If information exists across multiple pages of a citation, I usually reference the first "home" page of the article. However, if there's only one fact on page 3 of so-and-so article, I just give the direct URL to that page. I think it's a waste of space to cite different pages of the same article, especially when it's likely that the multiple pages are to boost viewers' exposure to ads on that site. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks. I can manage Bond articles on my own. Alientraveller 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just leave him be. Let the block kick in and then we can go back and fix it. No need to waste time constantly undoing what he's going to continue to do. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you'd be in violation of 3RR since his acts were vandalism (by introducing false information). Anyway, it just feels like we don't deal with as much vandalism on these film articles like back in 2006, for whatever reason. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The source for that was a blatantly admitted rumor Moriarty posted on AICN. You were right to take it down. ThuranX 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
— Pious7 Talk Contribs 10:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooops..I need to make sure that when I'm adjusting that I pay attention to what I'M doing. Good catch. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll be taking a road trip to NTID/ RIT for a festival today (just finished my semester yesterday). I'll be back at my university Tuesday or Wednesday night, but in the meantime, I'll probably be more AWOL than my wikibreak template ever suggested before. Best of luck standing guard! — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you are located, but are you part of the area that's getting it on the 23rd? Because it seems like regardless, you'll be able to see it before any of us here in the states, so you'll be able to keep it in check when those other people try and blow it up. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
How much of the interview was included? I noticed that the interviews with Raimi and Church (granted, not Dunst or Howard) had a lot of supplementary information. External links are for that purpose, which is why there's "The Secrets of Spider-Man 3" there, too. A lot of our references are pretty to-the-point, so if there's anything extra like Church's description of how the "birth of Sandman" came to be, it should be available separately from the list of references that don't have additional detail. Sorry, trying to catch up on my wiki-activities, I like the re-sectioning and the expansion on writing. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You guys are talking about the all the interviews, how about One Link to rule them all, One Link to find them, One Link to bring them all and in Wikipedia bind them BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Article British anti-invasion preparations of World War II has been promoted to featured article. Thank you for your help and support. Gaius Cornelius 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Crzy cheetah 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here: I don't think that's a good idea and reverted. Plot summary is not equal to article summary, and any plot details must have the spoilers tag. — Alde Baer 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You have reverted multiple times at 300 (film) in the last 24 hours. Please refrain from engaging in edit warring and instead pursue dispute resolution for your disagreements. Excessive reverts are less likely to cause a resolution, since it will make collaboration less likely. Repeat offenders may be blocked from editing if the problem continues. Thanks! Note that this message applies to everyone at 300 (film), and all three users with multiple reverts at the article in the last 24 hours received it. Dmcdevit· t 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
From my part, I couldn't help but noticing a deal of hypocrisy concerning those reverts. You reverted my version, twice in a minute, claiming that the previous version has a "cite". What about when someone removed my edit which also came with a source, or rather two. What's your excuse for such a behaviour? Miskin 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I recognize some of it from the trivia I've removed from the article. I'll see what I can work in. Did the Premiere magazine have any detail about Fight Club being a DVD to own, like what rank out of the 100? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that an Effects section or subsection could be added to the article. (Weren't there subsections under Production at one point, edited by you? Why the change back?) There are VFXWorld references on the talk page. Registration might be required, so get the user/pass from www.bugmenot.com -- it'll get you in. Also, I know for sure that Raimi became interested in Maguire when his wife showed the actor perform in Cider House Rules -- I think that warrants a mention, since the choice for Spidey wasn't exactly clear-cut at the beginning. A couple of other real-world events circulating this film would be Raimi's choice of organic web-shooters -- he's even mentioned this recently in Spider-Man 3 press... I'll see if I can dig it up. Raimi said that a petition with thousands of signatures was sent to the studio head to encourage the director not to go with organic web-shooters, and Raimi noticed, realizing that he needed to cater to the serious fans, too. (Which prompted him to add Venom, I think -- I'll look for it.) There's also the lawsuit between Marvel and Stan Lee, which I think could be expanded into a paragraph. Here's some other suggestions below:
Anyway, I realize that you're asking, how to get the GA status? I don't think that you would have any difficulty at this point; not sure if a reviewer would note the missing gaps of information like I have here. Anyway, take the suggestions that you think would help it achieve the status, but I think ultimately, most of these suggestions should be incorporated for FA status later. It'd be really cool if we could do a Star Wars trilogy dealie with all Spidey films having FA status. Probably could do the same for Batman Begins -- wouldn't it be cool to have that film article as Featured Article of the Day on the day of The Dark Knight's release? Sounds like a project to me... haha. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 17:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Comics2Film's format isn't pretty... but if you have sufficient Google fu, you could track down some articles using some keywords. A lot of news articles from around the first film's release probably got shuffled due to archiving and whatnot. Need help finding any potentially useful articles? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"Raimi still wanted some realism, so therefore all shots are 100% computer generated." This doesn't seem to make sense... can this sentence be cleared up? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment about writing critical reaction, and I really agree. I like writing about the production, since there's a chronology to it. It's more of a jigsaw puzzle to piece together all the different opinions about a film -- which is why I'm still laboring over The Fountain. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 20:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Crap, I've been so into maintaining 3 that I haven't even looked at 2. I just bought the game also. I'll see if I can go through and grab some reviews from Tomatoes real quick and then I'll read through them and prose it up later on tonight. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I brought it up on the talk page to see what others think. I enjoy it as well, but without Elfman's music (I didn't care for Young's choice of themes for the different characters, mostly Dark Spidey), and lack of Spidey in the first 2 acts, I thought it didn't quite live up to my expectations. 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way we can point viewers of Spider-Man 3 to the Future section at Spider-Man film series? It's not linked to very much, and I think for the sake of current ease, there should be something that points there. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, I hope I didn't just subliminally suggest new projects for you! :) I personally like genesis stories, when characters are just starting out. Of course, TTT was good in its own right -- that opening scene where Gandalf dives for the Balrog is extremely hardcore, along with the Battle of Helms Deep, especially when the Riders of Rohan come to save the day. Bah, now I feel like I need to go on a trilogy binge when I get home from school next week. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 16:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if you'll ever use this tip, but I thought I'd let you know. If you ever use an article that contains both production and synopsis information, you can backwards-reference the citation that you use. Before, it was required that the first reference in a multi-reference should go before the other references, but now you can place the full reference in any rank. This can be set up so that the full reference goes into production, and the simpler multi-reference tag can go into Premise. That way, when the Premise section is blanked to write a full Plot section, the reference tied to production information won't be lost. Just a geek thing I can across today, editing all these drama films lately. :-P — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This has got to be a mistake. His parent's divorced in 1964. 75.35.115.45 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably look at E.T. more in depth this weekend. I have an 8-10 page paper due Thursday (first week of class, how lovely), so I won't be able to do something as big as reading an entire article, because I'll need to do that in one sitting. But, I'm watching the FAC, and taking note of some of the objections. If it cannot get FAC by June 11 (and you'd have to request it be on the front page for that day also), then you might want to look into getting it on the "Did You Know" section of the mainspace. It could be: "Did you know......that exactly 25 years ago today, Steven Spielberg released ET for the first time"....or something like that. the JP FAC seems to be going better the second time around. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
These are three things that I wasn't sure about. After I eat, I'll come back and look at the last two sections. Let me know if you don't agree with something I did, I'm far from perfect. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't have the DVD. I have power DVD (although I've found that some films won't actually save screen...must have a block on them). I was just thinking of anyway that would help make any "concern" about images go smoother. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That new image is disgustingly good. And don't you love being proven right over that Shaun Toub rumor crap? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, we are VERY close to achieving our goal of getting Season 8 to FT status, and we currently have several GACs. It would be much appreciated if you could take a look at some of them and do some reviewing. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 0422 23:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to your message on the Liam Neeson peer review discussion. As I said, there's no free images that I can find of Neeson for use in the article. Can you give any suggestions to an image that would be considered fair use? Thanks again. -- My Name Is URL 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Future Perfect is attempting to delete the 300 Soundtrack image that you uploaded some time ago as "purely decorative" and attempting to cite WP:Nonfree as his basis for doing so. I've reinstated it, requesting Discussion before he does so again. Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Go to http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246640&page=434 and go down near the bottom of the page. You'll see a better pic of Frenzy behind Sam. Just a suggestion of replacement for the pic of movie Frenzy. I'm asking you because I can't do copyright stuff.
Why do you keep on removing the material I added about the history channel stuff in his bio? I know it's a fictional bio, he's a fictional character. The material has relevance since it talks about the spider bite. ( Ghostexorcist 10:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
Thank you for looking over the article. I will work on the points you raised - see comment on Talk:Nelson Mandela. In your opinion, are there any other reasons keeping the article from reaching GA status? Zaian 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:EMBED states that articles should consist of prose. by using the ; instead of the * the cast section appears more like prose and therefore, using the ; is better (its a better format). Considering that I did not change anything else, I have no idea why you undid my edit. I do not want an edit war but I will make those changes again, unless you can convince me otherwise.-- 88wolfmaster 22:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to take so long in getting back to you -- I was about to put another "out of the country" box at the top of my talk page when I realized I'd never replied. I've had a look at the article and I think it's splendid, so I can't be of very much help in terms of offering a critical appraisal. I do think the "production" section is a bit on the long side; e.g. "Spielberg also excised a sub-plot of Procompsognathus escaping to the mainland and attacking young children, as he found it too horrific." What's actually important and what isn't, however, is a question better left to someone who's seen the film; and I, sorry to say, have not. Best, -- Javits2000 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the price of working with future film articles... the upkeep isn't recognized until the films come out. I'm sure we'll get pretty green pluses for Spider-Man 3, maybe even stars for all of us down the run. All the crap we went through keeping it polished, we deserve it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide how it was misleading, that would be even more helpful. Thanks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If you get some free time (free time on Wikipedia..LOL, yeah right) could you take a gander at this FAC. It's my first nomination, and I'd appreciate any input for its improvement. It's on the Aquaman pilot, so it won't be a long article to read. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't delete all the subpages because it would delete the page. They work off the subpages. If I ever kill the page I'll be sure to "db-author" all the subpages. If only every individual episode article could find that much information. When is the 25th for ET? I'd go ahead and nominate it for GA status, because I think it's clearly up to that level. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Politeness, and I think Common Sense...those are two important tests. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's possible. We can use the information about Arad convincing Raimi to bring in Venom (stupid decision, I say) as a base for expansion. For example, do we know if Raimi planned a black suit Spider-Man at all? Because it'd be pretty significant to say that the inclusion of Venom brought in a darker theme, with symbiote and all. I'm not sure if I can help much today, though. I'm going back to my university to pick up some things for my internship this summer and to attend a friend's housewarming party. Don't think I'll be on Wikipedia much for the weekend, if at all, after this next hour or so. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
Thanks for reviewing the Kung Fu Hustle article. I've replied to your comment in the peer review page, and would be grateful if you take another look at the article and check for more room for improvement. Thanks.-- Kylohk 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I revised 11 future film articles in the course of a week, and there's 12 of that kind in Article focus. Not too impossible. :) The already-released film articles will take longer, obviously, but it helps to see them and think that I might do something about them someday, haha. The home life is slow; I have an internship out of state in a couple of weeks, but in the meantime, I'm just kicking around. Probably should get off my "wikibreak" -- that was just to cool off from my little tussle regarding non-free content. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Newsweek. IMDb headlines might lead you to actual articles. National Geographic compares the film's pirates to real pirates. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the GA review. It's my first!-- Vbd ( talk) 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth did you remove my addition to Pirates of the Carribean? I looked though your contributions... all you do is undo other people's contributions. When you add something yourself, you don't describe it in summary, offer no explanation, and fail to provide citations. Why do you persist in destroying the constructive work of others? Do you even read the passages you are so quick to undo, or is it merely territorial pissing on your part?
