User talk:Millahnna/Archive 1

Let me be the first...
...to say welcome to the project!

Judging by your contributions so far, it definitely seems as though you'll be an asset to the project. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help!

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks bunches. I guarantee I will take you up on that.  Millahnna (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And let me be the second to welcome you! :) Glad to see a fresh face at WT:FILM and just wanted to say hi! Erik (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Erik. I'm a long time reader of the movie pages here trying to keep her writing muscles from atrophying.  Since plot summaries are where I did most of my minor edits as an anon, it seemed a good place to jump in.  Also I watch too many movies and entirely too much TV.  Heh.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  23:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, too many movies? :) Is it more than what I have here, dating back to July 2007? Erik (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol I have no idea. I know I've seen most but not all of those and a few you didn't have (random aside, Zombieland is the coolest thing ever).  If I ever tried to list them all out I'd probably go postal; 30 years of movie watching via wikilinks?  Ouch, my brain.    Millahnna (mouse)  talk  12:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek (2009) Plot Summary
I've read your dialogue with Doniago and I'd like to jump in. Just some friendly advice from a fellow editor, and as someone who works on plot summaries almost exclusively, I would avoid adding the plot tag unless it needs major edits. The tag is more of a call to fix large problems or greatly shorten the summary. I would say, for the future, to bring up minor edit suggestions in the talk page instead of simply tagging it. This way, you can avoid people reverting the tag outright. I know a little about this as I was one who had to fight to get the summary the way it is now. Since I've seen just about every attempt that someone has made to edit that section, I would like to help if you think you have something new to add that would benefit the page. Personally, I think a fresh pair of eyes is always welcome! I would like to see what you're edits will/might be and if you'd like some feedback I'd be glad to help! (Deftonesderrick (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the tip. I've got Daybreakers and Sherlock Holmes on my list before I get to Trek.  I the case of the former two movies I will be playing in my own sandbox because they pretty much need complete rewrites.  Trek is very solid so my original plan was just to edit there when I get to it (after re-watching about 90 more times of course, purely research I swear) but I can tweak in my sandbox and drop you a line instead, since you've spent so much time on it.  Honestly the stuff I'm seeing that could help tighten it up it IS pretty minor; substituting a few synonyms, breaking up that wall-o-text that is the second paragraph (there's at least two actual paragraphs in there), that sort of thing.  Let me know if there's a method that would work best.


 * Also, I anticipate summaries being my main thing as well, so if there is any way I can help in anything that you've spotted somewhere please do let me know. Millahnna (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! I look forward to seeing your work around Wiki! (Deftonesderrick (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

Obsessed Plot Summary
I got curious when I saw it on your list of "to dos" so I cruised over to the page. OUCH! That summary was bad! I edited it just now, maybe you'd like to see how I did? I think it could be shorter. Thoughts? (Deftonesderrick (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC))


 * God it's so much better I could cry. If I ever get around to watching it (I'm torn, like Beyonce and Larter, seen the plot in 50 other movies) I may go on my never-ending nitpick language tightening mission.  I suspect you're right that it could be shorter if we poked at it really hard, but it's so completely reasonable in length now (and without the POV issues), I don't think it needs it.  Major kudos.  Millahnna (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we could tighten it more but I'm still pained from reading the original... I may have to not look at it for a couple days! (Deftonesderrick (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I popping in there right now to change the line breaks a little. I'll see if there's anything I'm comfortable shrinking without having seen the movie yet. Millahnna (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Welcome
Hello, just like to say your welcome to helping with the editing of 9 (and sorry if I stole your job from you). I just come here to help and improve Wikipedia, without some pinhead vandlising the site and put pictures of Squidward or naked people on it. Cheers. Evilgidgit (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for January has been published.  February's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Swing Vote 2008 film
Hi Millahnna, the reason for reducing the number of wikilinks is to help a reader go through the passages without constantly referring to the wikilink. The typical standard is to wikilink the first instance of the name/event/individual and then limit the number of other wikilinks as they are essentially repetitious after that. FWiW, a link in the infobox and first passages is usually acceptable, after that the number of repeat wikilinks should be tempered. Bzuk (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

