User talk:Wildonrio

1

Image copyright problem with Image:Deja Vu Timeline.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:Deja Vu Timeline.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deja Vu
Wildonrio, although I put your theory back into the article, it was as I feared; it, in its way, will inhibit a promotion on the quality scale. However, all it needs is a trim down to size. I am not familiar with the theory entirely, and do not want to remove vital information from the article. However, since I am itching for progress on this, I might try if you do respond. I could use your help in this sector. Thanks, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what Nehrams2020 suggested.


 * ". For the current state of the section, if it is to remain being included, then it needs to be trimmed down (it is currently longer/same length as the plot itself). There is a lot of redundancy in the last three sections, and there should be a simpler way to correct this. I'd recommend not even describing the four timelines in full detail, as a brief summary along with mention of the writer's take on the different timelines should be sufficient (especially since the image already replicates the information in the section)."


 * --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work, although I think Rossio and Marsilii's take on the theory could be added as a seperate subsection also. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think quotation is necessary, but based on Nehram's observations, only brief summary of what their comments of the theory should be sufficient. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help, and for your theory in general. I think this may aid its passage through the good article nomination process, and if the film ever makes it to featured article status, the film may very well receive the exposure that you are searching for. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 23:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
Well, I don't think the section is necessary; we could put the information in with the Reception section. It would seem more clear in that area.

And Scott really dropped the f-bomb on the writers like that? That is interesting. I always perceived the occupation of movie-making as a sterile business, but I guess I was wrong. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 00:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey again, Wildonrio. I got your message.
 * In my opinion, I think it might better clean up the article. However, I still think that editors might challenge the article and put it up for deletion for a possible violation of the "significant coverage" criterion in the general notability guideline (click the inline reference link given to see examples). Based on your argument to reinstate the article, though, I think that the references provided may not be a real problem.


 * It's worth a try, but maybe a second opinion from a different editor is a better methodology that will solve the problems present. I'll contact Nehrams again. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 07:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nehrams contacted me...he says that it wouldn't stand very well on its own, due in part to how undocumented it is. He said that people could bring it down on basis of not having enough reliable sources. In essense, it would be a permastub; he instead suggested work on other sections in the article. You can see the analysis on the bottom of the section linked here. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 14:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Crap...If you happen to drop by, you should know that the article's been caught in a snag. That snag is the timeline theory. If you can get back to me by tomorrow, please, we might be able to work something out. Until then, I'm going to move it to your talk page; it is in hidden text. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

<!-- <!-- Since Claire is found dead in her red dress near the beginning of the film, yet survives at the end wearing the same red dress, the film's more complicated plot is made apparent in which multiple timelines must be involved in order for the plot to make sense. As confirmed by film writer Terry Rossio, Doug must have traveled back in time at least twice in his attempts to save Claire, failing the first time and succeeding the second.

The film writers of Déjà Vu have expressed their approval of the timeline-based interpretation of the film. Terry Rossio describes it as "spot on" while Bill Marsilii believes such an interpretation really "lay[s] out the intricacies" of the film's often misunderstood plot.

Although most of these details are not shown or even mentioned in the film, their validity must be inferred based on other facts in the film.

Carroll calls Claire about her Bronco but she is unavailable when he wants it. He gets a blue Blazer instead and uses it to blow up the ferry. (He never kills Larry or Claire, and Doug never meets her.) Doug sends a note back for his past self to read which creates Timeline 2.
 * Timeline 1:

Everything happens like in Timeline 1 until Larry finds the note sent from the future. He attempts to find Carroll, but gets shot through the Blazer. This makes the car unusable for Carroll because of the bullet holes. (Larry's car is left at the dock which makes the police think he died on the ferry.) In need of a new car, Carroll steals Claire's Bronco, kidnaps her, takes her to his house, and burns her alive in her white blouse and jeans. He dumps her in the river and blows up the ferry. Claire is found in the river and Doug sees her dead in her white blouse and jeans. He goes to her house but there are no bloody cotton balls, answering machine messages, or notes on the fridge. Doug sends a note back for his past self to read. He later finds out he can time travel and decides he wants to save her. He goes back in time to Timeline 3.
 * Timeline 2:

