun playground, but it's in the big city of the Internet, where everything, good and bad, goes on.  I don't blame your drifting -- I was doing the same, partially because I was busy and partially due to lack of motivation.  I think I may be wanting to focus more on older films since it's easier to work with these with larger resources (books, academic studies, etc.) than the bits and pieces we put together for upcoming films.  You're also right about Wikipedia being a complicated place -- I only get involved when it relates to my interests because being fully immersed seems rather time-consuming.  In any case, welcome back, friend!  It's very good to have you back on board. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * True, so it may just be wise to dump it all and move the "real" discussions to a new section header. This way we don't fuel a revert war or something else.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend instead not having further dialog with him. He believes what he believes, and we believe what we believe.  The rest are details. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, it's a good job he rejected my offer. I didn't realise what kind of shitstorm the proposal would have generated. I've just read through what must be the whole tortuous history of the Brandt article deletion controversy, and while a complex merge not unlike the one I outlined to ColScott was indeed enacted and subsequently upheld in deletion review and BDJ's abritration, no way would it have been worth it to become involved in something like that. If ColScott had produced all his films under one company's banner, then it might have been easier, but with his output fractured between several... I can't envision any outcome which would be uncontroversial. Steve T • C 22:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Prehistoric_fantasy_films article proposal
Hi Erik,

I've been thinking about starting an article on Prehistoric fantasy films (aka Caveman Flicks). It would be interesting to compare costumes, sets, plots, historical inaccuracies, etc... Do you think I would be able to get away with Fair Use of non-free images for the purposes of comparison in such an article? What are your thoughts on this?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion on The Informant (2009)
Hello Erik, Thanks for your suggestion. I understand your comments and think it is a good one for films that may not happen. I also like the work you have done with many of the film articles. However, regarding this film, "The Informant", production has already started in Decatur, and filming is about to follow. This film is not a "maybe". As I write this, production teams are currently in Decatur, Illinois modifying several filming sites to simulate what they looked like in the early 1990s. News in Central Illinois also verify these facts. They are reporting almost daily on the news about production teams already there modifying those sites. In addition, Decatur newspapers stated that crew members, "especially grips, electricians, sound men, production assistants, etc.," are being sought and listed a fax number for production manager Michael Polaire. In other news related to "The Informant," a classified ad in a recent Decatur Herald & Review requested rental of "1990-1992 vehicles," including "1990-1992 Porsche, Range Rover, BMW, Mercedes, LTD-Crown Vic." The ad also requested "tractor trailers, tankers and a combine," and said the production would be filmed in Decatur next month after the production team has the filming sites ready. Several of these references are listed below:

Decatur Herald & Review  March 7, 2008

Decatur, Illinois WCIA-3 Television News March 7, 2008

Galesburg, Illinois newspaper March 11, 2008

Character list —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadQT (talk • contribs) 16:30, March 12, 2008


 * Yes, I can do that. I will take your suggestion since you have a lot experience with films.  Give me today and tomorrow to accomplish the change.  OK?  ReadQT (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Thanks. ReadQT (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * changed from film to book format, until filming starts next month. What do you think? ReadQT (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Eric for your help. ReadQT (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Women Screenwriters today
Thanks tons sweetie, but I already have it in my collection. User:EraserGirl/Women_Screenwriters Feel free to recommend more!EraserGirl (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've AfD'd List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" again, so your arguments are welcome. The Dominator (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on! The last one resulted in No Consensus so I'm trying to build consensus, I think you should vote the way you would normally vote, not vote keep just because you think the AfD came too early! The Dominator (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hulk
Considering you're a big fan, does anything of the Hulk's animation remind you of Norton (considering he provided the motion capture). Alientraveller (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that picture of Norton in the chair screaming and compared it to the footage of Hulk bellowing. They captured Norton. But I'll admit I see more of Roth in Abomb. Alientraveller (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but feel there was another reason you chose that tribal image for Doomsday... Alientraveller (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Help plz!
Hey Erik, I stumbled my way into your User Page (not drunkenly I might add) and I couldn't help but notice that you're able to pool resources from University. That then reminded me of all of them sources you found for Batman Begins (yeah, it felt it bit like that cliché 'man realises at the end of the film after all the clues come together and makes him realise the answers were in front of him' scenario) and I was wondering if you could do something like that for me. Well, not for me, but for the Daredevil film's article. I need as much good/useful info as possible for the production of the film, if you'd be able to do so. I have the DVD, and currently I'm sifting through IGN's news database for useful info, but it's limited in various ways. I understand that most people wouldn't go in over a weekend, and also many have their Easter break for at least the next two weeks, but if you were able to find time to do so (even for just a couple of good sources) - that'd be sweet! Appreciate you reading this, bro. -- Harish - 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh... my... GOD! You've found SO much! You are an amazing researcher - what do you use to do this? This'll take time to get hold of the book sources, my local library sucks. Seriously bro - thank you! -- Harish - 23:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks again. I created an article in my sandbox so I can work on it in my leisure as my timetable is currently erratic. Between me and you, I'll probably edit off my IP as sometimes it's hard to respond to various other editors on long convo's when I just want to come here and edit. No offence to them. Back to the topic - out of curiosity, which university do you attend that offers you an account to such resourceful websites? -- Harish - 00:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Sorry for being personal, bro. -- Harish - 00:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Netflix Reccomendations
Have you seen the abortion themed documentary Lake of Fire which was made by American History X director Tony Kaye? It is the best movie I've seen this year and does not take sides, it only reports. It's a must see. Creamy3 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard a lot about 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days did you like it?  I've been wanting to see it for a while. Creamy3 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good movie. Thanks for the tip on archiving. --Creamy3 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