With regards to the Curse of the Black Pearl page, you have not offered a single summary for your countless edits to the page. You have made the vast majority of the recent edits on the page, yet you do not explain what it is you are editing. The only time you do offer a summary is when you are removing the contributions of a user like myself. If you truly are contributing anything, then you should offer an explanation in the summary.
By deleting the contributions of myself and others, and thus effectively monopolizing the Curse of the Black Pearl page, you are impeding the natural flow of information and compromising the integrity of Wikipedia and the breadth of its content.
Seamus Ryan 06:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
My friend, simply because you do not know about something doesn't mean it's not true. If Wikipedia were based upon your knowledge alone, it would be a small encyclopedia indeed. Include summaries with your contributions... otherwise, they are suspect.
Osirus 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would probably say to include one of the ship fights. I hesitate to say to show the skeleton crew, since that seems borderline spoiler-ish. Maybe just a picture of one of them, like Barbossa, in withered form? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you removed that New Haven, CT part because it was uncited. Sorry, I do not yet know how to cite things. Here's the article New Haven Register
Since you know what you want, could you explain on the talk page of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly what the cast section should look like? Perhaps you can just give me a link to an article you like. BTW, I like your new nick. — Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen of film articles, such as Casino Royale, production goes above plot. It seems to be the convention. ColdFusion650 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry on that. My confusion. If Raiders is that way, the other Indy articles should be changed accordingly to maintain continuity. It's kind of weird that Bignole is an active reader of this talk page. ColdFusion650 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you saw the message I left on Erik's page, but just in case, I'll leave it here. I'm trying to get the Crystal Ball policy amended to be more specific, so that we don't have to deal with these types of AfDs (e.g. Spider-Man 4). The discussion is here. If you would like to voice your opinion, it would be much appreciated. I don't care if they amend it to say that any information regarding a future film could constitute its own article, I just want it to be clear on how to handle them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for failure to cite. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to the film series subpages! You're absolutely welcome to get your hands dirty in any of my projects. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you've helped with the subpage, I'd like to ask your opinion about its setup:
And one last thing: Are you going to write about Schumacher's involvement? I know that the Burton/Schumacher series is a work in progress, but I wanted to ask in case you had resources available to you that I don't. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think my beef with Canceled Superman films was that it was a mess and struck me as a fanboy-style article, solely bringing these failed projects together and writing in too much depth about the scripts that could have been. I just think that a Superman film series would be broader and more encyclopedic and a good "base". In fact, for the film series subpage, we could also create a Future section using the stuff from Superman Returns#Sequel and the links in my Future articles subpage. We could do that before we move it to the article namespace. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Where the hell did you get the idea that Natalie Portman's Erdős–Bacon number is "uncited" and "slander"? If you had bothered to click the wikilink in the sentence, you could easily have seen more than adequate citations supporting the statement. If you were new to Wikipedia I would have simply reverted and overlooked it. But you've been around a while. Please do a minimum of checking before deleting a statement. Otherwise it is considered vandalism. Ward3001 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Um...I'd like to see it early, but I don't want to deal with the crowds. I probably won't see it till next week, sometimes during the weekdays when there are fewer people at the theater. I'd go to the midnight showing, but it's 10 minutes shy of 3 hours, and if you add trailers for upcoming films and all that stuff..you're looking at over 3 hours of sitting in one spot. What about you? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It's "Decemeber" not "December". lol. Thanks for catching that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice.
Shermoo 11:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like that Pirates 3 plot is growing. Anyway, I've initiated a discussion at one of the Smallville season pages. It's about merging all (minus 1 so far) of the individual episode pages, into the season pages. I'd appreciate your thoughts either way on the matter. In the discussion, I've placed links to two of my sandboxes, that show a new format for the season pages and what the pilot episode will look like on its own. That's what I'm basing my opinion to merge on. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see that you've put the "Unnamed Transformer" under a Real Gear heading. Do you have a citation that this is a Real Gear transformer? All the buzz I've read on the net seems to be steering toward the opinion that he's not. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for nomming it, is was going to get around to it eventually, but wasn't entirely sure as to whether it was ready. But if you think it is, then that's fine by me. Thanks! Gran 2 18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly it needs to be mentioned, but I don't think it needs its own section, and the section as it stood wasn't all that great. In lieu of that, I've been weaving mention of Gotham City throughout the article instead. I might insert more about it into the "Personas" section, citing discussion of it as a reflection of the character.