Everything happens like in Timeline 2 until Doug from the future appears in the hospital. He steals the ambulance and crashes it into Carroll's house just before Carroll is able to kill Claire. After taking a nonfatal bullet wound from Carroll, Doug takes her back to her house and she changes into her red dress. Just in case something goes wrong, he leaves a note on the fridge reading "U Can Save Her" for Doug from the present to read. As they tend to his bullet wound, his fingerprints and cotton balls soaked in his blood are left at the scene. He thinks she will be safe so he leaves her at her house. Carroll intercepts her at some point shortly after, cuts off her fingers and kills her by burning her alive. He throws her in the river and goes to blow up the ferry. Without Claire's help, Doug fails and is killed in the ferry explosion. (The film begins here.) Claire is found in the river and Doug from the present sees her dead in her red dress. He goes to her house and sees the note left on the fridge by Doug from the future and the bloody cotton balls in the bathroom. Doug sends a note back for his past self to read. He later finds out he can time travel and decides he wants to save her. He goes back in time to Timeline 4.
 * Timeline 3:

Everything happens like in Timeline 3 until Doug, after saving Claire and taking her home, has a moment of déjà vu when he sees her in her red dress and then sees the bloody cotton balls he remembered seeing in Timeline 3. He notices that he "hasn't changed a thing" from how he remembered seeing it when he investigated the house in Timeline 3. Realizing that Claire will die like she did in Timeline 3 unless he does something different this time, he quickly decides to take her with him. Carroll goes to blow up the ferry but Doug from the future and Claire stop it from happening. He dies in the explosion and Doug from the present shows up at the crime scene, knowing nothing.
 * Timeline 4:

-->

The only solution I can find is if you talk to Marsilii and Rossio and conform what you have written to their standards. This might have passed with the article, but the biggest reason it didn't was because the writers disagreed with what you put up on several points. This kills, and I truly don't know what to say. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 16:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Deja Vu for Good Article status
I think it's ready. I'm going to nominate it--I just wanted to notify you of the fact. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 07:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Films and directors section

 * Nice work, especially with all the digging for references. I'm sorry about dropping off the grid for the past few days. Thanks for giving me the heads up. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 03:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe he just accepts the fact...I dunno, I don't think there really is any way to see what he thinks; if that comes up in GA, I think that argument works well enough. If that's all that can be found, then that's all that can be found. We could just tone the section down so it comes a bit closer to a neutral point of view. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Baby Not On Board
Don't worry about it! I understand you are a new user, and are trying to help improve the article. Thanks for the help! :)  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I must have just reverted all your edits to bullet form, not realizing you added other information. Go ahead and readd it, with no reverts from me. I'd change "The song that plays while Peter is defending his stupid actions at the airport to Lois" to "The song that plays while Peter and Lois are at the airport....". The "defending his stupid actions", just doesn't seem right to me, as far as Wikipedia guidelines go, although that is what he was doing.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I linked you to where it said paragraphs are preferred. You can propose anything you want (propose please! not just changing), but I know the major Family Guy editors, and they won't agree to it. If you look at all of my The Simpsons Good Articles on my user page list, and all of Qst's Family Guy good articles (at the top of his user page), you will see they are all in paragraph form. I hate to tell you this too, but after a week or two, and once we get references for the cultural references, a bunch of them, and all the unsourced ones will be removed. So, if you want to propose a change to bullets, instead of paragraph form, do it here.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weren't you the one that put it up in the plot section to begin with?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wildonrio, I just reverted a couple of edits you made and wanted to explain why. The bits you added about Planes et al and helium rings is mentioned in the plot section of the article. Whenever possible, things like this should be covered there, rather than in a catch-all section like "Cultural references", as some argue that those types of sections don't belong on Wikipedia. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a message.  Grsz  11   →Review!  05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look at it in like 5 hours when I get back. Probably not though, we try not to have a bunch of random useless references.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

President-elect
I tried to clean up that section to make it a little less confusing. Please feel free to edit it further or comment on the talk page if you think it could use further improvement. Sorry for the confusion. Robert K S (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

quick note
removing the "exportable to GH5" from Band Hero's list was fine to just "exportable", but just a comment on your rationale: "exports" are those that go out, "imports" are those that go in. so "exportable to GH5" is technically correct. No biggie, just a note. --M ASEM (t) 05:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)