User talk:Green451

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Green451, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Tone 14:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Greetings from Michael

Hi Andrew! I just checked out your Journeyman Project article - nice job! I did a bit of proofreading and fixed one typo. Well, we're both Wikipedians now, and nothing can stop us!! --Michael Robson 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Decided you'd join the party, eh? Well, welcome to Wikipedia as a user. Have a blast! --Green451 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello my dearest (not) brother

Hi, thought I should give you a wiki greeting, but haven't gotten around to it until now (it was pretty low on my list of priorities). Oh, and one more thing: YOU DRIVE ME NUTS!!!! Pharaoh Hound 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Paramount logo

What did the Paramount logo look like on Star Trek: Generations? Did it have the Paramount Communications byline or the Viacom byline? Gabrielkat 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Incredibly enough, I don't actually own the Generations DVD. But you're absolutely right about the Paramount Communications name. I had completely forgotten about it at the time I uploaded these images. If I remember correctly, Viacom bought Paramount in 1993 and changed the logo shortly afterwards. As Generations came out in 1994, it most likely had the Viacom logo (I have a friend who owns the DVD, so I will double-check this). I think that we should have a picture of the logo with the Paramount Communications byline, though. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Green451 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you can find the Paramount Communications version of the Paramount logo on the DVD of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which was released to theatres in 1991. Gabrielkat 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOMT articles

Hi Green451, Go right ahead and edit them. It is a wiki after all. I've been a bit caught up in the real world (internship, and also research lab) that I haven't had much time for contributing to wikipedia at the time being...

A few of my notes:

  • I did find that those articles had been pretty much lifted verbatim from lists at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/emchron.html
  • I was attempting to combine decades as I felt some of the lists were too short to be valuable, however some of the later decades, start getting bulky in text size... however I don't think they will be too bad of an issue.

Many Regards Charlie( t | e ) 01:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifiying me, I just edit on that sandbox page right? James086 23:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks -James086 23:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Express reviewing

I've given you a list of "problem statements" on the article's talk page. Also, short sections are generally frowned upon; for the amount of prose there is, you should probably halve the number of sections (not counting references and links). Nifboy 05:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oil Chronology

Just to let you know, I have been working extensively on wikifying these articles for quite a while now, with User:Charlie Huggard in his sandbox under the title Timeline of World Oil Market events. We (like you) have merged the articles into decades, and have wikified almost everything, except for 2002-2003. 2001 was actually a copy job of 2000, so I am in the process of editing out the irrelavant content and wikifing it. Perhaps since we are working on the same goal, we could colaborate, and as our project is much farther along than yours, it would save you some time. What do you think? You can find our wikified articles here. Thanks! Green451 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Apparently User:Mstroeck wanted to use the main page Chronology of world oil market events (1970-2005) as linked to from the page 1970 world oil market chronology but Timeline of World Oil Market events sounds simpler to me. What should we do for that main page? I guess we could just summarize each decade and give a link to the full decade article. Anyway, I'll try and help out wikifying. So do I just edit from his sandbox? I've also been trying to improve the page oil politics. I was surprised that no one had written much on it.medleysoul 03:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys! I'm back from an almost complete cold-turkey wikibreak due to real-life related issues ;-) Thank you so very much for working on this. I was indeed going to use that page as an overview, briefly describing what happened in each of the decades and linking to the specific years. What are your plans going forward with this, and how can I help you. I don't want any duplicate efforts here! mstroeck
Hi Michael,
Thanks for getting back to us about the timeline. It was a really good idea to put this on, as I think it's the perfect set of articles for Wikipedia. You were asking what you could do to help. There are a few things that need doing:
  • Someone needs to write an introductory statement for the parent article. I am at a loss for this, so if you are interested in doing this, go right ahead.
  • The 2000 entry was accidentally uploaded to the 2001 entry, in addition to the 2000 entry. I am in the process of trimming out the irrelevant bits, as I noticed you had done with the other years. I wasn't sure what your editorial criteria was for trimming, so I tried to do my best on my own. Perhaps you could take up the reins on this, as you seemed to do a really good job with it.
These are a few things that desperately need doing, but if you don't feel like doing those, that's no problem. Feel free to work on whatever needs doing. Oh yes, one more thing. This is how I planned to name each of the articles:
Timeline of world oil market events (parent article)
World oil market events of the 1970s
World oil market events of the 1980s
World oil market events of the 1990s
World oil market events of the 2000s
Once again, thanks, and let's make these articles the best articles we can. Cheers! Green451 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

for tidying up after me (wikifying a disambiguation page)!!! 09:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 35 mm film FAC

