User talk:Steve/Archive 3

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV violence
I am attempting to build consensus about the "Pre-launch violence" section in the Grand Theft Auto IV article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Valkyrie
I avoided some of the less reliable sources that ragged on Valkyrie. WSJ seemed to avoid this (with no mention of Scientology, either), so I thought it was OK to use. I have to admit that part of my fascination with this article is the strange response this film has drawn. Most of the upcoming film articles I follow tend to have some interesting element about it, like I'm following Blindness 'cause I've enjoyed Meirelles' past work, City of God and The Constant Gardener. Anyway, there isn't too much going on about Valkyrie for now, thankfully... I hope the stuff we've put together will withstand the inevitable barrage of editors during publicity for the film and its own release. By the way, glad to see you're making the changes to the cite news templates, too... I really do wish I learned this a while ago. I think I was put off by it before 'cause it seemed so overly specific (Reed Business Information for Variety? Wow, I sure know where I get my information from now.)  I don't want to rush into mass-updating, though... probably just for the articles that I think could achieve Good Article or Featured Article status. Hope all is well with you, though! — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones
Heh, don't know what happened there, although I was still half-asleep. Anyway, Hurt's role was confirmed not to be Abner now. Alientraveller (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, after I see the movie I'll really be pushing myself to improve Indy articles, including the character himself. It'll be tougher than Jack Sparrow, as he's a much older character. Alientraveller (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Read this statement by Lucas, denying the fifth film will be a Mutt spin-off: "It'd be Mutt Williams and the Search for Elvis or something". No, Elvis just went home. Alientraveller (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on Adam Shankman article
Hello, I'm contacting you about Shankman's upcoming film Bedtime Stories, mostly because last October you were the one who removed the dead link after the initial version of the page was deleted. Well, the movie is in post-production and the page is back, so I'm looking for someone who can put the link back. I left a note on the Adam Shankman talk page last week, but so far haven't had any response. And why don't I just do it myself? The film's distributor is a client of my employer, so I probably shouldn't per WP:COI. Any questions? Feel free to get me at my talk page. NMS Bill (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it now. Thanks much, and especially for the quick turnaround. NMS Bill (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Copyedit form my talk page: "Hi, if you look at the bottom of the page for this image, you'll see that it is not currently used on any article page in the English Wikipedia. This means that under fair-use it's fair game for bots, and for admins to remove it, no matter how good the rationale for its use may be (the main stipulation is to actually use it in an article). To ensure it's kept, you need to go to the root cause of the notice: its removal from the Muppets' Wiard of Oz page. You should either be bold and reinsert it, or take it up at Talk:The Muppets' Wizard of Oz with the editor who removed the image. Hope this helps, Steve  T • C 13:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)"


 * Hi Steve, thanks for the note. I have traced back its deletion to these comments on the associated talk page: "I agree with the recommendations above. After making a lot of changes, it's always a good idea to check sources again to ensure that they still support the text. I would also like to add that I don't believe Image:Ashanti.jpg meets fair use criteria and should therefore be removed. Somno (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)"

"The image and the identified sources problems — plus the unidentified source issues — may raise a difficulty with the article's GA status. Jim Dunning | talk 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)"

"I have removed the image. I'd prefer to wait for the primary editor's response to the suggestions above before taking it to Good Article Review - might be unnecessary. On another note, I question the addition of the "Future developments" section - I don't think it has anything to do with this movie. Somno (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)"

The statement that "I don't believe it meets fair use criteria" is all that I have to go by. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC).


 * Indeed, which is why you should probably take it up with the editor in question, or for a wider audience, on the article's talk page. He/she may be willing to outline exactly what was thought wrong with the image. If the editor is unavailable, or reluctant to discuss it with you, I've found Jim Dunning (who appeared to agree with the image's removal) to be swift to respond clearly to questions. Steve  T • C 13:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter
The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please watch your language
Please do not call me a fool - I find that insulting and will report it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.151.245 (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

→ With respect Steve, I did not ask you to apologise - I asked you to stop using insulting language. Happy editing and see you next... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.151.245 (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bridgend
As previously suggested at Talk:Bridgend_suicide_incidents, I have proposed merging Bridgend suicide incidents into Bridgend. I noticed you were unsure about the need for a separate article, so would encourage you to comment. You can read the proposal at Talk:Bridgend. Cheers, LHMike (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

JMS's report
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated/msg/b867af2198145e40 from jms [regarding his experience in Cannes]

