User talk:Steve/Archive 1

Re: You are prolific, aren't you?
This has been a slow couple of days by my standards. But I do happen to have a fair amount on my watchlist, so I get to catch lots of non-encyclopaedic additions before casual readers start to believe they're true. Welcome, by the way. Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome! Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: *The five pillars of Wikipedia *How to edit a page *Help pages *Tutorial *How to write a great article *Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! (If nothing else, the links should be useful.) Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: your edits to Runaround
Quite right, must have been a "slip of the button". I have upped it to "Start" at least. The only thing it could easily do with is some more on reviews, reaction and something more to assert notability if you have it. I would try to include the page number to the footnote 2 and maybe add the book "I Robot" as a whole in a "reference" section using the formatting template. Does that help? :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  10:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooper case
I see you've already been driven to a capitalised edit summary. Excellent. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is more of a human being thing than a newcomer thing. As I've said elsewhere, actual vandalism can be much less stressful to tackle. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield
I believe the right image is now in place. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing my addition to the Cloverfield article. It is NEW INFORMATION as of NOVEMBER 19th, 2007!Ronestar (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Filking hell
Cheers, it's better than anything those numpties in the AfD have come up with. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

New guideline on fiction: of possible interest
Just thought I'd bring to your attention the recently-revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion/disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, and given your involvement in the upkeep of the billion-odd Who articles, I thought I'd let you know. Best regards, Liquidfinale 08:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers, I've added it to my watchlist. However, current guidelines (WP:SS, for example) and content policies (the usual suspects) already weight toward merging or deletion of many articles. Any new moves to tighten that up this is no bad thing, from where I'm standing. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Human"/"human"
I read your post on the human species (and it was a good one), but I should point out that the actual word "human" derives from the Latin "homo," both of which are proper species-designations for humanity, according to taxonomy.

Thus, even though (as you properly point out), "Terran" would be a similarly correct designation, "Human" (capitalized) is also a correct designator, despite mankind hailing from the planet Earth, and is applicable in this situation.

Maybe a compromise -- when phrases like "Minbari-human hybrid" crop up, the capitalized form could be use (as it should be), but we can leave the lowercased version as a standalone elsewhere. What do you think? --The Bandsaw Vigilante 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for being mature about this; I was half-fearing an argument about it. As for your compromise suggestion, would you be prepared to give me half an hour to look into it in more detail, elsewhere on Wikipedia and the web, before you make any such edits? Many thanks, Liquidfinale 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right then. It appears that while human is related to homo, it is not directly derived from it. Also, modern taxonomy states that species names are not automatically capitalised, though the genus is (e.g. "Homo sapiens"). Make of this what you will; further reading may be required on both our parts. However, I would not automatically revert a change to Minbari-Human; it at least scans better that way. Best regards, Liquidfinale 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, sure, that's not a problem at all, really -- it's a very minor point in the grander scheme of things, and I have no issue with taking a "slow-'n-steady" approach to stuff like this, either. When you get right down to it, it's not something that's hugely noticeable by most folks anyway, and I'm pretty much open to whatever you might think would work best overall for the article. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 17:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. And as I say, were you (or someone else) to amend the article accordingly ("Minbari-Human), I would not feel the need to revert it; it matters not in the scheme of things, and probably does look better that way. Many thanks, Liquidfinale 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User page protected
I've semi-protected your userpage for two weeks due to vandalism. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
You are very welcome, glad i could help. Tiptoety 05:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Valkyrie
Thanks for updating Valkyrie with new information! I've placed some other new citations on the talk page; I plan to work these in sometime, but if you'd like to continue developing the article, you can do that with these citations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert
No problem. Always glad to help out a fellow user. NKSCF 13:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Paddington Bear Movie
Thanks for the addition of this section! I had just found the press release when i saw your update! I am attempting to get the Paddington article into shape. Would be cool if you wanted to add new info to the tv series part as well. cheers. Miss Cicatrix 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpoppets
Thought you might be interested: yon fellow who vandalised your userspace has been blocked for repeatedly asserting that the Queen of Our Hearts was murdered. Turns out he has a "twin brother": User:Toolsmain. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I ended up spending the afternoon reverting the contents of a sock drawer. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What's unfortunate about Mr Learntruck is that it was one relatively innocuous revert which appears to have kicked off his recent behaviour. He must have already been at the tipping point and ready to flip before I went anywhere near him, but I can't help but feel a twinge of guilt at that. Still, I like how he asks for "time to find a source" on the Diana thing; it's almost as if he truly believes he'll be able to unravel in five minutes what ten years has thus far been unable to. Liquidfinale 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, he could be a returning offender. When he went for you, someone added this to his user page.  And looking at the user log, the account only appeared a few days ago, and participated in creating a hoax article, Kunkanti; that whiffs of career vandal, to me.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta
Thanks for doing the revert on my page while I was blocked. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Serenity (film)
Just letting you know--a better edit summary for the substantial changes you made would be "rewrites" rather than "copy edits". You did more than change grammar, tense, punctuation, and so forth. Croctotheface 21:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Brave One
Why was my edit on that article reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garbeh (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi; I reverted your change because I didn't feel it added anything to the basic plot summary. Believe me, I'd love for the 1,250 word behemoth I did to be there, but WP:MOSFILM recommends short summaries which give the main plot details alone. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Slither
Not bad work for a couple of meatpuppets, huh? Not sure how else we could improve the passage; I think scale is relevant for box office bombs. Some box office bombs hurt studios incredibly badly, some are able to recover costs from overseas. Spider-Man 3, while not at all a box office failure, actually did the worst domestically compared to the previous two and was only able to surpass the others with revenue from foreign territories. Not to mention that some films do recover costs through DVD sales -- can't think of a specific example off the top of my head, but they're out there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind taking a look at the paragraph comparison on the talk page? I'm not so keen on citing a DVD review to help label the film due to the damning deception of the previous editor.  (I actually had my suspicions of sockpuppetry, but I try to assume good faith, like here and now with the new party.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hah, my day is just starting here in the United States at 7 AM. :) Later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunshine (film)
Regarding your removal of my "bizarre" link: Children of the sun from the Sunshine page, I'll grant you that the linked essay was not directly related to the movie, but it did speak to the meaning of the film. A review of the movie from The Guardian conveys my point well and, I think, justifies the placing of the link on the page:

"There's a strikingly similar blend of science and theology in Sunshine, in which whizz-kid physicist Capa (played by the ethereally blue-eyed Cillian Murphy) comes face to face with his maker in the shape of a dying sun. Just as the enigmatic monoliths from 2001 act as creative gods to the earthlings, so the sun serves as both the giver of life and the source of all knowledge in Boyle's soul-searching movie." http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2042102,00.html

Read the essay from that perspective and I think you'll see why the link should not be considered bizarre or out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Js2081 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I stand by the removal of that link. Please have a look at the guidelines on external links. I can see how it might have some interest but EL's should be kept to a minimum, and one with only tangential relevance such as that is outside the scope of the EL section. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
To be perfectly honest, I don't really care what happens to my account or me personally. As much as I love wiki, it's not my life. So I don't take any of this personally. :) At any rate, what should matter here is the article. The article we compromised on was reached by consensus. It read very well now, it is balanced, and it is well-sourced. So, in all fairness, if you are going to expend this amount of energy on me (which is your right) then please do the same with the Slither article and protect it from the unilateral POV vandalism of Cuchullian who doesn't care about compromise or consensus. All he wants is what he wants. So if you truly care about the rules around here then who won't simply engage in a vindicative campaign against me. You would also do your best to protect that article. Unless, of course, you are simply a meatpuppet of Cuchullian (which was my initial charge that started all of this mess). Hope that you are truly sincere about all of this. The article should come first.Ogabadaga 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sincere, and I'm no meatpuppet. The first I heard of this minor edit war was when a RfC was left here. I wasn't planning to have the Slither article on my watchlist forever, but I will keep it for a while longer. And yes, rest assured, while watchlisted I will protect its integrity from those who would POV it the other way. Though Erik looks to be doing a good job of it so far. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 18:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Future films
I noticed on the WikiProject's Active Members List that you expressed interest in future films. Wasn't sure if you were aware, but I try to keep track of upcoming films here. I basically keep tabs on these projects until they enter actual production, which is when a stand-alone article is permitted. (I could add the information to the source materials' articles, but they're harder to watch -- my watchlist is big enough.) Just giving you a heads-up in case you're interested in seeing what's out there. Most of the items are gonna be superhero films or science fiction films, though -- no comedies or "conventional" films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wasn't sure if you were aware, but the notability guidelines for films dictates that stand-alone articles on films should be created when they enter production. There's been a bit of a clean-up being undertaken to comply with this guideline, and you can see quite a few results here.  I've overlooked State of Play (film) because you've tended to it well, though I would suggest that at the sign of first delay of production, a merge would be warranted.  Projects, even ones as far along as State of Play, can run into delays.  (American Gangster is an example that had a director and cast attached and still fell apart.)  There are other articles like The Lovely Bones (film) which are "close enough" to production that a merge isn't imperative, but considering the impending 2008 Hollywood strike, there may be some films that do not get produced as planned.  Just informing you of the guideline and the reason for its implementation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, I've created film articles pretty preemptively myself -- I created Isobar way ahead of time, but there's been virtually no talk about the project since, so I kept it on my userspace. Another personal screw-up is Nottingham (film), which was recently reported not to survive the strike.  Probably need to merge that one as well.  You don't have to merge right away, just at the first sign of delay.  I actually don't like to tend to "film adaptation" sections of source material articles, especially considering that they may never get made.  I instead hoard the headlines at the Future articles subpage -- probably a selfish approach, but I'd rather only edit on film articles than be irritated by non-film edits on source material articles on my watchlist.  For instance, I look forward to implementing this when production starts, but I don't want to waste effort at the present on a mere section of a larger article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to note, I wasn't attacking your version. You did a fine just summarizing all the crap that was there before hand. Even untrimmed, the article is barely 2kb large.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I actually need to stop and go write my 12 page research paper (which is due tomorrow), but this stupid argument keeps me coming back. My argumentative nature forces me to keep watching.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Haha, that was an interesting coincidence. Reminds me of when Alientraveller asked me about Wolverine (film) being kept, then a headline about filming being postponed for a month popping up in support of my suggestion to keep it merged.  For some reason, though, it's been recreated as a film article even though filming is not until December 2007.  I've dropped him a note about the matter, but he's on vacation till the 25th. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Independence Day
Why are you deleting the article on Thomas J. Whitmore. This is an important character in a landmark film and is equally important as Norman Bates in 'Psycho'.Otolemur crassicaudatus 11:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Prove it. He fails WP:FICT. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: State of Play
These days, I've generally preferred to provide a re-wording of a film's official synopsis for a "Synopsis" section in upcoming films' articles (couple of examples are Speed Racer (film) and I Am Legend (film)). I've taken this approach because there was an issue at Spider-Man 3 before its release about piecing together different sources to create a rough idea of the film's plot. There was a specific issue with whether John Jameson would appear, and ultimately, it was decided to roll back the Synopsis to just a re-wording of what the studio had advertised. (You can see that discussion here.) To respond to your inquiry, I hesitate to include details from a script review, especially when filming doesn't begin until November. (It's possible that the film could stall -- that's why WP:NF encourages stand-alone articles on films after they begin production.) Basically, I don't doubt that they picked up a fake script or anything (that would be more likely with fan base-driven franchises), but the information may still change. It's a tough call to determine what elements would be consistent -- character names are most likely, but subplots may not, depending on the final editing. (Usually before an official synopsis, a reliable source's coverage of the film's premise can be implemented.) I would suggest placing the CHUD.com script review in External links, as what is done at Watchmen (film). It might be relevant to mention the date of the review due to possible follow-up changes. Let me know if you have any further questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The production listing at The Hollywood Reporter says that filming will begin on November 15, 2007. You can set up the film article at that point.  I wouldn't cite the production listing, though -- its content is dynamic, so State of Play won't be there forever. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not sure how one would go about doing that. Wikipedia is about free content, so I doubt there is a way other than concealing it with  tags and removing them to preview any updates to the article on your userspace.  I have my  items, too, like Isobar. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say the 27th? I'm not doubting you, I just only see the 15th. (And when I was commenting to you earlier, I was looking at the date on my watch and thinking, shouldn't State of Play be up now?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant that I'm at where you are, but all I see is this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah, thanks for your help at Radio Free Albemuth (film). I don't care enough about IMDb to remember how to use its template as opposed to something like Template:Cite news, so I recycle the coding from elsewhere, obviously. I've also looked at The Hollywood Reporter via my laptop, and I think you were probably right -- I may have been looking at a cached page. It shows Nov. 27. Look forward to seeing the article up! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, man... I just saw this today. I saw that you've incorporated it, and it's good to see you on the ball. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading supercouple, it really amazes me about the scope of Wikipedia. You won't be finding that in Encyclopedia Britannica!  I'm not sure if it'd be a heralded return for Ben Affleck -- from what I read in the press about Gone Baby Gone, he seemed to state that he found his calling as a director.  If he can do something like Hollywoodland, that would certainly be welcomed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Babylon 5: The Lost Tales
Greetings!

