User talk:Millahnna/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

A cookie for you!

Hello Millahnna! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Nom Nom Nom. Not sure what I did but thanks. :D Millahnna (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Millahnna

Hi Millahnna. I am sorry for editing the pages for Final Destinations 1-4. I thought it would be okay to be more specific in the descriptions since the article for Final Destination 5 did likewise. Sorry for all the trouble caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitefroststreetboi (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh it's OK. Don't worry; you didn't cause any problems or anything. It's obvious you meant well with your edits. It was just a little too much detail based on our guidelines. You might want to check out MOS:FILM and WP:FILMPLOT to help you get the lay of the land. Happy editing! Millahnna (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok I understand already, after reading the article. Thank you so much for your help. Hope I didn't cause much inconvenience to revert back to the original summary. However, I did notice some 'factual' errors with regard to the movie. For instance, in Final Destination 1, it stated that a slab of wreckage was whipped up by the train's wheels but it isn't. It was actually a metal chain dangling from the train carriage. Could details like these still be edited though? Thanks for your help once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitefroststreetboi (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely; if you see something blatantly wrong go ahead and fix it. It's been so long since I've seen that one I hadn't realized. Just be careful of anything that involves interpretation. For this series of films that's going to most likely be anything where something is implied but not stated or shown. In films with twist endings that one can be a real challenge. Millahnna (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

All right I do understand that. Thank you so much for your help, and I saw what you posted on my talk page. Thanks for that; it will help a lot. I have just edited the article of Final Destination slightly. Could you check to see if it is approved? And also, yes I do understand that some things in the Final Destination franchise is open for interpretation, so I've only edited the part which was shown in the movie. Whitefroststreetboi (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting the changes, and yes I agree with what you have said. Sometimes the deaths are so complicated viewers may lose sense of what is the final 'thing' that does the person in. I will just check the other articles to see if there are any major factual errors. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia accurate and informative. You have done a lot I can see :) Whitefroststreetboi (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just remember that a lot of times we don't need the specifics of how each person died, at least not in so many details. Film plots are supposed to help support the real world information that we include in the article (production, writing, casting, etc.). And of course, just because I think a change is fine doesn't mean someone else won't disagree and come along and change it again. I'm not an admin or anything, just a dork with too much free time on my hands, so it's not like I have some kind of authority or anything. :D Happy editing and if you need any help let me know. Millahnna (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!

I got hit with lots of work coming out of the holiday weekend. Yes, you have my talk page. Should we continue to communicate through there? Anyway, I do appreciate your help with this, and I can still forward you the NYT review if you want. And I would love to shoot in or around Portland some day! I love it up there. It looks like next one's in New York, though...

---Tommy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.70.65 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries; my schedule is all outta whack too. I thought I was going to get to the project before today and kept getting hit with real life stuff (which is a good thing since it was job interviews). Someone already plugged in the NTY times review and we found the online version of it. So the problem sentences about the rotten tomatoes reviews is still there but we have a positive review to contrast it. You can keep contacting me this way if that works for you. I only suggested email in case you have scans of any other reviews that aren't online. Honestly, I think I have enough reviews to work with now so that's entirely up to you; whatever you're the most comfortable with.
I've been reading the reviews all week and jotting notes and I think between the well known publications and one or two of the smaller ones, I've got a good selection to point out what the overall feeling was from critics regarding what they saw as pros and cons (I've got six reviews in my list that I want to reference, with a balance of opinion between them). The review you got in Fangoria was particularly good for that. It's a smaller publication so I'll have to focus on NYT, LA Times and that dreaded Variety review first, but Fangoria makes a great statement in their first paragraph that I think will tie the whole section together nicely (I mention it on the talk page for the film if you want specifics).
I'm about ready to get on a 3 hour bus ride and will be working on this over the weekend in bits and pieces. So you should start to see improvement there soon.
Next up, my mission is to find a source we can use for the awards nominations. It looks like the WGAs and the Emmys didn't archive their lists from 2009 (haven't checked the other award that Keener was nominated for yet). It's not something we can usually source to IMDB because they have the same editorial problems that we do (anyone can edit and they don't link to their sources). I know the film project has some resources for that though, so I should be able to find something. Millahnna (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again

I am super busy prepping for another film now. Hurray. But I will keep checking in.