 Hi Millahnna, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

 Good luck, and have fun. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

Coraline Plot Summary
I thought I'd swing by after I edited the Coraline summary. I didn't realize you had this movie on your list until after I made the changes. I wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on your toes and also to invite you to see if my changes helped improve it. Thanks! (Deftonesderrick (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Not at all; I just grabbed it cause I saw it. There's a few things on my to dos I can probably pull off now. I'm still bashing my skull against the Last Starfighter (1600 words?!?!) but I've been meaning to rewatch Coraline anyway so I'll pop my head in there sometime this week.  I'm sure it's much better tough; you do good work.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you! You're edits have helped me get better at breaking up "walls o' text"! I just watched Coraline and Up last night so I got an itch to look into their pages. 1600 words? How does that even happen??? (Deftonesderrick (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Walls o text are an obsession; too many years of tl;dr at televisionwithoutpity (no one gasbags quite like they do, bless em). Paragraphs are my friend. I get how 1600 happens; people keep coming along and adding in little details they think are important; but when you really stop and think about it, they aren't so much. I keep going back to the new Sherlock Holmes as my goto example on that one; who cares if dude was a red haired midget and must you argue about it in the references.   And then it gets all cumulative and before you know it my favorite movie has a five page essay for a summary.  Seriously, I love the Last Starfighter with all of my fangirl heart but it is in no way complicated enough to warrant 1600 words.  And Night of the Comet, again geek girl lurve.  But a movie about valley girls surviving comet induced zombies can be summed up nicely in about four paragraphs.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  21:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dan Black
Hi, you reverted my change to the Dan Black article. I suspect this stems from the inclusion of the Wonky Pop genre in his infobox (because it doesn't sound like a real genre I guess?). He appears in the genre's article, sourced with this article, which i have now added as a reference in his article. You also removed sourced information that his single "Symphonies" peaked at #40 on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart, which I sourced with this article. I have reverted the article back to my changes, since all the information I added into the article was sourced from a reliable source. Sorry if there was any confusion about my motives. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ack. So sorry.  I was on vandal patrol and it looked completely off to me because of problems I was having with Lupin's tool (fixed now).  If I had seen the refs I would have gone a googlin and figured it out.  Again, really really sorry.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  16:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, It's no problem. I used to do the same thing when I did recent changes patrols way back in 2007-2008. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Transformers
I wanted to delete it, I just couldn't. Aquila89 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2010 Newsletter
The February 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films Award
Thanks Erik, and thanks for letting me hound you with questions. Millahnna (mouse) talk  02:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, hound me anytime! :) By the way, I don't think I answered your question directly, but the plot summary for The Uninvited looks great in size and summary of details. Erik (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Coshocton High School
We dont have a latin club here, that info is wrong, look at the supporting link if you're so bright.

We do have a ski club - I participate in it, its on my college transcripts.

Please revert back to my edit. And remove the warning.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsepida (talk • contribs) 09:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

It may be in the correct style but it is still incorrect. I could put anything in the proper style, doesn't make it correct, now does it? Its called investigating the sources to verify the information. Do this, then revert back to my edit. Thank you very much. --Bobsepida (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd see it that way.
I mean, just shooting someone is a little 'eh' on the evilometer. He practically reduced the poor kid's face to pulp and then shot him. Half Shadow  05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A long plot description
In case you're looking for more plots that can be hacked to a fraction of their current size, here's one that more than fits that desription. Have fun with it if you feel like it :) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sweet baby jeebus. How does that happen to a Charlie Brown brown special?  Weirdly, I don't think I've ever seen that one so it'll be a challenge, which is all good by me.  I've been putting off my range of start articles to go through so I should probably get to those first.  But that beast is definitely on my list.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  01:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you worked with the plot template at all? It provides a category for articles needing attention to their plot summaries and organizes these articles by month.  Click here and go through the months, preferably from the beginning.  For example, Cry Wolf (2005 film) was tagged in May 2007, so it has been a long time that it's had a long summary (though it's not too horrible compared to the Charlie Brown example above).  Just wanted to let you know of this particular view to use! Erik (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nom Nom Nom Cookies


