User talk:Bignole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.


Want to learn how to properly archive?
10 March 2006 - 7 July 2006
10 July 2006 - 30 September 2006
1 October 2006 - 30 October 2006
31 October 2006 - 14 December 2006
15 December 2006 - 28 February 2007

I reserve the right to archive talk discussions at my leisure, but will make sure the discussions are closed before I do. Thank you.

See also: Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette


Contents

[edit] Fight Club

Would you happen to be a fan of Fight Club at all? I have quite a few citations to work into my project, but I need a pair of ears for recording all the main points in the film's DVD audio commentary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the special edition DVD has additional commentaries to the one on the plain DVD. There's a couple of bits about Nietzsche and The Graduate in the commentary (according to the film article's Influences section, anyway), so if these pop up, it's probably the right one. I'll try to find out if there are numerous commentaries. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Should you just take a notepad whilst viewing? Sure, that's what I do. WikiNew 17:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry for the information. Just do it on your own time, and I'll work on using the other citations. Notepad is probably the best idea, just write down the facts in bullet style or however you like it done. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the DVD to see if there was any chance that the commentary was captioned. (It wasn't.) However, though, there are four commentaries -- one by David Fincher, one by David Fincher, Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Bonham Carter, one by Chuck Palahniuk (author) and Jim Uhls (screenwriter), and one by Alex McDowell (production designer), Jeff Cronenweth (cinematographer), Michael Kaplan (costume designer, I think), and Kevin Haug (visual effects supervisor). I absolutely do not expect you to watch all of them -- that's a high order indeed. If you do undertake any one of them, though, let me know what it is. I'm hoping to develop the themes and motifs in my project, so you could wait until I exhaust all possible resources, so when you watch with commentary, you can skip anything that you recall from the project as redundant. I really wish these things were captioned... I'd eat it up, practically. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The one with Fincher and the actors would probably be ideal. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(Not thinking, I responded on my own talk page to your comment.. that's a first.) Anything theme-based would be nice... certain keywords like anything Nietzsche-based, self-identity, and whatnot. Listen for anarcho-primitivism, too -- another editor and I were discussing this theme on the film article's talk page. He seemed pretty set on supporting that theme, but I haven't really seen any outright evidence of it in the links on my project subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for trying anyway. I wasn't really sure what the commentaries would contain. You don't have to do anything further if you don't want to; I can imagine trying to juggle audio and video that aren't connected. Appreciate the effort. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Very nice! Thank you very much for all that information! I'm already thinking of ways to fit the information in. Is the Nietzsche thing nihilism? And the Z-word, does that have anything to do with Thus Spoke Zarathustra? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Any plans to archive your talk page soon? It's rather long in the tooth... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely a lot that can be said about everything. I just worked in a couple of citations, and I'll see how much of your commentary I can add next. It's like a jigsaw puzzle; trying to figure out what fits. Can you check out Themes and suggest any kind of setup? There are some overlapping bits, and some independent observations would be nice. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your advice. I'll see how I can work things together. I've seen the VW Bug reference on a couple of other citations as well, so I'll work that in. One thing -- can you re-explain this: "Felt that the Narrators gendering of Tyler was based on Marla. He created Tyler as a male to fulfill a relationship that he felt he couldn't"? I'm not sure what it means, especially considering another part of the DVD commentary where the narrator hung up on Marla because he saw too much of himself in her. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Got it! That makes sense. Check out the final paragraph of "Self-identity" -- I find that piece of information very cool. I'm just kind of throwing quotes into the project and re-writing as prose, and I think I'll be fitting the passages together last. There's probably too many themes... I think I'll aim for a maximum of four; need to see how things break down. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the reiteration is definitely helpful, goes to show that these themes aren't just mentioned in passing. I have to admit, doing this work on one of my favorite films changes my perception of it. I think I was originally interested in Tyler's dialectic, but these interviews and all have shaped a deeper philosophy than that. Definitely am looking forward to putting this article forward. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Definite reiteration! Film Comment has Fincher saying, "I don't know if it's Buddhism, but there's the idea that on the path to enlightenment you have to kill your parents, your god, and your teacher. So the story begins at the moment when the Edward Norton character is 29 years old. He's tried to do everything he was taught to do, tried to fit into the world by becoming the thing that he isn't. He's been told, "If you do this, get an education, get a good job, be responsible, present yourself in a certain way, your furniture and your car and your clothes, you'll find happiness." And he hasn't. And so the movie introduces him at the point when he's killed off his parents and he realizes that they're wrong. But he's still caught up, trapped in this world he's created for himself. And then he meets Tyler Durden, and they fly in the face of God - they do all these things that they're not supposed to do, all the things that you do in your 20s when you're no longer being wathced over by your parents, and end up being, in hindsight, very dangerous. And then finally, he has to kill off this teacher, Tyler Durden. So the movie is really about that process of maturing." How cool is that? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I need help figuring out this passage, as I'm not sure what Norton is trying to say: "And in moving towards her ... in a way, I think she's almost like his female animus. She's exactly the same as he is, on a certain level, and he can move towards her and have a connection. He can go toward this more seductive, negativist approach or someone who's essentially saying, "Let's try something else. Don't go towards what you know already." So he moves towards that. I don't mean negative in the sense of bad, but in the sense of, let's contend with what we've been sold on." Any ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of hung up on schoolwork for a while, so I'm putting any major editing effort on hold. The studies have kind of piled up, and I need to cut down on it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you're citing the DVD commentary to categorize the movie as a black comedy. I don't think it fits, and, not that I am as cinematically knowledged as you seem to be (I'm jealous...), if it doesn't fit, and the only "proof" is a commentary, then perhaps the commentary is mis-applying the term. I hope I'm making some coherent sense in my babbling. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this. —ScouterSig 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No sweat. Thanks for the good explanation, and since my university's spring break begins today, I just might have time to do that :). —ScouterSig 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (Sandbox Info)

Ahhh, very much appreciated sir. Thanks for your help. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing wikipedia ban

I have a friend from school that got banned but didn't understand why. Is there anything I can do or anyone else can do to remove his ban? He seemed really depressed since he just join today and got banned. Any Ideas? Thanks. Bloddyfriday 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer I was Banned due to a misunderstanding it has been fixed so you can delete this topic.The Real Phantom Triffle 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah thats him.Bloddyfriday 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man 3 Image