-- Tommy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.70.65 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am (unexpectedly) away from reliable PC access for two more days. I lag like a 15 year old girl on prom night sometimes but I get there, eventually. Have fun with the prep work. Scene break downs are fun. Millahnna (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

hey

hey
hey why was my content removed from the page, all details given were 100 percent true and authentic, whats happening?? ! colourpencil media 16:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COMPETENCE. The text was unreferenced, written in a fashion that sounded like a bio on a fansite and you removed all of the relevant maintenance tags and categories for the article. Millahnna (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding JS Group

Hello, I am new to this; therefore, I am not sure where I am supposed to leave a message. However, I have been trying to edit the JS Group page with proper and detailed information. All the details are authentic and are referenced properly. Can you please advise what I need to do to make that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.180.161 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to back up your information and to write it in a less advertisement manner. ALso, you're overwriting a lot of categories and tempaltes that should stay on the page. Millahnna (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I will get the whole thing rewritten in a brief and precise manner and try it again tomorrow; please tell me if there is a possibility to get my draft approved from you or someone else before I try to upload it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.180.161 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not an admin or anything and that page isn't something I would normally be looking at. I just saw the edits while doing some recent changes patrolling looking for vandal edits (note: I do not think your edit is vandalism, you clearly want to improve the page). Your best bet, I think, might be to work on the text in a Wikipedia:Sandbox (you can make one in your own userspace too, but I don't have the link explaining it handy). That way you can work out the kinks while you learn how to work with the ref tags for sources and other technical details. You'll want to make sure to keep your text WP:NEUTRAL, since I gather you have some affiliation with the group in question. You definitely want to avoid conflict of interest problems. You could probably ask for help on one of our help desks. I'll drop you a welcome menu to this IP address's talk page; it has lots of links to help you get started. I would normally say that you might want to ask on the talk page of the article about some of your edits but I don't think a lot of people watch that page so it might take a long time to get some answers. Millahnna (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks a lot for your help. I will try the help desk and the Sandbox, and I'll be using this ID to make any further changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haider 118 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, Haider. Let me know if I can help. Odds are I don't know the answer but I can probably find someone who does. Millahnna (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...

...for my last commentless edit, the stupid filter prevented any reasonable attempt, both in content and comment. --91.10.25.182 (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, please use the discussion page. --91.10.25.182 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all good. I knew what you were going for. I asked for some folks at WT:FILM to drop by the article because I clearly am not explaining it well (or am, perhaps, way off base on what I thought I knew from the MOS). Millahnna (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Two and a Half duh!

Yes Charlie Sheen starred in Two and a Half Men. Keyword he starred, not staring! He is no longer involved in the show. If you would actually read the changes I've done to the article you'll notice that Charile Sheen is still present. All I've done is labeled him as a former star. It's done it's over Sheen is fired and Kutcher has already debuted as the show's new protagonist. It's time to move on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westvoja (talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read the TV Project MOS as well as the editorial note included in the infobox. I don't have a personal stake in this; I can't stand the show, myself. I'm just trying to stick to my understanding from the Project's guidelines and policies about how the issue should be handled. Millahnna (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Spam Link

Would you like to explain why adding an official website is a spam link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliewellie558 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I have mixed feelings about it. I think you raise some valid points where I've seen you explain why you're adding the official UK site to non-UK shows. And I think that the reasons other editors have given you for removing them are just as valid. THus I'm going with the current understanding of the MOS in that regard when I also remove. But you've been asked not to and I really think your cause would be better served if you brought up the discussion on the talk page of the relevant articles. It's something I think people's minds could be changed about. Or maybe they wouldn't change their minds, I don't really know. But persistently readding the links without much discussion when folks have asked you not to isn't the way to go. Millahnna (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

TB

That person is still adding the UK link to True Blood.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Haider here

hey Millahnna thanks a lot for your welcome links, I'll go through them thoroughly. I'll be uploading that JS Group page by tomorrow or day after, hopefully you can have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haider 118 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Nevitt