what is the Linkspam list
Hi Erik

I notice on you Linkspam list is my website. Can you tell me what criteria you use for creating this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.178.35 (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like an answer to this, I feel that my site is unjustly on a list called Linkspam? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.242 (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Erik Thanks for your reply. I actually object to my site being on this list because it is picked up by google search and as you say, "links being indiscriminately solicited by one person" which my site certainly isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.242 (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Artemis Fowl
Well, the movie's apparently being shot as we speak, though the producers are also keeping a tight lid on it so I can't find any reliable sources. So for now I should just merge that with the book's article? And thanks for your help! Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been in shooting since 2006, according to the interviews... however, it's been postponed a lot, so I think that you're right, it would be safest to merge. I'll get about to doing that in a sec. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I stuffed them together. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  04:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

IB
I put something there, like a li'l ol' tombstone. I'd be terribly surprised if, after a diaper change, he wasn't back again at some point. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello across the universe
Well, not really, but my wife is brewing coffee in our hotel room and I could sneak away for a few moments. I do enjoy reading and talking about films which stems back from my University days when I was a film reviewer part-time in between cartooning stints. Many wasted hours in darkened theaters led to my involvement in a film group where I ended up doing the usual goofer and best boys boy jobs, predominantly on independent films. That background later came in handy when my first book was turned into a documentary film. Thank you for your note on my "talk page" and I have noticed your many fine contributions not only to discussions but also as an editor. Keep in touch. Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

Have a ...
--Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 02:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Cop (film series)
Hi, it's me EclipseSSD. Just wanted to tell you that I've managed to create the entire Beverly Hills Cop (film series) article by myself, and also to ask you what you think about it. Took me quite a while to create. I hope it's good, but tell me what you think and I'll try and improve where possible. Thanks --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

wikiproject coordinator
Hi Erik,

I see you are running for the Wikiproject coordinator position. You certainly have my vote as I was very impressed by your work on the Beowulf (2007 film) article - could you put a brief reminder on my talk page when voting begins? It may slip my mind otherwise. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much understand the demands of RL :-) - I just want to make sure I don't forget to vote... You are a bit modest, Erik about your contributions to the Beowulf film article as you proved yourself to be a fair and neutral editor on a number of occassions. I've looked at some of your other contributions to film pages (clearly one of my favorite areas of the WP!) and was very impressed - so the vote is well deserved. All is well in general, thanks for asking. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erik, I just placed my vote on the Coordinator page. I need to take a Wikibreak but I hope to be back at some later date. Good luck, -Classicfilms (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2012
Hello,

For what is your reason of redirecting 2012 (film)? I think the article I put together was fairly decent and that it may have some potential for people to build off of. Maybe you and I could collaborate on it. Ok? Please reply back. Thank you. --Tj999 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 2012 (film) is in post-production. As I wrote on the profile, the film's script is done and Emmerich is working on getting the film started. He auctioned the movie to film companies and Columbia Pictures won it. It is not going to be that long untill the article reappears again so it would be pointless to redirect mine.


 * P.S. Thank you for mentioning the picture situation. A bot already went through and deleted the photos I had, but the bot did not delet Old Gregg so I don't know if it is ok to have it. Thanks again. --Tj999 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, sorry I messed up on my terms of post production. I will then stay very tuned into the film's progression. Thank you.--Tj999 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you vary much! May I add you to my user page's friends/helpers section? --Tj999 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is sorta off topic, but could it be possible for me to use that same kind of structer where you state films that you saw recently? In other words could I add...

Status

 * Netflix at home: Atonement, Rocket Science, O Brother, Where Art Thou?
 * ...to my user page. (Obviously I will have diffrent info)

I am always trying to improve my user page, lol. Reply back, thank you. --Tj999 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! UPDATE: Does it look good? I formated it a little diffrently.--Tj999 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I am happy. Thank you again and if you ever need assistance, I am always here. --Tj999 (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator election question
There is a proposal to extend the nomination period and your thoughts on the matter are requested. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Inside
Is it possible just to redirect the old one? There aren't that much substantial differences besides a death list, which is usually removed, and Wikipedia usually has the english naming conventions over foreign ones. (Although I admit I wasn't aware of the prior article's existence when I made the new one)--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nomination
You are certainly very well qualified to work on this project. I support all of the nominees save one. And I meant what I said - Fight Club is an exceptional article!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just briefly looked over your sandbox page and references. I hadn't given it a lot of thought, but now that I have given it a bit, it does occur to me that it does follow Freudian philosophy regarding sexuality conflicts and suppression, quite strongly. I wrote a paper once for a grad abnormal psych class that explored the Freudian undertones of The Wizard of Oz, so I'm surprised I'd not considered Fight Club this way. Hmmm. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

