User talk:Steve/Archive 2

I Am Legend (film)

I have responded on Talk:I Am Legend (film). --Pixelface (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed. :) Funny how the two can correlate, huh? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude... I did the exact same kind of Google search (6 mill vs. 7 hundred thou) and was about to respond, but decided that I wasn't sure if that was a compelling argument. Kind of freaky to see you present the same evidence at nearly the same time. :) How's the holiday season going for you? Still preoccupied or what? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both should be mentioned, but it can be tricky to determine what takes precedent for the article name. Holiday's been nice, too, though I feel a little restless with little to do. (My town isn't very exciting.) I got a Wii for Christmas, though -- first console since the Dreamcast as I skipped on the first console war. I'm more of a casual gamer than the Mt. Dew-chugging Cheesy Poofs-devouring hardcore folks, so the Wii suits me well. I've been playing Super Mario Galaxy and should be a third of the way through it, but I don't want to wear the game out too quickly. In the meantime, I'm not really in the mood to edit heavily on Wikipedia. Editing really makes the time fly by a little too quickly, and I want to savor the remaining days of my holiday. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the films you've seen recently -- quite a nice batch of them! Don't worry, I was pretty surprised by Live Free or Die Hard, too. It was thankfully not a completely stupid film, and it's interesting to see the aged hero (with insinuations of his background). If you're interested in that, you may want to check out Rocky Balboa -- it's more about the "legacy" of Rocky rather than the actual happenings of previous films, especially the last few. Also, how'd you come across Kiss Kiss Bang Bang? It's not a very well-known film -- did you just see it in my own films subpage? :) I start school today (bright and early at 7:20 AM to take care of schedule changes), and I have a feeling that this week will be busy for Wikipedia. Also, best of luck communicating with Pixelface... I had to step away from that particular discussion because it just seems to be the same issues all over again. Unlike the more debatable spoiler issues, there was clearly overwhelming consensus about how to present the Plot section. Not to mention the point being made using {{OR}}; I don't see the point of going around the block with circuitous arguments. I saw your sandbox, but I don't know about implementing that -- all that information has been argued to exist in the infobox of all film articles. If films had numbers like ISBN for the ease of identification like books do, that would've been included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to reverting the three separate cases of vandalism. :) I've put in a request for page protection because of these three separate edits and previous vandalism as of late. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Appreciation Index! Are you familiar with WP:DYK? You could add that article to the list of candidates to be shown in the list of Wikipedia's newest articles on the front page! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've really missed anything in the Google search results, but the cast members you've mentioned may not warrant inclusion at this point if they haven't been discussed as major roles in the film. As for the rumored filming, I'd say hold off. Not even IMDb says, "Filming". It could be pre-shoots at this point. I'll try to keep an eye out for headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews

Happy New Year, Liquidfinale! Given your vast contributions to film pages and per suggestions from other editors to contact you, I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique them:

  • Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
  • Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Comments and suggestions are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

If you have the time, it'd be great if you could look over those two articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Thanks, and, once again, a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Thanks for the backslap. Thing is, I like the idea of the skulls because it makes everyone happy. If they keep their origins ambigious enough, the aliens/Atlantis/Maya crowds will all be pleased. I always felt "this is it", if they choose either Excalibur or Garden of Eden, I'd be dissapointed because this is their last chance. Alientraveller (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was the original vandalism [1] Alientraveller (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not controversial, it just makes no sense without the film and all its secrets revealed. What's the difference between a serial and a B-movie? None really, except the latter is more sci-fi, but someone will definitely challenge that until the film is out and we all know what a crystal skull is in Indy's world. Alientraveller (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the flag in the trailer on The Sun. It's not worth worrying over: in a few weeks, I might remove the trailer info as I start whipping the article into shape. Alientraveller (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, why not? Revenge of the Sith premiered at Cannes too. Alientraveller (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar you gave me. I appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of NPOV from Michel Thomas article

L: I just checked in on the MT article and see that, for whatever reason, Rivenburg has desisted from editing it for over a month. The changes you and others made have resulted in an article that I believe meets NPOV criteria; however, rather than removing the NPOV myself -- since there are those who have accused me of having a conflict of interest -- I am bringing it to your attention with the suggestion you might want to so.