Heya. I was looking over the recent edits to the article, and noted you removed the image of the symbiote covering Brock. I read the edit summary, and agree that the informatity of calling him Eddie may be a bit much, he had been named in full prior to the image's insertion, and through prior images as well. Maybe i am misunderstanding MoS concerns in this regard? As well, the image looks good for a screen capture, and seems properly tagged. What am I missing that makes the picture unsuitable?Arcayne 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Could it be possible that the person uploading the image didn't see the discussion regarding the image, since it has since been archived? The topic might be worth revisiting, as a great many more people are contributing to the article now, and a different concensus might need to be reached, in the interest of fairness.
As well, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "an image of Venom that it would be one of a full body shot (or as close to that as possible) because we will need it for comparison purposes." In comparison to what? When it is on Parker as opposed to Brock? Do you know if there is a press still being released that satisfies the purpose you are seeking?
All images are eye candy, at least to some extent. Until a better picture comes along, I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow an image that the person uploaded with the proper tagging that has releveancy to the article. At least, until something better happens along.Arcayne 12:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Big, can you explain to me why the image cannot remain until you find the one you are looking for? I am not seeing the resistance to its placement as reasonable, and of course, ThuranX is a bit prickly.Arcayne 03:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Prickly? Interesting term. BigNole, I've since replied to his talk, where he told me to get off his talk page, and so I've sumamrized again all the reasons again, and supported your opinon that the screencap should not be included. ThuranX 03:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble Assuming good faith about someone who feels that his singular opinion negates repeated discussions, just because they're in the archives, and that his presences means there's a 'whole new set of regular editors'. Frustrating. I'll contact some of the OTHER 'regualr editors. I still don't see any value in having a blurry screencap. ThuranX 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I can understand why you think the image in question may be in question, but at least it is an image that is allowable, whereas the ones you are specifically looking for is not as of yet (if at all). My question is if there is some sort of guideline or policy that supports yout position of how "every image needs to serve a purpose greater [than eye candy]". I think that, because the picture in question was released as a marketing tool, that it appropriately belongs in the Promotion section.
And I am sorry for calling you prickly, thuranX. I have had some experience with other editors with civility issues, so I am wary of folk who are even a bit uncivil. Forgive me for painting you with a brush dabbed up with someone else's rudeness.I think you misinterpreting my actions; I am not negating the discussions prior to now, but clearly, Wikipedia changes constantly, and obviously, new concensus is constantly being reevaluated. Obviously, it is not a singular opinion questioning that prior agreement, as I am not even the one who uploaded a pretty clear (and not blurry, as has been described) image. I am simply questioning the practice of refusing genuine imagery for imagery not yet (if ever) citable. The article is read by people every day, and there is no apparent policy that says that we cannot satisfy reader interest by providing images noteworthy and interesting. And, seeing as the image was used as a promotion and inerted in the Promotion header, it seems appropriate.Arcayne 04:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that the image was only available for viewing for 24 hours. If it is no longer valid, then it is no longer valid. The reason I thought it was appropriate was because people would want to see it. Some people use Wikipedia not for the biting citations of Thematic components but simply to get the skinny on the latest, reliable info on the net. Sometimes they want to simply see a picture, for example, of the new Venom. Since we don't have the one that would feed to Production header perfectly, we have to go with what we have, and that is an image that is still fair use. Will that change? Maybe. By that time, there might be a better one out there. I am not suggesting overloading the article with images. I am simply saying that this is an image of Venom - the only one we have at this time, and it seems good to have at least one image of the film version Venom.Arcayne 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. Perhaps I need a bit more experience with the application of fair use images in order to judge better. I wasn't retying to be a dick; the revert just seemed odd to me. Thank you very much for being patient and explaining it to me, Big.Arcayne 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, could I trouble you to pop over to the Braveheart film article and give me a heads-up on what needs work, and what you would do to shape the article along? I have some ideas, and some questions, but I was hoping you would give me an unvarnished view.Arcayne 14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville Fansites

Not being the type to visit fansites (except to mostly point and laugh), I am not advocating adding a ton of useless links that consist of little more than someone's AOLspace or MySpace blog channels. I am thinking that the top two would be fine. I am not married to it one way or the other, Big; I am wondering if the limiting of the fansites is more of a personal interpretation, a guideline or an adhered to rule.Arcayne 14:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Thought I'd add on that some FA articles do have a bit more in the way of fansites. MegaTokyo is one such FA article.Arcayne 14:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man 3 Running Time

It would be most appreciated if you wouldn't change my edits. I have given reliable sources(despite your claims) and I would like you to stop impeding my hard work. Further changes will result in bans. .MtWotUp

hahaha. Bignole, report this guy for Harrassment and incivility. Coupled with his vandalisms, it should be good for a 24 block. ThuranX 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Idea

I think you should run for Admin. Your the best canidate in my opinion. You would probably get it. If you ever run for Admin let me know. Again thanks for all your help. Bloddyfriday 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, i don't know about that. I think he'd make a much better Prom King. :) Arcayne 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little Help

If you could help me with Saving an article called Twerp I'd appreciate it. This is also the last time I'm going to ask for help this month. Bloddyfriday 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another fair use

I thought, after our recent conversation, that you'd appreciate this. The user's off his meds, but the bit is kinda funny.Arcayne 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bond

True, but I don't like an image-less plot summary. Keep them and in a jiffy I'll nab superior images. Gun barrel and gambling table spring to mind. Or would you prefer Miami and Venice action sequences? WikiNew 12:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For the gambling scenes, [1] or [2] (4th picture down)? WikiNew 12:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature

Could you make it just tiny bit less loud? Sample:

*Keep - Film articles generally have information about special effects in the production section, and it's standard procedure to break off if you have too much information. BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 

It distracts a viewer's eyes from anywhere on the page... Autocracy 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RE: Hulk DVD

I am working on this page and it is now up, so take a look The Incredible Hulk DVD Releases. I created a seperate article because the main article on the show was too big, so no point making it bigger. I know that it is not known whether the remaining seasons will be released but we can always hope can't we?! Also, check out TVshowsondvd.com, Season 2 is coming soon, they have a note about it fairly recently.