TDK
Must have been in the middle of editing when I adjusted the image and to keep his work he just copied and pasted the text he was working on. What's up, haven't talked to you in awhile. How's school life treatin' ya?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not much. I have a 40 hour a week internship this summer (oh yay, 40 hours with no pay..lol), so I'll be spending much of my summer there. I have several papers (including a research proposal), which I am thoroughly procrastinating on, coming up. I haven't seen too many new films, but catching up on some oldies. I did see No Country for Old Men and The Mist recently (The Mist last night). I liked them both, though I didn't care for the ending of NCfOM; to men, that was a film where I really wanted just a bit more closure to everything. I was also disappointed with the fact that Llewelyn died. I felt that to be gunned down in a shoot-out by the Mexicans seemed a bit careless for a character that had, up until that point, managed to stay one-step ahead of his chasers. The man showed more intelligence than your average country-bumpkin hero (most likely from his military background), yet he gets killed off-screen in a gun massacre. It also didn't make sense as to how the Mexican's found him in the end. I'm all cool with Anton getting away, but it just seemed out of character for Llewelyn to get caught up in a gunfight and die when he had been so resourceful against an assassin whom everyone feared. I loved The Mist; my buddy and I watched it last night and when they got to the end I remembered reading a review that said the ending was very Twilight Zony, and I predicted the outcome (which was crazy). I thought it was a remarkable adaptation of the short story; one of the most accurate adaptations of King's work that I've seen. I haven't watched the alternate version of I Am Legend yet; have you?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would normally be ok if the "hero" died in a film, if there was a reason for it. I had already read about how the Coen's like that "unstoppable evil" that you were talking about before, and that's not something new, it's just the lack of clarify on how Brolin's character died. It just seemed to come out of left field (and not in a good way). I just didn't appreciate that lack of perspective on that end of the movie. Like you said, we're following him every step of the way, then it detaches and we come back to him already dead. It made his death lose any effectiveness for me when it occurred. I didn't know why he died, how he died, why he could escape Anton (even wound him) yet gets gunned down by a Mexican mob (or whatever they were). It would be like Batman and the Joker constantly battling back and forth, only to have Bruce Wayne killed by some random drive-by shooting in the middle of the day. It's meant to deliver a shock, I understand, but to me it was done at a price to the film.


 * Yeah, I wasn't sure if you had seen The Mist, I saw you edit the page, so I tried to be as vague as possible when I described the ending. The ending to The Mist will certainly shock you more NCfOM. Have you read the short-story it's based on? As for I AM Legend, I got the impression that it was an alternate ending AND new scenes and cuts to the original film. It was played up in the commercials as a "completely different film"; I think Nevell is supposed to have more interaction with the Dark Seekers. I don't know for sure, because I haven't watched it yet. I just watched the regular version with my g/f and her parents a couple weeks ago and I don't want to overexpose myself to the film, because I thought it was excellent and I don't want to get tired of it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen Atonement. I'll ignore sub-par CGI if the story is good overall. I get drown in by the psychological aspect of the film. Anyway, have a good night. I need to go to bed myself.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I didn't really know about the election. I remember Giralomo mentioning it but I wasn't following it. It seems you're a shoe-in for the position.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, thanks. I'm sure I have the potential to be a great editor, but I've been kind of distracted lately.  Not had the time or the drive to really concentrate on Wikipedia and get anything done.  Might take a break actually, deny myself of the site for a while so I'm more focused when I come back.  Anyway, I was happy to vote for you.  As I said on that page, I might not have collaborated with you much but I respect you a lot as an editor. :) Good luck.     Paul    730  23:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Featured article candidates/The Mummy (1999 film)
I’ve fixed the punctuation for the pieced quotations, removed the IMDb links, and responded to the image concerns (oh, and retitled the Legacy section to ‘Adaptations’.) I believe that deals with all your concerns except the sources; thanks for providing a list, I will see about adding in more of them. (As for an image about the Mummy, I have so far not been able to find a good CGI picture of the character, but I’ll continue looking.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the offer. I only have the VHS, but I'm sure I can find a good still with enough digging. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added in about four or five of the sources you mentioned, added one or two other reviews, including one from the British Film Institute. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(bump) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about images
Thanks for your great comments on CoM. In another matter, I was wondering if you knew if there was a noticeboard where I can get help and advice about uploading images. I want to upload an image of a very rare plant, but due to its status, most, if not all of these images are copyrighted. There are many sources to choose, from academic, scientific, to general reference books. Any idea where I can go for help? Thanks again. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Citizen Kane
Hi Erik, I enjoyed reading your (and others') contributions to this article. I do have a fondness for classic films and consider the film a seminal work by Orson Welles. I did notice some variation in the standard format for film articles. I have usually seen the articles in this project group set out in this way:
 * Lead section
 * Plot
 * Background/Production
 * Cast and crew information
 * Distribution
 * Reception
 * Related Projects
 * Documentaries
 * Soundtrack
 * References
 * External links

I have often swapped the Cast and Production notes section but usually I use the same titles and order. Citizen Kane has used "Synopsis" and "Development" and a slightly different approach. The references are also set up with "For further reading" section which is non-standard (but often put in place). I also find that the references as end/footnotes have a number of inconsistencies.

Now, all of this is just rambling, but do you want some help with this article? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

wait till the UK theatrical release?
I thought all this time you were from the United States. How wrong I was... TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links?
Why do you include such sources as the following link:

http://www.thethunderchild.com/Movies/1954/Them/WhitmoreScenes.html

...and yet remove The Cinemated Man link? Is it conflict of interest, or spam, or links to a personal site, that you are claiming as the reason for deletion?

I'm confused, since you've cited all three reasons on different occassions for the deletions you've made.