Adamfinmo has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * I thought you would like this.--Adam in MO Talk 01:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Username
If you would like to edit with the name Mouse, I'dd suggest you request for it. Checking on thetoolserver, showed no one really edited under this name recently. Why not give it a try? --Ida Shaw (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I encourage this, too! It was created in December 2003, but it has not been used since.  You can request usurping it; follow instructions at WP:USURP for this.  For example, I used to be User:Erikster but usurped User:Erik for myself. Erik (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Matrix editing
Thanks for your help with the anon-ip user editing the Matrix Page. He/she is pretty persistent and has a vendetta against me it seems. Again, thanks for the help! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm waiting for it to trip up one more time so I can report it to arv.  Between the personal attacks and the flippant "original research" comments, it's pretty obvious the editor isn't actually serious about its claims; just a troll.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  00:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I know that. I was just trying not to attack trolls but I think I fed him a bit more, but hey, I do have to back up my statements too. He seems to randomly changing IPs at random, do you know if there is a way to track what his or her specific IP is? Just so we can end his nonsense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you could do that. The IPs are both coming from the same place (see the shared IP notices on both IP editor talk pages) but I don't usually see them change so drastically when someone IP hops; it's usually a sequence and then they can just block a whole range.  I'm guessing proxies are in play but I wouldn't know for sure.  I just requested protection for the page but I think I picked the wrong kind.  Hopefully from my description they'll check the history of both IP users and figure out what's best.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A message from Movieman2099
Stop deleting my work on 2012! I spent a half an hour to make it right. Like what I said to this other user,"You can change the plot as much as you like, but please keep the DVD Alternate Ending section." Fine, I'll put the DVD Alternate Ending section after the release section. talk 2:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen, we were at war with 2012 plot, and I am sorry. Lets just forget about it. Okay? talk 3:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I replied to you here
It's a month late, I know :) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're awesome. Now I have to decide how I want to redo this (as soon as I get caught up on my todo list).  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
I invite you to come participate in a peer review of Portal:Speculative fiction. You can see (and participate in) the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: New Yok Yankee comic
Hello Millahnna. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of New Yok Yankee comic, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to fictional characters or entities. Thank you.  So Why  15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The templates prod and prod2 have been added to it. The topic is not verifiable at all, so it will go away in due time. Erik (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Erik. I could not figure out for the life of me what category to go with for that one; "fictional character from an unpublished comic" just didn't seem to fit any category.  Heh.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  22:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter
The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You've Got Mail
You've Got Mail. (in case you don't check your Wikipedia email often). :) — Mike   Allen   19:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Must be lagging getting to me. So far no sign of it.  Just double checked which email addy I used here so I know I'm not totally stupid today.  =)  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So you didn't get my last email dated Apr 2, 2010 at 8:40 PM? — Mike   Allen   19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No I got that one. It's just that very first one you sent me before I tried emailing you instead that I never got.  Probably just lost in cyberspace somewhere.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  19:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My settings look fine. I think you are the first one I have emailed.  People usually email me first and I email them back using gmail.  I'm going to send a test email to you through Wikipedia.  —  Mike   Allen   20:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, Milla. I appreciate your input at my recent AN/I post. As I mainly engage in gnomish (and a bit of vandal scrubing) activities I find it helpful when a topic-experienced editor weighs in on a situation. Be warned though, you (along with User:Deftonesderrick) have become my "go to" corps if I need help on film and TV copy editing. No good deed goes unpunished :)  Tide  rolls  06:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm still learning myself (and putting off a project on Spartacus Blood and Sand that's making my brain hurt to look at) but that one was pretty bonkers.  I know the guidelines around plot summaries like the back of my hand and I'm still mostly lost when it comes to the more complicated stuff.  So I stick to making sentences make sense for the moment (i.e. throw me things to copy edit any time).  Deftones helped me out more than a bit when I dove in a few months ago which is how the situation drew my attention.  I think I need a nap; that was a pretty disjointed reply.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  11:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

article on "okay"
Hi Millahnna--

I've left a message for you ("gross misrepresentation") on the "okay" discussion page. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- my profuse apologies. I was following edits back one at a time from most recent, and just saw the your name was attached to the whole humongous Etymology section, without seeing or realizing it was simply a reversion of vandalism. I did wonder that you might have written all that in one go, and so recently, but never thought to go back looking further. :-( I don't suppose you can suggest an easier way to jump to the original posting of this phrase without tracing back sequential edits one at a time?? Milkunderwood (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Actually I've been wondering the same thing, myself.  If someone has made a tool that will do it, I haven't heard of it.  But I'd love to know the editor origins of some odd turns of phrase in some of the plot summaries I play with.  You could try a helpme tag on your own talk page and see if someone knows of such a gagdet.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been there since at least January 2003, back 500 edits, which as far as I can figure out is as far back as WP History will allow you to look. So might there be any way to go back any further in prior edits? It would be interesting to see the article from its initial posting. If you don't know, who here might? I'm a noob, don't know who to ask such things. BTW there's some pretty fascinating stuff posted from time to time now long since deleted. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted this: User:Milkunderwood/History prior to last 500 edits archived? prefix:Wikipedia:FAQ -- we'll see if I get a response. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you find out there is such a tool/gadget let me. It would sure come in handy.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  01:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See my talk page for possible answers. I apologize again for thinking it had been you who first posted the questionable text. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. And thanks for the update.  That is a very interesting little tool.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Last Starfighter
Trimmed it down to 722 words, which is more than half. Most of it was pretty easy, removing the OR tangential info and the less essential plot points - we cannot fit every detail in with summaries. Some more tweaking will probably be necessary. Wanna take a look and tell me what you think? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, we seem to have a lot of the same film interests. Most excellent. :) - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * God you're awesome. Seriously, you have no idea.  Film interests; though I am neither 18-24 nor male, demographics seem to stick me there a lot with my movie and tv taste.I'm just a big old dork.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk
 * Stop it, you're making me blush...
 * On a side note, I noticed when the 68anon removed the section, and was about to reinstate it myself. However, checking citation and its source, I wasn't really sure of the provenance of the statement. Furthermore, there isn't a mention of it anywhere else through a basic Google search; the last time someone suggested it was over two years ago. I think that the IP might very well be vandal, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't think the citation is reliable enough to be used. Your mileage may vary. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I kinda wondered when I noticed the release date info didn't match. I found some info about the proposed director of the film and it looks like it died in process.  It's nothing we can use as a source though and nothing concrete.  =(  It really is my favorite movie of all time.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  23:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack be nimble
And poof, just like that, anon207 became Jack Sebastian. At your service, Millahnna. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am Jack's biggest fan. Nice to see you named.  Maybe now that one guy won't auto-revert you every time you massively trim pages like Survivors.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  23:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes Harassment
| first talk page edit Includes my unwise but accurate reply.

