Good night, Mike (well, its late in here, anyway)! I'm having a little trouble on article Brazil and I would like to know if I could make a few questions to you so I could get your opinion on it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering, Mike. Well, you don't need to be an expert on Brazilian subjects to see that the article is huge and too slow to load because it's full of pictures and of unimportant and overdetailed text. There is another editor who is not letting anyone make any edit into the article and unless other editors make it clear that it can not stay the way it is nothing will change. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have downsized the article to 111kb long (from its original 185kb). My last edit was this one. It was originally like this. Please, tell which one you support in the article's talk page. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The teaser trailer is up at www.arkhamhasmoved.com; I have no idea how the heck to reference that sort of source, though. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It said "2010" in the trailer, and Sorkin's voice can be clearly heard in it, since Harley has one of the two "foreground" lines. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I changed the source from The Numbers to BOM, I did check that the reported gross in the article matched what BOM was reporting, and it matched. I believe that BOM updated the reported gross, to include Monday's receipts, shortly after I edited the article. I am unfortunately unable to perpetually monitor BOM in order to ensure that the article is updated the instant BOM reports each day's new total; you are welcome to do so yourself but please do not take it as an invitation to deride others for failing to take the initative.
Here's what's wrong with the page at The Numbers: when I saw that a user had changed the gross reported in the article from $8 million to $1 million, I visited the Numbers site to verify the actual gross. I have absolutely no idea what that $8 million number is doing in the middle of the "Weekend Chart Record" table, under the heading "Total Gross". I don't know if it's an error, I don't know if it's a completely irrelevant and incomprehensible statistic -- it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this movie. I can't recall ever visiting a page at BOM and finding a number that I couldn't explain, hence my comment about BOM being a better, more helpful source. Propaniac (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not launching some kind of vendetta against The Numbers. If it can report a film's grosses without including numbers that are obviously wrong and make no sense, by all means use it as a source for that film, which is apparently not A Single Man. But when one site has wrong information and one site has right information, I would think we could agree the latter should be used. Propaniac (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I just wanted to ask you if those edits I made to your Saw VII page made sense? I was trying to find good sources for Bell and since he keeps talking about filming and all that it guarantees his appearance but no media seems to find it important enough to flat out tell us he is coming back, esp since he was only signed up for I-VI. Also, isnt the filming section looking pretty good? I bet this is almost better quality than any other Saw film article's production section due to the volume of new and unique info being released. GroundZ3R0002 03:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theres no definition as to what entitles that tag, its more of how you feel you contributed to the article. Since you both edited the article very well and contributed to the GA review page, I would say you should put that tag up yeah. GroundZ3R0002 00:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no prob :) ahaha thats funny i thought the same thing but i kept looking and those were the only ones that stood out well on a talk page lol GroundZ3R0002 01:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For your tireless efforts on getting the Saw (video game) article up to GA status during January 2010, I award you the first ever Saw star! GroundZ3R0002 00:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And my first ever award. Thank you. —MikeAllen 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created it with your efforts in mind :) yeah im getting the special edition one with all the extras and the original saw film on it the day it comes out, cant wait. its got some great bands music vids on there too so thatl b fun. GroundZ3R0002 05:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whats with the edit summary tag? Which edit do you mean? GroundZ3R0002 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol its all good i was just worried you got spammed by bots or something lol yeah i used to on every edit but now i only leave one on articles and only with big or semi controversial changes. But ill try and renew my habit. Yeah i love gears and army of two. gears2 is my favorite because i have no online so bots are fun. GroundZ3R0002 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You posted on my talk page that the edits I posted to Up In The Air(film) were propaganda? There is a whole section dedicated to film reviews. All I did was put up another film review by a very old and very well known film review website similar to Rotten Tomatoes and, quite frankly, one that has been around LONGER than Rotten Tomatoes. These film critic websites are referenced frequently all over every major movie listing in Wiki. I am not sure why my edit would be considered "propaganda?" Please advise. Pharaway (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes is all over every single Wiki movie listing so I can't use that one as a reference. EInsiders is actually older and has an extensive obit listing so it is the best reference to use. I also use IMDB. For the stuff that I edit, it is the best source. From what I have been told, several of the major newspapers verify obit facts with EInsiders first when there is a question on a celebrity death -there have been a lot of internet hoaxes. I hope that my use of the best reference out there often does not get me in trouble with Wiki. I also think someone else is deleting my edits which is why I'm coming across a bit irritated, sorry. Is there any way to find out? Pharaway (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've been talking to an editor who edits Jon & Kate Plus 8 on a regular basis and this user has apparently been a bigger problem than I realized. Apparently this wasn't even their original account and they've been vandalizing that page longer than they've been vandalizing the Law & Order pages. I'm keeping an eye on the situation and will submit a report to WP:ABUSE if the ips don't stop. Redfarmer (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know why the summary for Alice was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemrdj (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got that from the Alice website (official). I even included a ref at the end. It's in Alice's Bio. Josemrdj (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your change, here, where you apparently edit in favor of your opinion, contradicting several sources that cite the complete opposite: that the film scored negative reviews. Please do not do this again.— DædαlusContribs 10:43 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
Don't go talking about good faith and then failing to do it yourself. When you're ready to speak to me in a civil manner, and refactor your uncivil reply on my talk page, then I'll talk to you, otherwise, I have no reason to speak to someone so rude.— DædαlusContribs 11:27 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
Oh please don't pull that. Read your above message to me. How am I supposed to react to that? Accusing me to POV violation. I have never intentionally added my point of view in an article, ever. The only reason my message seem "uncivil" is because it's in text, I was speaking softly, I promise. :) —MikeAllen 11:34 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
How are you supposed to reply to a civil message on your talk page? Well, I would assume civilly. I never outright said you violated WP:NPOV, I said it looked that way. Get your facts straight and stop shooting at every shadow that moves. You think I've insulted you, so you attack me? Don't pull that, oh please.— DædαlusContribs 11:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
Insinuating that I am playing any kind of game is uncivil. You can speak softly to a person but you can still be rude, as you have so blatantly been.— DædαlusContribs 11:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
PLEASE HEAR ME OUT, DO NOT DELETE BEFORE READING, PLEASE!