Please do not vandalize the external links section of films to only include the ones you like or have connection to. THAT is a conflict of interest. And why not discuss it on the discussion page of each film article rather than just eliminating the links?

Please explain. Humbleradio (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review request
Hi, someone mentioned your name as someone who might be able to help with a Peer Review? They said you'd done good work on Fight Club. If you have time, I'd appreciate your comments at WikiProject Films/Peer review/Dirty Dancing, as I'm trying to get the article to FA status. Thanks, Elonka 13:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Iron Man
Hello, and I could be better today, thanks for asking. Um, I wasn't aware about the conssensus to keep the rating out of the article, so in the future I will check for that first. Thanks!  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  17:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, cuz I looked in the guidelines and it didn't seem to address that issue.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  19:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive
Hello, Erik! Am I wrong in thinking this article is evolving into what reads like a graduate thesis rather than an encyclopedia article? Per the discussion on the talk page, Moni3 admittedly is obsessed with the film, and I think her admiration of and enthusiasm for it is leading her to edit the article with an excessive amount of attention paid to critical analysis of the film by not necessarily worthwhile sources. It's starting to sound like something one might read in a Lynch fanzine. If I'm wrong in thinking the article is veering far off course from the material one is expected to find in a film article, please let me know. As always, I appreciate your input. . . thanks! MovieMadness (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, Erik, and thank you for your response. As I originally stated, to me the article was starting to read more like a film student's thesis than it was an encyclopedia article. Perhaps I simply am mistaken about what constitutes encyclopedic material. Looking at it again after being off-line for a couple of days, I still see some things that raise questions for me:
 * Phrases such as "An early interpretation of the film uses dream analysis to explain that. . .," "Another theory offered is . . .," "One critic cautioned viewers . . .," "An author of a book on Lynch wrote . . .," "Another review stated . . .," "An analysis of the film noted . . .," and the like, are referenced properly but as written force the reader to scroll down repeatedly to determine who said what. Isn't it preferable to identify sources within the text of the article, i.e., "John Smith of the New York Times cautioned viewers . . .," "Mary Jones, author of Lynch: Genius or Jerk?, wrote . . .," "An analysis of the film by James Dawson of Film Critiques noted . . .," followed by the reference?
 * Who exactly are all these sources being quoted? What are their credentials that make their opinions worthy of quoting in an encyclopedia article? More importantly, why has no one whose analysis of the film was negative been cited? Surely someone wrote an article entitled Ten Reasons to Hate Mulholland Drive or Mulholland Drive: All Style, No Substance, no?
 * Similarly, the comment "Mullholland Drive was not without its detractors" is followed by only one negative review. I have found several and will incorporate a few more to give the article more balance.
 * Re: formatting, I think the article needs to be rearranged so it flows better. Wouldn't Plot, Production History, Characters, Interpretations and allusions (with A "poisonous valentine to Hollywood" and Romantic content as sub-heads), Style, Soundtrack (as its own heading, not a sub-head of Style), Critical reception, Awards and nominations (at present incorporated into Release and reaction; commonly this receives its own section), and DVD release be a more logical sequence? Why is info about the DVD in a separate box? Any why is a quote by Lynch floating in a box of its own in the middle of the Production history section? To me, it looks very much like what one finds in Entertainment Weekly.
 * On the article's discussion page, Moni3 states, "It is not WP:Films guidelines I am considering in editing this article, although they are helpful; it is FA criteria." Does this mean FA criteria supercedes the guidelines of any particular Wikipedia project? How can an article achieve FA status if it doesn't incorporate most of the components recommended by the project under which it falls? Shouldn't that be a requirement?
 * In closing, I'd like to say I think there are two types of POV - active and passive. Active POV - "I don't understand why this film didn't win the Best Picture Oscar," "This is the worst performance ever captured on film" - is obvious and universally understood as taboo. Passive POV is a little more difficult to detect, but when an editor goes to great lengths to place the subject of an article in the best light possible, I suspect it's lingering not far beneath the surface.
 * Thanks again for your time and input! MovieMadness (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator support
You're welcome. I think you'd be a great coordinator - you're already one of the project "guru"s! Good luck... -- Beloved Freak  10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Cop (film series)
Hi, Erik. It's me again. Listen, I wanted you to look at the Beverly Hills Cop series article again, and tell me what you think, because I've added the box office performances and critical receptions. I've also revamped the awards section to only include the main nominations. Thanks. PS You have my vote in your quest for project co-ordinator. You've done a great job. Well done, you deserve it. --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The following text.
''Below, in no particular order, are Wikipedia editors with whom I have worked. They have provided me constructive criticism in the past, though outside of our exchanges, I may not always condone their actions elsewhere on Wikipedia.'' -I don't need this

Why not? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive (film)
Erik, thanks for writing. I did look at the film article and although there are some slight variances in the style guides used (perfectly understandable since a number of editors worked on the article), it appears to be a good attempt at referencing the work. If you would like, I can establish some commonality in the use of the style, mainly in the notation of aspects of the citation such as author name, publisher's location and dates. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC).

The format that gradually was adapted in the WP:Aviation Group was the following:

!==References== !===Notes=== ! !===Bibliography=== ! !==External links== !

The style was adopted for the film articles that I helped develop and appeared as in It's a Wonderful Life.