Thanks for the comments! I just wanted to let you know that I haven't ignored yours; it's just that they require more writing, some of which I already was planning out. Maybe something by tomorrow (I hope). I'll certainly let you know as soon as they're addressed - I don't want to keep anyone waiting too long! Thanks so much, Girolamo Savonarola 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transfersome

You prodded this article, which was subsequently deleted. However, a request has been made to undelete the page, and per WP:DRV I have granted that request. If you still believe the article should be deleted, feel free to list the article at WP:AFD. Steve block Talk 10:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion now at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transfersome. Carcharoth 13:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer and video games that use Bink video

Would you like the contents of the above article moved to a user sub-page in order for the categorisation project to go ahead?  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi aeropagitica,
Thank you for asking me. Yes, that would be great if you could move the page to my userspace so I can create a category. Thanks. Green451 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You can find the page at User:Green451/List of computer and video games that use Bink video. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World oil market events

I have noticed that either these pages have been copied from elsewhere or other sites have copied these pages. Do you know about this? You can find them by copying a chunk of an article and searching for it on Google. 0L1 15:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Oli,
Yes, most of the information was copied and edited from U.S. Department of Energy documents located here. As it is a work of the U.S. federal government, I believe it is in the public domain. I posted a question about this over at Wikipedia:Copyright problems quite a while ago but have yet to recieve a response. I was not the one that copied the documents to Wikipedia, I have simply been cleaning them up (although admittedly, I haven't worked on them in quite some time). Hope this helps. Green451 16:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure - just thought I would check. 0L1 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Story

Hi. I wanted to make sure I got your response, if any, to the following (my reply to your comment on the Templates for deletion page). If the consensus is to keep the template in some form, its creator has already approved of modifying it. If that's the course that's ultimately followed, I want to do it in the most effective fashion. You can look at the bottom of my main user page to see the revised version I'm currently considering. Here's my reply to the "Dave Silk" quote:

Oof. That's rough. But, though it's not used often, Template:NPOV Language seems (a) to more specifically address what you've excerpted there and (b) doesn't steer editors away from the many positive qualities that good stories and essays share with good encyclopedia articles. The very widely used Template:Inappropriate tone shares advantage (b). Can you articulate how you find Template:Story superior to either of those? DCGeist 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, I'm very impressed by your Top 10 movie list...except, have you revisited Lost in Translation recently? Think it really holds up? Best, Dan —DCGeist 22:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vertigo

Thanks for your response on Template:Story. As you probably suspect, there's no good reason at all that Vertigo is not generally considered a film noir. It's an issue that specifically interests me--here's a (lengthy) excerpt from something I wrote on it on a while back, in the context of discussing the over-inflated issue of what qualifies as the "last" classic film noir. You'll want to cut it from this discussion page, after or in the midst of (or even before!) reading it. Best, Dan.