When an article is not accurate in what is says, that is a very valid reason for removal. Please stop all the personal attacks on ME. I'm sure you agree with the inaccurate review, which is why you are so adamant about having it for people to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlavigne5771 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I thought the movie was great and disagreed with his take on it almost entirely. Your assessment of the situation is flawed. You only removed the review when you couldn't get your addition to it. It's your way or no way. Personal attacks....oh the irony. Millahnna (mouse) talk  00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

| second talk page edit Was originally placed in Sherlock section started by Bignole below.

Other examples can be found editor's talk page and history where they were given warnings that were removed but responded to. Also see the history of the Sherlock Holmes film areticle and talk page, including diffs of edits the editor removed.

Sherlock edits
Mill, try and remember WP:BRD. There is no point in potentially getting blocked for a content dispute. If you revert and they revert back, then just go straight to the discussion. The article isn't going to be hurt because of one less review while the discussion is taking place. Trust me, I know how easy it can be to get caught up in petty edit wars because you disagree with another editor's personal interpretation of article content. Remember, you cannot voice your opinion in a debate (or ask for additional comments from the peanut gallery) if you're blocked from editing.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. I let the personal attack (check my talk page history) get the better of me.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  01:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, personal attacks can often do that. But, no harm no foul. The discussion is getting opinions, which is the purpose of it. Hopefully, we'll have a better idea of what the consensus is in a few days (maybe a week). :D   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't the first time it's happened to me, but it doesn't happen often enough that I'm used to it. So, when discussions do turn that very weird direction they tend to get me annoyed and aggravated. That is why I departed when I did, because I was not trying to let my attitude affect my comments. Been there, done that. It's no problem, and I'm always here to help....even when it doesn't completely help in the end. ;D   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it's not the first I've run into either (and certainly seen it elsewhere online) but the profound irony of the criticisms I was facing in light of what the actual events were just really blew my mind. All I have to say is either 1) English teacher my behind or 2) I weep for the children.  Until I ducked out of the bulk of it, I kept rereading the whole sequence and it's just so confusing how reading comprehension can be THAT varied between different people.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  14:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You two keep on bashing me. Then you can go cry about personal attacks. These kinds of attacks are the actual events. Now you will go and delete this and claim vandalism, which you need to look up by the way. The way you two are talking about/to me does count as harassment though. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it up. I WILL pull up every diff and edit out of the history on your talk page and mine, as well as the conversation on the Sherlock issue specifically.  You jumped on me from the get go and, as you are so fond of saying, these are the FACTS and easily demonstrable.  You were treated with politeness until you proved you would not do likewise.  You refuse to give one iota or even bother to read the policies that back up what others are saying.  So by all means, please do keep up the hypocritical claims of harassment.  I've had it.  I will NOT engage with you further for any reason.  I refuse to attempt a rational discourse with someone who claims to want the same while proving they are incapable or uninterested in doing so.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem Millahnna. Although it was short and to the point, it was ignored. I begged this user to read the guidelines/policy, if they did, I can't tell it did any good. You'll going to run into more users like this, if you stay on Wikipedia long enough--whichI hope you do. :-) —  Mike   Allen   21:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jlavigne5771 is right I didn't ask them to read any policy. I wrote it, but never published it.  I'm losing my mind... :-\ —  Mike   Allen   01:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How can one lose what one never had? (/bad joke).   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  06:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In all seriousness, I don't think it would have helped. Looking back over the entire chain of events to find my own dysfunction (because I certainly didn't help the situation to NOT escalate and I should probably work on that) I see that others posted policies on Jlavinge's talk page, as well as on the article talk page. Either they weren't, as Bignole suggested when he offered up the Original Research link, explaining it in a such a way that worked for JL's method of taking in info or my initial reaction to the editor was not, in this case, entirely unfounded.  Either way, a mild case of explanation fail but at least the outcome was solid.  Chxmonk found a good compromise.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  06:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Having Fun?
I know I am! :) Doniago (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh. Brat.  =)  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Timmy does not appear to be either listening or learning. I've advised him about Edit Warring...here's hoping he takes the hint. Doniago (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I was looking all over the place for some sort of template thingy about adding in overly wordy, unencyclopedic content. I already wasted my time writing up a really long response to him on his talk page that he just blanked so i wanted to go easy template style this time.  But I could find no template and couldn't for the life of me figure what to do other than to keep fixing it. Ironically, I hate that movie.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should create one? That would be awesome to have! :) Of course, since WP:FILMPLOT is just a guideline, there probably isn't a template because you can't technically warn someone just for violating a guideline (as opposed to a policy). Still a standard "Please stop doing this..." template would be nice. In any case, he asked me a) where controversial edits to an article should be discussed, and b) what templates are (since he apparently deleted one or more previously), so...either he's a very invested Troll or he's really trying to do a good job. Hopefully at some point he'll be doing a good enough job to realize that his massive additions to plot summaries aren't helping anything.
 * Heck, at least he is communicating with me (and others?) and sounding sincere rather than the typical approaches of ignorance or unwarranted indignation and incivility. Doniago (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And now I'm involved in trying to talk to him... ugh. This account reeks of the previous person that bloated summaries (especially the Disturbia page) and claimed to not know anything about Wiki policy. (Deftonesderrick 16:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Granted I'm not the most patient person to begin with (despite odd feedback to the contrary on occasion), but his "constant" requests for help on my Talk page are starting to drive me a little batty, especially his either unwillingness or inability to understand what a template is. I really, really want to AGF here, but I'm worried I'm going to end up either losing my patience or just refusing to respond to any more of his questions.
 * Are you suggesting he may be a sockpuppet? Because that would be...interesting... Doniago (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Found it. Remember this person? The edits, IMO, are eerily similar to this person's edits. (Deftonesderrick 16:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I call Sock and recommend launching an inquiry. But I'm also at my wit's end with the guy and far from objective. Doniago (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (Deftonesderrick 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I'm not 100% convinced but the connection is pretty strong. I totally see what you mean.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  20:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In either case, Deftonesderrick has opened an inquiry. In the meantime Timmy has rebloated Lethal Weapon 4 and has consequently been reported by me for 3RR. Doniago (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * After re-reading Deftonesderrick's list of evidence, I take it back. Totally the same guy.  Nothing to add to the report however.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  20:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