To the best of my knowledge, Chuck Nevitt is the tallest player to win a championship. No one ranked above him on this list ever won one. However, I'm not finding a good source that explicitly says that. Zagalejo^^^ 18:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that myself, but it seems completely trivial to me. Honestly, I only found it because I was tracking a problem IP. I don't work on a lot of sports pages so that type of information may be of encyclopedic value that I'm unaware of in the Sports or Basketball projects. Millahnna (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not a crucial piece of information, but on the other hand, I probably wouldn't fight with an IP over it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that you were looking for a source for it and I'm just going to leave it alone and let you guys who watch that page work it out. Like I said, I only saw it because I was doing some QC after spotting a few problem edits from that IP. Thanks for updating me, though. I do a fair amount of recent changes (usually sort of accidentally, oddly enough) and it's not uncommon for me to bump into something totally out of my depth in terms of topics I generally work on. Usually I can figure it out with searches but a lot of times I have to leave something I think might be dubious just because I have no clue and my google fu is only as strong as my ability to come up with keywords (hard when you're way off your usual topics). It's always nice when someone more familiar with an article gives me a little clarity on something I walked into. Millahnna (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Daybreakers

I finally saw Daybreakers per your suggestion. I thought the story and the acting was pretty good, however I was very disappointed with the direction by the Spierig brothers and the editing by Matt Villa. Those two things pretty much ruined the film for me, as it became more of a pastiche of previous films that had touched upon the same or similar ideas. Nothing new, nothing original, nothing really creative. Too much gratuitous violence when a much more subtle off-screen effect would have the same impact. There was also the genre confusion; this film didn't know if it was science fiction, horror, fantasy, or a mystery, and at the end of the day, it was just a silly B movie. The wonderful and talented Isabel Lucas stole the show for me, and I hope she remains active in the future. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've heard a similar complaint about the editing from other movie goers who are much more knowledgeable than I am. It didn't bother me that much; my tastes are pretty varied on quality so there's more than a few B flicks I consider all time favorites. Likewise on the genre thing though I do agree they could have simplified it. I think my biggest complaint is sort of related to the violence. I'm fine with gratuitous violence; I like slasher flicks, loved Death Race from a few years ago, etc. But it seemed out of place compared to some of the other stylistic choices. It's like they couldn't decide if they wanted to do a stylish noir type thriller or just embrace being a little cheesy and own their b-flick creds. It's possible to blend the two well but it didn't quite gel for me. Still, there's more highly rated movies that I dislike a lot more and for the most part I had fun with it. Like a lot of movies, the end felt a little shoehorned to me but a good cast makes up for a lot in my universe (I'm a theatre actor so I have acting obsession). Millahnna (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I totally understand where you are coming from. I'm like that with a good science fiction story. The thing is, this film had ample opportunity for greatness, and failed on so many levels that I think there must have been a major disconnect between the working script and what was eventually shot. For example, the first fifteen minutes wasted a lot of time. It should be a given that the kind of audience that shows up to even see this type of film is experienced with the genre and knows what to expect. In other words, the film needs to immerse the viewer in the fictional world, focus on the relationships between the characters and their backstory, and not worry about the explication. Unfortunately, we get the opposite, and in many cases, the characters aren't even fleshed out, if at all, until the end, which is completely backwards. I didn't give a damn about a single character in this film, and that's a huge red flag. The film needs to start out giving us a reason to care, and it didn't. To do this, all it had to to do was introduce Edward and his brother Frankie in the beginning, and use their relationship to inform the audience about the backstory. (and even that sounds too much like the