Here's critic Mark Bould, in a wondrous parenthetical expanding on the mutually exclusive effect of auteur and genre canonization:
"(This, of course, produces anomalies. For example, in many respects Hitchcock's Vertigo is a quintessential film noir. Based on a French pulp novel, it features an unofficial investigator investigating a mysterious woman, a carefully-orchestrated murder, a voice-over and a flashback, San Francisco as a subjective maze, expressionistic flourishes and traces of gothic melodrama; and it has been profoundly influential on neo-noir, particularly the erotic thriller. However, it is typically treated as tangential to film noir, as if auteurist discourses, combined with the industrial and aesthetic choices involved in making a colour VistaVision A-picture, categorically outweigh generic affiliations.)"
I have only one emendation to offer: cut “in many respects.” Vertigo is a quintessential film noir. That's the sentence it deserves. Is it quintessential in every respect? No, but then no film noir is. More than quintessential, Vertigo is one of the greatest movies in the film noir mold and, so the critics' polls tell us, one of the greatest movies ever made. Likewise, it was directed by one of the greatest directors who ever lived. And yet, as Bould observes, it is typically treated as tangential to the genre of which it is such a magnificent example. This is inconceivable in almost any comparable discussion. John Ford's masterpieces, Stagecoach and The Searchers—ignore that they're Westerns? Ridiculous. Vincente Minnelli's The Pirate and The Band Wagon—disregard that they're musicals? Preposterous.
So here, finally, is the most fitting candidate for last classic film noir—the film noir that's too personal to be a film noir, the film noir that's too good to be a film noir, the film noir that isn't: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you Vertigo.
Vertigo appeared in 1958, the same year as the movie most often cited as the last major classic film noir: Touch of Evil. That film was directed, as many will not need to be reminded, by a portly gentleman named Orson Welles—which only goes to show that, just as there are genres and then there are genres, there are auteurs and then there are auteurs. Happily, for my purposes, Vertigo was released into theaters sixteen days after Touch of Evil, claiming pride of last place by a rump. Bould's précis, already sufficient to establish the movie's noir bona fides, is easy enough to supplement: Vertigo features psychiatric disorders (including that signature noir complaint, amnesia—faked at least in part, which hardly makes it less noir), adulterous shenanigans, vigorous imbibition, automotive trailing, a hero duped by the woman he loves, extreme romantic obsession, a tragic denouement, a significant work of fine art, a most impressive and crucially situated neon sign, a number of mirror shots, and a special-effects sequence illustrating the protagonist in delirium, as well as Bernard Herrmann's famed score, which combines tension-building with romantic melancholy—all quintessentially, in a few regards even exaggeratedly, noir. Turning to the particular, take the sequence in which that mysterious woman, played by Kim Novak, turns to detective John “Scottie” Ferguson, played by Jimmy Stewart, and says, apropos of not bloody much, “I'm married, you know,” to which Ferguson responds with immobile silence for four exquisitely protracted seconds—this must be on the shortlist of the ultimate noir moments in movie history. Why, put Vertigo one-on-one up against any of the most indisputably noir films of all time—it hardly pales in generic comparison. And there's more at stake here than in the usual is-noir/ain't-noir game.
Put Vertigo up against Out of the Past, which has as good a claim as any to being the definitive film noir, a will o' the wisp honor, to be sure. They are both masterpieces on the same themes: love, duplicity, and obsession. They concern the romantic torments of men whose native character seems stereotypically solid and, in Ferguson's case, willingly solitary; in addition to a few plot correspondences, they have a similarly yearning tone. Is Out of the Past “more” noir than Vertigo? Yes, in a few very obvious ways: Vertigo, as has been noted, is in color and widescreen and has been generally adjudged not a film noir at all. (Though 1956's Slightly Scarlet is in Technicolor and Superscope, and most of the canons include that as a film noir.) Is Vertigo more noir than Out of the Past? Yes, unquestionably: the hero of the latter redeems himself with his final act (a redemption affirmed by the film's coda), while Scottie Ferguson seems lost forever. That is more noir, right?
Bould keeps announcing that noir is a process of discursive formation, but is sufficiently tender of heart not to intervene in that discourse in any way that unsettles it (his overarching thesis relating film noir to notions of determinism is safely turbid enough to ruffle no one). Here are a few, I pray not too unsettling, thoughts provoked by the relating of Out of the Past and Vertigo. One film was released in 1947, the other in 1958—according to the standard lines of film noir criticism, American society underwent sweeping changes in those eleven years, and the transformations in film noir serve as primary evidence. Judging from these two films, has anything important changed at all? (Perhaps women are driving men crazier than ever?) In this regard, the exclusion of Vertigo from the noir canon seems all too convenient. The rubric of film noir, it is clear, has been deemed neither sufficient nor even necessary for a consideration of Vertigo, while it is generally deemed necessary and even sufficient for consideration of Out of the Past. Are these sound habits?
The two films, save for their respective climaxes, have a very similar effect on me as regards my aesthetic appreciation (visual, verbal), emotional involvement, and experience of psychological revelation. They are both superb works of art created within the Hollywood studio system—one by a, how to put it?, mid-level auteur, Jacques Tourneur; the other by one of the greatest film artists ever, a unique talent. In a realm such as that of noir, with so many rich and fruitful generic elements available to take advantage of, it can help to be a great artist, but it would appear that it's hardly a requirement for the production of great art. Excluding Vertigo from the noir canon helps maintain widely accepted estimations of the importance of the great artist in Hollywood cinema. (It's a lot harder to pull off this sort of maneuver when it comes, say, to Westerns, so a different gambit is often pursued to the same end. John Ford, for instance, director of those aforementioned masterpieces Stagecoach and The Searchers, was a good artist with excellent technique, access to highly skilled collaborators, and an understanding of how to marshal resonant generic elements—more similar to Tourneur than to Hitchcock in their respective primes. It does no grievous harm to fancy Ford a great artist, not directly, but it does trifle with certain truths: that even minor talents, even in circumstances far less advantaged than Ford's, produce the occasional marvel; that in a collaborative art form, general proficiency can weigh as heavily as individual inspiration; and that, in the movies as in life, many of the grandest constructions break little new ground.) Hitchcock—who gave abundant license to his trusted team members—does bring an exceptional, personal touch to Vertigo, something harder to detect in Out of the Past, but while it is fair to value the former more highly as a result, by what defensible critical reasoning does the Hitchcock touch subtract from, even nullify, all that makes Vertigo a film noir? None—unless the appellation of film noir is merely a means for providing high-falutin kudos to cool movies in need.