I'm wondering why you deleted the addition I made (only yesterday) to the aforementioned page. I added information about the DVD Extras, which included the hilarious "sockpuppet" edition that Mr. Straczynski created for some very good guffaws, as well as those touching remembrances of Andreas Katsulas and Richard Biggs.

DocFarmer 01:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
The September 2007 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Seeker
I just noticed the Rotten Tomatoes rating -- how disappointing! Good thing I only wasted time lately dumping headlines instead of incorporating them and fleshing out the article needlessly. Looks like all the Dark is Rising fanboys ragging on this film will be vindicated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a madman. What politics by the way? I thought it was about four kids who escape the reality of Blitzed Britain to battle an evil witch and restore summer. Well, yeah, it is a Christian allegory, but it's got lots of Norse and Greek stuff too. Anyway, keep up the good work with your reception sections. Alientraveller 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's ok. Anyway, I wouldn't require your opinion, because I know, some of the snow scenes feel a bit studio-bound and Moseley and Popplewell weren't as strong as Keynes and Henley. Cheerio. Alientraveller 19:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Frater210
I'm not too worried, he doesn't appear to be very capable. -- John Reaves 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.....reliable?
This site seems to have veru useful links for Independance Day:

http://www.ufomind.com/area51/events/highway_bill/id4/

Though some of the links are broken due to it being frozen, it looks like it has many great links. What do you think? THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  21:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was comtemplating if I should use the site itself or not...if I dont find another site that says how long it took for the script to be written within 4 days, I'll remove that sentance. THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Catholic League
I am in a rather brutal stupor this morning (8:45 AM here) as I stayed up with a team to work on a negotiations paper. I understand the points you make and don't disagree with them. I was just under the mild impression that the Catholic League was a big deal (the other editor certainly made it sound that way). I'll review the available information more closely later in the day as I try to find some energy to get through it (drinking green tea now). Talk to you in a bit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. I don't have coffee supplies in my apartment -- based on a reasonably good night's sleep, green tea helps me deal with the morning.  Considering I went to bed at 4 AM last night, though, it reallyyy did not help for my first class this morning.  I'll be grabbing a coffee after this.  You may want to report your findings if (more likely when) the other editor does not like the approach to the article.  Off for a bit to get a caffeine boost, later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have a lot more patience than I do. I got to "but hearing an organization that defends religion from bigots spoken of as a "marginal group" has left me a bit sour" and promptly returned to my watchlist; I'm virtually speechless. Good luck. ;) María ( críticame ) 20:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But I'm a Cheerleader
No problem. -- Beloved Freak  21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment.
''e.g. the Ten Commandments question you posed earlier - just create the stub; it doesn't matter that you haven't seen the film, as the plot section is a very small part of things. Everything else is easily-sourced (directors, writers, cast, basic premise). Other contributors will flesh it out if they think it's worth adding to.''