By the way, what's your opinion on making the "Homosexual interpretations" section into a separate article called "Homosexual interpretations of Batman"? Obviously it's quite notable, but the way I wanted to rewrite the section in order to better complement the article as a whole would result in me ditching a lot of quality cited material. My solution is move and expand the section as is in a separate article 9and there are plenty of sources available if others want to expand the article), while reworking what we need into a three-paragraph or so main article summary for the Batman page. WesleyDodds 18:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware you left a request for image for Pirates 1. I don't watch the page. I only watched 2 and 3 because of the secrecy surrounding the budgets and I don't Box Office Mojo is reliable when it comes to budget information. I think they are fine for box office info, but they don't cite their sources for the budgets they list, and that concerns me, because that makes them nothing more than IMDb.com. People were always adding 225 million for Pirates 2, when Disney has never formally said anything. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You might find these sites helpful: [1] [2] - I know you want the IGN one, because it's a non-operational ship, but unless you have the DVD, I don't think anyone took that image other than IGN. And if they see the same image, obviously cropped closer to avoid their watermark, then it could cause problems. Not saying that they would actually care, but the legal ramifications could bring potential problems. I don't personally have the DVD, otherwise I'd be happy to capture for you myself. Sorry. If you want, you could probably just save it and throw it in Microsoft Paint and "Copy to file" a box that excludes the IGN logo. Do you have a spam email account, I'll send you something. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As you are reviewing the article, I think it's best to tell you that I've done all four points: conception, header change, rationales, citations for characters. Will ( We're flying the flag all over the world) 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have an internship that starts this morning (got up at 6:00 AM, it's now 6:51 AM), so I've been busy the past few days. I drove a 15.5-hour road trip from my home state to New Jersey (breaking up the trip over the course of three days), and I've been settling in at an apartment complex with interns. I've been meeting them and getting to know the area, so I haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. I'm sure, though, that things will slow down, and I'll find myself coming back to work on articles in due time. Don't worry, I'm not fading quite yet! Also, I hope to see POTC 3 captioned in this area, I found some available theaters already, so I'll check it out. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 10:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll put Smallville on the backburner for now. I'm still waiting for more people to actually discuss that merger for the indy ep articles. Oh, if you could also voice your opinion on the new season formats in the subsection that would be great. I realized that I left myself open for challenge because I was only really requesting opinion about the merger, and not the new format. That happened to us with Spidey 4, where we were doing one thing and someone said "sorry, didn't go through the proper channels with the other". Anyway, I'm in school all day today, but I'll try and get on it when I get off. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, I originally planned working on The Godfather series, but there is a user over there that is protecting those articles from any of my edits.... long story. Basically it's the first time I don't feel like arguing with someone. I'm considering either The Matrix or Indiana Jones series next. The Filmaker 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not blaming as you didn't add it, but the track listing is the same as the fake one that was near constantly added to the page a while back by the The UPN Vandal. I've seen it resurface on NoHomers.net recently, and then the Hollywood Reporter article came out. So what I mean is, I'm pretty sure that Absolute Punk just got the info from their or somewhere else, and it isn't true. I mean, how can the film possible have space for all of those songs and a Zimmer score when its only supposedly 90 minutes long? Gran 2 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be delighted to. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Mission accomplished (and when I say that, I actually mean it. :) ) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I improved the article per the GA review :) Judgesurreal777 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your sandbox project about the fictional character; looks good so far. Just thought I'd give you the heads up, if you weren't aware -- Jack Sparrow was caricatured in Epic Movie (2007), something you could maybe use for the Popular culture section. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but it says wait three months to post it for review, and I was more ticked that Raul ignored my input (I might do it soon). Anyway, thanks for the welcome, and congratulations on Jurassic Park, and pretty soon E.T. too it looks like.-- Dark Kubrick 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Just a friendly note. I notice that you don't always leave edit summaries for your edits. I would try to leave something, even if it's brief. I'd say this is more important for edits such as this, where 7,000 odd characters were removed. Of course, this was a good edit, but it probably would have been useful to say something like "shorten /copyed per WP:FICTION", to help newer users understand your changes. On a less altruistic side, percentage of edit summaries is something that some users will take into consideration in any RFA... Keep up the excellent work. The JPS talk to me 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I finished most of the work for the criticism section. I kind of followed the Jaws set up, because an "Awards" section by itself would be small, and the awards it wins can be reflects by what critics thought of the film. I think you rarely see films win many awards (unless its just for visual effects) that were destroyed by the critics. Anyway, I had trouble with the "negative" part, because there are only 2 in the Cream of the Crop, and the others either won't pop up when you click their links or they just aren't that professional. But your thoughts are needed before I'd replace the section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The removal of the the Daryaee statements does seem to be following consensus, which it seems you were a part of. Have you changed your mind on the topic? I was simply backing your play, but now that Nottheman...is asking what's up, I guess I am wondering as well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you recently passed Raptor Red, and the main image is missing a fair use rationale. Could you please leave a message on the talk page for the editors to add one to meet the GA criteria? Thanks and keep up the good work with the reviews! -- Nehrams2020 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I am sorry that you feel that way and I'm sure you could have come up with a better descriptive word for it. Many character templates from series' have this format! Example... Harry Potter, ect. You're tastes are also crappy.