Cheers HeMan523:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Movie

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was 750 jews against the German army. And they died fighting. I think readers would like to know about this movie. What is the appropriate way to do this? --Scott Illini 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate your help. Keep me posted! --Scott Illini 20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about, Big in regards tot he PR section...Arcayne 01:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Big, could you take a look at my edits in 300? Some dude is warning me about 3RR. I don't think I've violated it or anything, but another set of eyes might be helpful here...Arcayne 02:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the heads-up. The only other person to accuse me of 3RR was, well, you. And of course, that troll over in the CoM article.Arcayne 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, i don't know if he reported Thuran or Erik, but he did file a complaint on me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for the assist. It is mathematically impossible to calculate the size of the drink I owe you. Next time there is a Wiki Get-Together, I will have been able to have engineers construct one large enough. :) We should probably let the other editors know about the tactic used here, so that we can watch each other's back, do you think?Arcayne 12:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy to fault Alex, but he and the other guys working the 3RR desk are probably severely over-worked, and likely get tired of people flouting th rules every which way. I left myself open by editing too boldly. That said, I am glad that you helped him to re-examine the evidence. Again, my thanks on that. We should be watching each other's backs, like making other editors aware when we need to tag out and let someone else jump in. You can bet your buttons they are probably working somewhat closely for the POV push.Arcayne 12:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How solid is the ground upon which we can make removals of unconstructive comments from the Talk Page, wiki-ly speaking? While i agree that the comments you removed were unconstructive, I think we run the risk of being seen as censors, and targeted by POV pushers. It's kind of a slippery slope, in that what's to prevent users like one of the editors in the CoM article from deciding that certain contributions were "unconstructive"? I just don't want us to paint ourselves into any corners here.Arcayne 14:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of this: Talk:300_(film)#Any_info_re:_Snyder_and_Miller.27s_religion.3F. ThuranX 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a question

March 12, 2007 Hey, it's me, Aaron Pepin. What happened to all the X deaths? I was going to point out to my friend that the friday deaths are much gorier, but found out that there is nothing! Can you answer on my user page?

Unencyclopedic? I don't get it. Oh well. I thought you were going to delete the death list for Jason. Oh well, again. And just one more question. How do you make those little stubs telling about the user. Like "this user is a high school graduate" something like that to that effect. It's a little stubb with a picture. Almost every user has one, and I want one too. Are there already made pictures, or do I have to download them and size them?

[edit] 300 Images

I have the GN in pdf form, but haven't uploaded a lot of images before.I could email them to you and you could load them.Arcayne 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I am still kinda freaked out by how close the two mediums are to each other. With the exception of the all the nipple scenes in the film and the subplot involving Gorgo and Theron, the film could be considered a live-action version of the GN. I have more images, if you wish (Leonidas, the initial Persian Messenger, the second messenger, etc.). Just give me an address to send them to.Arcayne 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiNew was suggesting that we might want to banish all the controversy stuff until the article gets more stable, but I think that's a bad idea. I may just be a masochist, but as a free and open encyclopedia, we take all comers - even the spazzy ones (after all, I was once spazzy). As well, i am learning more about the nuances of policy that Viriditas made me pretty much commit to memory, so - underhanded sneakiness aside, this is a learning experience.

That being said, I am tired of likely sock- and meat-puppets draining away the time we could be spending on other areas that desperately need attention. I think we should get an admin or two's opinion/approval for it, as the Persians will likely cry foul - thinking we are moving the controversy section off-article to quietly knife it to death in the Discussion Page or a Temp Page. The more i think about it, a Tmep Page may be what the doctor ordered. It allows the more vociferous elements to fight it out while we essentially direct interested traffic to the arena while working the rest of the article. I proposed early on that a lot of the stuff be archived, with discussions likely to continue being "cliff-noted" set with new headers. So long as we are consistent in our applying no POV content from either side, most will either come around, get bounced for breaking the rules, or wander off, angry at the Unfairness Of It All. Frankly, I am a little saddened by this last group, as ThuronX seems to have grown a little disheartened in the same way. I don't really believe in disposable people, and would rather change these people's minds and bring them back into the fold rather than have them leave WP, or become jaded iconoclasts like User:Scumbag.Arcayne 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put a link to the GN up at the top. Myself, I've never heard of the videogame. I like Erik's philosophy that its easier to fix an article from the start rather than stumble over the train wreck of what it ends up as later. I think a Temp Page and a great, big, shiny link to it on the Discussion Page would avoid 90% of the hassle, and let us crank up the work. We can revisit the Controversy section in a few weeks, after the screamers have spent themselves.Arcayne 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, should we get Admin approval (since the article is apparently very popular in WP, according to Alex), since there will likley be fallout. I'd like the admin umbrella. Let's go for the Temp page. Are most of the rest of the non-POV editors aboard?Arcayne 23:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just don't take a gal to see it - she will feel as you would at a Hillary Duff fluff film (I said fluff). In CoM, Erik seeme dto put a lot of faith in User:TheFilmaker and someone named Ragman, I think. I often meet admins without knowing they are admins. Frankly, I am surprised this isn't wildly popular with the male gay population - big, muscly handsome dudes running about in leather speedos and capes, getting all sweaty. However, I guess that might be a stereotype of what gay guys like; that said, being hetero, I wouldn't mind seeing a movie wherein gals who are nifty on their pins run about in leather bikinis and capes, getting all sweaty. Er, did I say hat out loud?Arcayne 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking that it might be better for you to do it, as I am not quite as established as you are. We are asking them to cover our ass from the fallout of creating a Temp Page, and it would sound a lot better coming from a more established user. As for how we announce it, we simply archive most of the talk to date, write a post in bold letters stating that the conversations to date have been archived (and can still be seen), but that further conversations about the political implications and controversies and whatnot will be discussed for the time being in the Temp Page. We state that we are doing this because the topics appear to be too big for the article at this time, and when the article is more manageable, we will reintroduce the sections. Hopefully, some concensus will have been arrived at in the Temp Page. ...or something like that.Arcayne 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Bignole

Read past my quite brief introduction there. I thought it was necessary since my userpage flashes "Greek" all over. NikoSilver 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

After "[reset indent]" (last comment) in this section. It's an .edu source for the comic book. NikoSilver 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think I need to remove the link to the conversation on Alex's page, let me know. As for AN/I, I am on my way now.Arcayne 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Consider it done.Arcayne 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to gather the editors accused to find out if mediation is the appropriate first step. This might end up going to ArbCom, and I want to be able to say we've taken all the intermediate steps. I don't want to add ThuranX, Erik or your name to an mediation submission without express consent to do so.Arcayne 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He also went after ThuranX on AN/I, and in a really sneaky way (without naming Thuran, who would probably respond like gangbusters). Sigh. This guy really needs a mommy's hug.Arcayne 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologized for some of the name-calling stuff, and he decided to withdraw to 3RR complaint on you. You are free and clear, bud. Arcayne 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temp Page

I think we have a go from Alex. Contact who you think will be able to help out. I've never set up a Tempo Page, and think its creation needs to be trouble-free. As I see it, the tasks are as follows:

  1. Creation of the Temp Page "controversies/political aspects"
  2. Notice at the top of the Discussion Page about the creation of the Temp Page, and what it is to be used for.
  3. Move Controversies and Political aspects sections from the article to the temp page
  4. Archiving talk up to that point.