relationship of the brothers in Gattaca) I was incredibly surprised that the directors/writers failed to do this, going so far as to wait until the end of the film to tell us about how Frankie turned Edward into a vampire because he didn't want to be alone. Uh, we need to know that in the first scene, not at the end. By doing this at the introduction, the writer can tell the audience about the two different paths they took as brothers, and explain the backstory through those paths. Instead, the first 15 minutes are wasted with endless exterior shots and scenes of Edward smoking. Boring. They also failed to fully flesh out the relationship between Charles Bromley and his daughter in the beginning. This would have served the same process of explication as the brothers, telling us about Bromley's quest for power and domination while his daughter seeks to remain human. In fact, she should have been the rebel human leader, not Audrey, another huge mistake. And if Bromley's daughter had been the rebel leader, this would have naturally led to Frankie's relationship with her, instead of forcing him to turn her like he did his brother. It's too artificial and the natural relationships between the characters are suppressed. The audience has expectations, and there is a natural resolution, a harmonious balance between the protagonist and antagonist that is violated by the writer/director. A good film is like a jazz standard. You've heard it a million times and you know how all the notes go, but a great jazz musician can play the same old tired song with a new and fresh approach, making it sound new again. You know the old saying, there's only so many scripts in Hollywood? It's not so far off from the truth. Avatar as Dances with Wolves, Star Wars as The Hidden Fortress, etc. The reason these are good films is because they are relying on the natural tension and release inherent in a balanced story that resolves itself and meets the expectations of the audience. For some reason that I do not understand, it appears that the directors were fighting against their own script. Then there's the trite science fiction elements, like the human carousel that was cool back when Coma was released in 1978 or when The Matrix did it, or even better, when The Animatrix showed it up close and personal in "The Second Renaissance" with the machines tending to the "mind fields". Best was when Spielberg did it in Minority Report with Anderton put into hibernation in the same contraption, evoking chills from pretty much everybody who watches that scene. Why did the directors choose to use such a cliche and derivative image for the cover of their film poster? It's been done, many times in fact. The point is not to do it over and over and over, but to do it differently, personalize it, and improve upon it. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely! I had very much the same thoughts about Edward and Frankie, as well as Bromley and his daughter. There were hints of how this could have been a great film there (instead of one I enjoyed despite my better judgement), but they wasted a lot of opportunity. Especially, in the case of Bromley, who I felt was the least fleshed out of all of the major players, I would have liked to have seen something like you discuss. Because Sam Neil is a fantastic actor, the scenes related to his daughter were exquisite but that was all him and the actress doing their jobs better than the script did its job.
Reading how deep your thoughts into this went, I'm wondering if you ever watched a show called Farscape? That show is pretty much the textbook definition of taking sci fi cliches and either personalizing them or turning them so far on their ear you forget how the cliche used to work. Millahnna (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Farscape is a wonderful example to bring up here. Tell me, does anyone find it strange that it was cancelled during the lead-up to the Iraq War with the last episode airing on March 10, 2003, ten days before the actual invasion? I say this, because the show was clearly anti-militaristic and showed that people from different cultural backgrounds could unite and work together under the thumb of the "Peacekeepers". Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Huh. I never noticed the timing on that. At the time I was too busy shaking my head at everyone who seemed to have forgotten that we were already in Afghanistan. Considering SyFy just pulled a similar cancellation on Eureka (and the fact that I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet) I'm wondering if I shouldn't be nervous. Millahnna (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
No need. Just playing around, Wag the Dog style. Farscape was great. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Saw you post in Dexter talk page