The reasoning behind the structure of the References section is:
 * 1) "References" is a nebulous term that refers to all manner of reference sources but since it is in use in Wikipedia, it can be retained as an overall section heading.
 * 2) "Notes" refers to endnotes or footnotes which link to direct quotes or reference sources.
 * 3) "Bibliography" is a full bibliographical record or notation.
 * 4) "For further reading" does not really apply in publishing and is part of a bibliography (which is a list of reference sources, whether directly or indirectly used in researching the "piece").
 * 5) "External links" is another Wicky term that refers generally to Internet resources which normally are listed in bibliographies as non-print resources. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC).

Copyedit from my page:"I guess I was referring more to the section heading layout. Do you think that it would be good to have "Notes" and "Bibliography" subsections at that particular article? Perhaps after the election, as I think that we are both set, we can discuss consistency in terms of referencing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)"


 * Briefly, yes. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC).

User:Creamy3
Thanks for the message - I've indef blocked User:Flakes41 for sockpuppetry. User:Chet lovers lover has already been indef blocked as a vandalism-only account. There may be a couple more out there - if they surface (as I'm not always around) I'd suggest reporting them at WP:AIV with a link to the sockpuppetry case. Thanks. GBT/C 12:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Erik, have you seen this page? I really don't know what to say about it but going onto the Oakland High School page in Oregon and you can get an appreciation of the students and their precociousness (I could use other adjectives but that will suffice). Thanks for being so observant and cautious, you may have stemmed off some future campaign of pranks directed at film articles. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC).


 * FWIW (ha), Creamy3's desire to be a co-ordinator and work at improving articles is/was conclusively genuine. I'm not sure what to make of the "death threat" - a misguided attempt at humour, as he claims, or genuine, extreme incivility? Either way, it's a shame. Steve  T • C 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it will never end how many vandals are there. Anyway, nice vandal reporting Erik, but just out of curiously, did he do something extremely inappropriate? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I could tell, Creamy3 and his friends made up the Creamy Army. Creamy3 was blocked for making a death threat to Chet lover, but I think that it was a joke to a friend who playfully vandalized Creamy3's page. Obviously, the threat was not lightly received by admins, so Creamy3 and a few uncontributive accounts were blocked. In addition, Creamy3 was supported by Cream4 then Flakes41 in the election, so there was probably a little favoritism at play. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tribeca
Hello, David! I hope you've been doing well. I was wondering if you were still attending Tribeca Film Festival. The reason I ask is because I recently revised From Within to mention that it will be released at that particular festival. I'm not sure what information you would need (it can be found at the article), but I was wondering if you could have it as one of your tasks to get shots of people involved with From Within at the festvail? Let me know if this is possible or not; I was aware that you messaged WP:FILM inviting any interested editors to be involved. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I'll put it on my radar. I haven't received my schedule of the films yet, but if it's the premiere and they are doing a red carpet thing, I'll make it a priority.  -- David  Shankbone  14:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Animalia (film)
Regarding the page Animalia (film), which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of G4, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because it is only valid with articles which have been deleted as the result of a deletion discussion, such as Articles for Deletion, not articles which have been speedily deleted or PRODed. If you still want the page to be deleted, please re-tag it under a CSD criterion that applies, consider redirecting the article, or use the proposed deletion or the articles for deletion processes. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixar
Cars 2? I liked the film, but I'd rather see sequels to Monsters, Inc. or The Incredibles. Still, Up and newt sound fun, The Bear and the Bow is using a surprisingly well-known cast, and I was curious Disney didn't mention their John Carter adaptation. Alientraveller (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh
After looking at three articles recently, Mulholland Drive (film), Juno (film) and The Secret of Treasure Island, I am bewildered by the reactions of some of the editors who have become the "gatekeepers" of the articles, bordering into WP:OWN. Do you have time for a discussion? I can take it offline if needed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC).
 * I can appreciate their concern but even when I delicately try to lay out the differences that I see mainly in referencing, the quills come out and invariably, I do not have the need to keep on especially when each of the article's primary contributors had asked for help then treated any new contributor with suspicion. I have been reverted in each of the articles and did not want to push for any changes when there was no avenue for collaboration. Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Let's keep in touch, contact me when you have time. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