Some of this posting might be applicable to Changeling (film) and J. Michael Straczynski.--Dan Dassow (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hancock
"Preview" is your friend. :) Unfortunately, Google Alerts picks up a lot of unworthy headlines, so I like to use Access World News to search newspapers that are actually reliable.  What happened with Changeling, anyway?  And do you want me to look through AWN to see if there's any tidbits about the film?  Hope you're doing well otherwise... I've been busy with an internship, and I just recently stabilized my Internet setup.  Might be able to edit a little more than the past month now. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For some reason, I get the nagging suspicion that this article utilized nearly all the sources used in the Wikipedia article without saying so. I don't usually see IGN articles provide this kind of coverage about a film's development-hell background.  What do you think? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! The Coventry Telegraph blog revised the paragraph: ''Hancock has been reviewed by the Motion Picture Association of America twice and each time received an R rating - instead of the PG-13 rating the studio chiefs wanted in order to attract a broader family audience. Several parts of the movie are controversial. An underage sex (statutory rape) scene ended up being cut from the film and other elements that have apparently caused concern include Hancock drinking in front of a 17-year-old and flying while under the influence of alcohol.'' It's not the best tweak, but obviously the comment that I left shook up something over there. :) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're interested, the articles I used to estimate the box office performance of Hancock defined the general consensus of the reviews. Do you want to work that into the Critical reaction section?  You seem to have a handle on it. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it works well. :) Thanks for the expansion! — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanna work on revising WP:MOSFILM? We could throw out some ideas on the talk page and include suggestions in the section (rather than make it too mandatory, since I think Critical reaction sections can be extremely flexible. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, you use the word "said" 23 times in the Critical reception section for Hancock. :) Maybe some variation?  And there's a useful comment in response to our draft! — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering, did you ever see Hancock? I wasn't sure how you conducted yourself with implementing reviews, since they could be spoiler-ish. (I know I spoiled myself a little before I saw Hancock last weekend.) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I liked it a lot! The first two acts were really entertaining, but I agree with the general consensus that the third act was a little too rushed.  It would have been nice to see the original script produced; I wonder if I could find it anywhere online.  I think it's fine to wait till the DVD, but it was nice to go along with the audiences in enjoying the comedy in Hancock.  (I don't remember the last time I saw a comedy-esque film in theaters... too many bad films, especially spoofs, nowadays.)  It's incredible to see how much money Smith has raked in, though.  It's going to be tough for him to follow that with Seven Pounds, which probably will not be as enthralling. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your help with getting this to Good Article status! I've listed our names at WP:FILMSPOT. I'm sure you'll get your own slots with State of Play and Changeling! — Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think contributing the vast majority of "Reception" for Hancock earns you some credit. :) Since the Good Article recognition, I've expanded the article a little more with information from print sources, including fitting quotes for the cast members.  Wasn't sure about my "Home media" subsection, though... it sounded promotional at first, but it's from The New York Times.  I figure I'd keep it until it was contested.  I have a feeling that there will be some more to report about the home media, especially in terms of deleted scenes.  What did you think of The Orphanage, by the way?  It's up there for me in terms of horror films (never really liked the slasher-esque ones).  I think you need to revise your list of films, though... it's gonna be unwieldy if you keep it up like that. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

re: AFI
I was about to suggest that we split these up so we don't backtrack on one another. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know the AFI stuff seems to be all done. Thanks for catching my cite error. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "but where the hell were war films on the list?" > stop and ponder for a few minutes if you will about the type of person who makes up these lists. Do I need to spell it out? ~ WikiDon (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Template-tastic
Hi, Steve! Thanks for your (self-reverted) comment. I've restored the page to retain your comment; I hope you don't mind - I just know I'll forget if I don't have it written down somewhere! :-) -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

State of Play
I'm all for nice leads, but this lead is looong, especially since the film isn't out. I have a drafted version for paring plot/production info:

"State of Play is an upcoming American political thriller which is scheduled for release in 2009. It is a film adaptation of the award-winning British television serial State of Play, which aired on BBC One in 2003. It is directed by Kevin Macdonald and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy, Peter Morgan and Billy Ray. The film tells of a journalist's (Russell Crowe) probe into the suspicious death of a Congressman's (Ben Affleck) mistress. Macdonald said State of Play would be informed by the films of the 1970s, and explore the topical subjects of journalistic independence and the relationship between politicians and the press. The plot of the six hour mini-series has been condensed to fit two hours, and the location changed to Washington, D.C. Support comes from Helen Mirren, Jason Bateman, Robin Wright Penn, Rachel McAdams, and Jeff Daniels. ¶ The film is being produced by Working Title Films for Universal Pictures, which acquired the rights after they were subject to two bidding wars. Brad Pitt was to star in the role ultimately filled by Crowe, but he left the production after disagreements with the studio over the direction of script rewrites. Pitt's departure led to the postponement of filming, which was originally scheduled to start in November 2007. The delay meant that Edward Norton could not play the role of the Congressman due to a scheduling conflict, and he was replaced by Affleck. Principal photography took place from January 11 to April 6 2008. State of Play was to be released in the United States towards the end of 2008, but the production delay saw the date changed to April 17 2009."