I saw, on my watchlist, that an editor removed information without an edit summary(red flag). I reverted. I then looked more closely and saw the change, and self reverted. In your research, did you perchance see that? I then reverted what I saw at first glance to be a possible POV change. It looked that way to me. I alerted you of said revert, politely, on your talk page. All you had to do was correct me, in a civil tone. But instead you came to my talk page insinuating that I was playing some sort of game, in a rather uncivil tone. You attacked me for what? Because I said that something you did looked like a change in favor of your opinion? It was a mistake for crying out loud! You would do well to look at the situation more thoroughly before immediately tossing good faith out the window. There is no debate, you were unjustly uncivil to me after I left a polite message on your talk page.— DædαlusContribs 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you're forgiven, and, I am of course to blame as well. I should have more thoroughly inspected your edit. Sometimes my mind strings together separate words.. that likely doesn't make sense, but it will in a moment: All I saw was the red text of 'negative' being replaced by 'positive' stringed together with 'this film received mostly' in the foreground and 'reviews' in the background. So all together it appeared as if your edit was 'this film received mostly positive reviews'. It's a problem I've had for awhile, my brain inserts words where there aren't any. :/ .. Either way, thank you for taking a step back and hearing me out, and thank you for the apology. Please except mine for not looking more closely.— DædαlusContribs 06:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
c.c; .... seems you forgot to sign, I don't want to put your sig there as I've seen it, or an unsigned template.. if you cared at all I mean..— DædαlusContribs 06:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But now that our discussion is done and overwith, I'm going to be unwatching this page.. I have too many pages on it already.. about 1500.— DædαlusContribs 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've just spotted that you made some edits to this article today. As you saw from the talk page Inglourious is currently undergoing some changes/editing to bring it up to GA status. If you would like to help out with that, then I would really appreciate it as I'm pretty much doing the work alone. I've already edited the lead, plot (had to cut it down a lot!) and cast, which have all been ticked off the list. Some things still need to be referenced and I have to make sure there are no more dead references or unsourced info that can't be backed up. The review is still ongoing, so I'm expecting it to be updated soon. Sorry, for the slightly long message, just thought I'd bring you up to speed. :) - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove the cast section from my sandbox and place it in the article then please go ahead. - JuneGloom07Talk? 21:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I'm sure that Avatar will win most of those. Those award shows are so rigged. IMO. lol —MikeAllen 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could be right. Have you seen Avatar? I think the Best Actress is very hard to choose this year. I think one of these three, Sandra Bullock, Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe, should win it. I'm not sure who to pick yet. You probably already knew this, but I only dicovered today that IMDb is an Amazon.com company. - JuneGloom07Talk? 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should wait until I see it to judge it, maybe it does deserve all the awards. I like Sandra Bullock, always have, but haven't seen The Blind Side. I just recently found out Amazon owns it. :P —MikeAllen 00:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I want Sandra to win it as I like her too. Going back to Inglourious for a second, I have some info about a limited vinyl release of Bowie's Cat People to tie in with the film. I was wondering whether to add it to the soundtrack section or not? The sentence is in my sandbox if you want to see it. I actually managed to get one from eBay the other day to go with the other bits of Inglourious merchandise I have. - JuneGloom07Talk? 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if it's worth mentioning that QT is writing a prequel to the film somewhere in the article? If you take a look at my talkpage, we've been given two good sources about the film. The second one mentions an incident during filming that could probably go in the production section. Take a look and let me know what you think. - JuneGloom07Talk? 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did that vandalism come from last night? I totally missed both the article and talk page vandals. - JuneGloom07Talk? 13:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to say hi. Having a bit of trouble with a vandal at the moment, had to get my talk page protected. My friend came across some vandalism on an article last night and had her talk page vandalized after reverting it. Then the IP started attacking other editors pages using sockpuppet accounts, it's crazy. I'm supposed to be on a little wiki-break to catch up with some Uni work and I haven't left yet.