Any thoughts?Arcayne 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Temp Page talk has been posted in Discussion. Feel free to comment. Arcayne 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

being contested already...by Mardavich. :( Arcayne 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, lend a hand here. I am getting posts and private messages faster than I can respond to them...gah!Arcayne 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Night of the Living Dead plot

You're right about the two instances mentioned. I hadn't paid much attention to the current version, but I don't think these were originally in the article during FAC. This is how the plot looked in July 2006 when the article was promoted to FA. I had no idea it had grown so large. I apologize for my hasty dismissal of your original suggestion. Dmoon1 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Supes

I don't know, man... I'm kind of re-evaluating my dedication as a Wikipedia editor. I'm not so interested in sharing my knowledge of the latest movie news anymore. Hence, the wikibreak's probably a bit more than it appears to be. Watching the retarded situation at 300 isn't helping much, either -- reminds me why I don't dabble in potentially controversial articles. I'm home for spring break, doing stuff other than Wikipedia when I can, but I just felt the need to interject here and there. That'll go away soon enough, maybe. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the controversy stuff anymore. I guess I feel the need to focus on activities that are of more immediate concern -- college, social life, internships, etc. I'm exploring the possibility of an internship with Merck, IBM, GAO, possibly even Google. I just find myself getting caught up with the nonsensical duties of Wikipedia whenever I add content; leads to cleaning up someone's trail of linkspam, or dealing with some BS that someone's spewing on the talk page. I just got home from Baltimore, the residence of my female company. Things have changed, not exactly for the better, but not for the worse. I'm going to Chicago tomorrow for a retreat and to celebrate St. Patty's Day there, so I'll continue to be AWOL. I'll figure out what I want to do, being an editor for Wikipedia. Might cut down on my watchlist further to exclude some film articles; in retrospect, I probably should never have paid any attention to Ghost Rider. Need to get my head out of the "keep all superhero films updated" mindset, and just work on stuff that really would interest me, like the Spidey and Bats films. I imagine that when/if I return to my editing duties, I'll probably be using my Google Alerts and such to overhaul an article in one sitting, rather than constantly dabbing daily, which leads to even more dabbing. Hell, when I really get a break from the stuff in my life, I'll make Fight Club glorious on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky

Look, I recently read an article that stated that the first Rocky film was investigated at the time of it's release by the police for it's portrayal of all black characters as violent, monosylabic thugs, and of Rocky Balboa himself being portrayed as the white race's hope for a black-free society - so whilst I apologise for not taking into account the neutrality of my edit, and the fact that my references were not stated, I would like to add that I do not appreciate being insulted by you calling my work "nonsense". I have not done this to you even though I am in a position to do so, and as such would have appreciated a simple caution. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donorman (talk • contribs).

Am I right in suggesting you are American? If so, I would like to state that, as a British law student, I am in full knowledge of the ins and outs of British law. Contrary to what you might think, it IS illegal to be racist, and any KKK meetings that have ever been discovered by uncorrupt American police forces have been disbanded and, if possible, charges have been given. In fact, only last December the KKK announced plans for a radio station, which was subsequently shut down within 24 hours. Racism results in a deprivement of human rights, and is as such treated VERY seriously by most Western authorities. I would like to enquire exactly how you can make such outlandish and blatantly untrue statements and still criticise me for spreading nonsense. Again, I am sorry for any confusion and vandalism I may have caused, but I am personally startled by the actions of a so-called Wikipedia "superior". Thank you for your time.

Ok Bignole, I'm playing it your way. I would like to have an answer please. Come on, you're a grown man I'm sure you can take a little criticism! I would like to state that the edits to your user page, although done in my name, are not attributible to me. I appreciate how it looks, but they were done by a friend that took a much more immature attitude than I when I revealed your comments to her.

Ooooooh, we're getting personal now, aren't we? The reason I used your user page to contact you was not that I lacked the intelligence to follow instructions, more that I felt it would irritate you more if I did so. I didn't realise you knew so much about law! It's funny that you seem to be so pre-occupied with proving me wrong when I have already apologised for any inflammatory comments I made, leaving me to think that you are, yourself, racist. As I stated earlier (admittedly on your user page, not this allocated spot), Rocky was investigated because of allegations by black audiences that the movie seemingly personified blacks as VICIOUS, MONOSYLLABIC THUGS. I think this is mentioned in an Eddie Murphy stand-up, but I'll leave that for you to find out, shall I?

Ok I'm sorry, but I wanted to draw your attention to my comment. You question my intelligence, my motives and even my IDENTITY, and won't even comment why? Like I said, you're a grown man.


Listen, I'm not entirely sure what your problem is with me, and why you feel threatened. At base level, this is merely a disagreement. You can think whatever you want, but since we began corresponding I have consulted relevant documemnts regarding Wikipedia. it seems that you have taken offence at my actions, not because of what I said, but because it inteferes with other's quest for information. it would seem I underestimated what Wikipedia was. Being a new user, I was told by friends that it was a sort of information superhighway, a kind of condensed version of the internet, in which anyone can add comments or articles as they pleased. While this is to some extent the case, it would seem that I misjudged what my actions entailed, and for that i apologise profusely. However, your actions seem to me to be over the top. While I fully appreciate your position, it bewilders me how someone in your position can assume so much about me without even knowing my first name. As I said previously, any particularly offensive comments were left by my girlfriend.

Hey, let's be friends man! No need to be so upright! I'm not going to take offence at everything you say except when I've got my arguing head on! I think we both need to just chill! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donorman (talk • contribs).