I have changed the speedy deletion tag back to a prod, because "No proof" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Hoaxes are typically difficult to speedy delete away, as there's a gray area between "believable hoax" and " patent nonsense". Prods may work best, but if the prod is contested it would have to go to AfD. Leebo T/ C 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You recently reviewed History of Milton Keynes and failed it's Good Article Nomination. However, you only highlighted one area of weakness. If it was only the one area, wouldn't it have been better to place the article on hold? Alternatively, if there is more than one area in which it fails, could you please give more detailed review comments? Regards, Severo T C 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, a GA can be on hold for 7 days which really isn't that short a time to put citations in just one section. What's more, whilst you said the section was uncited, it does have 3 citations—vastly undercited I will agree—but not uncited. Finally, was there anything else wrong with the article which will prevent it from making GA when it is renominated after the section being cited? Regards, Severo T C 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your review. For future reviews, so that the people working on the articles that you review aren't as confused as I was today, perhaps you could read through Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and give more extensive feedback. History of Milton Keynes will be renominated within the week :). - Severo T C 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If information exists across multiple pages of a citation, I usually reference the first "home" page of the article. However, if there's only one fact on page 3 of so-and-so article, I just give the direct URL to that page. I think it's a waste of space to cite different pages of the same article, especially when it's likely that the multiple pages are to boost viewers' exposure to ads on that site. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks. I can manage Bond articles on my own. Alientraveller 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just leave him be. Let the block kick in and then we can go back and fix it. No need to waste time constantly undoing what he's going to continue to do. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you'd be in violation of 3RR since his acts were vandalism (by introducing false information). Anyway, it just feels like we don't deal with as much vandalism on these film articles like back in 2006, for whatever reason. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The source for that was a blatantly admitted rumor Moriarty posted on AICN. You were right to take it down. ThuranX 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
— Pious7 Talk Contribs 10:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooops..I need to make sure that when I'm adjusting that I pay attention to what I'M doing. Good catch. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll be taking a road trip to NTID/ RIT for a festival today (just finished my semester yesterday). I'll be back at my university Tuesday or Wednesday night, but in the meantime, I'll probably be more AWOL than my wikibreak template ever suggested before. Best of luck standing guard! — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you are located, but are you part of the area that's getting it on the 23rd? Because it seems like regardless, you'll be able to see it before any of us here in the states, so you'll be able to keep it in check when those other people try and blow it up. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
How much of the interview was included? I noticed that the interviews with Raimi and Church (granted, not Dunst or Howard) had a lot of supplementary information. External links are for that purpose, which is why there's "The Secrets of Spider-Man 3" there, too. A lot of our references are pretty to-the-point, so if there's anything extra like Church's description of how the "birth of Sandman" came to be, it should be available separately from the list of references that don't have additional detail. Sorry, trying to catch up on my wiki-activities, I like the re-sectioning and the expansion on writing. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You guys are talking about the all the interviews, how about One Link to rule them all, One Link to find them, One Link to bring them all and in Wikipedia bind them BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Article British anti-invasion preparations of World War II has been promoted to featured article. Thank you for your help and support. Gaius Cornelius 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Crzy cheetah 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here: I don't think that's a good idea and reverted. Plot summary is not equal to article summary, and any plot details must have the spoilers tag. — Alde Baer 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You have reverted multiple times at 300 (film) in the last 24 hours. Please refrain from engaging in edit warring and instead pursue dispute resolution for your disagreements. Excessive reverts are less likely to cause a resolution, since it will make collaboration less likely. Repeat offenders may be blocked from editing if the problem continues. Thanks! Note that this message applies to everyone at 300 (film), and all three users with multiple reverts at the article in the last 24 hours received it. Dmcdevit· t 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
From my part, I couldn't help but noticing a deal of hypocrisy concerning those reverts. You reverted my version, twice in a minute, claiming that the previous version has a "cite". What about when someone removed my edit which also came with a source, or rather two. What's your excuse for such a behaviour? Miskin 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I recognize some of it from the trivia I've removed from the article. I'll see what I can work in. Did the Premiere magazine have any detail about Fight Club being a DVD to own, like what rank out of the 100? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that an Effects section or subsection could be added to the article. (Weren't there subsections under Production at one point, edited by you? Why the change back?) There are VFXWorld references on the talk page. Registration might be required, so get the user/pass from www.bugmenot.com -- it'll get you in. Also, I know for sure that Raimi became interested in Maguire when his wife showed the actor perform in Cider House Rules -- I think that warrants a mention, since the choice for Spidey wasn't exactly clear-cut at the beginning. A couple of other real-world events circulating this film would be Raimi's choice of organic web-shooters -- he's even mentioned this recently in Spider-Man 3 press... I'll see if I can dig it up. Raimi said that a petition with thousands of signatures was sent to the studio head to encourage the director not to go with organic web-shooters, and Raimi noticed, realizing that he needed to cater to the serious fans, too. (Which prompted him to add Venom, I think -- I'll look for it.) There's also the lawsuit between Marvel and Stan Lee, which I think could be expanded into a paragraph. Here's some other suggestions below:
Anyway, I realize that you're asking, how to get the GA status? I don't think that you would have any difficulty at this point; not sure if a reviewer would note the missing gaps of information like I have here. Anyway, take the suggestions that you think would help it achieve the status, but I think ultimately, most of these suggestions should be incorporated for FA status later. It'd be really cool if we could do a Star Wars trilogy dealie with all Spidey films having FA status. Probably could do the same for Batman Begins -- wouldn't it be cool to have that film article as Featured Article of the Day on the day of The Dark Knight's release? Sounds like a project to me... haha. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 17:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Comics2Film's format isn't pretty... but if you have sufficient Google fu, you could track down some articles using some keywords. A lot of news articles from around the first film's release probably got shuffled due to archiving and whatnot. Need help finding any potentially useful articles? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"Raimi still wanted some realism, so therefore all shots are 100% computer generated." This doesn't seem to make sense... can this sentence be cleared up? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment about writing critical reaction, and I really agree. I like writing about the production, since there's a chronology to it. It's more of a jigsaw puzzle to piece together all the different opinions about a film -- which is why I'm still laboring over The Fountain. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 20:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Crap, I've been so into maintaining 3 that I haven't even looked at 2. I just bought the game also. I'll see if I can go through and grab some reviews from Tomatoes real quick and then I'll read through them and prose it up later on tonight. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I brought it up on the talk page to see what others think. I enjoy it as well, but without Elfman's music (I didn't care for Young's choice of themes for the different characters, mostly Dark Spidey), and lack of Spidey in the first 2 acts, I thought it didn't quite live up to my expectations. 