Guideline vs. rules
Erik: I'm butting in on your conversation with Bzuk. I'll just give you advance notice that I'm adamantly and resolutely opposed to making the style guidelines more restrictive. In fact, it's my considered opinion that they need to be much less restrictive as regards to specific formating requirements. I think they should be very specific about the intended result and leave to the editors some discretion about how to achieve that. The attempt to turn the style book into absolute rules rather than guidelines goes against the entire spirit of Wikipedia. After all, if the collective wisdom of past Wikipedia editors had wanted them to be rules, they would have made them rules. The reality is that they didn't and made them guidelines, the collective wisdom of past editors to guide us, not to rule over us. If one takes a "guideline", and use it like a club - "No, you can't do that because the MoS says you can't." - then they are no longer guidelines, they are rules. Best, Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I'm not implying that you necessarily take that kind of absolutist attitude toward the MoS, but I have certainly experienced that position more often than has been comfortable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You make valid points about the purpose of guidelines. Maybe I didn't express the right tone in conversing with Bzuk.  I don't want to overly restrict editors in writing articles, but I think that the guidelines reflect tried-and-true approaches.  What do you think of editors having an attitude of ownership when they are primary contributors of a particular article?  If other editors come in and revise the article more in line with WP:MOSFILM, what should happen?  I'm curious to know what you think should result from that kind of conflict.  In addition, I think that guidelines are a set of light rules (look where "rule" at WP:IAR goes), but I don't favor complete compliance.  If the guidelines prevent us from writing a good film article, then we can ignore all rules and take a slightly different approach.  I know I've done that, depending on the content of the article.  For example, Mulholland Drive (film) is a very unorthodox film, and I think that the different structure works for that particular film.  I guess it's better to say that the guidelines should be revised to cover what you can do about some content, especially for sections like Marketing and Critical analysis, which aren't covered.  I don't go around enforcing WP:MOSFILM.  I've seen some different approaches that work, but sometimes I see approaches that don't work.  I then revise the information and structure to fit the guidelines better.  Is that problematic?  Let me know what you think. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't advocate that people stop making corrections based on MoS, because the vast majority of the time the editor being corrected didn't know what was expected, or was just mistaken. But if a correction based on MoS is made, and the editor comes back with a coherent explanatin about why they used a non-standard formatting and what effect they were trying to achieve, then I think it's incumbent on the correcting editor to back off a bit, and if they decide to follow-through, to evaluate the new formatting with an open mind, considering what the other editor is attempting to do, and without bias in favor of the MoS.  If they keep comiong back and making the same corrections again and again, using the MoS as the only criteria, then what you've got is basically the Argument from authority, and that effectively treats the MoS as dogma and not as guidance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That sounds reasonable to me. It should be a matter of if the article benefits more strongly from the typical approach or by the unique approach.  I think that a concern is if the primary contributors are truly arguing for the quality of the article or for their personal preference.  In some instances of addressing content and structure, that may not always be clear.  I do acknowledge what you're saying, though, and I had a thought.  How about reflecting the lead section of WP:MOSFILM to mention WP:IAR and what we just discussed, if the new approach works better for the article, then the style guidelines don't have to be explicitly followed?  I'm about to step out, so I may not respond to your follow-up till tomorrow. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be an excellent idea to give editors who want to solve problems in non-standard ways something to latch on to in answering editors who prefer to hew strictly to the guidelines. Such a mention as you suggest might also help spread the idea that the MoS isn't necessarily the absolute final word on things, that there are some situations that it doesn't cover, and (horror of horrors!) there may even be some instances in which it is wrong and would benefit from being updated.  You've got a really good idea, in my opinion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To address the question of personal taste, I agree that it's sometimes difficult to tell if an editor is making a change due to personal preference or is actually providing a better solution for a problem, but the answer is, I believe, to rely on consensus - but not the consensus of the immediate moment, where editors flock to deal with their hot-button issues, instead the consensus of normal editing over time. I've used non-standard formatting to solve a knotty problem in an article which, once it survived the immediate skirmishes of those weilding MoS conventions, has been affirmed by remaining in the article for a considerable time.  (It's even been positively affirmed by editors who initially remove it and then, realizing what its purpose is, restoring it themselves.)  On the other hand, if the non-standard formatting never gets through the gantlet of conventionality, it can't really be determined if it's a good solution or just personal preference, because uninvolved editors never really get to give it a look.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
The Original Barnstar

Cars 2 (film)
Hi, just to let you know that I've looked at the deletion discussion taking place on this film, and as an alternative, I've also added a merge proposal tag to it, in the event that a merge be possible rather than full-out deletion. I think this is a better alternative, and should be done in the long run. Let me know what you think about it. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Films coordinator election
It's my pleasure to inform you that you have been elected to serve as a Coordinator of WikiProject Films for the next six months. Congratulations!

As you have also received the greatest number of votes, you also may take the role of Lead Coordinator if so inclined. (Please let me know one way or another so that I can update the relevant pages accordingly.)

If you have not already done so, please visit the coordinators' talk page, where you'll be able to find some open tasks as well as reference material and discussions relevant to you. You might also be interested in a bit of advice that has been written about being a coordinator.

Again, congratulations, and good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * May I echo the comments and congratulations that Girolamo Savonarola expressed. On a personal note, I am pleased to see you in the role of Coordinator with the anticipation that we can work together in the near future. Your recent discussion with me persuaded me to "hang in" as I was sorely tempted to withdraw my nomination as a coordinator based on recent experiences within the project group. Good on 'ya, we'll talk soon. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Erik: Congratulations from me as well. I look forward to fruitful discussions with you, whether we agree or not (and if two people agree all the time, then there's one person too many in the conversation!). Best, Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Erik, just wondering what you have decided regarding the Lead position. Take care, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Backing off and edging toward the door slowly...
Erik, I've encountered a string of stinging accusations of disruption from another editor and I've decided that it isn't worth it to go any further. Even making any conciliatory comments are being misconstrued. Am I right in this observation? See: FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the dialogue about this topic. I basically have resolved not to go into a "he said, she said" discussion. As for the article, I am making an effort to use talk pages to introduce new elements, such as the exploration of the theme of teen pregnancy as being fashionable? See the talk page: I too have walked away from articles when the atmosphere became steamy; I had to step out of Mulholland Drive (film) for exactly that reason. My most contentious article was the fun 'n games engendered around the The High and the Mighty (film) which involved two very dedicated and forceful editors (I didn't consider myself in their fearsome league) who wanted to place their "stamp" on the article. What resulted with judicious spoonfuls of advice, counseling and "kissing up" was a remarkable article that preserved each editor's "voice" and yet was a highly readable and interesting commentary on a long-forgotten film. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Although I have been a bit more proactive and placed some remarks on the WP:Film Project group discussion "strings," I will be very circumspect about which aspects of the group's work to launch into, bearing in mind, that I am also very heavily involved in the WP:Aviation Group. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC).