Alientraveller (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you could merge together the first unsectioned bit in Production and the Writing into Development. Alientraveller (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

wall-e
can you also move wall-e(soundtrack) back to it's rightful name? That was another misguided move done today. thx. SpikeJones (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Platoon(film)
Steve, please, please consider the "assume good faith" tenet when reading this: I am curious about what you said in the discussion: "The plot section should not be a blow-by-blow account of the film; it should only carry enough detail to enable the provision of context to the rest of the article." I'm curious where you got this information. As far as I know, the plot guidelines we both know and love say that the plot section should be self-contained. Other than that, the guidelines are pretty ambiguous, and mostly deal with the reluctance to write spoilers. Are there more detailed guidelines somewhere that you're using? Johnny California 03:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Steve-o, what's the plan with Platoon? It's starting to look pretty good. Are you planning to push for GA status soon? (Is it possible to go straight for FA status, or is it customary to go for GA first?) The "reception" section needs some work still..let me know where you'd like help, I think the more we can collaborate, the better. Johnny California 15:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter
The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates on X-Files article
WP:DATE>MOS:SYL states "Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully; see WP:CONTEXT." so far I don't believe any of the linked dates proves the reader any further understanding of the topic. Rehevkor ✉  13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: 4th of July
I am highly offended! :-P No, I am not... you gave me a good chuckle this morning. Thank you for your wishes! Is it just another day for Great Britain, or is there some kind of acknowledgement over there? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. I appreciate the 4th of July wish/joke. :D   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, really? This says otherwise. :) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

your rv in the wall-e article
You reverted an edit I had added: Jeff Pepper, a Disney-focused writer, pointed out that the film's 700-year-old live-action videos contrasted with the present cartoon human form. When combined with the series of Axiom captain's portraits, we see that Pixar was purposefully trying to show how living in space for an extended period of time can atropy a body. with the statement I'm struggling to see how this guy is of sufficient note for his blog to be included here, especially after we got rid of some which were arguably more well known. You raise a fair point, but I counter with the following: (1) 2719Hyperion *is* recognized in the Disney community as a fairly reasoned, knowledgable blog - along the same lines as JHM, Miceage, and Blue Sky Disney. Just because others that are more well known have been removed doesn't make his commentary... which was added in the commentary section... any less valid. (2) more importantly, the point that he was making was a direct counter to the commentary in the Wall-E article about how the sloth humans were portrayed, and that the existance of Fred Willard and Hello Dolly videos show that humans appeared in a "more realistic" human form only to degenerate over time due to the affects in space. Without this observation, the article is left only with quotes about "frighteningly obese humans" with no other supporting observation of how Pixar purposefully showed how bodies morphed over time. I do agree with the majority of your edits in improving the various articles that you and I have converged on; I think removing this one does not improve the 'commentary' portion of the article and leaves that section with a fully negative bias without a balanced counter opinion. SpikeJones (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wall-E citation
Hello, you rolled back my removal of the quote, "I'm also not sure I've ever seen a major corporation spend so much money to issue an insult to its customers." from the WALL-E article. I agree it is unambiguous that it is referring to the obese characters in the movie, but it's not obvious who is referred to by "[the major corporation's] customers". It turns out that in the context of the original quote, it was referring to attendees of Disney parks, which I don't think is obvious at all. Poobslag (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to alter the section by adding context for the quote, but it was difficult without making it too wordy. If you want to take a crack at it that would be OK by me, I think he draws an amusing comparison which isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Poobslag (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read your contribution and I think it sounds good! Poobslag (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Publisher
Hello, I just wanted to indicate that the  attribute should be for "the company or organization that publishes the news source" instead of the individual owner, per Template:Cite news. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I gather. From what I can tell, a source with a publisher is pretty concrete.  So when it comes to movie websites, it can be tricky.  I personally think that movie websites are OK if the information comes from interviews (doubtful that they'd make up an entire interview), but these citations can be challenged by the most anal-retentive of editors. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding MTV, I don't think I would go that high. I think it would be more like  .  I could be wrong, but my impression is that it should be whoever the immediate publisher is.  Websites that are self-published may not have the editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking as websites that are published by organizations.  For Long Beach, I would just go with the Los Angeles Newspaper Group.  If we went to the top, I think we're going to find a lot of Viacom and Time Warner, et cetera... you'd be surprised how much is owned by the big companies. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I miss the joke. :-P — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any interest in Hellboy II: The Golden Army? I'm gonna see if I can't shape up the article before its release this weekend. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in the same boat as you. I want to see it, but I haven't really followed the article too closely.  There's apparently been a little edit warring about including the full plot and excluding it.  I'm pulling headlines now, but considering it's a comic book film, the amount of information (relevant and irrelevant) feels a little too overwhelming.  I'm gonna see if I can't find a decent starting point.  I was just gauging your interest in the film and article to see about a collaborative effort.  I'm just going to see if it is worth my time and energy to improve. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work rolling out the draft! Hopefully, we can get some constructive criticism for eventual implementation.  I've been expanding Hellboy II using headlines, but I hate quoting at length when it comes to actors and their roles.  I don't think this article will be too complete, though... it seems like there will be a lot of detail in two production-related books for the film that could be worked in by some mega-fan. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For critical reception, I would not cite Ain't It Cool News. It is essentially self-published by Harry Knowles, so I am not sure if he is worth including, considering the more respectable film critics whose reviews for Hellboy II will eventually emerge. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to temporarily cite him, that would be fine. I just think that fresh reviews will be on the horizon (film comes out this Friday, and I don't think they're hiding this from critics?), so it can be phased out pretty swiftly.  It's just not a review that can establish immediate trustworthiness upon a glance, at least for me. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong; I don't mind reading reviews from AICN. They're interestingly excitable, being really off the wall with their descriptions and opinions.  I guess my perspective is the big picture, always striving for FA-quality with articles under my wing.  I just feel that anything from AICN would be easily challenged at the FAC process, where there are a lot of reviews from national and local papers that would not be an issue at all.  Just a general feeling of aversion toward websites that have oversight (i.e., corporate-owned). — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 11:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked SandyGeorgia about the status of MOSDATE, and she updated me. Just wanted to pass it along. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight
I'm retiring from the article and its talk page for now. I am not finding the other editor very compromising or pleasant for collaboration's sake. Most of his edits have been great, but he gets overly defensive when any one of them are contested by others. He keeps falling back to boilerplate responses like, "Please follow the policies and guidelines as linked in the templates at top of this page and throughout these comments. Thank you." We're both seasoned enough editors so that kind of amateur "education" is completely unnecessary. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your feedback and Bignole's as well. I stepped away because discussions that contain multiple edit conflicts are usually not amicable.  (It reflects the notion that people are talking at each other, in my opinion, and pretty rapidly, too.)  I did have this feeling that stepping in to address the usage of IMDb and the EL access dates would lead to a dispute because the editor has been pouring in a ton of time and energy into the article.  None of his edit summaries seemed cheery, either.  I don't mind debating seriously, but I think that after initial contact, cooler heads should prevail.  I tried to adapt a more positive tone, but it didn't seem to ease the discussion at all.  I'm willing to listen to counterarguments, but the exchange should be full of understanding.  I honestly don't know what the best way to apply cite news is.  What I told you had made sense, but what he said about references besides books not containing organizations' names makes sense, too.  I even asked for examples at Template talk:Cite news to figure out this mystery.  But sheesh, he treated the possible misapplication of the template as grievous harm to the Wikipedia article.  It's no fun to work with editors like that.  Not even feeling like editing Hellboy II right now, either.  Meh. :-P — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Erik: There have been many non-seasoned, anony. IP users in the past (prior to the semi-protection of that article) who have inserted unsourced material and ELs without using proper citation templates to which my comments were directed; if you are a seasoned user and if you use proper citation templates following the prevailing citation format of the article, such references are not directed to you. The numbers of edits that I made to citations were due to the rampant errors in the citation templates of that article; frequently, they were miscoded or sources were given which did not document the statements.  It took an enormous amount of time for me to make those corrections, and I respectfully have asked (and asked again) that people inserting material in the article take the responsibility (Wikipedia editing policy) to add proper citations in proper citation format.  Editing that article has not been "fun"; it has been hard work.  It is also very tiring work and rarely appreciated. --NYScholar (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Psst... why excluding user ratings is perfectly justified... — Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, and from what I've gathered, visitors have rated The Godfather with "1" to push it down to the #3 spot. That's classy. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To Steve