2012 final scene
I don't see why Africa being the only continent above sea level (either temporarily or permanently) would be a trivial detail.

173.71.49.186 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When I first reverted it was the specificity that I thought was too much. But after your comment here I realize that I'd forgotten the end showed Africa as the only visible continent so I misunderstood the nature of your edit.  Apologies; now that I realize, I see that your addition does actually make the statement more clear.  I think it could be rephrased just a tad (incorporating part of your comment here on my page) for a little more clarity and am off to try that now.  Good work and happy editing.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  08:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS April Newsletter
The April 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New Toy - Plot Summary Advisory
Hiya! I found myself bored, so I thought I'd branch out a bit and develop a "standard" advisory for when users are bloating plot summaries. You can view the template at Template:Uw-plotsum1 and it should be implemented as " Article ~ ". If/when I get particularly ambitious I may even add documentation. I'd love to hear what you think...but this is my first time doing something like this, so please be kind. :) Doniago (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you used some of the one I was developing, cool. (Deftonesderrick 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC))
 * It was easier than writing one up from scratch. :) But seriously, thanks for giving me a very good starting point! Doniago (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! You actually inspired me to finish mine and get them on template pages. You can find them here. (Deftonesderrick 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Awesome! You, sir, are teh poo, as the kids say.  I actually saved the long thing I wrote on Timmy's page to put up as an essay in my user space for a similar purpose.  Template will be great for the most part but I figure when folks seriously ask that "why not all the details" question I can point them to that.  I'm going to draft it into something a little less directed at one specific editor.  I'm wondering, since plots of all varieties are so heavily edited, even though not even close to all wiki articles even have plots, do you think the twinkle or friendly peeps would be amenable to adding this?   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  18:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Deft-Cool. We should probably try to adopt a standard...it seems like you were working on these before I ever got involved, so I'd be happy to defer to you. I was thinking about a level 2 warning as well. Anything beyond that can probably be covered by general vandalism (if not outright edit warring).
 * Millahanna-It can't hurt to ask. :) I'd love to have it as a Rollback option myself.Doniago (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Groovy. I think what I'll do is give it a little while of us using it to make sure there aren't any changes y'all want to make and then go bug em.  Remind me to do something with this conversation so I don't lose the format when it gets archived.  I can't keep all of these templates in my skull.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  10:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (laughs) That's what Notepad is for. Okay I'm kidding, but I do keep my most-used templates there for easy reference. Also, I must say that Timmy's talk page is becoming a source of endless amusement for me. Doniago (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * " Also, I must say that Timmy's talk page is becoming a source of endless amusement for me." QFT.  I still can't decide if he's serious, 9 years old, or both.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a level 2 version of the template (yep, got bored). I would think anything beyond this can be considered general vandalism if not edit warring. Unindenting for specific commentary on this version. Doniago (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a message about the toy for newer editor who seems to be a plot god. He's been reverting the same types of plot additions and been attempting to explain in his revert edit summaries so I'm guessing he'll find it useful.  Have you poked your head in at WP Films, TV and Books (Novels I think) to let them know about it?  Video Games might find it useful on occasion too although I see fewer plot edit problems on the few game pages I watch than the others.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking for more "localized" feedback before opening them up to the general public, but if you and Deft think my tp's are ready for primtetime, I could post something on WP Films. As far as the other media goes, I think the links need to be reviewed/more globalized for that...I believe the current ones are somewhat film-specific. Doniago (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah that makes sense. I think it's fine but perhaps you're right that about holding off for a bit first.  You're right they are film specific but TV and Film cross over a lot so that wouldn't be too tricky (I've seen TV plot people refer people to their own MOS as well as the film one on occasion).  Novels and games though; yeah you're totally right.  I'm a doofus.  =) As for the other editor I mentioned, Jack is new but he's catching on quickly to the ways o the force so he should be a good tester as well.  He's also branched out beyond plots more than I have so he may think of something I haven't   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC).