BTW, I'm curious if you have any idea why Rivenburg has finally desisted, after more than two years like a dog with a bone on this one? Best, Facts@mt.org (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate cites to Wolfe monograph and US Attorney's Bulletin?

L: I think the MT article would be improved by citing these sources. For your convenience, here's a cut-and-paste of the cites from a former version:

[ ref name="robbins"] (Add appropriate formatting)

United States Attorney's Bulletin, February 2006 "Taking the Paper Trail Instead of Memory Lane: OSI's Use of Ancient Foreign Documents in the Nazi Cases"

This was just posted on my page, but I think it should go to you:

I just suggested it :). Will (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Appreciation Index, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 14:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

WP:ERROR

No problem, I just reread my reply and it was incredibly blunt: sorry for that. I used to think in exactly the same way as you, until I posted to WP:ERROR and I was informed about that policy. Thanks for the report. Woody (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First-name basis

Hey, Steve! Good to know we're on a first-name basis now. :) I had a similar "childish" handle a while ago called Erikster, but I even avoided using it in signatures by piping it as [[Erikster|Erik]]. Then I opted for the name change. I suppose it gives the feel of an original, no-BS editor! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! OK, that was childish. :) With all the interesting ways for editors to come up with handles (ask Bignole And Alientraveller about theirs sometime if you haven't already), I didn't really try to figure out yours. And no problem with the mass-tidying. Your old handle will redirect to your new one, anyway, so hopefully you're not digging into talk page archives to tidy up further. The current discussions seem sufficient. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Knight

Hi Steve. The source I used was not a blog. It was an analysis of the comic almost panel by panel, and is probably the closest thing one would find to a secondary source on the net.--58.110.242.86 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Changeling (2008 film) vs Changeling (2008 film)

Steve,

Thank you for the information on how best to correct the title of The Changeling (2008 film). As a fellow Babylon 5 fan, I would also appreciate your thoughts regarding including spoilers for The Changeling (2008 film). Special:Contributions/Ozyman added the section The_Changeling_(2008_film)#Real_Life_Events on January 5, 2008. Although this section is accurate, it contains spoilers for the film. Since The Changeling (2008 film) will not debut until October or November of this year, what is the general practice for including spoilers on a film in this case? --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered the option of placing the spoilers for "The Changeling" in a separate article. I was debating with myself whether the "Wineville Chicken-coop Murders" in 1928 (the case upon which "The Changeling is based) was notable enough. You convince me that it is worth a try.--Dan Dassow (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article Wineville Chicken Murders with full citations and moved the spoiler information from the article Changeling (film). I would appreciate your feedback on the new article and my edit to Changeling (film).--Dan Dassow (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By no means have you did you step on my toes regarding this article. Thank you again for an expert job.--Dan Dassow (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also bugged me that Jason Butler Harner was red-linked in the Changeling (film) article, especially since Gordon Stewart Northcott is a central character. Joel Cox is notable for winning an Oscar for Best Film Editing for Unforgiven and being nominated for an Oscar for Best Achievement in Editing for Million Dollar Baby. He edited a number of other Clint Eastwood directed films. As an aside, I hope they credit Jason Butler Harner as Gordon Stewart Northcott since that name has more resonance and parallels the actors name. Being intentionally vague, so as to not ruin the film for you, the Gordon Stewart Northcott ws a truly twisted person, this could very well be Jason Butler Harner's breakout role.--Dan Dassow (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article on Joel Cox, Clint Eastwood's primary film editor. As a result, Changeling (film) no longer has an red links.--Dan Dassow (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information on Cloverfield discussion page