 * [repeating a comment from the AN/I which I file earlier]

"Read Steve's message and appreciated it; archived the messages. Please see top templates on current talk page [ User talk:NYScholar ]. Thank you." --NYScholar (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)] --NYScholar (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Matrix
I started User:Alientraveller/Matrix ages ago, and yes, two and two came together after Sky aired the film. Alientraveller (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Kill Bill
Hello dear boy. You know when you get an inkling about something and you think "I will astonish the world (or at least a person) with my astonishing insight". Kill Bill was on telly tonight and I was thinking "ah, another article to do 'critical reception' for". So I went to the article to find there's already quite a lot of review material, and I thought "Ooh! I detect the hand of Steve in this!" I was very pleased with myself. It came across as your way of doing things, rather than mine (as per recent discussions). Then I went and checked the history and, of course, you were nowhere to be found (not in the last 1,000 edits at least). So there you go: most people would have kept their wrong-headed, erroneous and unsubstantiated "flash of insight" to themselves once they realised they were wrong. But I am made of stupider stuff. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Interested?
Nope i have not watched Awake. I tend to watch only less horror movies. My last horror movie was I Am Legend. From here. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry i did not make it clear. Matrix the movie?. Matrix is a cool movie. I loved it. I hope they will be more of it. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Images
See draft at User:Erik/Images. Feel free to use the talk page or make any necessary edits. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images: MOSFILM draft
I am seeking to revise WP:MOSFILM to be more focused on the infobox image and shifting general instructions to a new subsection, "Non-free images", under the current MOSFILM section "Other article components". The new subsection will discuss how to best implement them and will provide instructions to do so. I began with discussion at WT:MOSFILM, and I've written up a draft at User:Erik/Images. If you could provide early input before I introduce the draft to the core discussion, it would be greatly appreciated. Please leave your feedback on my user talk page. Thanks, Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an issue with the "Home media" section as discussed at WT:MOSFILM with my addition of the phrase "of the cover itself". Since you wrote the original draft, "trying not to be too restrictive or permissive", I was wondering if you had the cover itself in mind.  (I had tried to make it clearer, but if you disagreed, you're welcome to say so.) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Amen! — Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So what did you think? :) You can see my thoughts now at User talk:Bignole. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