I've asked the GA reviewer to have a look over Inglourious when he has the time. I'll let you know what he says when I know, unless he puts it on the article's talk page. Good work with Saw VII, btw. :) - JuneGloom07Talk? 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check the edit made to the box office info in the article. I just noticed the change, and I'm not sure if it's true. I really need to log off and get some sleep. - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just thought I'd let you know that HJ has added some more info to the GA review. :) - JuneGloom07Talk? 14:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can have a few names in the infobox, 300 is a featured article and that has 6 actors in the box. We could just have the three left at the moment and Eli Roth, Til Schweiger and Michael Fassbender. - JuneGloom07Talk? 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to revert my reply to HJ on his talk page or was that a mistake? - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evening, just saw Inglourious crop up on the Recent changes list, thought I'd come say hi. I've been playing around with something for another article today, so I haven't done any work on the Inglourious article. I'm bad, I should make sure this passes GA before starting work on something else. - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The January 2010 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Sorry I lost my internet connection for a few days so I haven't been on Wiki. Really? thats way sooner than the other films but that makes sense because 3D takes longer to shoot for. Good then we can add your subpage article to the mainspace monday. Good job on that btw. Did you pick up the VI dvd? The special features were awesome and the commentaries were okay. I heard on the producers commentary that the fact that Jill got caught on tape leaving that envelope for whoever at St. Eustace hospital might affect VII. Interesting tidbit. The music videos mostly sucked but the video on the maze might have given enough info to create an article on the Saw: Game Over maze, what do you think? GroundZ3R0002 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol its all good i do the same sometimes. Yeah I really liked the extra Amanda scenes and the way that they edited it to make Hoffmans trap activate with Williams, genius. It really wrapped the film up well. I hope they will report it but you know bloody-disgusting is always on top of Saw news so they prob will. Yeah I think it is the Seth baxter tape she delivered to put the FBI on Hoffman to follow John's final wish to allow Jill out of the murders without suspicion. I think Gordon worked at a different hospital, plus i paused so many times to look for Gordons big blue office door tag that was used in other films but didnt see it. I really think that with a good 3D and a really good Gordon twist, VII could be amazing. Yeah that royalty check thing surprised me lol remember how they kept Donnie Wahlberg secret for Saw IV? I bet they'll do the same for VII. and wasn't carla that intern that Gordon was cheating on his wife with? Lots of things to say lol GroundZ3R0002 00:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally i agree it should end. I loved every film so far but it just doesnt have the magic it had when you got to the end of the first film. even IV wasn't too far in the series but after that I just knew what to expect from a Saw and it doesn't give that same feeling, Ya know? I was watching the commentary for the first film DVD bundled with VI and it felt unique hearing about Saw before "this is what fans of the franchise expect". It was refreshing to hear about a new concept of horror and a moralistic killer. At least thats how I feel. Yeah Hoffman really doesnt measure up to the genius that is Jigsaw. Saw WAS unique for having the bad guy be the protagonist up until III, then it shifted the whole mood of the series to aiding the victims and blah. Oh ya that would be a hella cool twist for VII if Jigsaw was telling Amanda about how he didnt want Hoffman to carry his legacy or something and then Hoffman switched the letters. Sorry for the preachy Sawgasm lol Do you think an article on the maze would be plausible? GroundZ3R0002 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow great job, truly. The article looks amazing and is already so well sourced. I am so pleased Greutert is returning to direct, Hackl was some bad eggs lol I really think this will be the best Saw article at the rate its going now thanks to you. Also, congrats on GA for the Saw VI article, has it passed yet? I hope it will. Which articles are your main focus now? GroundZ3R0002 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha yeah thares pleentee of tie-poes all ovre wkipdia lmao but we'll find them. I think its worded really well, of course theres always room for improvement on any article. Yeah I hope there can be a lot of info released for this film since its doin some new things this year. Thats good I dont think I can help any with those Im easily distracted from things I don't really wanna edit, even some things I do. PS formatting is a bitch good luck with that. Do you have any ideas for a new article we can cooperate on? I really want to fill out the first Saws article with some development and legacy sections. Theres plenty of info on that. GroundZ3R0002 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me the reasoning behind you request? Rotten Tomatoes, Meticritic, etc are included and EInsiders.com has been around longer than either of those sites. The film critics at EInsiders.com are also film critics for ACCESS HOLLYWOOD and several other well-known publications. The critic for the film animations is a long-term head animator at Pixar. They are also long term members of the Film Critics Association, their reviews appear on several TV stations and their reviews are aggregated on both Rotten Tomatoes and on Metacritic who pre-qualify their film critics before designating them as an "official". In addition, quotes from EInsiders reviews appear on a large number of films. For example, the 2009 Sundance Film Festival sensation "Grace" has an interview with an EInsiders critic actually at the end of their movie. I can give a large list of just a few of the others that I know of. In addition, there are EInsiders cites going back years by multiple authors on Wiki. As such EInsiders qualifies to be on Wiki. It will be interesting to hear the reasons for your objections. Pharaway (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you to refrain from calling Xsmasher's edits vandalism. This is a content dispute, and I think both sides have come on a bit strong from the onset. We should look closer at how the references are being used. For example, I do not think we need references for the infobox, but we should discuss if a review from one of the horror websites is the best sample review we can offer for a given film. Erik (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you posted on my page. Quote reads:
Please stop doing editing tests, Wikipedia is not your play toy. It's not very funny either. —Mike Allen 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
All I changed was the "Followed By" movie. It read as Saw with some rediculous Roman numeral after it, so I changed it to the movie that is rumored to be following Saw VII, which would be VIII. I don't understand how this would be using Wiki as a "play toy" or how it would even be intended to be funny.
There is no such thing as Saw VIII. A IP and another user just before you added Saw MMMCCXXXVIII? . There's only Saw VII and if you read the article it explained why there will not be Saw VIII. —MikeAllen 23:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep on top of this together. There is a protocol for each kind of complaint, we pretty much just have to report it and see where it goes. 842U (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPI? I would. Also, see this842U (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike and 842U, I posted on the complaint page as well. There are a substantial number of .jpg photos on obituaries that are pulled off the EInsiders.com website that go back all the way to 2002. The photo link clearly shows that the photos were pulled off the EInsiders.com website. I am correct that you plan on using not only facts from EInsiders and cite them to others but you plan on continuing to use photos from EInsiders website without citing them as well?Pharaway (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I copied this last post by Pharaway over to their talk page, where it can be continued. Despite it's irrelevancy to Pharaway's persitant citation spamming. 842U (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be some obvious contenders for an SPI. Thoughts?842U (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some similarities with this user creating a few articles and using einsiders.com. Also, if after removing einsiders.com refspam, an article has no sources, I'm adding the "notabiltiy" and the "sources" tag. This will make it easier to remove these articles later, I'm thinking. 