Can you please re-post that to the correct section? Discussions can be hard to find if you post them under different tiles. TheBlazikenMaster 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it on the right place, that is a problem. The way you add your messages seems very complicated to me. TheBlazikenMaster 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a headline, since you aren't discussing what the oringal discussion was about. TheBlazikenMaster 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm reverting the copying then. You must think I'm dumb for not understanding what you were trying to do. TheBlazikenMaster 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback
I was posting the following on the Cillian Murphy FAC page, when I had an edit conflict... with the bot failing the candidacy. Dohhhh. Oh well, it was a long, strange month. In case you're interested, here's what I was going to post...


 * Comment and suggestions (from Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ))
 * "...and a heroic turn as a 1920s Irish revolutionary" - I understand that you've already addressed this, and that it refers to his turn as a heroic character; however, at first glance it seems to read as comment on the brilliance of his performance. Addition: actually, having read a summary of that film's plot, it is unclear what is meant here. Does it refer to the quality of his performance? Because if it doesn't, that may violate WP:NPOV for some.
 * ✅ I thought that the previous discussion of "hero" was in regard to 28 Days Later. Yes, the instance of "heroic" was meant to refer to his turn as the hero character in The Wind That Shakes the Barley. (If you are referring to the current WP synopsis, I can understand your confusion. It has POV problems right now.) I see what you mean though -- I removed the word. (Melty girl)
 * In the lead, instead of "London stage", I suggest delinking London (placing elsewhere), and wikilinking the entire phrase to West End theatre (the play was at the Ambassadors in the West End).
 * Question: is your issue with the use of the wikilinks on "London" or with the term "London stage" itself? If it's the latter, here's my two things about your suggestion. 1) The sentence reads, "2007 saw Murphy on the London stage in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine." The new sentence would be a little awkward (note emphasis): "2007 saw Murphy in the West End theatre in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine. (I don't think you can say "on the West End theatre.") With this change, you lose the nice contrast between "on ... stage" and "onscreen" as two locations. A whole rewrite would be needed to use "West End Theatre," and it would be longer than this purposely concise sentence. 2) Sorry if my Americanness comes through here, but the theater world is much less familiar to the average reader than the film world is, and I think there's really only one theater district that is identifiable to a broad cross section of English speakers without its city being mentioned, and that's Broadway. I'm afraid that "West End theatre" as a phrase divorced from city or country just doesn't give enough information for enough of our audience. It hasn't been memorialized in the larger pop culture memory the way Broadway has. So for both of these reasons, I think "the London stage" is a better way to put it. And it's a nice phrase, -- "the New York stage" is often used too, despite Broadway's fame, because the phrase is visual/locating. The West End is mentioned later, in the body of the article. (Melty girl)
 * Section title, New roles and the future - suggest rename to Recent roles and the future as it discusses projects which are perhaps not quite recent enough to be classified as "new" and adds slight future-proofing to the content.
 * ✅ Good way of putting it. Erik will appreciate that. (Melty girl)
 * "In April 2007 (mid-summer in North America), he starred as a physicist-astronaut charged with reigniting the sun in the 2007 sci-fi movie Sunshine." - suggest rewording; at first glance, it's not clear that it's meant that the film was released in April elsewhere, then the US in June. Also suggest removing duplicate "2007" from the end of that sentence.
 * ✅ Nice catch. (Melty girl)
 * Jane - suggest full link to Jane magazine to combat potential confusion. I'm in two minds whether the quoted comment from Murphy (saying he'd most like to "make out with" Maggie Gyllenhaal) is too much of a triviality for inclusion, but hey, who wants every article to be dry and lifeless?!
 * ✅ Yes, I thought the fun outweighed the triviality, especially from an actor with zero celeb-type life details to relate. I don't think it hurts. (Melty girl)
 * Hope these help. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very much! Thanks, Melty girl 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, I don't really get why it was failed, when the trend seemed so clear. 8 supports and 3 oppposes, and SandyGeorgia seemed to have indicated that he was about to remove his opposition, but was traveling and didn't have enough time to review everything carefully yet. It was so much work over the last month, and it's hard to imagine going through all that again. Of course, it wouldn't be the same exact process the second time, but I'm sure there would be lots of repetition... not sure if it's best to nominate again immediately while it's fresh in people's minds, or to wait a while, or to scrap the whole idea in the interest of my own free time. Thanks for your support though. --Melty girl 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there -- I just renominated, and pasted in my response to your comments to get things started. Would love to have your support if you're still of that mind. Thanks! Melty girl 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Monobook.css
You might be interested in copying the code from User:Erik/monobook.css, which will remove the unnecessary heads-up below the edit box for seasoned editors like us. Makes the screen slightly more tidier. I'm trying to find more code to implement in the monobook, but I'm hesitant to use just any code. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes
The following are hoaxes: I may need to contact an admin to see about the conduct of this user GarryUser/MarcoUser. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Vic and Marty
 * Jujitsu Deer
 * The Legend of Al
 * The Legend of Al (video game)
 * A Rat Movie