Think I'll give that a miss. I've got enough work as it is. Doubt we'll talk again, but I'll leave you with a reminder.

I know. I was attempting to be the carrot to your stick, but apparently it doesn't work on the purposely blind. Cie la vie. Arcayne 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Beginning? I knew right off the bat. Something I learned at Camp Peary was that people will hyper-indicate to the public that trait which they feel most lacking in themselves. There are lots of people like that here in WP. Myself, I try to come across as an unfogiving bastard who would sooner shoot you as revert your edits. However, at heart, I am just a sweet ol' teddy bear. Just ask Viriditas. ;) Arcayne 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
He wasn't, as his grammar was pointedly American English. Look back over his edit history; he worked on an article about English Law, which is probably the inspiration for the fabrication. Arcayne 14:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ask Alex to chip in - he kinda owes us a look at a 3RR violation. Arcayne 14:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't feed the trolls

Please don't engage trolls in dialogue since this only encourages their activities. This is referred to as feeding the trolls. It is best to use the standard warning escalation procedures.

Trolls tend to die of boredom, so giving them the standardised warning messages robs them of their need for attention and they go away sooner to plague chatrooms and forums where their needs are more easily met. Thanks LittleOldMe 14:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Images

Maria found this page with side-by-side comparisons of images from the movie and the GN here. They are too cool for words, and they would certainly put a cork in the whole argument about the accuracy of the film argument while being properly placed in the production area. You're the Fair Use man, so what do you think?

I also think we need a shot of Theron and Gorgo, since that is a subplot of the movie only, and not in the GN.Arcayne 19:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, check out the licensing on the images. I think I did it right, butI was using the Force a bit. The comparison pic was tricky, as I think it should have additional licensing (comic book panels). Arcayne 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When I was addingthe image, it was one of the licensing choices, amongst the movie screenshot, and so forth. Arcayne 20:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC) It loooks to have already been done. Arcayne 21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC) By you. :) Thanks. This is my first successful image upload to an article. Yay! :D Arcayne 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am understanding what you mean, Big. I am leavingthe office, and will check in a bit later. Arcayne 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Fine Gentleman is now frustrated over the inclusion of this citation being added to the Depiction of Iranians section. He posted his reasoning for removing it in the Dicsussion section before removing his post. I would be, too - MEMRII goes off on a rant about how the Zionists and American extremists, blah blah blah. I didn't really want it in the article in the first place, but hey, noteworthy is noteworthy, as User:Mercenary2 said in defense of its inclusion. I had reverted it back into the article. Just wanted you to be kept abreast of events in fairly real time. Arcayne 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know that at least of our favoirite POV pushers are working together to remove it. I am out of my RDA of reverts today. Maybe you could address it? Arcayne 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought the mad removals were just a symptom of the 'oops, that doesn't really fit the oh-pity-us-poor-denigrated-Persians' viewpoint the POV pushers have been staking out.' Arcayne 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This sort of thing is why I stopped the back and forth and continued onward. I think I should hold off on even basic edits of the article until tomorrow. I wish admins would know the definitions of edits and what reverts are...Arcayne 01:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Fight Club

Why would the philosophical nature of a film make it a comedy drama? I don't really see the connection here. I don't know whether the actors/director say that the film is a black comedy, but to include that category (or any category, for that matter) we have to mention that in the article itself, which is not the case at the moment. --Conti|✉ 17:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed the rewrite of the article. With this in the article, I'm perfectly fine with the black comedy category. I'd still oppose the comedy drama category tho. --Conti|✉ 17:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jurassic Park GA pass

Jurassic Park has passed GA. So do you have any comments to make before I nominate for FA. I got a copy of the making of book that doesn't have pages torn out.

Also, do you want to have a look at The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring's plot summary? I think it's as simple as possible but any more suggestions? WikiNew 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Profile Look

I can take precisely 3% of the claim (although historically, it's 90% accurate, and completely Persian free since 2007!), as I stole it utterly from User:CnadianCaesar. Most of it is cut and paste, which is going to force me to learn more html - my ulterior goal there. I chose it from a pool of different looks, finalists being User:Buchanan-Hermit and the ascetic lines of User:RexNL. It was something of a close thing, but my gf thought I was too quirky for the latter.
Dr. Pepper it is, then. I myself prefer an admixture of Mountain Dew, Red Bull and unadulterated cocaine (...okay, maybe not that last ingredient). Arcayne 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unadulterated as in "not stepped on" or cut with other materials. However, I was just joking, I would never touch the stuff. Dew, chocolate and sweet sweet lovin' are my drugs of choice.
Heroin is out as well; it might be the choise of authors, but you may have noticed that those using are all dead. I'm not afraid of dying - I'm afraid of dying leaving unfinished matters. :) Arcayne 18:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
ps-I was prompted to change the user page from wiki-email I rec'd from Benham, warning me about some of the creepiness of the messages he had gotten from the more POV editors. As I don't want the guy whose picture I was using on my page to end up with a gun in his face or a knife in his back, I figured it was high time for a change. Arcayne 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and that's what makes me proud of the book of poetry. I got paid for it, and didn't have to die or end up in an institution or broken marriage to do it. Yay for me! Arcayne 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Poe was an editor too. However he was paid. How lame does that make us?. lol! Arcayne 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What sorts of things did you notice about the Greeks? I think we are seeing more in the way of outcry because of the differences in psychological makeup between the two peoples. There is less at stake for the Greek ego, as they are part of a community that provides more in the way of worldliness; they aren't as easily manipulated. Frankly, I am surprised more gay folk aren't weighing in on this movie. Arcayne 12:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Usually, an accusation of eugenics - even as primitively practiced by the Spartans - is enough on its face to start an all out brawl. Again, it comes back to the victim mentality seen by the descendants of great empires and the like (Spain and Portugal are always excepted from this rule, for some reason). The Greeks have had time to deal with it; the Persians/Iranians haven't. Whether its bc they don't have cable or dissent in that particular country just hasn't been fostered, I don't know. Arcayne 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what's your take on the Essjay thing? Arcayne 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I wouldn't have cared an iota, until he started using the fake cred as a stick instead of a shield. Wales appears to have cocked it up a bit, but I guess that's why they put erasers on every pencil made. Arcayne 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back from break... sorta