842U (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User Maplewoodrive created this article, similarly Maïa Simon, the editor having been banned as a sockpuppet here. An SPI seems more important.842U (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check your email.842U (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that is amazing I really think it is a sequel game, I hope so at least. I wonder if they will announce it at Konami's press conference at E3 or sooner. Thanks so much for the heads up keep me posted if you find anything else. GroundZ3R0002 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get off my section of the complaint. I've deleted it once and I'm deleting it again. Read the rules. Pharaway (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??? 842U (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it, Mike, For the SPI, there is a place for "comments by others." 842U (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and now a third time and now a fourth time. Should I put in a complaint? Pharaway (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I am responding to you. —MikeAllen 19:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, you only need to add the reassessment request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Assessment#Requesting an assessment and it will be taken care of. If I don't notice it, it might take a bit longer, but someone else will get get to it. It isn't necessary to also add it to WP:BIOG, assessors there don't know the intricacies of actor bios. As for the priority scale, leave that for the assessor to fill out. In most cases, a well known TV actor like Hargitay would probably be rated Mid, but in some cases, it might be higher. Also, while I'm here, let me thank you for the vandalism reverts I notice that you do. That is such important work that most people don't get credit for. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'm going to wait until tomorrow to do this, I've been up for 27 hours and I've got to go to sleep. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reassessed this as a C-class quality and mid priority. It's very well written and is well sourced. I'd like to see the career section expanded a bit. She has been nominated and won quite a few awards and none of that is mentioned in that section. It would also help to include some critical commentary on her role(s). Thanks for the good work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has a good solid basis. While WP:ACTOR doesn't endorse using a combined table like that, I think it looks good. Combining them would be a lot of additional work, although you could easily make them two tables, just by changing the table headings. There is nothing to be gained from repeating the same awards as is already contained in the awards table. It's just redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again I was interested in the whole possibility of a Saw game sequel so I did some digging. I actually got a reply from danielle@zombie.com and she told me the whole "confidential" thing but said to follow their twitter and facebook. Judging by their tweets and their facebook wall, and other sites, it looks like they are going to make a big announcement in the coming months. Looks like we'll all know soon. Say, did you ever finish the first game? GroundZ3R0002 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like what I'm doing, why don't *you* add the guest stars and fix the mistakes? The episode title for "Condfidential" is listed twice and the first episode with that title has a closing brackets mistake. )) was put there in place of the usual closing brackets.
Also removed links for directors/writers, because they done this for episodes in the past. I should know, I just went through and fixed up the episodes. I'm not finished though, more work to be done. You want the show fixed, but complain instead of saying "thanks" all I'm doing. Why cut off your nose to spite your face?
Oh and if I were blocked, why am I editing? I'm not avoiding anything. I've been doing edits for the past week and and a half and you're just noticing now? 174.91.250.188 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look here, smart ass. All the IPs are from Bell Canada. Go figure. I just noticed because I don't keep up with who is who, I am busy building an encyclopedia. You being blocked (TH43) proves you are unwanted here. I don't know what is your problem with removing publishing information from citations. They are done correctly. There's no need to unlink the names just because they were linked in another section. You are just a troll and are worth no more of my time. I will see to it that this is taken care of tomorrow.—MikeAllen 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I see no evidence that the wikitable format takes care of the issues covered by our coding. The tables look different to me, so don't apologize, and FWIW, they need to prove it better than just reverting and posting a comment to my talk page. Secondly, regarding the discussion above, I just told some guy tonight that he had a smart mouth and it should be washed out with soap. Heh. Don't fret it and don't change what you're doing until (shades of the Koenig article) it's official. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also about Hargitay's article, I added this to my original comment after I posted it, I assumed you missed it: "PS. How do I add the IPA for the pronunciation of her name?". How does the IPA wording works? Oh and above, he was blocked, but will probably be back per usual doing the same exact thing. Good thing I'm not an admin because these people would be blocked indefinitely. It's such a distraction to stop what you're doing on here to deal with them. —MikeAllen 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't see it and to be honest, I have no clue. You might try at WP:IPA and ask for help on that. I am constantly exhausted by those types of editors myself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thought I'd drop this here for a change ;-)! Do you guys need anything more from me at the GA review or have you got it under control. Do feel free to give me a nudge if you need a hand or when you reckon it's ready! All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- I must have missed that- I have an enormous watchlist! Currently 625 pages + talk pages! If you don't get a quick response, feel free to stalk my contribs and nudge me if I'm editing elsewhere! I've replied to your questions and hopefully given you something to work with. If you need anything else, just yell, but it's 20 past 4 in the morning so I won;t be around for few hours! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no fight or anything, I just wonder if you could point me to the guideline that says this. I'm not a Star Trek fan, it just seems to me that the job your dad has at the time you're born is relevant enough to note in a single sentence — again, as I noted, not in the lead, but in the early personal life section. For the record, I added neither data point to Koenig's bio in the first place.
Lucille Ball notes that her father was "a telephone lineman for Anaconda Copper", specifying the company for which her father worked, not just his profession.
Don't ask me how i found my way to Christine Todd Whitman (Steve Forbes, I think), but her bio tells us:
Whitman is a descendant of two New Jersey political families, the Todds and the Schleys, and related by marriage to New York's politically-active Whitmans. She is married to John R. Whitman, a private equity investor. They have two children. She is the granddaughter-in-law of former Governor of New YorkCharles S. Whitman. Her maternal grandfather, Reeve Schley, was a member of Wolf's Head Society at Yale and the vice president of Chase Bank when it indeed had only one vice president. He was also a longtime president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce.
She was the third child of the former Pauline Robinson (1896–1949) and her husband Marvin Pierce (1893–1969), who later became president of McCall Corporation, the publisher of the popular women's magazines Redbook and McCall's.
Barbara Hutton notes she:
...was the only child of Edna Woolworth (1883–1918), who was a daughter of Frank W. Woolworth, the founder of the successful Woolworth five and dime stores. Barbara's father was Franklyn Laws Hutton (1877–1940), a wealthy co-founder of E. F. Hutton & Company (owned by Franklyn's brother Edward Francis), a respected New York investment banking and stock brokerage firm.
Of course I came across several bios that opted not to go into detail, as well as several bios that had details for people who are not wikilinked, but one doesn't get the idea that elaborating, with links, on notable and/or interesting details of an individual's parent's life and career is something dissuaded. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have removed that white border from parts of your userpage. (If I remember correctly, it was you who put up that request for userpage assistance, right?) Regards, fetchcomms☛ 00:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And (unless you have objections) I plan on borrowing your userpage layout and graphics (I suspect I will change the picture of you to a picture of me though - nothing against your pic... ;-) ) to revamp my own. Assuming you are ok with that.