I am very annoyed and frankly perplexed on your actions on the Cloverfield discussion page. I posted a valid question, and when I checked this morning to see if anyone could answer me, you had removed the section (answers and all). I could understand if my input was useless banter on the page. But this was a vald question about the movie, which might have led to edits on the main article later. I put back the section on the discussion page, and will put it back everytime you remove it. I also commented on your bizarre behavior. Out of courtesy (something you might want to consider using in the future), I didn't mention you by name. I ask that you use more discretion in your deletions later. Please feel free to respond to this incident on my talk page. I'd like to avoid any ugliness on the discussion page of Cloverfield.Scott Free (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded on the article's talk page. OK, another editor has removed the section, so I've responded on your talk page. Steve T • C 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for responding in such a timely and polite manner. it speaks highly of you. i guess another problem i had was the clearly useless banter that was on the page before my question and still remains there. if my question is going to be removed, then the other stuff should be taken off as well. And i'll tend to the cloverfield discussion page soon. Best wishes. Scott Free (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek (film)

What?!?[2] I suggest you read the entire paragraph. I removed redundant information. Pairadox (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State of Play (film)

Congratulations now that your hidden good work is now on the mainspace. Alientraveller (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks great, a really in-depth casting section for one. Do you want to delete your sandbox for the article? If you want to, place the {{db-user}} template on it. Alientraveller (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ai, we feed on events. Btw, are you seeing Sweeney Todd? Alientraveller (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I need a friend to tell me how violent it is. I would have thought it have earned a 15, but I guess the themes of cannibalism, incest and a sympathetic serial killer earned it an 18. I didn't mind the violence in Hot Fuzz or 300, which are probably the most OTT-violent films I've seen. Alientraveller (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you can tell, I just have a sensitivity to gore, but not blood. I guess it depends on the subject matter too: I know Sweeney Todd is a tragedy in the body of a comic musical. Alientraveller (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey

I found a link like you said. That'll certainly make a good addition to the article, thanks for pointing it out.  Paul  730 14:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 3:10 to Yuma

I definitely liked the film, though I think I agree with the general assessment of it being "solid". The film was excellent all the way through, but I think what was lacking for me was a little more complexity. Maybe after watching quite a few complex films, this one struck me as somewhat simple. However, the characters were terrific, especially Ben Wade. I like the premise of the main bad honcho being rescued by his posse, and I think the Western environment is probably the best environment for that premise. (Can't really pull something like that off in today's world.) One of my favorite shots was Charlie Prince telling the gang to move to Contention, the stagecoach behind him ablaze and lighting his eyes up in a demonic fashion. It's been a while since I've seen Walk the Line, but I think I felt similarly about it in thinking that it was lacking a little more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owwww my balls! :-P I found that one pretty amusing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually haven't seen it yet -- it just means that the films are on the way to my residence. I've heard from two sides about the film, so I wanted to see for myself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing you didn't say anything spoiler-ific. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got a chance to see Notes on a Scandal today, and I have to say I liked it. I think I know what you mean by over-acting, but I'm not sure if that really happened with Judi Dench. It seemed like the point of her character, to be so full of herself. I might have found the premise of the May-December romance unrealistic, but seeing Little Children last night probably eased me into the whole concept of marital strife. I find contemporary films on the human condition interesting -- both movies resonated with the theme of breaking from the monotone. I suppose I have a want of doing something similar, so I keep the notion at the forefront of my mind. I suppose the films "preached to the chorus" in a way, and it makes me think I don't want to break so late in the game. Also, Dench's character, Barbara, made a lot of sense to me in terms of being perspective of oneself a certain way, more selfishly than she realizes. Not to mention the cyclic nature of the character -- the hidden background and the ending with a new opportunity. I gotta say, though, I laughed at Bill Nighy's outburst, which seemed too much of a facade considering his earlier "cool as a cucumber" fatherly persona. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 24 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article State of Play (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal! :) I have my own, Imperial Life in the Emerald City (film), in the listings right now. It's not the most exciting hook as not a lot of information is available, but DYKs are nice. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've put you in the spotlight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for complete re-write of Changeling (film)

The Editor's Barnstar
The barnstar is to applaud you for your express revision at Changeling (film). You changed a marginal article into a well-structured, articulate, readable, enjoyable and well reasoned article! Your dedication and stewardship are very much appreciated and a model for editors to emulate! Dan Dassow (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers

Should we give in and just debold the cast section? Or should we just ignore that? Alientraveller (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alientraveller (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the copyediting. Have you seen the movie yet? Alientraveller (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks about that compliment over the BO section. I was very curious myself to see how the film would perform in Asia, considering the toys' origin. I'll just say the final battle was a truly modern Godzilla. Alientraveller (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody Wizard. I just hope my cruder cache urls work like your clean ones. Alientraveller (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woo! It passed! Now to repeat the cycle within the next two years. Alientraveller (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here was Roberto Orci's reaction to losing out to Golden Compass for the Oscar: "I've loved that polar bear from that movie ever since I saw him drinking Coca-Colas at Christmas!" Alientraveller (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you, and a few other admins, have been deleting the links to deleted articles using various tools. That's good. Is it possible to just delete the redirect pages rather than leaving them like Sunset Boulevard (2006 film) using the same tools, or not. They'll eventually end up in short pages and get cleaned up there, but if you can just click a single button on the tools it would save energy and time all round. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection to The Changeling (1980 film)

Steve,

You have the following statement on your user page.

  • The Changeling – undernourished article for a forthcoming film, which I've significantly fleshed out.

Which is coded as:

*'''[[The Changeling (film)|The Changeling]]''' – undernourished article for a forthcoming film, which I've significantly fleshed out.

Unfortunately, The Changeling (film) redirects to The Changeling (1980 film) rather than Changeling (film) as you probably had intended.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By no means did you cause any offense and your statement is spot on. Changeling (film) prior to your changes was simply pathetic. There were so many problems with it that I did not know where to start. Currently, the article is in good shape. I do not expect the article will change dramatically until the film is publicized, probably starting around mid to late September.--Dan Dassow (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Legend - Trailer Info

Hi, just wondering why you felt it appropriate to remove my edit with regard to the differences between the I Am Legend trailer and theatrical release? I am assuming there was a good reason, but am surprised as the addition was factually correct and seemingly appropriate for the section of the article. --DonVincenzo (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Gunn (filmmaker)

You are incorrect on your deletion of information regarding James Gunn's appearance in Jonathan Mayberry's upcoming book. It IS James appearing in the book AS HIMSELF in a fictional setting, along with several other REAL people from the horror genre. It is NOT just someone writing ABOUT him. Check news sources about the novel for verification. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcophagi (talk • contribs) 17:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straczynski's writing 92 of 110 episodes of Babylon 5

Steve,

I saw your change to the Babylon 5 article. I made an additional change to make the lead sentence active voice and to indicate the true magnitude of Straczynski's effort: He wrote 92 of the 110 regular episodes and all 44 episodes for the third and fourth seasons. When JMS completed Babylon 5, I wrote a letter to the Guinness World Book of Records documenting JMS's accomplishment. Unfortunately, the publishers did not consider this feat noteworthy. During the third and fourth season JMS wrote even when he had the flu and bronchitis. It is amazing that JMS survived this effort. --Dan Dassow (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve,

I have not been able to find another reliable source for the release date beyond the Internet Movie Data Base The Universal Pictures still does not give a release date. One of the articles cited in which Clint Eastwood is inteviewed, indicates that the release date may be in late October. Changeling is listed on Future Releases.

On a related note, although there is no poster art for the film, Universal is showing the train station picture with Angelina Jolie, Devon Conti and what appears to me to be Jeffrey Donovan. Even though this is a publicity photo, I do not know whether it can be used under fair use.--Dan Dassow (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Begins

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I went and checked it out, and the reviews are all the same, it's just that the UK site has a different selction of "Top critics", which seems to push the percentage higher.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of disaster films

You may be interested in the article List of disaster films. Some "wonderful" edits are going on there. Crime film is being included as disaster film. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5 pages

I have only recently started watching Babylon 5 and enjoy it very much.

While reading the articles on Babylon 5 that are displayed within the Wikipedia I noticed a lack of factual information contained in many of them. I noticed that fiction based sites like B5tech are referenced a lot but things like B5scrolls are not referenced at all.

