User talk:Tommyt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Tommyt, 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:


Contents

[edit] Predator (film)

Re Might Have been vandalism, It was! Thanks for reverting. Orangutan 14:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morley???

Orangutan, perhaps you can tell me, who the hell is Rob Morley? What the heck does he have to do with Predator or Wiki vandalism? Tommyt 16:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Most likley the author of the edits! The IP adress used came from the U.K. so it's probably some kid who is bored on his easter holidays. If it had been a U.S kid it would have probably been Chuck Norris or Poopy, They seem to be the current vandalism memes Orangutan 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I thought it might've been one of those repeated vandalism things, you know, the fun thing to do liked subbing the word "pwned" for "beaten" in the '92 LA Riots article. Damnable lil' punks!! Tommyt 17:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz

Hi there: at Auschwitz the crematoria and gas chambers, of which there were four at Birkenau, were each built as an integrated unit; the bodies were just taken through a door from the gas chamber to the crematorium. I think that the sonderkommando revolt in reality destroyed both crematorium and gas chamber.--Anthony.bradbury 18:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're most likely right. The chapter dealing w/this in Nyszli's book talks only about the crematorium but its reasonable to think the gas chambers were damaged or destroyed too. Thanks. Tommyt 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Day of the Dead

That's okay. And I myself apologise for using "abuse." I didn't mean it in the strong way you took it, but I could have used a different word. --Bacteria 12:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOTR grammar

Thanks for your work on the plot summaries. I'm generally concerned with getting information across with the right references. Thanks. Wiki-newbie 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Braveheart, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.

[edit] Manual of Style

Please see the Style Manual given in the links in your recent welcome message. Please don't revert edits to conform punctuation to that. Jonathunder 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the grammar editing for Children of Men. :) Arcayne 18:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks!! I hate HATE it when people use the words "but" or "get" when there are many other, better ways to say the same thing! Tommyt 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Braveheart edits

Yes, I was hoping to avoid placement of the tag myself (was going to watch the movie again to refresh my memory before going through the plot synopsis to clean out rubbish). I'll begin 'cleaning out the garage' tomorrow, and feel free to contribute your grammar fun as well :)Arcayne 22:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Tommy, I think the soundtrack stuff can stay until we decide to set up a sub-page and article. The music meets the "notable and interesting" criteria for in clusion, but I agree that it makes the article too long. I have never set up a sub page before, though. A lot of FA class articles have soundtrack sections and sub-pages about soundtracks. We have to remember to balance the need for a trimmer article with retaining the requirement that it doesn't lose that which makes it interesting. Maybe we could add it back in, for now, until we set up a sub-page. Could I impose upon you to do that, since I never have?Arcayne 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No proble. I think a lot of users there feel constrained by the lack of sources connecting the film to historical inaccuracies, and are pinning all their efforts on this single one. I know ther are other sources out there. I should probably go out and find them this weekend. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Question

Glad to know you hate em too. First off, unfortunately, you can't just block one off the bat. See this page (Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace) for messages to place on a vandals talk page. Typically for first offenses you'd use the warning under level two, afterwards level four. If they are still vandalizing after these two warnings, you can report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where an admin will see your request and proceed (in most cases) to block the vandal. Glad to answer you questions, and if you have any further inquiries just drop me a message on my talk page. PeteShanosky 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beezus and Ramona

Beezus and Ramona I noticed you deleted a large part of that atricle in April, and you were right in saying that it was in need of fixing in grammar, but next time you decide to delete what was put in there, just fix it for grammar and then put it back in. --24.225.156.40 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mea culpa...