The February 2010 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've just spotted that you made some edits to this article today. As you saw from the talk page Inglourious is currently undergoing some changes/editing to bring it up to GA status. If you would like to help out with that, then I would really appreciate it as I'm pretty much doing the work alone. I've already edited the lead, plot (had to cut it down a lot!) and cast, which have all been ticked off the list. Some things still need to be referenced and I have to make sure there are no more dead references or unsourced info that can't be backed up. The review is still ongoing, so I'm expecting it to be updated soon. Sorry, for the slightly long message, just thought I'd bring you up to speed. :) - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove the cast section from my sandbox and place it in the article then please go ahead. - JuneGloom07Talk? 21:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I'm sure that Avatar will win most of those. Those award shows are so rigged. IMO. lol —MikeAllen 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could be right. Have you seen Avatar? I think the Best Actress is very hard to choose this year. I think one of these three, Sandra Bullock, Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe, should win it. I'm not sure who to pick yet. You probably already knew this, but I only dicovered today that IMDb is an Amazon.com company. - JuneGloom07Talk? 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should wait until I see it to judge it, maybe it does deserve all the awards. I like Sandra Bullock, always have, but haven't seen The Blind Side. I just recently found out Amazon owns it. :P —MikeAllen 00:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I want Sandra to win it as I like her too. Going back to Inglourious for a second, I have some info about a limited vinyl release of Bowie's Cat People to tie in with the film. I was wondering whether to add it to the soundtrack section or not? The sentence is in my sandbox if you want to see it. I actually managed to get one from eBay the other day to go with the other bits of Inglourious merchandise I have. - JuneGloom07Talk? 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if it's worth mentioning that QT is writing a prequel to the film somewhere in the article? If you take a look at my talkpage, we've been given two good sources about the film. The second one mentions an incident during filming that could probably go in the production section. Take a look and let me know what you think. - JuneGloom07Talk? 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did that vandalism come from last night? I totally missed both the article and talk page vandals. - JuneGloom07Talk? 13:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to say hi. Having a bit of trouble with a vandal at the moment, had to get my talk page protected. My friend came across some vandalism on an article last night and had her talk page vandalized after reverting it. Then the IP started attacking other editors pages using sockpuppet accounts, it's crazy. I'm supposed to be on a little wiki-break to catch up with some Uni work and I haven't left yet.
I've asked the GA reviewer to have a look over Inglourious when he has the time. I'll let you know what he says when I know, unless he puts it on the article's talk page. Good work with Saw VII, btw. :) - JuneGloom07Talk? 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check the edit made to the box office info in the article. I just noticed the change, and I'm not sure if it's true. I really need to log off and get some sleep. - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just thought I'd let you know that HJ has added some more info to the GA review. :) - JuneGloom07Talk? 14:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can have a few names in the infobox, 300 is a featured article and that has 6 actors in the box. We could just have the three left at the moment and Eli Roth, Til Schweiger and Michael Fassbender. - JuneGloom07Talk? 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to revert my reply to HJ on his talk page or was that a mistake? - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evening, just saw Inglourious crop up on the Recent changes list, thought I'd come say hi. I've been playing around with something for another article today, so I haven't done any work on the Inglourious article. I'm bad, I should make sure this passes GA before starting work on something else. - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The January 2010 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Sorry I lost my internet connection for a few days so I haven't been on Wiki. Really? thats way sooner than the other films but that makes sense because 3D takes longer to shoot for. Good then we can add your subpage article to the mainspace monday. Good job on that btw. Did you pick up the VI dvd? The special features were awesome and the commentaries were okay. I heard on the producers commentary that the fact that Jill got caught on tape leaving that envelope for whoever at St. Eustace hospital might affect VII. Interesting tidbit. The music videos mostly sucked but the video on the maze might have given enough info to create an article on the Saw: Game Over maze, what do you think? GroundZ3R0002 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol its all good i do the same sometimes. Yeah I really liked the extra Amanda scenes and the way that they edited it to make Hoffmans trap activate with Williams, genius. It really wrapped the film up well. I hope they will report it but you know bloody-disgusting is always on top of Saw news so they prob will. Yeah I think it is the Seth baxter tape she delivered to put the FBI on Hoffman to follow John's final wish to allow Jill out of the murders without suspicion. I think Gordon worked at a different hospital, plus i paused so many times to look for Gordons big blue office door tag that was used in other films but didnt see it. I really think that with a good 3D and a really good Gordon twist, VII could be amazing. Yeah that royalty check thing surprised me lol remember how they kept Donnie Wahlberg secret for Saw IV? I bet they'll do the same for VII. and wasn't carla that intern that Gordon was cheating on his wife with? Lots of things to say lol GroundZ3R0002 00:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally i agree it should end. I loved every film so far but it just doesnt have the magic it had when you got to the end of the first film. even IV wasn't too far in the series but after that I just knew what to expect from a Saw and it doesn't give that same feeling, Ya know? I was watching the commentary for the first film DVD bundled with VI and it felt unique hearing about Saw before "this is what fans of the franchise expect". It was refreshing to hear about a new concept of horror and a moralistic killer. At least thats how I feel. Yeah Hoffman really doesnt measure up to the genius that is Jigsaw. Saw WAS unique for having the bad guy be the protagonist up until III, then it shifted the whole mood of the series to aiding the victims and blah. Oh ya that would be a hella cool twist for VII if Jigsaw was telling Amanda about how he didnt want Hoffman to carry his legacy or something and then Hoffman switched the letters. Sorry for the preachy Sawgasm lol Do you think an article on the maze would be plausible? GroundZ3R0002 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow great job, truly. The article looks amazing and is already so well sourced. I am so pleased Greutert is returning to direct, Hackl was some bad eggs lol I really think this will be the best Saw article at the rate its going now thanks to you. Also, congrats on GA for the Saw VI article, has it passed yet? I hope it will. Which articles are your main focus now? GroundZ3R0002 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha yeah thares pleentee of tie-poes all ovre wkipdia lmao but we'll