removal
Hi. This concerns the edit summary Removing backlinks to Zombie Massacre because "The article was deleted; removing redlinks to discourage recreation". If the article was deleted, then the whole link item should be removed, not just delinked. Thanks, Punkmorten (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit was made to List of Amiga games. For deleted articles, their presence in a list can be considered linkspam and should be removed, no? I'd think an Amiga game (the franchise being defunct and the games having largely fallen into disuse) won't achieve more notability in the future... Punkmorten (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:RoBocop
I didn't erase the image just for the sake of it it said poster and it wasn't a poster.I already used the sandbox plenty times so get off my back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowwasp09 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Haile_Selassie_I_of_Ethiopia
I thank you for taking your time out to investigate this article. I do believe that deeper inverstigation is needed. The original petitioner is known for invoking administrative redress as soon as he does not get his way. In fact, further investigation of this particular article will reveal that the petitioner had willfully reverted administrative edits borne of mediation which *the same user particpated in*. An explanation for these edits is all that is being sought at this time. Bulbous (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter
The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Styling up WP:FILM
I thought #1 looked like a hubcap. :) FYI, I've done some brainstorming at User:Erik/Sandbox and wrote up a candidate draft for "Plot".  I think the current revision wasted too much time on spoiler issues (it was a big deal months ago) and could make the argument more succinct.  I'm thinking about adding a paragraph explaining how to avoid the blow-by-blow deal and summarize better.  Any suggestions in that regard? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard Hughes conflab
Steve, thanks for your assistance here. Just to explain myself, Barneca asked for a resolution to the dispute, I agreed, then the other editor made another edit, with the comment, "one final comment that I was working on before Bzuk posted his agreed comment + proposal, then I'm going back to my chess game." My comment back was in jest; it was not a deriding comment at all, I simply indicated that we should conclude, and alluded to the fact that I had read his "chess game" comment. It was not intended to be snide or demeaning, just that things now had come to a conclusion. After that last accusation of incivility, I have no further interest in interacting with this editor. FWiW, I really don't think he has quite the grasp of nuances of the English language and I am sure that he does not read the edit commentary with an understanding. After being treated like a vandal and being brought up to the ANI as a vandal, I really don't see the point in dealing with him any longer, I have tried to be patient but he is in retribution mode and has made quite outlandish demands about citation templates that make no sense. BTW, he previously did not make any submissions or contributions to this article. Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC).


 * Bzuk you better read civil because going behind a users back and telling him "FWiW, I really don't think he has quite the grasp of nuances of the English language and I am sure that he does not read the edit commentary with an understanding." is not civil and it does not belong on Wikipedia. Did I ever call you out like that? And one more thing Bzuk, you better make sure you know what you're talking about. What's this:, , , , , etc. If you watn further proof look here that I have edited the Howard Hughes page. I may not be the "primary editor", but I have edited the page. Sorry to spill this discussion on your Talk page Steve, but this is unacceptable. El Greco(talk) 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page icons/symbols
I am intrigued, how did you get the banner symbols at the top of your page and is it possible for me to use a version of them on my page? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the talk. I do enjoy talking to others in the Wickywacky world we temporarily inhabit. FWiW, I'll try the talk page tricks when I get a chance. Back to the ramparts. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse
Please see my concerns HERE. I think the name should be changed back to Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer), as without the "(trailer)" in the title, there can and will be confusion. If or when a film by that name is made, we can worry about a merge. but at the moment, the lack of that key word in the article title is a problem. I would further suggest a redirect from "Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse" to "Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer)" and not the other way around as currently stands. Schmidt (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters anymore, as I expect the article to be speedily deleted, but I posted a response at the AfD inre your delete vote. You were incorrect in saying that there were no articles preceding the announcement of a possible film, but that is moot. My thought for retention is that it was just that furor, caused by a fake trailer, that instigated the interest in making it a film... a very unique circumstance that is very notable. I can find no other examples of this. But Giro has ruled... it is just a matter of time until the axe descends. Thanks for your considerations. 03:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Schmidt (talk)
 * Yes, I had read the scuttlebut about a short, suppposedly now in post-production, intended to precede the film as a kind of teaser-short to further excite the press... a prequel if you will. However, I have not found verification that it is actually in post. So, what with the NFF of the original article, I did not want to even think of that direction, and fell back on the notability of the trailer and why it was created. Thanks for the good words. They help. What do you think of the first 4 paragraphs HERE? Schmidt (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I am ready to move contents from my sandbox, as I have proven a seperate notabilty for the trailer as a short film intended to promote attention for a proposed film. I am loathe to use the same title. What is your opinion? Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.' 01:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a improved work from what is currently at the AfD. I have changed the tone and emphasis to support the trailer's unique and notable situation... not just as a trailer among other trailers, but for why it was specifically created, by which notable people, and what it accomplished. Let me know which sources might bother you and why. If you do decide to strike your vote, then thank you. But I have not moved the improved version from my sandbox to replace the one in AfD yet... and am frankly worried that naming conventions will shoot me down again. Name change as a new article?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well... we're supposed to be bold... yes? I did some last tweaking and sourcing to my sandbox article and moved the whole kit and kaboodle to the Seth and Jay article page. I just left a note at the AfD asking the delete voters compare the 1st AfD with what originally went in to the 2nd Afd to what nows fills that page. With the change in direction for the article, it just ain't the same one that was being voted against. It may yet be deleted, but I know I did my best in the face of tough odds and I feel good about myself and my work there. If it gets deleted now, I'll ask for a review. Thanks for your supportive counsel.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your taking the time to voice your concerns of the new incarnation. As my schedule allows, I will return to my sandbox, take the article apart line by line and explain reasoning and source. I do know I have several sentence groups where I only sourced the last of them, assuming that a reader might look at the source and see that the line of sentences supported. I'll source each line instead... each individual word if required. I will then further go through all the sources one by one and explain what each source offers, and will remove any that is simply a quote of another. If I use a tertiary source, i will explain how it is supported by a secobdary and why it was itself used. If I use a primary source, I will explain how it is used only to suppoprt a prsented fact and not to show notabilty, as notability will have been suported by the secondary sources that remain. It would have been nice to have had a wider involvement in the disscussions, but they have all been invaluable. Admittedly, it was sad to see 3 of the keep votes swing over to delete. If I take a page from your book and present a thourough line-by-line explanation and summary of the article and an explanation for each of the various line's cites, I may swing them back. Thank you for your patience and wisdom.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Inre your response... thank you. It needs a new name, as the current name is cursed (chuckle). Query: Why do you think this AfD has remained open so long? I am certainly appreciative for the opportunities to do the research... but am a bit puzzled. Do you think the Nom may feel the article may deserve CPR since most of his original concerns have been addressed? Or perhaps that closing Admins think this? I have actually been encouraged by it remaining open so long... and am grateful.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now THIS was a surprise... but I will continue to work and make you proud. I do not wish to see it at a 3rd AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008 Sight & Sound Magazine
Steve,