I'm back at school now. Been doing some thinking about how I want to get back to editing. I don't want to be accessing Wikipedia every time I get on the Internet, which I was doing for a while. (I still tend to do that, but I just passively look to see what is happening with the film articles.) I'm thinking that I'll only use Wikipedia a few times a week, mostly to expand articles. Probably won't be around enough to patrol for vandalism, which eventually gets cleaned up by one of us or someone else anyway. I will probably trim my watchlist some more -- won't bother watching stuff like Ghost Rider or Rise of the Silver Surfer. I have a serious backlog of movie news with news headlines (via Google Alerts) and RSS feeds. I figure that when I get the time, I'll sit and update each film article one at a time. Wikipedia is really secondary right now in the scheme of things. I agree with what you said a while ago about the tendency to think about how I'd have to deal with bad edits when I check my watchlist. Hell, I've had a dream or two about edit warring -- perhaps that's a bad sign! I'll continue lurking minimally (I hope), and I figure this weekend, I'll update what I can. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300: the Ultimate Synopsis

Shortening it as much as possible:

"The Persians invaded Greece, and Spartans died slowing then down."

What is that, nine words? lol Arcayne 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! And for Depictions of Persians, I would just merge that and Political AQspects into a new header: Political Persians:
"Persia was made to look ugly, and Persians got their country to be angry at a comic book adaptation."

-:) Arcayne 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi!, thanks for tell me about fan made posters. I should put real posters on wikipedia, in Saw IV there's a fan made poster (I think), now I will try to find a real one.

User: Emiliano s

[edit] spider-trailer

That rewording sounds better, but I think you're right, that it's still n ot the best... "It was first released in front of 300" might work, as that implies it's since been released in other ways... maybe? ThuranX 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so, but it's on the website now, which is another form of release. and I think it's on TV too, isn't it? or at least, scenes from that trailer are... right? ThuranX 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean 3

So Bignole, do you feel a slight tingling sensation for the trailer? I've got major expectations within the next several hours, during which I'll be asleep, and dread considering what some people will do to the article. I wish you good luck. WikiNew 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When I woke up this morning I found the article to be in quite a state. Still that trailer really makes me want to make the article the GA of the Pirates of the Caribbean series. WikiNew 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Depictions of ancient Persians in the film 300

...a wall sculture is not easily compared to a film portrayal.. -- is how you described your removal of the piece I had added.

Now, if there were cameras around 465 B.C., I'm sure I wouldn't have used relief on a wall as physical description of King Xerxes.

I have noticed you guys are trying to fend off vandals, which is a very good thing. But with all due respect, treating an example frame (plus the text piece) which harmlessly (but accurately) shows historical innacuracy, as a rougue piece of work was OUT OF ORDER. I had followed standard procedure to try and describe a historical inaccuracy when it comes to physical description of a historic figure, in this case, a King.

Your justification to remove my piece is not valid. So (as this is a public domain) please provide a reasonable and valid argument as to why my piece should not be a part of the "Depictions of ancient Persians" section ASAP. Many thanks -- Ash sul 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, exactly as you said, there were NO cameras back then. Comparing a film character to a wall sculpture of a person that we cannot even verify if it's the way he looked is hardly notable. We have written testimony about what Xerxes looked liked, but you cannot encyclopedically compare a live action person with wall art. Maybe, if it was a true painting, but even so the film is not based on history, it's based on a comic book. That is why we have a comparison with the comicbook, because that is what it get's its information from, not history. Now, the comic gets it from history, but vaguely. It is not appropriate, nor would it pass fair use to compare film Xerxes to wall art Xerxes, especially wall art where you cannot really see the man (it's a side profile, where you cannot distinguish beard from robe. .... -- That's actually a very fair statement. I lose this one (sobbing!). Thanks for the quick reply dude! -- Ash sul 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category booboo

Ooops...didn't even think about that, thanks for catching it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Diff comparisons

Am I doing that the right way? I hadn't done it before, and don't know if it is acceptable or not. I fugured showing the examples was a lot easier than trying to explain it for a page and a day. -Arcayne 17:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville

Thanks for catching my errors. I is uzhooly a gud spellur, but am bizzy werking in bizarro world company. i is very happy to am be here. :P Arcayne 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Club revisited

I'm trying to perceive how to bring together all the passages in Themes together. Do you have any ideas? I'd like to avoid subsections if I can. This is my thinking right now -- to explain briefly the purpose of the film -- darkly satirical, exploratory of themes, etc. Then I'll describe the narrator, being an unreliable narrator and an everyman, then I'll describe Durden as his opposite. I'm not sure how to do this, though -- it's very obvious in the film, but to point that out myself seems like original research. Maybe one of the citations have something; I just pretty much accepted the doppelganger nature as the truth. So after the narrator and Durden, I'll bring Marla in, then get into relationships between all three of them. Not sure how to include the overall theme of self-identity and violence as a metaphor, though? Any ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tables being frowned upon

What are you referencing when you say "See Featured Articles, tables are frowned upon" [3]. A direct link would be great. Cburnett 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X-Men articles

You wouldn't mind going down to X-Men and X2 articles and gutting the plots for me? Thanks, as usual good writing is getting in the way for me to use my summarising skills. WikiNew 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the exam. I myself have a couple of pieces of coursework right now. I do find it comfy though doing in front of the computer. WikiNew 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the trim-down of X2's plot summary, it was sorely needing it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Voorhees

Please do not remove his cited height and weight. It is considered vandalism. R@y 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see: [4] and [5] and do not remove his height and weight any more. R@y 11:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave you two links. I don't know why you always remove his height and weight. I don't want to start an editwar with you but you can seek an admin, if you want. R@y 12:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Beside this, I appreciate if you were a little bit friendlier to me! R@y 12:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added these two links to the discussion page of Jason Voorhees. Let's see if other users will agree. Well...in that case, I won't add his height and weight any more and I'll concentrate on other articles, Cheers. R@y 12:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
On my way. I'll read up on the MOS beforehand.
On a side note, could you take a quick look here? He seems like a good kid trying to put together the article pretty much by himself, and is spending all of his time reverting vandalism instead of fixing yp the article after vandals trash it. He needs an admin to semiprotect the page. Aside from Alex (who always seems busy), I don't really know any. Could you recommend one or two to him?