 * (ec)Hi. Millahnna gave me the heads up about this discussion, and I thought I'd toss my two euros in. I think the warning - which i think should be used only when the person seriously does not choose to "get the point" and lapses into disruptive editing - is pretty well-constructed.
 * That said, I think there is a tendency to shorthand a lot of the editorial comments and sometimes, templating someone who doesn't know the rules is as unhelpful as templating the regulars. I realize that it can get pedantic, explaining the same thing to successive individuals, but how else are they going to learn? Sure, a road sign indicating stop sometimes works, but its far more instructive to explain how they might get t-boned at an intersection if they don't stop. All of us have been in the position of being new folk in the wiki at one point or another; we can all remember one unhelpful jerk or another telling us that we were wrong without telling us why we were wrong. I think that taking the time to explain builds a better editor.
 * (stepping off soapbox) I think the wording of the template is a bit off. " your recent edits to the plot summary do not appear to be constructive" is of particlar note, as - by definition - creating material is constructive, and that comment is going to confuse anyone who thought they were adding to the article. Maybe something like, " your recent edits to the plot summary appear to be excessive and not in keeping with an encyclopedic entry" would be a better wording.
 * Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack, Thanks for your feedback.
 * The first plot summary message is intended to be more of an advisory and a "Welcome to Wikipedia, we're glad to have you...but you should know this...", which the second message is definitely more of a "Hey, we're glad you're trying to help, but you're not helping, so knock it off..." Both messages do provide multiple links to the pertinent guidelines, so I think they're definitely encouraging people to actually read the rules rather than just saying they broke them. Additionally a level 1 (and possibly level 2 depending on your perspective) warning shouldn't be taken -too- seriously...for most editing issues there's 4 levels, and that's assuming you commit the violations in a fairly short time-span. If a user persists in bloating the same article more than twice, than they're not only, IMO, probably a vandal (and not taking the hint) but possibly edit warring as well...they definitely don't have the guidelines on their side at that point. At any rate, at that point we might as well revert to the standard vandalism warnings that specifically mention the possibility of a block for bad behavior.
 * "do not appear to be constructive" is taken directly from the level-one (or two?) vandalism warnings. I think it's diplomatic to indicate that the warning issuer acknowledges that others may disagree. Creating material isn't constructive if it lowers the quality of the article....which is essentially what plot-bloat does. As I said, the warning messages (I prefer to use the term "advisory", FWIW) do link to the various guidelines, so people shouldn't, IMO, be wondering why they're being told off...they can look it up. Or ask, if they're still confused.
 * Hope this all makes sense, and thanks again! Doniago (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It does make sense, and I appreciate you responding so quickly, Doniago (clever play on words for the handle. btw). My main concern is that some of the ways we tend to treat each other as editors - including newbies - tend to push away those uninitiated to wiki-en shorthand. When I was editing as an anon, I found that - with few notable (and wonderful) exceptions - I wasn't given the assumption of good faith by most other editors simply because I was seen as a newbie (which I certainly am not). I think that user templates fail to accomplish their goal, and tend to create more problems than they resolve. The sole exception to this, imho, are the vandalism and edit-waring templates. Those remind the recipient that they are treading on very thin ice where our policies are concerned. they very use of the template serves to reinforce the weight of what's a-coming if they don't cease and desist. A user who adds content isn't trying to be a dick; they are innocently trying to expand an article, and are unaware of what's allowed. Instead of indirectly assuming bad faith that the person cannot be educated (or simply that you haven't the time to educate them - which is pretty sloppy and uncivil in my book) and throwing a template at them, I think the encyclopedia is better off helping the person to understand what an encyclopedia is. Point out the specific definition of a plot summary is and contrast it to what they are doing. Most new or inexperienced editors are going to become defensive about being templated, esp. when it wasn't prefaced by specific talk as to what they were doing wrong.
 * With respect to your second point, "Creating material isn't constructive if it lowers the quality of the article....which is essentially what plot-bloat does", you and I both know that one editor's bloat is another's "better explanation". I despise bloat as well (pretty much on the same plane as cruft). Again, we - as more experienced editors - are supposed to help the new folk along in the wiki learning curve. Assuming that they are there to screw up the article on purpose is quintessential bad faith. If the person adding bloat refuses to get the point, they are being disruptive, and calling them onto the AN/I carpet allows wiki learning to take place with several teachers. Usually, just helping the person learn creates a better editor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this helps but a couple of the warning templates that twinkle pulls from recently had their wording changed to reflect a more AGF mentality (specifically the level one and two of editing tests, if I recall correctly). I'd have to check the twinkle talk page to remember the specifics of the changes but the concept was along the lines of what you're saying here and apparently this issue has been cropping up all over the place (overly zealous speedy deletion templates has been contentious of late).  Basically they went with a softer wording to allow for the fact that some silliness or unencyclopedic content from an anon or new editor might be an honest attempt at an improvement.  That said, Doniago does link to some plot summary guidelines in there and I, personally, am a fan of including a personal message on templates when they aren't obvious vandalism or sock puppetry (like the TimmyPolo situation which is likely what brought this on).  Perhaps this is a matter of just changing the wording a bit?  I can't help it, I love the idea of having something basic to to draw on like this, though I do see your point about how it could be abused.
 * With respect to how you were treated as an anon, I can give an example. When I first spotted you, you were doing a fantastic job of cleaning up the U.K. tv show Survivors.  And your edits kept getting reverted one particular editor who probably just looked at the summary in recent changes and saw a big red negative number with an IP editor.  I distinctly got the impression they didn't even look at WHAT you'd changed, though they seemed to mean well.  Although I don't think that particular editor actually templated you, I still found it odd at the time.  I do recent changes patrols sometimes and I have a very different method.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  22:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack. I understand your concerns about AGF, but Level 1 advisories are intended to be AGF to begin with...hence the welcoming to WP and the "appear to be" lines. As long as the template is worded in a manner utilizing AGF, I think that should be sufficient. Giving someone a template warning isn't in and of itself failure to AGF...definition-wise, even a level 2 warning is technically a no-faith assumption. It's 3 and higher that are bad faith assumptions. For the templates I created I did try to use the level 1 and 2 language as much as possible, since hopefully the editors who put those together know what they're talking about (smile). Even so, if an editor is concerned that the template will come across poorly, there's no requirement for it to be used.
 * As I indicated, I don't feel that L1 and L2 templates are "you're treading on thin ice". L1 to me is more a "Welcome and thanks for your help, but you shouldn't really do what you just did," while L2 is "We appreciate that you're trying to help, but you're not helping." L3 OTOH is definitely more "Knock it off or we'll block you." I guess we may need to agree to disagree on this, but it's always been my feeling that some editors take template usage (when it's used against them, anyway) far too seriously.
 * Also, as has been said, both the L1 and L2 templates do point to the pertinent guidelines...I mean, while I'm obviously biased, if I got one of these templates thrown at me I'd go "Huh, I'd better follow those links and see what they're talking about," not, "WTH am I getting templates thrown at me for no reason?" I really do feel they are worded in a way that a normal editor would tend to think isn't particularly offensive, but I do welcome suggestions.
 * Anyway, thanks again for your feedback. I hope I didn't sound overly-critical of your concerns, but I guess we may have somewhat different perspectives on this. I suspect the first time I ever heard about this issue was when I saw an article marked for having too lengthy a plot, at which time I read up on the guidelines, so I was never a "victim" of plot-bloat reversion myself. Doniago (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Milahnna, you (and Erik) were one of the wonderful exceptions I alluded to. I didn't mean to suggest that Doniago thinks that most of the folk adding crufty content are vandals or fanboys. I just think that talking is better than templating in those cases not consisting of outright vandalism or disruptive behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, people certainly aren't required to use the templates. There are people (like myself) who are more comfortable with some sort of standard they can refer to...or who just find themselves always basically restating the same thing...and that's what templates are for. I think some users have a tendency to read too much into template usage, but obviously that's an opinion. Honestly, I don't think these templates will see a lot of use, but they seem to be "nice to have" as an option. Doniago (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think where they'll be ideal is with situations like TimmyPolo seemed to be at first (and before he started actually asking direct questions). In that case we tried with the edit summaries but faced persistence without acknowledgment or direct communication, at first .  Eventually he did ask questions and that opened up a more personalized line of talking with him.  And of course in that specific case the whole situation was moot as he was a sock.  But if a well intended newer editor was doing the same thing it's something we could fall back on.  I am still going to tweak my essay thingy, though, for additional backup.  It's kicking around in my sandbox waiting for me to have time to come play.  All I've been able to  do lately are recent changes on my watchlist and a sentence tweak here and there.  Job hunting kind of sucks the time right out of my day.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a bit of an overhaul of the templates, cleaning up grammar and standardizing them. Links for films, novels and non-fiction books are now included. For other genres I didn't see much in the way of guidelines specifically related to the plot other than the general references. If nobody has any objections I'll probably open these up for general consumption in a couple of days. Thanks for the feedback everyone! Doniago (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. In light of Jack's concerns, I will probably include some friendly personal message at the end if/when I use it.  Hopefully when you're ready to open it up, other editors will have some good feedback as well.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  22:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