find them. I think its worded really well, of course theres always room for improvement on any article. Yeah I hope there can be a lot of info released for this film since its doin some new things this year. Thats good I dont think I can help any with those Im easily distracted from things I don't really wanna edit, even some things I do. PS formatting is a bitch good luck with that. Do you have any ideas for a new article we can cooperate on? I really want to fill out the first Saws article with some development and legacy sections. Theres plenty of info on that. GroundZ3R0002 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me the reasoning behind you request? Rotten Tomatoes, Meticritic, etc are included and EInsiders.com has been around longer than either of those sites. The film critics at EInsiders.com are also film critics for ACCESS HOLLYWOOD and several other well-known publications. The critic for the film animations is a long-term head animator at Pixar. They are also long term members of the Film Critics Association, their reviews appear on several TV stations and their reviews are aggregated on both Rotten Tomatoes and on Metacritic who pre-qualify their film critics before designating them as an "official". In addition, quotes from EInsiders reviews appear on a large number of films. For example, the 2009 Sundance Film Festival sensation "Grace" has an interview with an EInsiders critic actually at the end of their movie. I can give a large list of just a few of the others that I know of. In addition, there are EInsiders cites going back years by multiple authors on Wiki. As such EInsiders qualifies to be on Wiki. It will be interesting to hear the reasons for your objections. Pharaway (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you to refrain from calling Xsmasher's edits vandalism. This is a content dispute, and I think both sides have come on a bit strong from the onset. We should look closer at how the references are being used. For example, I do not think we need references for the infobox, but we should discuss if a review from one of the horror websites is the best sample review we can offer for a given film. Erik (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you posted on my page. Quote reads:
Please stop doing editing tests, Wikipedia is not your play toy. It's not very funny either. —Mike Allen 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
All I changed was the "Followed By" movie. It read as Saw with some rediculous Roman numeral after it, so I changed it to the movie that is rumored to be following Saw VII, which would be VIII. I don't understand how this would be using Wiki as a "play toy" or how it would even be intended to be funny.
There is no such thing as Saw VIII. A IP and another user just before you added Saw MMMCCXXXVIII? . There's only Saw VII and if you read the article it explained why there will not be Saw VIII. —MikeAllen 23:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep on top of this together. There is a protocol for each kind of complaint, we pretty much just have to report it and see where it goes. 842U (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPI? I would. Also, see this842U (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike and 842U, I posted on the complaint page as well. There are a substantial number of .jpg photos on obituaries that are pulled off the EInsiders.com website that go back all the way to 2002. The photo link clearly shows that the photos were pulled off the EInsiders.com website. I am correct that you plan on using not only facts from EInsiders and cite them to others but you plan on continuing to use photos from EInsiders website without citing them as well?Pharaway (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I copied this last post by Pharaway over to their talk page, where it can be continued. Despite it's irrelevancy to Pharaway's persitant citation spamming. 842U (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be some obvious contenders for an SPI. Thoughts?842U (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some similarities with this user creating a few articles and using einsiders.com. Also, if after removing einsiders.com refspam, an article has no sources, I'm adding the "notabiltiy" and the "sources" tag. This will make it easier to remove these articles later, I'm thinking. 842U (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User Maplewoodrive created this article, similarly Maïa Simon, the editor having been banned as a sockpuppet here. An SPI seems more important.842U (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check your email.842U (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that is amazing I really think it is a sequel game, I hope so at least. I wonder if they will announce it at Konami's press conference at E3 or sooner. Thanks so much for the heads up keep me posted if you find anything else. GroundZ3R0002 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get off my section of the complaint. I've deleted it once and I'm deleting it again. Read the rules. Pharaway (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??? 842U (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it, Mike, For the SPI, there is a place for "comments by others." 842U (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and now a third time and now a fourth time. Should I put in a complaint? Pharaway (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I am responding to you. —MikeAllen 19:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, you only need to add the reassessment request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Assessment#Requesting an assessment and it will be taken care of. If I don't notice it, it might take a bit longer, but someone else will get get to it. It isn't necessary to also add it to WP:BIOG, assessors there don't know the intricacies of actor bios. As for the priority scale, leave that for the assessor to fill out. In most cases, a well known TV actor like Hargitay would probably be rated Mid, but in some cases, it might be higher. Also, while I'm here, let me thank you for the vandalism reverts I notice that you do. That is such important work that most people don't get credit for. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'm going to wait until tomorrow to do this, I've been up for 27 hours and I've got to go to sleep. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reassessed this as a C-class quality and mid priority. It's very well written and is well sourced. I'd like to see the career section expanded a bit. She has been nominated and won quite a few awards and none of that is mentioned in that section. It would also help to include some critical commentary on her role(s). Thanks for the good work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has a good solid basis. While WP:ACTOR doesn't endorse using a combined table like that, I think it looks good. Combining them would be a lot of additional work, although you could easily make them two tables, just by changing the table headings. There is nothing to be gained from repeating the same awards as is already contained in the awards table. It's just redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again I was interested in the whole possibility of a Saw game sequel so I did some digging. I actually got a reply from danielle@zombie.com and she told me the whole "confidential" thing but said to follow their twitter and facebook. Judging by their tweets and their facebook wall, and other sites, it looks like they are going to make a big announcement in the coming months. Looks like we'll all know soon. Say, did you ever finish the first game? GroundZ3R0002 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like what I'm doing, why don't *you* add the guest stars and fix the mistakes? The episode title for "Condfidential" is listed twice and the first episode with that title has a closing brackets mistake. )) was put there in place of the usual closing brackets.