-Arcayne 17:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] smallville tv series

Why did you take out the link i added??? Its a well researched and informative web site!!!!--Modelmotion 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thet list of dem dere Smallville eppysodes as shore purty, with alla dem cullures and wotnot. ;) -Arcayne 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I don't have a problem with the colors. I was wondering, though, what is the significance of the production codes? Not sure if it borders on "indiscriminate" information. Also, can it be made clearer what # (in the first column) is, such as "Episode #"? I figured out what it meant, but I think it could be made more immediately clear. Other than that, I don't see any other issues with the list. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a Production Code article; any way that can be worked into the list? Not sure if I'd go so far to wiki-link Code at each table, but just wondering if there can be a very brief mention somewhere. Let me know when you nominate the list, I'll add my $0.02 to it. What do you think of Fight Club so far? Still gotta bring in Themes, obviously, but any thoughts on the structure or placement of content would be appreciated, as well as anything you think could be explored further. For instance, I'm going to do some research about the film's music (I noticed the Radiohead bit you put on my subpage's talk), just to find out why the Dust Brothers were picked, and why "Where is My Mind?" was chosen for the end song. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Two more things after a second look: Is it necessary to have Smallville (DC Comics)? It seems wholly unrelated to the TV show. Also, you said you looked at the DVD sets for your information. Is it possible to cite these as well, so there's no discrepancy if someone tries to alter something down the run? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind about Smallville (DC Comics); not sure what I was thinking. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've forgotten something

Lando Calrissian is listed as 5' 10" here on Wikipedia. The actor of Lando is Billy Dee Williams and his true height is 6 ft here. R@y 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok then. I don't really care about this thing. R@y 18:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casino Royale (2006 film)

Hi,

You removed a review and update to the spoiler section, concerning the plot (diff) ont eh basis that "Wiki is not a substitute for watching the film".

If you look at the diff, it doesn't add excessive detail. It does however add detail necessary to cover and connect the gaps in the core plot, and is well within usual level of detail for a film article plot section.

As a result of your revert, the plot as you have left it, does not actually explain the plot to a reader, which is what such article sections are usually intended to do. In addition, blanket reverts such as this are usually a poor idea as (removing all suggested edits) they often suggest that blanket reversion has been done in place of review and consideration.

Please reconsider your revert. Many thanks, FT2 (Talk | email) 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the note. I wonder if you could re-read the diff again. There are some significant plot jumps in the original. I take your point on what is and isn't excessive detail, but don't agree a 100% blanket revert was the best way to proceed. To take one example, it seems odd that the nature of torture ("Le Chiffre tortures Bond by repeatedly striking his testicles with a knotted rope") is important, but the abrupt and unexplained switch of narrative to the Bahamas, the significance of the short selling (that it was illicit gambling with clients money, which isnt explained), the misinformation that "Mathis, whom Le Chiffre suggested was a double agent..." (in fact Bond himself realises this from information gained, it was not "suggested" by Le Chiffre)... all these are not significant.
To take another example, the minor plot detail that he wins a car is included, even though it's not core to the plot, but Le Chiffre is only explained as being killed by a suddenly introduced and unexplained "Mr White" -- the core explanation that this is a follow-on from threats by his clients to kill him for loss of their money (also not mentioned in the article), and which explains why a complete stranger suddenly kills him, is completely omitted.
I acknowledge your point it's been trimmed down before "some months back" probably after some debate. But most of the additions in that diff had value to someone seeking to understand the film narrative from its article, and the diff also included the removal of some excessive detail (such as nature of torture). Please review the diff and discuss. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Little Guidance, Please

A fellow user asked me to lend him a hand with the Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan articles, as they were pretty overrun with POV pushing nonsense. Currently this user, a suspected sockpuppet for another user, is working very hard to place a poorly cited, and certainly damaging piece of information into the article. I've reverted it twice, due to the BLP policy on removing damaging info that isn't cited or is non RS. I am not sure how to handle this person, as I am going to run out of reverts right quick, and this guy doesn't seem to be acting in good faith. What to do? Arcayne 04:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I was worried I was doing something wrong. Arcayne 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nancy reagan

all the material i included in nancy reagan is in the book i cited. are you looking for citations about the citation? that's not required on wiki. adios amigo.

[edit] Future films

I've never really figured out when an article should exist for a future film. I've played both sides, but I've never been certain at what point it would be acceptable to permit a film article. I mean, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is highly likely to be made, but I couldn't quite say the same for something like Beverly Hills IV. Spider-Man 4 would somewhat fall in between, since the contracts are up for the actors. Any idea on what would be good rules of thumb to consider for these things? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I want to run with that logic, but dealing with stubborn opinions like at the AfD for Jurassic Park IV makes me hesitate to pursue a widespread campaign to take action on this. I'm thinking that a guideline could be created, and perhaps examples of films that never made it could be cited to show that films don't always make it, even when they're this far into production (like the Wonder Woman example you mentioned). What about films with repeated attempts at production, though? Does an extended production history give a film a free pass to at least tell its story, even though a film is never actually made? Two examples that come to mind are Logan's Run (2007 film) and John Carter of Mars (film). I'm thinking of ways to circumvent arguments that keep-voters may make. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the situation regarding someone trying to circumvent locked articles for the Superman sequel not too long ago. It's good that we've contested article creation for it, since it seems iffy that Singer will return to direct the sequel immediately. I'll see what kind of guideline I can draw together; there's a lot of non-policy variables that would need to be addressed, like explaining why a film may not take off even if a director, or a lead actor, is attached. Some may also think that a film may deserve its own article even if it doesn't get produced, such as Halo. I'm at work now (library assistant, hurrah), and I have a series of exams from Saturday to next Thursday, so I'll be mostly AWOL. After then, I'll see what guideline I can create. Also, in regard to Fight Club, do you know the technique to take screen caps from the DVD? I'm thinking about adding one or two shots -- maybe one related to visual effects and another to Themes, such as Tyler using the megaphone. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A subpage sounds like a good idea to put our proposal for the guideline together. Let's hold off on creating it, though, until we're both done with our exams. Wikipedia, like you said, is distracting enough as it is. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Added my $0.02. I don't think I'd oppose a list of characters from that franchise, as there seems to be similar lists. This one's just poorly set up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene. I think they made every argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Is Otto's behavior possibly considered harassive? He's being rather persistent in arguing with you, despite the fact you're not going to be swayed by his perspective. It's sounding less like an intellectual debate and more like an escalating argument. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween remake

I saw your most recent edit, and although I didn't write the change that you reverted, I just wanted to mention that Rob Zombie never actually denied the script's accuracy. In fact, he actually confirmed it was a real early draft, but said that the movie had changed significantly since then, which is why he didn't want people to judge the film on that basis. Well, that, and his whole rant about how a script on paper is wildly different than the visual experience of film or whatever that was. --Bishop2 03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Horror Template

First of all, great work on the template. I like hearing all the ideas people have about what icon means.