I like to know if there is a reason for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsk59 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply Steve I will post message on section you suggest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsk59 (talk • contribs)


Sorry to bother you again. Could you tell me is there some way to write up a sample screen suitable for display or review purposes before being published within Wikipedia itself. I’d like to do one on say the Omega destroyer and let more experienced authors look over it to see if it meets various standards and guidelines.Minsk59 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks for the link to the sandbox. User:Minsk59/Sandbox I've rattled together a few pieces of text concerning the Omega destroyer seen on B5, I've also opened up the discussion page for the screen, any comments you (or anyone else reading this) might have would be greatly appreciated. I'll also put a note in the B5 groups screen and hopefully someone might link in from there. Minsk59 (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Citizen Kane

Thanks! I'm going to get my feet wet in terms of Critical analysis with Fight Club first, then hopefully devote my energy to Citizen Kane. Surprisingly, the academic studies have been pretty easy to uncover and save -- got them on my memory stick now to print out (no way I'd read these on a digital screen). Books will be a little bit more challenging, considering how old some of them are. My concern with taking this to Featured Article status is that it won't adequately address every aspect of the film's background, especially considering its scale. Any help would be greatly appreciated! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you mark Akira (2009) for speedy deletion?

It's a valid upcoming movie that is currently being developed. —1silver11 (talk • contrib) - 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure ya cite a few examples in your response. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand then why it should be deleted now. I just figured since all the info had been announced it would be made. I didn't realize that by some random chance it could be canceled so the page should wait. I looked at a similar movie situation, The Hobbit, which has also been announced for a new live action movie but doesn't have a page yet so I understand. Thanks for informing me and sorry I made the page for nothing. Maybe someone could at least merge my info I put with the original film or manga. I'm not that good with wikipedia and I didn't know all that stuff so thanks again for the info. —1silver11 (talk • contrib) - 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ribbit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeysz (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State of play

Steve, you're far too kind. I just loved the BBC drama; can the US version possibly reach those heights? If it does, I look forward to it. Can you possibly wait until after 7 March, when I'm FREEEEE of work frenzy for a while? Tony (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2007 (From Erik's page)

You shouldn't feel sorry for him. Academy awards are hard, and only the best-of-best movies chosen by experienced critics get chosen. You don't need an OSCAR in order to be proud of your work, or in order for your movie to be famous. I just wanted to say that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't, that's why I'm saying that movies can be great even without OSCARS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Production

I noticed that you've broken up the background of the film occasionally into "Development" and "Production". I wanted to let you know that it may be more commonplace to treat development as part of the production cycle, which would include pre-production, actual filming, and post-production. I think that sometimes if the development history gets too long or irrelevant to the present film, it can be presented in a separate section -- Watchmen (film) and Speed Racer (film) are two that come to mind. At an article like Pride and Glory (film), I think it may be too much to separate the content when it's all pretty relevant to making the film (and not too substantial to subsection just yet). Let me know your thoughts about the development/production breakup. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I've gathered it, yes. Sometimes there's a primary paragraph available before any subsections (like at Sunshine (2007 film)#Production), sometimes it starts off with "Development". Sometimes it's hard to break up the information, though. What other editors and I have generally done is start off with a simple Production section with no subsections (yet) due to limited and intertwined information, and when more details come out (especially at the time of the film's release), the information can be re-sorted into subsections. There's not really a neat way of doing it, though. The approach I've mentioned is one that seems fairly common nowadays. In the past, it's generally been a large chunk of Production information. I think that depending on the information available, breaking it down is usually better. It's not to say that you can't mention writing in the Development section, but it's more about the particulars of each area. Why did they write it this way, why did they film it in this place, what was needed for visual effects, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing is how unwieldy it might be to keep editing the production section with all those sub-sections. Alientraveller (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I have a subscription. Should come soon... Alientraveller (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's a valid reason why Pride and Glory (film) was delayed... The Hollywood Reporter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man