According to someone who posted on the IMDb Changeling board:

For UK readers/Clint fans the new edition (September 2008) of British Film Institute {BFI) magazine Sight & Sound features a major overview of Eastwood's career along with a rave review by Geoff Andrews of the upcoming Changeling:

J. Michael Straczynski’s deft script and Eastwood’s measured, quietly meticulous mise-en-scene manage to fashion many disparate elements into a complex, multi-stranded but entirely coherent drama ... What’s possibly most impressive is the way Eastwood makes it all look so easy; as the story steadily grows broader and deeper in its import, it still feels like a damned good yarn.

The new issue (September 2008) should be available now [on newsstands].

Since the current issue of Sight & Sound available online is August 2008, I am not able to verify this. Since your are in the UK, you might have an opportunity to check out the September 2008 issue.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Flickr
That was good work with the KB image. I have been editing parrot pages and I happen to know that there are some Red-bellied Macaws images on flickr, but with the wrong copyright. I have not got myself a flickr email as yet, and I wondered if you would be able to get one of these parrot images for this page and for the List of macaws page. Have you seen this commons flickr upload tool. Copy and paste the url of the highest resolution image in to the box, and follow the instructions. It makes it easier, and it always gets the links correct and automatically fills out the summary box. Snowman (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hellboy
The review is online. Alientraveller (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Babylon 5
Sorry about the disruption I caused; I should really learn all the techincal in's-and-out's of this website before making drastic changes. I just can't stand bad grammer, as was shown by adding the extra comma between short stories and comic books.

Yours,

--6afraidof7 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Which
Which is that supposed to represent? It's a rather unconventional superhero film - one that would be difficult in classifying as a "superhero film".  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't doubt there are exceptions. But, there was a point when people were listing it as "superhero/action/crime film". To me, though there are exceptions, you'll typically get action from your superhero and you'll typically get someone committing a crime. So, we don't need two out of the three, when the one embodies both. As you pointed out with Unbreakable, there are clearly some that walk multiple lines, and don't seem to have such a clear identification.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight disambiguation
There's been a little more discussion about the disambiguation page The Dark Knight at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Since you expressed an opinion earlier, you might like to join the discussion there and explain whether you think the film is or isn't the primary topic for the phrase "The Dark Knight". Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

LMS FAC
No worries, I really do appreciate the comments you left (I'm actually working on them right now and am currently halfway done). If you have more, bring them on! I'm surprised at the amount of errors that I overlooked, but seem to have no problem pointing out for others when I review their articles. I guess I've been working too closely with it. Thanks again, and I'll let you know when I finish with your suggestions. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've finished what I could complete (I need further clarification on some of your suggestions). I'll try to work on any other issues you have later today. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

cutting important content
not good cuting music sample... why don't thinking on it? --Beyond silence 00:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Barton Foley use of Prod Tags