Also removed links for directors/writers, because they done this for episodes in the past. I should know, I just went through and fixed up the episodes. I'm not finished though, more work to be done. You want the show fixed, but complain instead of saying "thanks" all I'm doing. Why cut off your nose to spite your face?
Oh and if I were blocked, why am I editing? I'm not avoiding anything. I've been doing edits for the past week and and a half and you're just noticing now? 174.91.250.188 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look here, smart ass. All the IPs are from Bell Canada. Go figure. I just noticed because I don't keep up with who is who, I am busy building an encyclopedia. You being blocked (TH43) proves you are unwanted here. I don't know what is your problem with removing publishing information from citations. They are done correctly. There's no need to unlink the names just because they were linked in another section. You are just a troll and are worth no more of my time. I will see to it that this is taken care of tomorrow.—MikeAllen 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I see no evidence that the wikitable format takes care of the issues covered by our coding. The tables look different to me, so don't apologize, and FWIW, they need to prove it better than just reverting and posting a comment to my talk page. Secondly, regarding the discussion above, I just told some guy tonight that he had a smart mouth and it should be washed out with soap. Heh. Don't fret it and don't change what you're doing until (shades of the Koenig article) it's official. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also about Hargitay's article, I added this to my original comment after I posted it, I assumed you missed it: "PS. How do I add the IPA for the pronunciation of her name?". How does the IPA wording works? Oh and above, he was blocked, but will probably be back per usual doing the same exact thing. Good thing I'm not an admin because these people would be blocked indefinitely. It's such a distraction to stop what you're doing on here to deal with them. —MikeAllen 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't see it and to be honest, I have no clue. You might try at WP:IPA and ask for help on that. I am constantly exhausted by those types of editors myself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thought I'd drop this here for a change ;-)! Do you guys need anything more from me at the GA review or have you got it under control. Do feel free to give me a nudge if you need a hand or when you reckon it's ready! All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- I must have missed that- I have an enormous watchlist! Currently 625 pages + talk pages! If you don't get a quick response, feel free to stalk my contribs and nudge me if I'm editing elsewhere! I've replied to your questions and hopefully given you something to work with. If you need anything else, just yell, but it's 20 past 4 in the morning so I won;t be around for few hours! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no fight or anything, I just wonder if you could point me to the guideline that says this. I'm not a Star Trek fan, it just seems to me that the job your dad has at the time you're born is relevant enough to note in a single sentence — again, as I noted, not in the lead, but in the early personal life section. For the record, I added neither data point to Koenig's bio in the first place.
Lucille Ball notes that her father was "a telephone lineman for Anaconda Copper", specifying the company for which her father worked, not just his profession.
Don't ask me how i found my way to Christine Todd Whitman (Steve Forbes, I think), but her bio tells us:
Whitman is a descendant of two New Jersey political families, the Todds and the Schleys, and related by marriage to New York's politically-active Whitmans. She is married to John R. Whitman, a private equity investor. They have two children. She is the granddaughter-in-law of former Governor of New YorkCharles S. Whitman. Her maternal grandfather, Reeve Schley, was a member of Wolf's Head Society at Yale and the vice president of Chase Bank when it indeed had only one vice president. He was also a longtime president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce.
She was the third child of the former Pauline Robinson (1896–1949) and her husband Marvin Pierce (1893–1969), who later became president of McCall Corporation, the publisher of the popular women's magazines Redbook and McCall's.
Barbara Hutton notes she:
...was the only child of Edna Woolworth (1883–1918), who was a daughter of Frank W. Woolworth, the founder of the successful Woolworth five and dime stores. Barbara's father was Franklyn Laws Hutton (1877–1940), a wealthy co-founder of E. F. Hutton & Company (owned by Franklyn's brother Edward Francis), a respected New York investment banking and stock brokerage firm.
Of course I came across several bios that opted not to go into detail, as well as several bios that had details for people who are not wikilinked, but one doesn't get the idea that elaborating, with links, on notable and/or interesting details of an individual's parent's life and career is something dissuaded. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have removed that white border from parts of your userpage. (If I remember correctly, it was you who put up that request for userpage assistance, right?) Regards, fetchcomms☛ 00:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And (unless you have objections) I plan on borrowing your userpage layout and graphics (I suspect I will change the picture of you to a picture of me though - nothing against your pic... ;-) ) to revamp my own. Assuming you are ok with that.