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way we can point viewers of Spider-Man 3 to the Future section at Spider-Man film series? It's not linked to very much, and I think for the sake of current ease, there should be something that points there. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, I hope I didn't just subliminally suggest new projects for you! :) I personally like genesis stories, when characters are just starting out. Of course, TTT was good in its own right -- that opening scene where Gandalf dives for the Balrog is extremely hardcore, along with the Battle of Helms Deep, especially when the Riders of Rohan come to save the day. Bah, now I feel like I need to go on a trilogy binge when I get home from school next week. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 16:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if you'll ever use this tip, but I thought I'd let you know. If you ever use an article that contains both production and synopsis information, you can backwards-reference the citation that you use. Before, it was required that the first reference in a multi-reference should go before the other references, but now you can place the full reference in any rank. This can be set up so that the full reference goes into production, and the simpler multi-reference tag can go into Premise. That way, when the Premise section is blanked to write a full Plot section, the reference tied to production information won't be lost. Just a geek thing I can across today, editing all these drama films lately. :-P — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This has got to be a mistake. His parent's divorced in 1964. 75.35.115.45 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably look at E.T. more in depth this weekend. I have an 8-10 page paper due Thursday (first week of class, how lovely), so I won't be able to do something as big as reading an entire article, because I'll need to do that in one sitting. But, I'm watching the FAC, and taking note of some of the objections. If it cannot get FAC by June 11 (and you'd have to request it be on the front page for that day also), then you might want to look into getting it on the "Did You Know" section of the mainspace. It could be: "Did you know......that exactly 25 years ago today, Steven Spielberg released ET for the first time"....or something like that. the JP FAC seems to be going better the second time around. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
These are three things that I wasn't sure about. After I eat, I'll come back and look at the last two sections. Let me know if you don't agree with something I did, I'm far from perfect. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't have the DVD. I have power DVD (although I've found that some films won't actually save screen...must have a block on them). I was just thinking of anyway that would help make any "concern" about images go smoother. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That new image is disgustingly good. And don't you love being proven right over that Shaun Toub rumor crap? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, we are VERY close to achieving our goal of getting Season 8 to FT status, and we currently have several GACs. It would be much appreciated if you could take a look at some of them and do some reviewing. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 0422 23:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to your message on the Liam Neeson peer review discussion. As I said, there's no free images that I can find of Neeson for use in the article. Can you give any suggestions to an image that would be considered fair use? Thanks again. -- My Name Is URL 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Future Perfect is attempting to delete the 300 Soundtrack image that you uploaded some time ago as "purely decorative" and attempting to cite WP:Nonfree as his basis for doing so. I've reinstated it, requesting Discussion before he does so again. Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Go to http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246640&page=434 and go down near the bottom of the page. You'll see a better pic of Frenzy behind Sam. Just a suggestion of replacement for the pic of movie Frenzy. I'm asking you because I can't do copyright stuff.
Why do you keep on removing the material I added about the history channel stuff in his bio? I know it's a fictional bio, he's a fictional character. The material has relevance since it talks about the spider bite. ( Ghostexorcist 10:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
Thank you for looking over the article. I will work on the points you raised - see comment on Talk:Nelson Mandela. In your opinion, are there any other reasons keeping the article from reaching GA status? Zaian 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:EMBED states that articles should consist of prose. by using the ; instead of the * the cast section appears more like prose and therefore, using the ; is better (its a better format). Considering that I did not change anything else, I have no idea why you undid my edit. I do not want an edit war but I will make those changes again, unless you can convince me otherwise.-- 88wolfmaster 22:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to take so long in getting back to you -- I was about to put another "out of the country" box at the top of my talk page when I realized I'd never replied. I've had a look at the article and I think it's splendid, so I can't be of very much help in terms of offering a critical appraisal. I do think the "production" section is a bit on the long side; e.g. "Spielberg also excised a sub-plot of Procompsognathus escaping to the mainland and attacking young children, as he found it too horrific." What's actually important and what isn't, however, is a question better left to someone who's seen the film; and I, sorry to say, have not. Best, -- Javits2000 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the price of working with future film articles... the upkeep isn't recognized until the films come out. I'm sure we'll get pretty green pluses for Spider-Man 3, maybe even stars for all of us down the run. All the crap we went through keeping it polished, we deserve it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide how it was misleading, that would be even more helpful. Thanks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If you get some free time (free time on Wikipedia..LOL, yeah right) could you take a gander at this FAC. It's my first nomination, and I'd appreciate any input for its improvement. It's on the Aquaman pilot, so it won't be a long article to read. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't delete all the subpages because it would delete the page. They work off the subpages. If I ever kill the page I'll be sure to "db-author" all the subpages. If only every individual episode article could find that much information. When is the 25th for ET? I'd go ahead and nominate it for GA status, because I think it's clearly up to that level. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Politeness, and I think Common Sense...those are two important tests. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's possible. We can use the information about Arad convincing Raimi to bring in Venom (stupid decision, I say) as a base for expansion. For example, do we know if Raimi planned a black suit Spider-Man at all? Because it'd be pretty significant to say that the inclusion of Venom brought in a darker theme, with symbiote and all. I'm not sure if I can help much today, though. I'm going back to my university to pick up some things for my internship this summer and to attend a friend's housewarming party. Don't think I'll be on Wikipedia much for the weekend, if at all, after this next hour or so. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
Thanks for reviewing the Kung Fu Hustle article. I've replied to your comment in the peer review page, and would be grateful if you take another look at the article and check for more room for improvement. Thanks.-- Kylohk 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I revised 11 future film articles in the course of a week, and there's 12 of that kind in Article focus. Not too impossible. :) The already-released film articles will take longer, obviously, but it helps to see them and think that I might do something about them someday, haha. The home life is slow; I have an internship out of state in a couple of weeks, but in the meantime, I'm just kicking around. Probably should get off my "wikibreak" -- that was just to cool off from my little tussle regarding non-free content. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Newsweek. IMDb headlines might lead you to actual articles. National Geographic compares the film's pirates to real pirates. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for the GA review. It's my first!-- Vbd ( talk) 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth did you remove my addition to Pirates of the Carribean? I looked though your contributions... all you do is undo other people's contributions. When you add something yourself, you don't describe it in summary, offer no explanation, and fail to provide citations. Why do you persist in destroying the constructive work of others? Do you even read the passages you are so quick to undo, or is it merely territorial pissing on your part?