I also dumped that cite because it was redundant, and it turned out they also shot in Las Vegas, so not all of it was shot in California. Thanks for the offer. Alientraveller (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk

Why do you think that a quote in {{quote}} is odd? --87.189.61.218 (talk)

I trust Leterrier, because surprisingly for a guy who wanted to make an action flick, he does discuss Prometheus, the Olympians and Ahab a lot in his interviews. Norton has a power, maybe. Alientraveller (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Alphabetic Edit

Hi there Steve I just wanted to appologise for the edit that you had to make to the character sequence in the Star Trek (film) article. I reverted an edit that had speculated on what the ship would look like and did not realise that edit had been made to. Cheers. --MattyC3350 (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion template

It would be a good idea to mention how it took 20-odd years for Superman Returns, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Watchmen to get made. Another really good example is when the Beatles considered filming The Lord of the Rings. Alientraveller (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superman vs. Shelob: splat! Alientraveller (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed, I really did :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're back

I hope that your future editing goes well. Keep up the good work! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve,
I have enjoyed collaborating with you. I am happy to see you back.--Dan Dassow (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wooohoo! I concur. Alientraveller (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no use trying to help "The Don", he's clearly just a help-rejecting complainer. He's probably that way in his real job. He complains until you help him, and then rejects whatever help you give him. He knows you, or any other single person on Wikipedia, cannot give him what he wants (the complete deletion of Don Murphy), so it provides him a window to keep complaining in an effort to draw out more editors into battle with him. Ultimately he uses that as an excuse to give his Murphy Minions something to do on his forum, which they can't accurately do at that (as proven by the fact that he assumes you have a boss above you, and that I edit while I'm at work, which I don't). The man is deranged. I say we just don't respond further to him. If he violates policies then revert his edits, or report him to an Admin. Simple as that. He's got a clear history of ignoring policy, even after editors explain it to him, so none of us need to explain anything further. We can just catalog all of his previous names and show that he's been told already. You were a complete gentleman to his guy and he spits in your face every chance he gets (shows how couthe he really is).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might to want to read this entry from a more honest and human encyclopedia: [3] Alientraveller (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your suggestion wasn't a bad idea, though I'd have to review the notability guidelines for people again to clarify where Don Murphy stands. It's certainly nothing that badlydrawnjeff would favor (as he strongly contested the deletion of the Wikipedia article of Daniel Brandt), but it's an approach that could be examined. Of course, if the idea becomes reality, it's likely that Mr. Murphy would shout victory from the hilltops, as if all his badgering and harassing paid off. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there goes sensibility. I admire your candor, though. Now let's get back to our cult work. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Doomsday

Sorry about that. But the first time I reverted the users edits, I explained to the user about the Neutral point of view policy. The second time, the user had gone on and inserted his previous edits, in which I ended up reverting. But, by the look of it, the user now knows the neutral view policy. Thanks for stating the info. to me. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RTFA Obsession

I was wrong. The thread is not gone. It has been rededicated as a thread towards outing you. Bummer.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

HollywoodChicago.com is a website that has been solicited at The Dark Knight (film) and other film articles. The webmaster, Adam Fendelman, has tried to create an article about himself, but it was deleted. He tried to create an article for his website as well, but that was deleted, too. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for your kind words in support of me as a coordinator! You've been a great asset to WikiProject Films, and you've been a pleasure to work with. I look forward to continuing collaborating with you! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Username

Hello there, I think you must have been on Wikipedia for quite some time now, considering you have such a recognisable username. Well, i saw that you had retired about a month ago. Seems you couldn't stay away, eh? Well, I'm Steve, just a different username, :P Hope to hear from you, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 09:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrax etc