 * Give it a try; make sure to cross-reference the articles above in the edit summary so the admin can see that this isn't just one random issue and that it's an editor trying to put false information on the namespace. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put A Rat Movie up for AfD since MarcoUser removed the proposed deletion template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up
The big PROD project that I started at User:Erik/Clean-up is finally taking effect (since I started this roughly five days ago). There'll be deletions each day, hopefully, so I was wondering if you could help clean out red links. What I mean is to visit the red links, click "What links here" in the left column, and get rid of anything that inappropriately links to the article. For redirects to the red links, you can put templates. You don't have to do a lot at once; some items, like The Last Guy on Earth, have a ridiculously long list of links that should be purged. Take your time, though! I've done #1 and most of #2 so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome, I'm really glad to have your help. It's nice to have another editor interested in films, especially the upcoming sort.  Hopefully, you, Girolamo, Bignole, and I can ease in a more guideline-driven mindset about future film articles on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to inform you, I have notes to prod. later based on the active page history of the article. If it's busy, editors tend to have a knee-jerk reaction of "I want to keep the article!" and remove the template.  So The Little Mermaid III may have its template removed pretty soon; hopefully, it won't.  Just letting you know that I hold off some articles until the best option can be determined for it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some advice about AfD -- WP:CRYSTAL is not always appropriate to invoke for future films as it permits verifiable coverage for an upcoming event (like a future film), and the other party's argument thinks this means it warrants a stand-alone article for this verifiable coverage. (I cited WP:CRYSTAL for Big Momma's House 3 because it seems pretty clear that there's no verifiable coverage.) Considering how films-in-development are in no way like the Olympics or Presidential elections, examples cited at that link, WP:NF is our best bet. Lastly, if a future film article is well-developed despite the film not yet in production, there is more of a bias to keep it based on the well-maintained content. I don't disagree, as this is more likely for larger films like HP7 and Dawn Treader; it's just a matter of finding a good spot for it. Spider-Man film series was the approach that Bignole, Alientraveller, and I took to address Spider-Man 4, and it works out perfectly -- it addresses the past, it compresses how the trilogy was received, and it speaks (verifiably) of the future. It's highly unlikely that a future film not yet in development would not be riding on some kind of franchise -- otherwise, it's minimal and does not have significant coverage as a result. Just my perspective on these deletion matters. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA! That was the dark side of Wikipedia, where comic book fans dig their own niche and write the entire personal history of their favorite fictional character. These articles are otherwise known as fancruft. The closest I've ventured into the territory under WikiProject Comics is some simple maintenance and an attempt to fix up Watchmen, which is a shockingly horrible Featured Article (see my attempt here). Appreciate the clean out of Glorith, though! I muttered to myself when I had seen how many articles linked to it, and I'm not surprised for you to react the way you did. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries; I've been busy myself. I stopped adding proposed deletion templates a week ago -- still on "O" for Category:Upcoming films.  The implementation so far has been pretty successful in terms of numbers.  I expect quite a few more entries ahead, especially in the R/S/T listings. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.....reliable?
http://freespace.virgin.net/ty.po/DMaggsID4UK.html

Does this site look reliable to you? It looks ok, but I'm leaning a no. THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  00:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You still have not answered this question.. THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  01:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Animal City (film)
Just a friendly heads up on Animal City (film). I removed your speedy deletion tag because the article doesn't meet the definition of patent nonsense. If this is a hoax (or just plain not notable), feel free to prod or AfD it. Thanks!--Fabrictramp 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, my apologies. I appear to have misread the criteria. Again. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 14:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, our friend TJUser02 has been busy, huh? Good catch on the other two socks. --Fabrictramp 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Golden compass
Easily done. I only spotted it because I'd remembered the domain from fansites in the external links section. You've been doing great work on the article - in choppy waters - so thank you, keep it up! -- SiobhanHansa 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

300 edits
Thank you for helping to square away the section that I added. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter
The October 2007 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 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Valkyrie (film)
Hi, Could you please me know what you have against my comments that you recently took out of Valkyrie (film) ? I think that it is important to point out that the casting of Cruise was opposed not just by politicians but also by Stauffenberg's own family.

Also, why can't I specify where the title "Valkyrie" comes from? After all, people might wonder what the term "Valkyrie", usually associated with a female goddess, has to do with a plot planned and executed mainly by men.

Cheers,--Marktreut 06:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on re-formatting the "German response" section? I've been trying my best to ensure that the back-and-forth commentary flows well, but the body of the section is getting a little bit long. I don't know how much more criticism will emerge before the film's release, but I'm considering breaking it up into two sections -- "Pre-release" and "Post-release", as I expect that there will be more specific criticism about the story's accuracy and Cruise's portrayal, as opposed to the assumptions made by both sides before its release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome, that would be appreciated. I noticed some redundancy in the first paragraph -- the quote by the spokesperson to Time can be found in the previous sentence about Harald Kammerbauer (who is that spokesperson).  Not sure how to best rewrite the details, as I don't want to have too much unnecessary detail from any particular citation.  I might have quoted too extensively with other perspectives as well.  I look forward to seeing what you can do about it! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrollboxes
Hello. Thanks for your message. I don't have the effort or the energy to revert all of your reverts of my changes. You fairly acknowledge that I was acting on good faith (thanks), but the recent trend in articles of sites which I monitor has been to include scrollboxes, see Ancient Rome and Central Intelligence Agency (both of which have regular audiences monitored by fairly scary editors) and I believed I was only following an updated protocol. I think that the citation guidelines are right in acknowledging the printing errors associated with scrollboxes, but at the end of the day, if one was to define the entirety of web-space by what one could print out, that would become fairly limiting. Kind regards--'' Calabraxthis  17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Addicted
No she didn't .All she confirmed was it was a possible title Garda40 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