With regards to the Curse of the Black Pearl page, you have not offered a single summary for your countless edits to the page. You have made the vast majority of the recent edits on the page, yet you do not explain what it is you are editing. The only time you do offer a summary is when you are removing the contributions of a user like myself. If you truly are contributing anything, then you should offer an explanation in the summary.
By deleting the contributions of myself and others, and thus effectively monopolizing the Curse of the Black Pearl page, you are impeding the natural flow of information and compromising the integrity of Wikipedia and the breadth of its content.
Seamus Ryan 06:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
My friend, simply because you do not know about something doesn't mean it's not true. If Wikipedia were based upon your knowledge alone, it would be a small encyclopedia indeed. Include summaries with your contributions... otherwise, they are suspect.
Osirus 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would probably say to include one of the ship fights. I hesitate to say to show the skeleton crew, since that seems borderline spoiler-ish. Maybe just a picture of one of them, like Barbossa, in withered form? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you removed that New Haven, CT part because it was uncited. Sorry, I do not yet know how to cite things. Here's the article New Haven Register
Since you know what you want, could you explain on the talk page of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly what the cast section should look like? Perhaps you can just give me a link to an article you like. BTW, I like your new nick. — Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen of film articles, such as Casino Royale, production goes above plot. It seems to be the convention. ColdFusion650 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry on that. My confusion. If Raiders is that way, the other Indy articles should be changed accordingly to maintain continuity. It's kind of weird that Bignole is an active reader of this talk page. ColdFusion650 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you saw the message I left on Erik's page, but just in case, I'll leave it here. I'm trying to get the Crystal Ball policy amended to be more specific, so that we don't have to deal with these types of AfDs (e.g. Spider-Man 4). The discussion is here. If you would like to voice your opinion, it would be much appreciated. I don't care if they amend it to say that any information regarding a future film could constitute its own article, I just want it to be clear on how to handle them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for failure to cite. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to the film series subpages! You're absolutely welcome to get your hands dirty in any of my projects. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you've helped with the subpage, I'd like to ask your opinion about its setup:
And one last thing: Are you going to write about Schumacher's involvement? I know that the Burton/Schumacher series is a work in progress, but I wanted to ask in case you had resources available to you that I don't. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think my beef with Canceled Superman films was that it was a mess and struck me as a fanboy-style article, solely bringing these failed projects together and writing in too much depth about the scripts that could have been. I just think that a Superman film series would be broader and more encyclopedic and a good "base". In fact, for the film series subpage, we could also create a Future section using the stuff from Superman Returns#Sequel and the links in my Future articles subpage. We could do that before we move it to the article namespace. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Where the hell did you get the idea that Natalie Portman's Erdős–Bacon number is "uncited" and "slander"? If you had bothered to click the wikilink in the sentence, you could easily have seen more than adequate citations supporting the statement. If you were new to Wikipedia I would have simply reverted and overlooked it. But you've been around a while. Please do a minimum of checking before deleting a statement. Otherwise it is considered vandalism. Ward3001 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Um...I'd like to see it early, but I don't want to deal with the crowds. I probably won't see it till next week, sometimes during the weekdays when there are fewer people at the theater. I'd go to the midnight showing, but it's 10 minutes shy of 3 hours, and if you add trailers for upcoming films and all that stuff..you're looking at over 3 hours of sitting in one spot. What about you? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It's "Decemeber" not "December". lol. Thanks for catching that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice.
Shermoo 11:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like that Pirates 3 plot is growing. Anyway, I've initiated a discussion at one of the Smallville season pages. It's about merging all (minus 1 so far) of the individual episode pages, into the season pages. I'd appreciate your thoughts either way on the matter. In the discussion, I've placed links to two of my sandboxes, that show a new format for the season pages and what the pilot episode will look like on its own. That's what I'm basing my opinion to merge on. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see that you've put the "Unnamed Transformer" under a Real Gear heading. Do you have a citation that this is a Real Gear transformer? All the buzz I've read on the net seems to be steering toward the opinion that he's not. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for nomming it, is was going to get around to it eventually, but wasn't entirely sure as to whether it was ready. But if you think it is, then that's fine by me. Thanks! Gran 2 18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly it needs to be mentioned, but I don't think it needs its own section, and the section as it stood wasn't all that great. In lieu of that, I've been weaving mention of Gotham City throughout the article instead. I might insert more about it into the "Personas" section, citing discussion of it as a reflection of the character.