 * On a dissimilar but similar note (if you know what I mean), I have a question about the NY Times review of Catch-22 (film) by Canby to which you referred recently in a talk note. Is there a complete copy of the review somewhere, since I do not have an account with the NY Times therefore I only see a fragment or "tease" section of the review online. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

Now that's just lazy
Heh. The Just Jared copy-paste bandit strikes again. Steve T • C 08:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Catch-22
Copyedit from my talk page:"Argh, you have that problem, huh? The New York Times can be tricky in terms of linking.  Sometimes there are ways to bypass this.  Try Googling the keywords site:nytimes.com canby catch-22 and see if you can't access a review directly from the search results.  If that does not work, you may want to go to BugMeNot.com to get a user/pass (NYT registration is free) and use it to access the website temporarily.  Let me know what happens.  Do you happen to have access to any databases of newspapers, journals, or magazines online? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you do not need a space between the punctuation and the reference tag. So ...end. [1] can be ...end.[1] — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)"


 * It looks like the first tip doesn't work because the NY Times inserts a search list which, you guessed it, goes back to their registration-required site. The other method did work and gaining a temporarily password has some advantages to accessing the NY Times archive.


 * Database links? no, unfortunately, I do the standard search for files on the Internet rather than using databases from media sites. Do you have a list of recommendations in this regard?


 * Probably out of force of habit, since so many editors join in, I do tend, at times for editing purposes, to leave a space after a statement, but at least one editor who seems to show up occasionally on projects I have undertaken, is even more conscious of editing issues and routinely inserts an extra space between section titles, image notes and reference sections, for the very same reasons of readability, ease of working around edits and formatting issues.


 * BTW, I have left you another note as to a concern I had mentioned earlier. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

Two Questions
1. If I wanted to create or expand articles on films released at Sundance 2008, is it okay to use this site: http://www.sundance.org/festival/film_events/alphabetical.asp ? There is a lot of juicy info when you click on the film and a little box pops up, but I don't know if those boxes, which you can't give a direct link to, are a proper source. You would have to be linked to the page and find the film on the page and click on it. 2. How do I create restrictions on who edits articles? I want to make it so only people with a user account can edit the pages I created. If you could answer these for me I would very much appreciate it. User:Djbj16 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2008

Film AfD discussion
Hi, I noticed your other comments on AfD disccusions for film. Would you mind having a look at this one: Articles for deletion/Fraught? Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Defiance
Sorry, sorry, sorry and sorry some more. I got confused because Defiance (film) didn't redirect to Defiance. — 97198   talk  14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. :) — 97198   talk  14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hi, Erik. It's me EclipseSSD. Listen, I would like you to know that I've put in a request for adminship, and if you would like to participate in that discussion, it would be great. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Erik!
I noticed Bzuk not only has changed the cast list for Now, Voyager from the usual format to a box, but has designated it a "minor" edit, as well. I'm opposed to presenting cast lists in a box because I think they're unsightly and not very encyclopedic in nature. A bulleted cast list certainly seems to be far more common than boxes. Do you feel this an issue of style that should be discussed before other film articles are changed the same way? As always, thanks for your input. MovieMadness (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFA
One, I don't know his age and if I did it shouldn't be relevant, Wikipedia is not censored. I'm not sure if you understood the purpose of the question, but I think a calm and polite answer to a completely irrelevant, awkward and rude question would be a good indicator of how good an admin this person would become. The DominatorTalkEdits 03:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it now, if you feel like it's really obscene, I won't hold any grudges if you revert me. I just thought that an admin is bound to encounter a few rude vandals and staying composed and keeping a cool head is an important part of dealing with them. The DominatorTalkEdits 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was worried too, but I think that at a second glance it'll be evident that I'm not a troll, yup I'd like to see it play out, I'll explain myself on the page after he answers, don't worry. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on me
Hi. Just wanted to point out that an RfC has been filed on me, and invite you to participate (one way or the other) if you're interested. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates and more dates
Erik, I have a question for your perusal. The use of two or more date conventions for a film article always struck me as being inconsistent. In a friendly discourse, Collectonian indicated that ISO dates are required for citation templates. While I have often adapted the template to read the same dates as the rest of the article's established date format, I was not aware that ISO dates were specified. Can you clear up this point? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Copyedit from my talk page: "Date formatting; I've seen some of the discussion about date formatting, though I am not completely clear what is the issue. I've used cite news and cite web frequently, and under the   attribute, I write it like 2008-04-22 .  My impression has been that based on an editor's preferences, this entry will format itself to your preference.  For example, it could appear as April 22, 2008 or as 22 April 2008.  Anonymous IPs cannot set preferences, so they only see 2008-04-22.  Is this where the dispute lies?  I've only used the aforementioned templates in film articles, so I'm afraid I'm not fully understanding the issue.  Could you outline the differences side by side? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)."