OK...back in the present. Hope this momentary parachuting of text onto your discussion page was (a) nondisruptive and (b) somewhat edifying. D —DCGeist 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Fisherman

Thanks for the heads up on Super/Ultra for that film! I completely forgot. Girolamo Savonarola 10:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review on RuneScape

Could you please clarify your statement on fair use images for the RuneScape article? All images, except for the map, have fair use templates attached to them.--EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 01:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your statement. I'll try and see if I can fill in the Fair Use Rationales.--EdI'm lonely, talk to me contribs 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've finally gotten around to start making fair use rationales. Can you check Image:RSlogo3.jpg to see if I made appropriate rationales? Thanks.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
I was very impressed that you were able to get the hang to FU rationales so well. It certainly took me a bit longer to learn!
You had a great start, and I just made a few changes to the rationale:
  • I removed the second-to-last rationale and merged it with the last one, as an image simply being used in an article does not qualify it for FU. It is an image that is being used to illustrate an important point in the article that qualifies it for FU. For clarification, the user that has this image on their user page(s) is actually not allowed to, because that is what we call a "decorative" image, a.k.a. an image that is only used to make the article look "prettier" (in theory).
  • I polished the rationale about restricting Jagex's use of the image. It's not so much about whether Jagex can't market the game because of this image. In fact, on this site, it would probably count as building awareness of the game. This rationale is there to state that, simply, you are not using so many images that people say, "Why should I pay money to watch/play this movie/game when I can simply see it on Wikipedia, for free?" Some articles have gone overboard and used so many images, that companies might lose sales from people looking at Wikipedia instead. But the RuneScape article is fine in that respect.
  • It's not about whether Jagex has released any free equivalants, it's whether anyone has released a free equivalant. With computer games, this is usually a moot point as companies rarely release games or screenshots to the public domain. This rationale simply has to be in there as a matter of consistency. For example, having a copyrighted image of snow in the Snow article would make no sense, as anyone with a camera could easily take a picture of snow and upload it with a "free" license GNU/CC/PD or such.
  • As this was released as part of a "fansite kit", as the page states, this should quality as a publicity image, so I added a publicity licensing tag in a later revision of the article.
I've rambled on here long enough, and I think you definately get the just of it. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks, Green451 18:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The image of the person mining coal needs source information (where the image came from, who took it, how they captured it, etc.), in addition to a FU rationale. Green451 18:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation of the appropriate fair use rationales! About the user with the RuneScape pic on his userspace, I have warned him onUser_talk:Mr_webby#Fair_use. --Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(Barnstar moved to user main page)