By the way, what's your opinion on making the "Homosexual interpretations" section into a separate article called "Homosexual interpretations of Batman"? Obviously it's quite notable, but the way I wanted to rewrite the section in order to better complement the article as a whole would result in me ditching a lot of quality cited material. My solution is move and expand the section as is in a separate article 9and there are plenty of sources available if others want to expand the article), while reworking what we need into a three-paragraph or so main article summary for the Batman page. WesleyDodds 18:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware you left a request for image for Pirates 1. I don't watch the page. I only watched 2 and 3 because of the secrecy surrounding the budgets and I don't Box Office Mojo is reliable when it comes to budget information. I think they are fine for box office info, but they don't cite their sources for the budgets they list, and that concerns me, because that makes them nothing more than IMDb.com. People were always adding 225 million for Pirates 2, when Disney has never formally said anything. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You might find these sites helpful: [1] [2] - I know you want the IGN one, because it's a non-operational ship, but unless you have the DVD, I don't think anyone took that image other than IGN. And if they see the same image, obviously cropped closer to avoid their watermark, then it could cause problems. Not saying that they would actually care, but the legal ramifications could bring potential problems. I don't personally have the DVD, otherwise I'd be happy to capture for you myself. Sorry. If you want, you could probably just save it and throw it in Microsoft Paint and "Copy to file" a box that excludes the IGN logo. Do you have a spam email account, I'll send you something. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As you are reviewing the article, I think it's best to tell you that I've done all four points: conception, header change, rationales, citations for characters. Will ( We're flying the flag all over the world) 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have an internship that starts this morning (got up at 6:00 AM, it's now 6:51 AM), so I've been busy the past few days. I drove a 15.5-hour road trip from my home state to New Jersey (breaking up the trip over the course of three days), and I've been settling in at an apartment complex with interns. I've been meeting them and getting to know the area, so I haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. I'm sure, though, that things will slow down, and I'll find myself coming back to work on articles in due time. Don't worry, I'm not fading quite yet! Also, I hope to see POTC 3 captioned in this area, I found some available theaters already, so I'll check it out. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 10:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll put Smallville on the backburner for now. I'm still waiting for more people to actually discuss that merger for the indy ep articles. Oh, if you could also voice your opinion on the new season formats in the subsection that would be great. I realized that I left myself open for challenge because I was only really requesting opinion about the merger, and not the new format. That happened to us with Spidey 4, where we were doing one thing and someone said "sorry, didn't go through the proper channels with the other". Anyway, I'm in school all day today, but I'll try and get on it when I get off. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, I originally planned working on The Godfather series, but there is a user over there that is protecting those articles from any of my edits.... long story. Basically it's the first time I don't feel like arguing with someone. I'm considering either The Matrix or Indiana Jones series next. The Filmaker 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not blaming as you didn't add it, but the track listing is the same as the fake one that was near constantly added to the page a while back by the The UPN Vandal. I've seen it resurface on NoHomers.net recently, and then the Hollywood Reporter article came out. So what I mean is, I'm pretty sure that Absolute Punk just got the info from their or somewhere else, and it isn't true. I mean, how can the film possible have space for all of those songs and a Zimmer score when its only supposedly 90 minutes long? Gran 2 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be delighted to. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Mission accomplished (and when I say that, I actually mean it. :) ) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I improved the article per the GA review :) Judgesurreal777 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your sandbox project about the fictional character; looks good so far. Just thought I'd give you the heads up, if you weren't aware -- Jack Sparrow was caricatured in Epic Movie (2007), something you could maybe use for the Popular culture section. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but it says wait three months to post it for review, and I was more ticked that Raul ignored my input (I might do it soon). Anyway, thanks for the welcome, and congratulations on Jurassic Park, and pretty soon E.T. too it looks like.-- Dark Kubrick 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Just a friendly note. I notice that you don't always leave edit summaries for your edits. I would try to leave something, even if it's brief. I'd say this is more important for edits such as this, where 7,000 odd characters were removed. Of course, this was a good edit, but it probably would have been useful to say something like "shorten /copyed per WP:FICTION", to help newer users understand your changes. On a less altruistic side, percentage of edit summaries is something that some users will take into consideration in any RFA... Keep up the excellent work. The JPS talk to me 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I finished most of the work for the criticism section. I kind of followed the Jaws set up, because an "Awards" section by itself would be small, and the awards it wins can be reflects by what critics thought of the film. I think you rarely see films win many awards (unless its just for visual effects) that were destroyed by the critics. Anyway, I had trouble with the "negative" part, because there are only 2 in the Cream of the Crop, and the others either won't pop up when you click their links or they just aren't that professional. But your thoughts are needed before I'd replace the section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The removal of the the Daryaee statements does seem to be following consensus, which it seems you were a part of. Have you changed your mind on the topic? I was simply backing your play, but now that Nottheman...is asking what's up, I guess I am wondering as well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you recently passed Raptor Red, and the main image is missing a fair use rationale. Could you please leave a message on the talk page for the editors to add one to meet the GA criteria? Thanks and keep up the good work with the reviews! -- Nehrams2020 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I am sorry that you feel that way and I'm sure you could have come up with a better descriptive word for it. Many character templates from series' have this format! Example... Harry Potter, ect. You're tastes are also crappy.
I have changed the speedy deletion tag back to a prod, because "No proof" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Hoaxes are typically difficult to speedy delete away, as there's a gray area between "believable hoax" and " patent nonsense". Prods may work best, but if the prod is contested it would have to go to AfD. Leebo T/ C 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You recently reviewed History of Milton Keynes and failed it's Good Article Nomination. However, you only highlighted one area of weakness. If it was only the one area, wouldn't it have been better to place the article on hold? Alternatively, if there is more than one area in which it fails, could you please give more detailed review comments? Regards, Severo T C 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, a GA can be on hold for 7 days which really isn't that short a time to put citations in just one section. What's more, whilst you said the section was uncited, it does have 3 citations—vastly undercited I will agree—but not uncited. Finally, was there anything else wrong with the article which will prevent it from making GA when it is renominated after the section being cited? Regards, Severo T C 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your review. For future reviews, so that the people working on the articles that you review aren't as confused as I was today, perhaps you could read through Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and give more extensive feedback. History of Milton Keynes will be renominated within the week :). - Severo T C 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)