ETA ''As for the title, it was previously Addicted. "Depends on what week you catch the title," Gellar joked. "I'm still not entirely sure what the title is." Possession is slated for release sometime in the spring of 2008'' Garda40 21:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out here both the Yari film group (the producers) and less importantly SMG's semi official website still have no name change Garda40 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well all that press that just came out with SMG (including that SCI FI interview ) was conducted on November 1st for Southland Tales so if she didn't know it's actual title on that date that would indicate that the name Possession isn't locked down and therefore it should be still listed under it's original title Garda40 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Halo
I don't think that Halo (series) looks that long, but it may be my large monitor that's deceiving me. :-P From what I can tell of Halo (film), there seems to be a lot of back-and-forth information that could be compressed. Also, there have been these promotional shorts. How about working on a subpage combining all the relevant citations? It could either make it shorter than expected or longer than expected, and we can proceed from there. Also, I imagine that if its own article is kept, it should be under Halo (cancelled film). I don't think that the naming conventions apply for a project that never actually became a film, you know? That's what bothered me in the past about future films, especially ones with release years (courtesy of IMDb) in them -- people get under the fallacious impression that because an article exists, the film must be coming out. Strange logic. Anyway, let me know what you think of the approach. I can definitely provide a few headlines from Google Alerts to write up the subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're referring to WP:SIZE's deprecated guideline of 32 KB, right? Lemme dig up the headlines from Google Alerts sometime today, and I'll help implement them on whatever subpage you may want to set up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a start on headlines: User:Erik/Halo (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries; I've seen the work you've been doing. Looks great so far! These topics somewhat strike me as overwhelming because of so much content to cover; films are better topics as their scope is more limited and easier to research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Independence Day
The separate article on the characters of the film is necessary. You see Saw (film), there are separate article on the characters. The information on the characters will gradually expand. Otolemur crassicaudatus 15:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Current fiction
I added the current fiction tag to the articles of several recent film releases and you appear to have removed them all. The current fiction tag is for fictional works that have been recently released. In your edit summaries you said "By definition, the PLOT section will contain PLOT information; people aren't stupid." I did not add the tag in the Plot sections, I added the tag to the top of articles where it is supposed to be placed. Would you care to discuss your issues with the tag on the template's talk page? --Pixelface 12:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did argue to keep the spoiler template. In the deletion debate, many people felt that the current fiction template was superior. The closing administrator stated that there was a consensus that the current fiction tag is better. The current fiction template is to tag fictional works that have been recently released. I have not "commandeered" it. Please stop removing the current fiction template from articles about recent releases. --Pixelface 12:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "why do you feel the need to warn people that the film article they are about to read might, gosh, contain information about the actual film?" I don't. I'm tagging recently released fictional works with the current fiction tag because an administrator decided there was a consensus in favor of it. --Pixelface 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to arrange for deletion of this template as well. Considering that Pixelface felt compelled to add the tag to a video game that made the jump to PC nearly a year later at Gears of War, it seems too subjective to summon the template every time there is a re-release or a DVD release. Would the re-release of E.T. warrant such implementation? Heck, American Gangster (film) was leaked online to a bunch of folks before its actual release -- perhaps that's when the fiction got "current". Not to mention international differences... a film is released at the beginning of one month in an English-speaking territory, and it's released two months later in another English-language country, then in the third month it comes out on DVD in the first territory, then in the fourth month it comes out on DVD in the second territory. Template would pretty much have to set its roots in a situation like that. If you're interested, we can pursue the matter at the end of the month. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw it, and I added a comment of my own. I guess I'm of the perspective that if the article is in great shape, it shouldn't be subject to unnecessary templates.  I think the whole spoiler business is because readers have been too accustomed to warnings on Wikipedia, where they shouldn't have existed in the first place.  People have cited Romeo & Juliet and the Bible as primary examples of using the spoiler template, and it seems like provincial and subjective thinking to differentiate these releases of contemporary works of fiction.  They'll be as old as the examples someday, if Wikipedia's around that long.  I really wish the readership of Wikipedia had started out without the spoiler template mindset -- it caters too much to them that this is OK to read, but this isn't OK to read.  And I could go on and on... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Babylon 5: All lists or "some" lists?
Re a listing of awards in Babylon 5, you wrote: "The Good Article recommendations said we should try to eliminate lists" I haven't found where the Good Article recommendations said this specifically -- I see recommendations to eliminate some lists. (Which I guess may have been problematic for we some reason.) Can you point me to anything specific to this issue? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also looked at this and been unable to find the point made. In addition, the list in particular gave extra information about the awards in question(i.e. dates and episodes), so I've reverted the edit. -- Chrismclegless (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bold lists
I still feel that bold is nonetheless a good distinction. It immediately catches the eyes. Otherwise, we might as well not bold the subject of the article in the lead. Alientraveller (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is prose in your view? Would something like "Gothmog, leader of the Orc troops" be worthy of bold? Alientraveller (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur each article is left to its own devices. These aren't rules anyway, they're guidelines... Alientraveller (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I prefer it how it was, but as numerous people keep re-bolding (aside from you, as you're the only person who has actually presented a valid argument for doing so), I'll leave it. Anyway, my plan was only to bold those with paragraphs of info, and those who are the main cast. At this point in time anyway. It was my intention to bold the rest eventually, as at this moment in time I'm trying to avoid overly long speculative/spoiler filled descriptions. I definitly support bolding in cast lists, but sometimes you can have too much, but we'll see how it goes. Gran2 22:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