A few things:

  • Would definitely change "the Gillman" back to "Creature from the Black Lagoon". No one knows it as the Gillman, and while I had my suspicioins that that was what was being referred to, I had to click on the link to be sure. I think that the link can lead to "The Gillman", but should be labeled as before.
  • I strongly lobby that we add "The Living Dead" as a Modern character/icon. While not a single entity, it is pretty well established in the genre, and the Alien is not a single entity either, but no one would argue that they do not belong on the list. Ahmashar 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature

I'm sure this has been pointed out to you before but your signature hurts my eyes. It also distracts attention from more meaningful things like your arguments, especially in debates where you've made more than one comment (it hit me when I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (second nomination)). I think everyone would appreciate it if you can tone it down to something more discrete. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Of course, I won't make a fuss about it and it probably just passes the requirements laid out at Wikipedia:Signature#Customizing_your_signature. However I would like to point out that while it may be great for you to easily figure out where you intervened in a debate, this is only because most of us try to keep a neutral non-screaming sig. If all signatures were big blocks of color like yours, just about everybody would be getting an instant headache when reading just about any debate. Pascal.Tesson 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Headline text

Hi there. I was just wondering what you thought of the yanks moving missiles to north yorkshire?

I am stil a bit concerned about the layout of the page. Surely in most film articles details on the plot would be before production? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 11:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree in a way its just people unfamiliar with the film might find it an odd ordering. Please do not delete the new special effects section. I know this helps the article a lot. I discussed this with User:wikinewbie who thought it a good idea and I sincerely hope he does not decide to revert everything because there will be a little war on hand if he wastes my efforts of the last 30 minutes!! I have also kittted out the henchmen and allies with the appropraite images as in other lists. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S I know some of the people associated with this article are against images in an article but I beleive the official image of Daniel Craig being publlicly announced as Bond is a highly important image for the film article and James Bond. It is a highly significant image which I hope again will not be attempted to be washed out ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I will watch the dvd special again later to see if I missed anything but i think its a pretty good summary of the special effects and behind the scenes of the film. What do you think of the changes? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

THat better. I also really think the first section should mention Moneypenny and the actress worked with Pierce Brosnan decling the part and producers deciding to exclude the charcter anyway?. THis is the first Bond film where she is excluded. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is a WP:Films convention anyway -I'm fine with the production first that is the correct order really !!! A signifcant part of the film i'd like to see is proper details of the awards - as a film buff many people will want to know details on nominations and award wins. . I am currently drawing up an awards table which I beleive would be a good part after the Reaction paragraph ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'll stick to the more major awards rather than Costume Design awards!!! I feel this information is really needed in the reception - more professional. However if the table is too bloated I might put it in writing format which may be more condensed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am building it now I beleive it will look way too bloated so I think text format is better. I would suggest it would be like this:

[edit] Awards in 2007

[edit] Wins

BAFTA etc

[edit] Nominations

American Critics Awards BAFTA ETC

You'll see in about 20 minutes ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 13:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yes sorry it would be

[edit] Reaction

[edit] Awards

I've added it I hope it looks ok. It needs to be sourced to the imdb ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"

Very true. If this could be done that would be great. Also how about a bit more summary to SOundtrack most film articles have the soundtrack image or at least the single image even if it has a seperate article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 14:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes perhaps a bit more on sales, reception of the music, worldwide release or even a brief on the score composition by Arnold etc. No I don't want the article to go over 60 kb if possible - the next step will be to try to improve the article make it read better for an FA. I think the synopsis can be imrpoved in terms of quality. I do have experience in article writing particularly on films and if possible it would be good to have a subsection on Screenplay and a brief summary of comparison with the novel if we can find professional adequate sources ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If I do touch the plot it will only be very minor wording rather than new paragraphing. While I do usually prefer detailed plot outlines I feel we can get away with a good brief sunmmary here. I too am very busy particularly with the List of films by country and WIkiProject Tibet etc. I'll try to imprive it gradually when I have time. I think I've just about finished today when I find a referecne for current album otr single details on sound release. See ya ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That plot now reads wonderfully I think and tells you the film really in a reaonsably short summary ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 15:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I did that when I read it the last time ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I also started Chris Corbould. Check out that amazing filmo! Every film is like one of the highest grossing of all time!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When to create a future film article

In my view creating a film article early can be a good thing. Articles like Indiana Jones 4 benefit from the various scraps thrown around over the years from the spontaneity of various editors. Curbing early in-development articles may have a negative effect. But that's just my 2 cents. Alientraveller 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

True, lots of things are immediately greenlit and some take a while to get off the ground. Contrast Bond 22 with Superman Returns 2, and more on-topic, Wolverine with Magneto. Speaking of Marvel's merry mutants, what do you think needs trimming? X2 is quite complex. Alientraveller 18:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jurassic Park production images

Halleujah, I found some pictures avaliable from the Internet. Which do you think works best?

http://download.lavadomefive.com/members/BigClawz/JurassicPark-TRexRampage.jpg - Crash McCreery's first piece of concept art for the film.

http://download.lavadomefive.com/members/BigClawz/JurassicPark-ClayRexWalks04.JPG - Tippett's go motion test.

http://download.lavadomefive.com/members/BigClawz/JurassicPark-CGIRexTest.JPG - First CG animatic test.

http://download.lavadomefive.com/members/BigClawz/JurassicPark-FilmRexCarPin02.JPG - Shooting of the Rex model.

Which do you think would work best? Alientraveller 19:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit scared as I like both of those, but then I'd be turning it into the Rex show. But that image of the Rex roaring as to when she ruled the Earth is so classic I can't bear to replace it with the Raptors in the kitchen. Alientraveller 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the shortened plot. And I think I will replace the T-Rex image in JP's plot section. Plot wise, the Raptors are built up from the beginning whilst Rex is an extended cameo. Alientraveller 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/g/User_talk%7EBignole_3e96.html"