[edit] 69.224.225.224

69.224.225.224, our fantasy studio creator, has been blocked for one week. Thanks for the heads up. —tregoweth (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platform Games rating

Yeah, sorry, I'm new to the wiki thing and still figuring out how it works. I figured out about the peer review thing and I meant to change the rating back once I did, but I forgot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frogacuda (talk • contribs) .

[edit] WP:VAIN

Hey! I saw your posting of that shortcut on an AfD. I posted WP:COI, and to make sure they were the same thing, I clicked on yours. To my dismay and surprise it is now a soft redirect! There is more information at the link (it bascially says it can be thought of as bad so don't use it...). Just a friendly note so that no users give you crap later. Cbrown1023 01:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Collaboration

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as
Psycho (1960 film).
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Just switched to the current COTW. Hoverfish 01:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Films WikiProject!

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

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

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Cbrown1023 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 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. Cbrown1023 23:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alfred hitchcock cameo

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the cameo section for Alfred Hitchcock cameos. It is one of the constants in his body of work. For those interested this is an easy way to locate the cameo in the film. I have reinstated it or we can take it to WP for resolution. Philbertgray 13:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Hitchcock Cameo resolution

Hey Green 451 - I read the discussion on the Cameo section in the psycho talk page - appears the consensus is to not have a separate category so I gracefully bow to the majority and moved it to the trivia section. I added it to several others which I will go back and change as well, just for consistency. I did bold Alfred Hitchcock Cameo at the beginning of the trivia content since I do feel it is of enough interest by film fans to warrant an easy way to spot it. Course with my luck I'll probably be shot down on that too. Not to change the subject I am a Myst addict myself. Spent six months on the first one but finally got through it. Hoping for an upgrade of the sequals to mac osx but doubtful it will happen. getting ready to start on Myst IV soon. 13:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbogast footage contradiction

This is also on the Psycho talk page, but it's mostly for you.

According to Hitchcock, a series of shots of Arbogast going up the stairs in the Bates house before he is stabbed were shot by the crew solely using Bass' drawings when Hitchcock was incapiacitated due to a running a "temperature". However, upon viewing the dailies of the shots, Hitchcock was forced to scrap them they were "no good".[46] Hitchcock later regretted cutting the shots, as he believed that due to the sequence being cut, "it wasn't an innocent person but a sinister man who was going up those stairs. Those cuts would have been perfectly all right if they were showing a killer, but they were in conflict with the whole spirit of the scene."[46]

My Leigh book says that Hilton Green directed those shots with "Hitchcock's explicit storyboards". Green shot "just Martin Balsam coming in the front door, looking around, and starting up the stairs prior to Mother's entrance." When Hitch saw the dailies, he said "You've got the thing reversed. What we want to see is a man in peril going upstairs, where we think death might await him. What you've shot [looks like] a murderer going upstairs, about to kill someone." It then details what Hitch means and goes on to say that some of the shots did end up in the film. This seems to contradict the interview's last statement. Have another look at your book and see if you also see a contradiction, if you do I'll try to find it in my other book (which I've just started because it goes into an excessive amount of detail).--Supernumerary 05:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panavision FAR

No worries - thanks for letting me know about it personally! I always knew that this would happen sooner or later, but I have been stalling for a long time on getting around to referencing the article, so I'm not being caught unawares. :) Hopefully this will work out fine. Thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola 09:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Emmy

Thanks for assessing it. I got the comments you posted on the talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry. I'm dedicated and I'll do what I can as fast as possible to get my articles to GA status. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got Erika. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/User_talk%7EGreen451_cb8d.html"