Your post, coupled with your "pets", awesome, Just felt like saying that. Also, yeah, list section in Dexter -_-Odoital25 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of the "list of deaths" that was on the Final Destination series page; epic fancruft.Millahnna (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Albert20009

Tell more about him, please.--125.25.10.168 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Buffyverse

Well, this is going swimmingly... I've asked for an admin to get involved (via my Talk page), as it's my opinion that the signal is rapidly getting lost in the noise. If the dialog wasn't so rapid-fire I might have gone the ANI route instead, but I have to admit as it is I'm almost tempted to back out of the situation entirely. Doniago (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. My editing on Buffy articles has been very minimal but I have some small things I'd like to do when I get the chance (that list of characters article needs some work) and I pretty much watch the articles of any shows and films I love. In the last few months a few heated things have come up in Buffy articles that have made me want to back away from the project entirely. The same sort of thing is why I stopped watching what few science and political articles I watched. Millahnna (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just made an attempt to call the squabbling parties back to the table; let's see how that goes. I've resisted warning anyone myself given that I'm clearly an involved (and yet oddly uninvolved) party, but if people snark at each other again and there isn't any admin involvement I may reconsider. If I was entirely uninvolved I doubt I'd have hesitated to remind folks about WP:NPA.
Aside from Andrew Wells and the List of Characters I'm not sure I've had any involvement with Buffy articles...it was the abrupt redirecting of the former that drew me into the whole situation. I love the show well enough, but I'm not about to go actively looking for more related articles to play with, especially not if the contentiousness shown currently is in any way representative of the project as a whole. I am kind of wondering whether there are any other editors actively involved with the project and whether they might chime in at some point. More (and calmer) voices would be nice.
Thanks for your feedback and for putting up with my venting! Always a pleasure chatting with you! Doniago (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you recall the Infobox edit warring from a few months back but there was at least one other editor who was trying to deal with that. You might be able to find that person in the project talk page history; it'll be a thread with a lot of me in it. There was also some discussion a few months ago about trying to work out some of the in-universe kinks (something about some formerly featured or good articles no longer being as high of quality). I don't remember who was involved in that conversation (it was another of my wiki light periods) but that one might still be higher up on the talk page and not archived yet.
Venting always all good. I have a few people I vent to offwiki (meatspace homies who also edit on occasion and my awesome, awesome boyfriend) so that I can get as incivil as I'd like about the crap that really drives me crazy. Millahnna (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about changing the tags. I did it so I'd remember which articles are currently being discussed, as I still hadn't seen a list. I could have added a second date, I guess. That probably would have been better. What got me into the discussion was the abruptness of the re-directs, too. I am trying to keep my posts to matters of protocol rather than personality, as this situation became contentious so quickly, in my opinion, because of a unilateral decision; I don't think it would have happened had RAP brought up the subject in a way that gave everyone time to think. That said, the Buffy pages are always tricky, as I found out when I first edited them, and treading lightly is a very good idea. If one doesn't start on the Talk pages, things can degenerate fast. I'm used to Moni now, but we've had our troubles and I've learnt to just let her vent and then get back to work. I appreciate the two of you coming in to help cool people out. I think you helped quite a bit, and it seems now we do have a list and that Moni is willing to do the work. I also had an objection to someone unfamiliar with the Buffy pages just showing up and essentially issuing a work order without being willing to do the work himself. If it had been my idea to re-direct, I not only would have discussed it, but come with the intention of handling the workload, too.--TEHodson 23:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I totally understand the concerns on both sides of this one, though the personality conflict was a bit intense (on both sides, honestly). If I'm back on wiki hard core (I'm supposed to be wiki light right now, today was kind of a fluke) when the redirects start happening for realsies (and I do think some of them will stay individual articles) I can probably help with the text migration. If it starts happening and I don't seem to be around, someone drop me a line and I'll throw my eyeballs at it. It sounds like you and Moni will be better for finding sources that expand the real world info. My main thing almost always defaults to making text flow so I'm pretty good at cutting and pasting and adapting text to merge it together. I'm way behind on a film article reception project, though so I might be a little hurky jerky in when I can look at stuff. Millahnna (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of the pool