question
When dealing with multiple quotes fromthe same source, how does one designate that in a source, to avoid reptitively creating the same citation over and over again? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:REFNAME Happy to help! :) Doniago (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks for the assist, Doniago. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a gander
I'm about to upload a new article into main space, and was hoping to get some feedback on it before doing so. You can comment on the sub-page's discussion page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm working my way through right now and adding my notes as I go. I'll have comments for you in about 15 or so.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  16:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I addressed each of your points. As to the fannish nature, let me know where you think that crops up, and I will stamp it out like a cockroach. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"It's alive...ALIVE!"
Desiree Bassett is now in mainspace. Yay! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Shutter Island
--uKER (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, you're not gonna like this. I certainly didn't. It just happens that it's 4AM where I live and I gotta go to work early tomorrow (that is, today), so I'll see to do what to do with this later if you haven't yet. TTYL --uKER (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Man 2
Plot 700 words exactly. I'm not saying this is the most perfect version of the plot summary and there are more details I'd be happy to include but if you are looking to reduce the verbose rubbish again then that edit will at least be good for comparision. I'm trying to cut back on editing the article so much and I'm hoping it will stabilize soon but for now at least I'm letting people mess with the plot a bit to give me ideas even if I will probably revert them later in the week. The details of the edit are below and if you look at the edit history and set it to list 500 edits then you should be able to find it easily enough. Go back further (search for my usersname, search up and let the search wrap back to the end of the page) to before I started making deletions to find an older more verbose version and tell me if you think there are points that I could squeeze back and still keep within the recommended word limit (but I think I did a pretty good job condensing the main points and not throwing out too much). -- Horkana (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 01:02, 12 May 2010 Horkana (talk | contribs) (47,648 bytes) (Plot 700 words exactly.) (undo)