The February 2010 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can read my comment on the Flixster template deletion talk board for more details. I'm not adding this for advertising or promotion. Flixster is a movie site no different than IMDB, RT, Allmovies, Metacritic. Your assumption that i'm gullibly doing this for SEO is wrong(there is obviously no value to that). I think the Flixster's movie page is relevant and brings a lot of value and deserves to be offered to the Wikipedia users as a resource. Not really sure why you are vehemently opposed to this, but I'm more than willing to discuss it. -- Arturnt (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to imply that my apology was not sincere, but it was sincere. You took my words as a personal attack but I was simply being factual. I didn't call you names, either. So once again, I'm sorry if I gave offense. I think you owe me an apology, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the way things go on the Internet sometimes. It would be nice if you'd return to the discussion in some way. I think we scared everyone off. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is amazing I really hope it's true. But, it still lists Hackl as director so it shakes my faith a little as well as Twisted Pictures would like to keep Elwes a secret so I don't know how he showed up on the Toronto roster so easily. Also, congrats on expanding the Saw VI and VII articles sooo much they look fantastic and really give Saw a good rep on Wiki. It really saddens that VI also did so bad on DVD sales, I thought once reviews came out and people knew it was better than V they'd buy it but oh well I guess Saw is slowly dying :( Also, I was playing the game again and I saw a case file hidden deep in the game that read something like: "By: Oswald McGillicuty Today, the Jigsaw Killer has shown what happened to missing game journalists from around the world. In April, In Los Angeles, he will give a glimpse of what is next in his series of re-education for them. What will be show is a videogame, but the game is much more serious." Do you think this is the second game maybe?? GroundZ3R0002 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes. I'm a huge Tim Burton fan, so I did see the film. When the characters repeatedly refered to is as the Jabberwocky, I thought, "Oh, crap. He was right. I'll have to fix that". My apoligies; I've been here for, jesus, nearly four years, but I guess I have to take more into account sometimes. To be completely honest with you, I try to maintain a good relationship with the editors here, but sometimes they kind of steamroll over me -- not you, but others who will go unnamed. Hope to see you around again, and thanks for the message. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is how I've seen it done on Wikipedia. If it's so wrong then remove them all, I'm done with it. I just don't understand all this. Thanks. —MikeAllen 06:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is for speculation. The episodes were sourced and verified. Not against Crystal ball. That's like saying we can't post a release date for a film, even if it's sourced, because Wikipedia can not predict that date. You're right WIKIPEDIA can not, that's why it's sourced. Nice try on that though. —MikeAllen 06:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol your what 21? and you have a daughter???!!!?!?!?!? aNyways can you edit nip/tuck page it looks like crap!!!!and it is so outdated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.239.238 (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a dog... —MikeAllen 02:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Shawnee-smith-necklace.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Sawthevideogameasylum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.
Hi, Mike, I saw your oppose !vote at MichaelQSchmidt's RfA. I ask you to do something during your time editing on Wikipedia—to avoid applying "inclusionist" and "deletionist" labels in discussion. Such labels do not assume good faith, and we should strive to collaborate in a cluocracy. I make it my personal goal to never use these labels, and I hope that since you are fairly new to Wikipedia, you could make it a personal goal too. You should be able to make logical arguments without resorting to ideological terminology. Erik (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way such labels are used, especially in the RfA, is loaded language. It draws an ideological line in the sand. Pigeonholing an editor, not just him but any editor, is detrimental to the editing process. I am sure that you mean well with your !vote, but I think you are better off making your case without using the labels. These kinds of discussions are definitely the unpleasant side of Wikipedia, but AFD ideology has a lot to do with it in this particular one. It is just advice I wanted to share, and you obviously do not have to take it. I just would rather not see another editor internalize the divisiveness these labels provoke. In any case, I hope you can continue with your good contributions to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Erik (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike. The original stub from last September never received return attention from its author, else he might've made note of it moving from pre-production to actual filming. I appreciate your support toward incubation. Now that its on my watch, I'll do what I can as more information comes forward. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MikeAllen. The Afd tag cannot be removed at Flutter (film) as a withdrawal because all three comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flutter (film) still currently suggest deletion -- 2 for incubation and 1 for outright deletion. (A request to incubate requires deletion). If all participants in the discussion voted to "keep", then you could withdraw and close early. As it stands now, it still needs to run its course. — CactusWriter |needles 01:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not exactly. I wouldn't say there's "no turning back". Speedy keeps and speedy deletes -- or withdrawals before any other delete votes -- can be closed quickly. Otherwise, allowing the discussion to continue won't ever hurt the article. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles 01:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I got your message regarding the separate table I made for ratings at Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11). First, let me say that I made the table because (a) the ratings column was cluttering up the episode table unnecessarily, and (b) other pages have separate ratings lists, and it seems to work just fine. (Example: List of Law & Order episodes (season 20).)
If you feel that people might object to it, I suggest we open it up for discussion on the article's talk page; if people decide to reintegrate or get rid of the ratings table, I won't fight them on it.
As for making ratings sortable within the main episode table, I have no idea how to do it.
HI Mike!
Glad to see more interest in editing this article! I don't really care which source is used but my original Green 960 source DOES contain the "pinhead" reference. A snippet: " Karel... Don’t miss this HiNRG show from the person Bill O’Reilly has named a pinhead twice, and Michelle Maulkin thinks is “what’s wrong with America." Your input is always appreciated. Thnx DocOfSoc (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting edits irationally. I understand that you are very possesive over this article, but you cannot decide what information should or should not be included. On this edit you decided that "who proposes to alice" and "who is forever waiting for her prince to come" are rehashing plot, but one is the tinyest of a reminder and the other is an actual character description. There is an additional cast reference on both characters, and also imdb is a perfectly good source for cast information. These actors have a role in the movie and deserve to be included on the movies article. Please further explain your revisions or I will revert it back. --Tikopowii (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell that you are a very experienced Wikipedia editor, and am going to avoid any future conflict, I would also like to help make the article a Good article and will keep my eye out for any future vandalism. --Tikopowii (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem I will do it now.--Tikopowii (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I have been looking at your revamp, I don't know if we should break the current structure, because it makes the information harder to find when it is in block like that. Most Good Articles in the film category have the current structure, but I think if you can really perfect a paragraph it could work. --Tikopowii (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about the quotes and am going to try to help with that, and I'm not sure if this or this are old but they are what I was referring to. Lol I think it is a picture of some fans at the theater and no I don't think it adds anything.--Tikopowii (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have an eye appointment in about 6 hours. Need to sleep. Keep an eye out. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Iron Man 2 poster.jpg[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Iron Man 2 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
The March 2010 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^Patrick D. Reagan, Designing a New America: The Origins of New Deal Planning, 1890–1943 (2000) p. 29
^Smith, Jean Edward FDR, pp. 10-13, Random House, 2007 ISBN 978-1--4000-6121-1
^Patrick D. Reagan, Designing a New America: The Origins of New Deal Planning, 1890–1943 (2000) p. 29
^Smith, Jean Edward FDR, pp. 10-13, Random House, 2007 ISBN 978-1--4000-6121-1
Resolved
Hey there MikeAllen, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:MikeAllen/playbox2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