May you have a look at User:Alientraveller/Transformers (film) if it's a little too odd for a general reader? I'm not sure if you've seen it yet, but there's a big spoiler in the Autobot section. Alientraveller (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I was going to rename it "Cast and characters". Alientraveller (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
You'll have to be more specific. What do you mean by "newsgroup"? Do you have any articles that you are concerned about not reaching GA because of these sources?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a primary source. So long as its clear that these all come from J. Michael Straczynski himself, it should be fine---as far as production information goes. It's simple facts about the film. How he chooses to release this type of information is irrelevant in my opinion. As long as you seek other sources for establishment of notability, cultural impact, etc etc then you'll be fine. Look at Jason Voorhees, or Smallville (season 1), I use only a couple of books for the majority of the production information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course. People have different interpretations of what is "reliable" when it comes to things that sit on the fence. There was one user who didn't support Pilot (Smallville)'s FA status because it used a book for the production information. You take what you can get.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm lucky enough to have a fanbase that doesn't edit Wikipedia...so there wasn't much opposition.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming category
Liquidfinale, can you please tell me what is the process of renaming a category. How about a separate scientific inaccuracies section in ID4 and a new category Doomsday film for it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry
I apologize for behaving incivil at WT:SPOILER. I snapped at you and that was uncalled for. I suppose I was upset because I added the current fiction tag to a bunch of articles and you reverted my edits 55 times. I looked at the 2007 in film article and thought I was following the decision made by this administrator and I thought I was using the template correctly. I was wrong to accuse you of "anti-American bias." I guess I interpreted this edit summary of yours wrongly. I thought I was using Infobox movie certificates correctly. The template encourages editors to add ratings from other countries, not just the United States. I have left some previous messages on MOS:FILM about it. Thank you for your message on my talk page. It helped me calm down. I believe you are trying to improve Wikipedia, not hurt it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hulk
If you click on the article, you'll see who Blake Nelson could play in the sequel to this requel. It requires large cranium prosthetics... Alientraveller (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Babylon 5
Sandboxes help. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, it reads fine. Keep up the good work.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question
So far I've used two citations from sci-fi.com, but I'm confused how to read the dates.


 * ID4 II Is In The Works: 6-May-02. Does this say May 6th, 2002?


 * ID4 II Script In Works: 1-May-03. Does this say May 1st, 2003?

I'm trying to put the citations in chrono. order while writing ID4 II, and I think I've been doing it wrong w/ the sci-fi citations. THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

300 edits
Was your comment directed at me or at Agha Nader? It seemed unclear to me, but t'were it me you were asking, I am opting to not mention Iranians in the lead, and keeping the pre-existing wording Persians in place. the word Iranian never appeared in the film. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you show me where, Liquid? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah, I found one. frickety, fricked blaast! lol. thanks for pointing it out to me. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

MThomas editing war
You have dropped the proverbial ball over on the Michel Thomas page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.15.253 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say the page needs your steady hand again. 75.17.13.246 17:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal project
If you are interested in developing an article of an older film, I can help provide resources for said film. I figure your personal project right now is Babylon 5, but if you move on from that, I'd be happy to assist you in researching for information to improve the article for a film of your choice. By the way, I saw what happened with Brad Pitt and State of Play -- definitely goes to show that contracts with stars don't seal the deal for projects! I hope the project can enter production, though... perhaps you can try for DYK? I'm not sure if the pre-existing content in the page history of State of Play (film) would invalidate the so-called creation or fivefold expansion required by DYK. Perhaps we can check with an admin about clearing it? You've covered the project better on the television drama article far better than any revision in the currently-redirected film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't even see your comment about State of Play from November 22. I guess I should check my user talk page history more carefully.  As for Thanksgiving, I did have a good one; two of them, in fact, due to separate setups with family and friends.  Just let know of whatever personal project comes up in the future.  I'm planning to develop more detailed guidelines than WP:MOSFILM at User:Erik/Film article guidelines based on how I've edited film articles so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice rewrite! Could you re-define the websites, though? Like saying "At the film review aggregate review website Rotten Tomatoes..." As for Cream of the Crop rating, I have not really had a system for it. Perhaps it could be arbitrary? I just figure that if the percentages were similar, it's somewhat redundant. There can be major divergences, though... Batman Begins wasn't received as well by the mainstream media. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was confused by what you meant about Batman Begins fairly even, so check this out. 63% in US vs. 82% in UK.  Crap, I wonder if this international difference is recurring... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, re-reviewing both, they generally have the same outlets. The difference is that the US page has accumulated more reviews, for whatever reason.  Might be because it's the more generic page, where the UK pages may not be so closely updated.  I just checked with another example, No Country for Old Men -- 88% in UK w/ 8 reviews vs. 89% in US w/ 37 reviews.  Thoughts on that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My first thought was to side-step the issue because it would detail the intricacies of Rotten Tomatoes too unnecessarily on a film article. However, perhaps we should compile differences to get an idea of how much deviation there is?
 * 89% out of 37 reviews in the US vs. 100% out of 10 reviews in the UK
 * We could sample some different titles, both American, British, or foreign-language. I just checked for Pan's Labyrinth, 100% on both, although it's 8 reviews for UK and 37 reviews for the US. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about the usage of the gerund? I agreed with Malachirality about the usage.  The way I saw it, if it was written in a similar context as "Though a studio reader discouraged a film adaptation of the material", then reader's would not fit there.  Different applications of the same verb.  Going back to the reviews, if that's the case, then I guess it's not a major concern.  It does seem that the general rating covers a good portion of the reviews.  I think statistics applies here, too -- the more reviews that are compiled, the more normalized the rating will be.  I'm not sure if this applies universally, but the rule of thumb for a decent "sample" is over 35 separate items.  For the Cream of the Crop stuff we've been looking at, they've been under that 35, so there's more deviation.  I think that the normalization rings true because when reviews on Rotten Tomatoes grows from a large number to an even larger number, the rating doesn't change significantly.  It'd be interesting to measure an hour-by-hour breakdown to see the trends. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter
The November 2007 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 02:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MThomas Again
Have you given up on the page? 75.16.86.235 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's just not an incredibly high priority right now. I hardly think the world is going to end if for a few days people don't think a dead linguist was a liar and a fraud. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 18:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Michel Thomas dispute has spilled over to WP:COIN. You seem to be one of the few cool-headed regulars on the talk page, so if you're not too fed up with it, it might be useful if you could contribute some observations as to who, if anybody, is the good guys. Thanks. –Henning Makholm 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