I see you googled whether that 172.x user's edits were correct - he's a well known vandal, he keeps making the same edits. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_The_UPN_Vandal. See also the various ANI reports [4]. Some admins block him on sight, but WP:SSP and WP:AIV are usually too slow to have much effect on him, he changes address at least once a day. Bazzargh (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's his MO. BTW you can speedy hoaxes, WP:CSD#G1, WP:CSD#G3 both allow it, though I've only used G3 for it in the past. I think he's given up on creating those a while back now, since once they get salted you can't keep doing it day after day after day... Bazzargh (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for your comments on the film coordinator's discussion page; as you have already surmissed, I am very new to the film project group although I have made a few contributions to those films I know well. Hope to be able to work with you on some new projects in the future. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was a genuine effort by all coordinator candidates to offer to help and I voted for each of the candidates in that belief. I did take a look at some of the "cream" contributions and there was some genuine and significant work. FWIW is my own pithy nomenclature in describing that my opinion means just that, very little and take it for what it's worth – not much. Hope to see the candidate in question reappear in a new quise and would welcome working with a young person in crafting a film article. Again, FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Speedy Deletion

My apologies...I missed that somehow. That's why I like to notify in case I'm wrong. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fame

LOL! Congratulations on your newfound fame! :) In a way, I think it's kind of cool because it's the idea of people all around the world reading the stuff you wrote. There is no other place on the Internet where this is possible. I like to check out the article statistics once in a while to see how many people have read its contents. It's a nice feeling to provide that knowledge in such an accessible form. I looked up your Appreciation Index article, and it gets pretty good attention, being wiki-linked in various places. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies

I must appologies - I think that on a couple of occassions I have reverted your perfectly valid edits on Mark Speight. I hope you understand that this has been in an effort to remove any WP:BLP violations, but nonetheless if it were me I'd be frustrated. Thanks for all your work on the article ;). TalkIslander 17:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Speight!

So just becasue some people say its not sourced or not confirmed means people who KNOW its true cannot edit a page until those who believe its still unconfirmed hear it then? yeah whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammera (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, Lad

You're a cheeky fucker!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.56.236 (talk • contribs)

Doctor Who continuity (Partners In Crime)

Hi, i noticed you just deleted the stuff i included on the article for the Doctor Who episode Partners In Crime. You say it is trivia but every single other Doctor Who episode article of which there are nearly 200 includes a Continuity section - i was merely following example and i personally (and i'm sure many other people) find the continuity section one of the most informative parts of the episode articles. It is a crucial element and i don't understand why it has been removed on this article when so many other articles of the same type contain exactly the same feature and have remained without removal. Winterspell (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to my query so quickly. Don't worry, there's no hard feelings. To tell you the truth, i'm still a little baffled and admittedly sometimes frustrated by the nitty-gritty/policies side of Wikipedia. I made the edit in good faith, simply re-instating a previous piece of info entered by other users as i felt it fell in line with what the articles of this kind should be like - you probably know best though Winterspell (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speight's body

Not Speight's body. A body. The police haven't confirmed it's Speight, so for the purposes of Wikipedia, we should presume he's living until the post-mortem comes back. Sceptre (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is reported that" is WP:WEASELing. Sceptre (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, keep a watch on WP:AN3 (I'm at school). Someone will inevitably report me even though removing unsourced controversial materials about living people is an exception - and his death IS controversial and unsourced. Sceptre (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm saying. I'm 3RR exempt because of the presumption of existence. Sceptre (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speight (again)

The Resilient Barnstar
For diligence and wikipediance on Mark Speight, and grace under pressure on Talk:Mark Speight Jdcooper (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator opening

Steve, first let me thank you for your support of my candidacy. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to vote. As you may be aware, we've had to disqualify Creamy3 due to indefinite blocking of his account, and this leaves us with an open position which the new coordinators will appoint. Several of us have floated your name for the remaining spot. While this is not an offer yet, I wanted to gauge your thoughts on the matter. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film Project Coordinator's position

Hi Steve, I too would like to second your candidacy for this role, either now or in the future. It is a six-month position so, nothing is forever (or is that Diamonds are Forever?). Nonetheless, I value your contributions which are certainly much more impressive than at least one of the nominees (me!) has in their resume. Take care. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Review depth

How does this look: The Fires of Pompeii#Broadcast and reception? I pretty much had to go deep out of necessity; trust ITV to premiere Pushing Daisies and Britain's Got Talent on the same night. Sceptre (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]