 * Basically the use of two date formats does not make a difference for the experienced editor who has a browser configuration set to read dates in a preferred format. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the date looks like, the date will appear "as you like it." However, the vast majority of Wikipedia readers are visitors who see two date conventions/styles. Contrary to a recent opinion I have read, the ISO date format is not as easy to read for those unfamiliar with its usage. Most editors establish a date convention as the body of the article is being written; my contention is that one date format should prevail. If the article already uses April 22, 2008, then that format should conceivably be used throughout the article. FWiW, it is very easy to adjust the date in a citation template to read "April 22, 2008." Bzuk (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Children reacting to the children in Children of Men
Sage advice, a kindergarten teacher would probably have said, "say 'sorry,' shake hands, and treat each other with respect." Hope our "children" listen. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
 * * shrug* This has been going on for over a year; probably started around this time. If it wasn't this, it'd be something else.  It seems to be a matter of pride, as both of them like the film and have devoted considerable time revising the article.  I got weary a while ago and have occasionally come back to try helping with resources and dispensing advice.  Discussion should obviously be held in these content disputes, but when you have well-established dislike between two editors, it's hard to be clear-headed or objectively make any compromise.  At the end of the day, it's just some website with this page in particular already covering a lot of decent ground about the film.  I'm not sure if anyone but the two care if the sounds in question are mentioned or not. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I kinda care. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant; you and Viriditas are the two that care a lot about this issue. I'm saying that it's just been a tiresome content dispute, hence my suggestion. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I care about writing articles, and have no interest in trivia. This is not a content dispute, but a sourcing dispute.    To rise above the level of unsourced trivia and to avoid the implications inherent in its addition, secondary sources need to be added for the sound effects of laughing children.  End of story.  Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And of course, that's supposed to end the conversation. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Something odd happening here
I was doing a rewrite of James Kirk, and it appears that my sectioning of the lead doesn't appear to be showing up after I save my edit. Is there something going on in the article that I am unaware of? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

the hobbit
my bad. should i get rid of the article or just leave it the way it is?

-thanks for the help --Cman7792 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WT:FILMC discussion
Your thoughts are requested! (Please bookmark the coordinator talk page if you haven't already, so as to save time messaging.) Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Iron Man
Please don't dump a whole heap of citations on the talk page though: I do check Google News a lot and these articles tend to be written for a general reader who doesn't know basics like when Iron Man was created, the film being Downey's big comeback etc etc. I implemented the production notes a while ago so the article is comprehensive, therefore you should just leave articles with really worthwhile tidbits (no cast backslapping). Thanks. Alientraveller (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Coordinators
Please read this, and then leave your thoughts here. Thanks!  Limetolime  talk to me • look what I did! 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

curtis kelly and quinnipiac bobcats
could you fix my article on curtis kelly of the uconn huskies, who is probably transfering to quinnipiac. i made two short articles in one. -thanks --Cman7792 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite news
Yo Erik, response at my talkpage. Skomorokh 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Academy award-nominated", etc.
One one hand I do think the manual of style is worth following on this subject.

But on the other hand I think it's unfortunate that you just remove the text, and the subject you post on your edits is counter-productive. "POV wording" is pretty meaningless, and raises hackles - at least that was my feeling when I saw your editing on three articles that happened to be on my watch list.

Couldn't you please do the necessary editing to move the mention of the award farther down in the article, and as subject specify exactly why you're doing it?

Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message! I apologize for not making the corrections where applicable; I think I got caught up with the clean-up duty.  It's hard to stop at a particular article and make these kinds of improvements when most of the articles could warrant a lot of them (like fleshed-out lead sections or actual Production sections).  I've considered a campaign to revisit films recognized in award ceremonies like the Oscars, BAFTAs, and SAGs with cleaner infoboxes, more structured layouts, and detail tweaking. I guess I felt in too much of hurry this time! :)  I reviewed my contributions and noticed a couple of disputes with my removals, so I went ahead and restored mention of the win/nomination later in the lead section.  I think for the most part, though, most articles are skinny enough for it not to be too hard to determine what accolades a film may have gathered. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And I'll try to clarify my edit summaries in the future! — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Age
I hope it's not too personal but how old are you? I'm nineteen. Just reply on this page, I'm watching it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but I'd rather not specify the number. I think you can gather from my previous talk page conversations that I'm a student. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect that, but my guess is that you're an adult. (18 or over) If you want to keep this personal don't respond, just leave it be. I don't wanna argue with speculations. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hustle & Flow
Hello, most of film articles mention Academy Awards in first or second paragraphs of the introduction section. It's common for Wikipedia article to start with "A is an Academy Awards-winning YEAR GENRE film by DIRECTOR" or "B is an Grammy Award-winning GENRE singer". This looks like an established practice to me.

If you disagree, you may replace this with "The film won an Academy Award for Best Original Song" in the 1st paragraph. Netrat_msk (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Far from Heaven
So you'll know why I reverted this edit, stating that a film was nominated for an Academy Award is not a violation of neutral point of view. There is no opinion involved. The film did in fact receive the nomination. I am not saying that the statement about the nomination should or should not remain in the article; but an accurate reason needs to be given for deleting it. Perhaps you deleted for another reason, but whether or not a film gets a nomination is not a point of view. It is a fact. If you wish to delete again, consider a more accurate reason to put in the edit summary. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint.... (AIT)
You are of course correct about the MoS, it was the wording and the deletion that made me revert. In general though i find (after checking) that about 30-50% of the movies that i spot checked mention academy awards in the first sentence. So POV is a rather strong wording. (and imho also wrong) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't hurt the AIT article to get a bit more focus on the cinematic aspect, instead of the usual "climate war" editor audience. The article is rather marked by this aspect, and suffers from too many compromises made. (imho of course :)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)