GA candidate: HDM
Greetings; would you have time/interest in looking at His Dark Materials? Evidently, the lede is wanting (see Talk), but someone will be returning within 1-2 days to review the piece for possible GA status. I have no more time today, and you seem to be more of a vet here than I am. Would gladly help, but if you could give it a start, that might help the article. Cheers, Anthony Krupp (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight
I'm not sure I understand why you reverted the "Joker cake" blurb in The Dark Knight. I think you can find the revision I'm talking about here: Revision as of 05:35, 7 December 2007]] (go easy on me, I'm kind of new with WP and the coding trips me up sometimes). Do you have an issue with the content or the reference? There's another reference to it here: [www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12518]. I'm also not sure who you're calling an idiot or why. I'm not saying the content belongs there or not, but your edit summary caught my eye and I thought I'd ask. joshschr (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That clears things up a lot! I'll fess up, I didn't watch the video. I heard about the campaign through http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12518, so I figured it was legit.  Is that sufficient to restore the material? joshschr (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is user-friendly, so I think we have to state the obvious that Ledger is not repeating what Nicholson did, to compliment his anarchic vision. Alientraveller (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link; good things come to those who wait. Alientraveller (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Golden Compass / Iorek

 * "(Reverted 1 edit by Gwyndon; Sorry, but that pic isn't great.)"

While I tend to agree, the fact that the one pic this article had and has is "great" - and thus a copyright violation. I wanted to add a picture from the commons which is legally usable. The article should be illustrated with pictures which are both (CC) and of good quality. --Gwyndon (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to give you a heads up... WP:3RR still applies for separate reverts in the 24-hour period. You're not at your limit, but considering that the article continues to have a lot of traffic and you have a close eye on it, I thought you should know.  If you're dealing with a lot of incoming edits, it's sometimes best to space out your reverts or clean-ups, depending on what the contributions are. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the source! I haven't seen the film myself, either.  Despite contributing a good portion of the article, I'm still spoiler-free except for that the ending is "darker" in the film.  The AV Club is reliable -- some websites tend to use the name "blog" to sound hip, like MTV Movies Blog.  I'll work it in when I get a chance to see the film.  Thanks again! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of Google Alerts to pick up headlines from Google News? I have a separate Gmail account where these Google Alerts are e-mailed to me: screen shot.  I've set it up to send weekly, and I can filter out a film I want and go through the headlines, deleting them afterward. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in WP:FUTFILM and WT:FUTFILM. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries; we all blow a fuse at some point. I used to be more combative, but I realized that my tone reeked of elitist behavior.  (See my old editor review.)  I try to extend the welcome mat nowadays.  It's easy to forget that some people are accustomed to editing Wikipedia differently from you and me.  Hopefully, they can be shown the light about how to provide cited real-world context for a topic on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

When are you seeing the film? Alientraveller (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on when my siblings want to see it. I'm sure I'll enjoy Compass when dragged. Funnily enough their commitments meant I waited a while to see Beowulf: I was a little shocked by it but nonetheless the 11-year old in our family loved it. I didn't watch films like Aliens when I was a kid, I really stuck to Disney and Spielberg, so I can only really handle a minor amount of gore (bloodshed in historical films I'm generally ok with). Getting sidetracked here now. Alientraveller (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, one word comes to mind: Slither. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your constant removal of my content at The Dark Knight (film)
That "idiot" is one of the most well known gossip journalists in the world, Perez Hilton; he has his on television show and his gossip blog online is universally well known. Please do not continue to remove my edits without justification. TheGoonSquad (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perez Hilton. joshschr (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  00:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I Am Legend (film)
I corrected the false statement that 'I Am Omega' is the fourth film adaptation of the Richard Matheson novel. I rewrote the paragraph to point this out. I was not just trying to add an unecessary separation. Go back and read the actual changes that I made before you undo someone's correct information and reinstate false information. JohnnieYoung (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've laid out the available evidence at the talk page and made a suggestion based on it. Feel free to weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

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

Don't worry about me, comments from excellent editors from you are all I'll ever need to keep a steady rate of stars and plus signs on my page. Alientraveller (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 

is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

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



is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you :) --Pixelface (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)



is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thanks for the Christmas wish !   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
You may want to archive your user talk page. :) See WP:ARCHIVE.  Some people copy and paste it into /Archive 1 of their user talk page, others move the page history.  I've done the copy-and-paste approach, but it depends on your personal preference.  Just thought it'd help discussion from here on! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)