I could swear that I heard the dialogue in my head & I thought it was soixante. Just watched the film & you're right. Thanks. Hrrrmmm, gotta wonder how stuff like that gets past the DVD team...? Ever see the typos in Battle Royale? They're horrendous!Tommyt 02:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries! AirOdyssey (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag at Hollow Man

Hi. When adding a {{fact}} tag (or any other cleanup/maintenance tag), please try to remember to specify the full name of the month rather than an abbreviation (e.g. "October" instead of "Oct") in the "date" parameter. This is needed for categorisation of the article into the appropriate maintenance category (in this case, Category:Articles with unsourced statements since October 2007). You can also just add the tag without the date parameter, and a bot will get to it. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Apocalypse Now summary

No, I disagree, I understand it's a synopsis, but you've included details in completely the wrong places, and the text appears to be extremely similar to a copyrighted source. I will attempt to provide a source for you, do reply. And I have seen the film, so you don't need to tell me it's a existentialist drama! I look forward to your reply.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


OK, will do. I assume you will check the other plot summaries while you're at it, I have seen much worse. I'll have it soon.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sunshine

I've tried to trim the Plot at Sunshine (2007 film). Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No kidding; I've tried to downplay the importance of the Plot section whenever I can. The film is generally widely accessible for everyone to watch. One thing that is nice about such bloated sections, though, one can review the details and figure out how to summarize even if it's been a while after seeing the film. I enjoyed the film a lot, though, because of all the real-world details that I discovered in expanding the article. I'd like to continue improving, especially with the Critical reaction section (which I avoided before, not having seen it yet). I can't watch the commentary, though; I'm deaf, and I use subtitles to follow films. Audio commentaries rarely ever have subtitles to accompany them, and Sunshine wasn't one of the exceptions. Feel free to share the revelation from the commentary? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And I thought Ernest Hemingway was a master of being succinct? :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha, Ayn Rand's definitely more verbose. Can you tell me what the revelation in the commentary was? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you misunderstood -- I've already seen the film, so I welcome the extra detail. Thanks for telling me -- I actually figured from what you hinted that it had to do with Trey's suicide being faked. I remember the shot with Mace taking out the scalpel, so that makes a lot of sense. That was a nice, subtle detail. You sure it shouldn't be added to the article? We can cite the commentary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we need to mention that Pinbacker stole the scalpel to kill Corazon, but we can put "apparently" in relation to Trey's suicide. I've made an attempt -- let me know what you think. We can point out other plot details using this, too, perhaps. Did the director elaborate on the odd time/space ending of the film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to discuss what the ending could be, since I know there will be original interpretations of it. I was just wondering if the director commented on what the ending meant during the commentary. I agree, though, it'd be a good idea to start discussion to see if we can't incorporate interpretations somehow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] apoc now

Not especially, it's just I don't judge you as being at the top of my priority list. All better?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to you getting so concerned over me not responding to your messages, but obvoiusly you failed to pick up on this. Speaking of which I waited longer for you to respond to me, than me to you, did you realise that? Third of all, I intend to re-write that summary, properly, and I won't need you to assist me in any way, so take leave.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone offering assistance, I appreciate their offer, but not yours, since you couldn't actually write it yourself, no?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to tell me you work for Wikipedia? To quoteyou, "I tried to change the page but it was overturned." That seems to demonstrate other users were not impressed with your changes, so maybe you are not qualified to write the article after all. Care to explain what you tried to do?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


The napalm quote was there when I last checked. Anyway, your knowledge and interest in the film

is certainly not to be argued with, be it true, and, same as you I find the film, the war in general and the themes of the movie very interesting, but I still cannot bring myself to agree with you, in the main. Hmmm, tell you what, perhaps I shall try and locate the original writer of the article and vouch for his opinion. Till then, I'll leave the article alone.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? My (admittely short) research turned up a user called The Cuncuter, or something to that effect. I'll have a look....--Hammerandclaw (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant whoever wrote the original article, that was changed, as opposed to the new writer, but I suppose I should see the new guy too.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


"sigh" I can't seem to relocate the synopsis, it appears to be have been moved or deleted from the original site. Again, crud.....I still maintain that that article needs to be re-written however--Hammerandclaw (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No country....

No prob. I just liked it because after seeing it three times I'm still impressed with the landscape images. Just thought it worthwhile to attempt to add some of it to the description. Happy editing!
Jim Dunning | talk 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)