 * Yes, my response was as written above. In retrospect, my point about David Drake may be correct, but it does not automatically grant notability to his novels. Without providing the needed notability, the deletion of and redirection, I believe, was/is correct. If I disagree, it is my responsibility as the author of the article to provide the needed information. Further direction by User:Goochelaar and User:Collectonian as to notability, as well as the talk and discussion for both Douglas Hill and the David Weber novel Off Armageddon Reef I believe has given me some direction. The movies being tagged are in alphabetical order of the list of horror films of 2000. If one follows that list, there are several that I did not tag, as they met the notability guidelines. I also tried not to tag those films that were from a foreign market, such as Thai or South Korean films. However, the ones that were tagged are not notable per the guidelines. Originally, I was going to redirect these items back to the list, but after wandering and observing other editors actions, the prod tag seemed to be the most appropriate action. As I am not the author of these articles, I do not think it is my responsibility to Google or otherwise provide the notability credits to meet the guidelines. If the author(s) of the article believe the tag is incorrect, if my understanding of the procedure is correct, can remove the tag and state why I am wrong to apply the tag to the article. If I disagree, then I can AFD the article. Unless my understanding is incorrect as to this process, I do not think I did anything wrong. Also, unless I misunderstand again, the prod tag for notability is for how the article currently exists, not how it might exist or might prove its notability in the future or might exist in a Google search.  Now, if the admins decide I did or was misguided, I will take any advice they have to offer on future edits.


 * I would state that I plan on moving to the Chick Lit book list next with my notability (and other) tags in tow. And as per User:Steve T • C I will provide more then a single word justification for my tags.Barton Foley (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

don't get all uppity
I was trying to UNDO vandalism and I am new heremaybe I hit the wrongbutton ok maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions you big meanie. Nor3aga (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC).

also I can make warning symbols too. Doesn't feel so good does it? Maybe next time we should talk aboutt things first yeah?

Articles for deletion/Believers (film)
I'm at a loss here. What am I doing wrong? Too many words? trying too hard? Fighting a battle that cannot be won?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe
So what's your issue with Fringe? :) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha! I did ask, and I expected all that. :)  I'm not finding the show very good so far, but I want to see where it goes.  I agree with your assessment, though the issues don't bother me all that much.  You're right about it being over-explanatory; I think it should be like ER, where there's medical jargon that flies over one's head, but you know they know what they're doing.  The characters are just OK for me... I don't really think that the starlet has a good motivator for her fringe investigations, and it bothers me that the doctor's knowledge from the 1970s is still applicable today.  No scientific advances in the 1980s or 1990s that could have come in handy?  I don't mind the super-intelligent son so much, as I like to see what writers do with these characters (though in this particular case, nothing that great).  Maybe I prefer him because he's trying to put up with all this drivel the other characters are feeding him.  I think that the show would work better if it was less about the fringe stuff (defeating its purpose) and more about new-science threats (Massive Dynamic).  Maybe it's like a car wreck in my eyes... I just can't avert my eyes, not just yet (especially with it scoring ratings being the show to follow House). — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me, yes thats the page im after.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LMS FAC
Thanks for helping out with the external links. I left a message for Ealdgyth who first raised some questions about them, and she said she would take a look at them on Monday. I'm hoping that's the last major issue with the article, so thanks again for taking a look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I switched out the links since Ealdgyth seemed to think the links would be fine. Thank you again for assisting with those, and please let me know if there is anything else that is needed to change your vote. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Mars
Hey, thanks for the help with the article so far. It has only seen the work of Jclemens and myself, so it may have some prose issues. I hope to get it to FA status one day (hopefully soon), so any comments would be excellent. Thanks,  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  07:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Slither
Much better. One thing though, why did you move around the other sections? Is that a style guideline thing?--Cúchullain t/ c 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Buffy
I didn't say it was a great example of Television that it needed an Emmy, I merely stated that I enjoyed it. Hell, if you read my first posts to Paul about the show (been archived now), he was wondering why I liked it because of all the things I disliked. I could tear Smallville a new one, but sometimes you have to remember that not all shows are setting out to have their stars (or their story) be Emmy worthy; they're just trying to make entertaining programs for loyal fans of the show.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ok, lol. Which part of the ending? The whole last 20 minutes, or like the final few scenes? Is "Doublemeat Palace" the one where Buffy is working at that fast food restraurant? I'm curious, based on your analysis of Fringe, what are your qualms with Smallville?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Gingerbread" is a great episode. I love how it slowly escalates from a simple murder mystery into complete craziness.  Cordelia is on top form (which is often reason enough to like an episode) and the whole thing is hilarious.  Plus, I like the glimpse into Willow's homelife we get, explains a lot about the character.  As for the "absolving of blame", it's Buffy, where spells and magic regularly are a metaphor for real life.  Do you really think they could have kept Joyce a sympathetic character if she'd tried to murder her daughter of her own free will?  It's not an outstanding episode but it's fun.  And I'm proud to be a "Doublemeat Palace" fan.  That's a seriously hated episode amongst fans and critics but I love it.  It's hilarious and extremely relatable for anyone who's worked in a shitty job like that.  I think a lot of people don't like it because they don't like the idea of Buffy, feminist icon, working in a burger joint.  Whatever, it wasn't like it was a long-term career for the character, it was just a silly, fun episode (how can you not love the training video at the start...)     Paul    730  20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see your point about absolving them of all the blame, but you have to remember that most of those parents probably wouldn't have don that without the help of the demon. It would seem like more of a character anomoly, especially for Joyce. As for Smallville, you need to watch it all the way through, instead of catching an episode here or there, otherwise you really lose the effect the show actually has. Well, the first season you don't need to do that, but from season two on you do. I assume the body swap was "Transference", where Clark and Lionel switch bodies? That was a really good episode. Funny you mention kryptonite bullets, since that was Smallvilles tack at discrimination and racism. As for Chloe, her hacking ability is something that grows as the show goes on. She was certainly hacking from the start, but never anything that sophisticated in the early seasons. It was recently explained that she has super-intelligence, thanks to her meteor power (though, there is rumor that she accidently got it from Brainiac), which kind of explains her super hacking abilities, as she beats LuthorCorp's fastest supercomputer in decyphering a complete logarithm.   BIGNOLE '    (Contact me)  21:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, not at all, feel free to chip in whenever, it's interesting to hear other people's opinions. At least your criticism had some intelligent reasoning behind it, and I like a good argument. ;)    Paul    730  22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Poster for Changeling (film) is Now Available
French Version:

Source: http://www.buzzline.fr/index.php/?2008/09/24/4409-l-echange-l-affiche-officielle-du-nouveau-clint-eastwood

Image: http://www.buzzline.fr/images/cinema/changeling-aff.jpg

English Version:

Source: http://www.cinematical.com/2008/09/24/changeling-poster-exclusive-first-look/

Image: http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2008/09/changeling-poster-454x670.jpg

... so how to we make fair use of the poster for the Changeling (film) article?

--Dan Dassow (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, isn't that Valkyrie poster amazing? Not too much emphasis on the Cruiser, the credits block has a space to itself and the whole map is actually that of Hitler's bunker. Alientraveller (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Harry Potter FAC
Hi Steve,

Thank you for your comments on the Harry Potter FAC located Featured article candidates/Harry Potter. I've looked through them and I think that I've completed all of them. Please double check, and leave any comments at the FAC.

Thanks, The Helpful  One  Review 13:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, I see you're around from your contribs, just a second poke on this :) The  Helpful  One  Review 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) The  Helpful  One  Review 16:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Minimal Promotion of Changeling by Jolie
Steve, Angelina Jolie may still be limiting her promotion of Changeling (film) due to her pregnancy. Although she will be at the North American premiere, she may not do the talk show circuit in promoting the film.

By the way, here is the official press release from Universal.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/universal-pictures-new-york-film/story.aspx?guid=%7B7E2A2CEA-112C-488E-9D81-CE71105E8F3F%7D&dist=hppr

UNIVERSAL PICTURES AND THE NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL PRESENT THE FESTIVAL CENTERPIECE SCREENING OF 'CHANGELING' AT ZIEGFELD THEATRE NEW YORK CITY, NY SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, AT 9:15 P.M.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin article
Hi Steve: Thanks for the note. I am hoping to soon have either verified all the facts in the article or removed all facts which cannot be verified and at best are original research. I think I'm almost there. All work afterward should be constructive, such as reading the more academic sources and actually using them in the article.Homely Features (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, can you please moderate what might follow concerning my edits to the Aaron Sorkin article. I have done my best to explain what I have done on the talk page in the "My Vision" section. I would appreciate your help, Homely Features (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter
The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gaaaah!
Temporary bout of illiteracy! ;) Bradley0110 (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think a source probably will come up later. And as the topic of that article isn't primarily SoP, it's probably a good idea to leave it out. Like you said, it's only mentioned very briefly. Bradley0110 (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
A belated congratulations for your election as a film coordinator. I certainly look forward to working with you. FWiW, I recently had a series of publishing deadlines to meet so my attention was diverted of late, but I will be coming back "on line" little by little. Bzuk (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Not relevant?
Could you please provide a little more info on why Downey's comments are 'not relevant' in your books? Is it because he's 'just an actor', not a professional critic? Do you think his comments are less insightful than say, Roger Ebert's? 'Lil help here. :) Vranak (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Downey Jr.'s comments on The Dark Knight
Hi there. Yes, ignoring for now that Downey Jr.'s words were quite obviously tongue-in-cheek, I do wonder why his comments on the film would be more notable in this context than anyone else's. I'm more than happy to take this to the article talk page for input from other editors should you disagree. All the best, Steve  T • C 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Downey's comments are not more relevant than anyone else's. I personally found them to be insightful, cutting to the heart of the nonsensical mystique that surrounds the Batman character. But that's just my perception. I found them interesting, and found them relevant. I thought I would share them in the article. You apparently think they are... tongue-in-cheek? I suppose that means they are to be dismissed as 'an attempt to be funny'...? You know, often the truest comments are the funniest ones. That's precisely why they're funny.


 * Anyway, knowing Wikipedians, I shall assume that you won't budge you one inch on this issue -- so I bid you adieu. Vranak (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)