 * I think that's pretty close to the version I just managed to dig up and restore (711 words if I recall correctly). And yeah I do think you're right that there's still room for adding in some smaller stuff that's not critical but might help a reader if you feel like putting it in.  I don't have time to check the older "more verbose version" you mention right this second but I'll take a look in a bit.  Honestly, I think I need to go see the movie again.  For some reason it's starting to blur in my mind.  And hey I liked the shiny so I'm down for repeat viewing.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Was going to warn you to try and make a word count check against the actual text not the source wiki, there are some nice touches such as linking the "new element" to Vibranium, that add extra detail and improve context without bloat. I'll take a further look at what you reverted and see if there is anything I might be able to save, but it does look like an terrible mess of "Meanwhiles", "recent" and other verbal junk most wikipedia articles are prone to (and a misspelling/misuse of afore-mentioned for good measure).
 * It doesn't take much in terms of intermediate edits to break the automated undo system. The difference algorithm is dumb as mud, only barely good enough and shockingly crude compared to the version control systems programmers use for code. The habit of some editors to remove line breaks makes it even harder to follow.
 * It can be tricky to check details without the DVD, I've actually resorted to really awful CAMs to resolved disputed facts when the DVD wasn't yet available. For example, it is starting to annoy me that editors keep changing "we've found it" to "we've found him" and I'd like to be able to absolutely confirm it.