I'm getting out of the pool. Seeing a new editor wade in and chastise RAP for incivility while letting comments like "fuck incivility" pass really irritated me. If anyone cares what I have to say on the matter (and I'm more than a little disappointed that my proposal went largely unnoticed), they know how to find me, and I'm willing to reconsider getting involved if the editors participating in the discussion can learn to treat each other with a bit more respect. Doniago (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't blame you. I was annoyed at the very same thing (and have seen a lot of that bullshit sort all over the site lately). I'll still try to help with the text merging if I can; I think it looks like they are trying to go forward with your proposal (sort of, not sure if the intended first round of redirects to narrow the focus of the work is being done). I really need to get off my butt and finish my reception project for An American Crime, though. Millahnna (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support Millahnna. I did file an ANI request a few moments ago, only because I'd done an {{adminhelp}} on my Talk page and got no acknowledgement after well over 12 hours. Haven't notified anyone of the ANI filing since I didn't ask for anyone specifically to be sanctioned in any manner (though I did point out the "fuck incivility" remark and the chastising of one editor over any others)...rather I think the entire situation should be reviewed. The point of the ANI filing is that if an adminhelp request is going to be sat on for that long, the template seems rather pointless. I'm left feeling that if an admin had gotten involved earlier perhaps the situation could have been handled in a better manner...or at least one that made me less inclined to walk away for the time-being. Doniago (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, just saw your contribution to the Talk page. Glad I wasn't drinking anything. Though wow, I really hope one day we get to meet and go drinking, if you're up for it. (grin) Doniago (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I just read the conversation on Moni's talk page (it's way above and beyond her little fuck civility nonsense). Fuck all of that noise. RAP may have been overzealous and perhaps come off poorly when he got defensive but Moni's attitude in that conversation is fucking disgusting. And looking at the history of RAP's talk page I see that at least one person gave him a civility warning while Moni got... nothing. And based on her conversation and recent Buffy related edits she still doesn't get the in-universe problem. We don't need sources for the plot stuff we need less plot stuff and more real world info. And she's openly mocking and ridiculing a 17 year old who's trying to communicate with her and see her side of things. I think I might just take everything Buffy off my watchlist and let them turn it into another crappily written wikia. Absolute bullshit. Millahnna (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm afraid to look. I'll be the first to say that RAP didn't handle the redirects well, but at least they didn't delete anything, and I believe if anyone asked they'd be willing to admit that they hadn't handled the situation in the best possible manner. I was hoping Moni was just burned-out and expressing it poorly, but if they're still going off on the subject my sympathy levels would likely be seriously compromised. As I said, editors need to stop focusing on who did what in the past and focus on the best way to resolve it going forward...and show a little respect for each other and the fact that everyone was, at least up to a point, operating with good faith. If I'd been an uninvolved editor I would have given at least three editors civility warnings, and RAP certainly doesn't deserve to be chastised if others aren't going to be.
As far as the rest of what you said, you're basically preaching to the choir. Happily I was never really involved in the Buffy articles, so I can keep out of it without even trying.
So when are we hitting the bar? :) Doniago (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
When are you coming to Portland? Guinesses (Guini?) all around then, I swear (fair warning I swear like a sailor in person). Re:afraid to look -given the ani you filed, you probably should. Seriously. Millahnna (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Does JetBlue fly to Portland, and is there a decent place to stay? Heh. I'm not normally a beer drinker, but I can do Guiness...it's the only time I stopped drinking alcohol because I felt full rather than drunk. Don't you fucking swear at me, or I'll show you some damned incivility, goshdarnit! For better or worse I got lured over there after I noticed that another editor did pick up where JClemens had left off and gave Moni a civility notification (I'd left a note for JC asking why only RAP was chastised, no reply yet)...and apparently Moni's a sysop? Didn't see that one coming... I was smart though, and only skimmed instead of reading. Is it bad if it's only 9:45 am and I'm still getting over a bad case of con crud/flu and I still wish I was drinking? Hm...maybe I'll check out alcoholism after I save this comment. Doniago (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are much, more more patient than I. Good luck! Doniago (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's my last ditch effort to try to reemphasize the in-uni problem (my kingdom for someone to read WP:IN-UNIVERSE and the writing about fiction guidelines and to actually get it) and get away from the personality crap. I don't think it's going to work, but it can't hurt (anything other than my sanity, which is debatable at best) to try. If it bombs as spectacularly as I expect it to I'll be removing anything Buffy from my watchlist so that I don't have to watch still more plot summary getting added to articles. There may be tons of stuff said about characters in the sources but not all of it is useful for our purposes. Makes for great articles on the wikias, though. Millahnna (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Prepping for Buffy re-directs

Millhanna, I'm prepping the Jenny Calendar article for re-direct to the list of Buffy characters, but I don't know how to re-direct it properly and don't want to make a mess. What I will do for now is remove all extraneous info in the Jenny article, including things that explain the show and the context, as that won't matter once it's on the main Buffy character list. I'll make it short and succint, then come back here to tell you it's done. This will make the article temporarily even more "in-universe" than it is now, but it won't be there for long, and should be able to be moved wholesale into the List. It won't be as easy to do on other articles, but this one is an easy fix and should, in my opinion, be re-directed. Thanks.--TEHodson 23:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think this is going to work. She already has a listing and a brief description of her character on that page List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. So it looks as though I should expand that paragraph a bit, using information from the character article. How long should it be? And then does the whole article get deleted? I want to help with this issue, but don't want to make things worse. Hope you can advise.--TEHodson 23:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I have expanded Jenny's paragraph (there wasn't much to say), so that article can go. I will say so on the Buffyverse page.--TEHodson 00:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Heya, Hodson. I only have time to take a quick look right now but what you wrote in the expansion on the list looks good. I'll take a look at the diff from the standalone to see if there isn't anything else to bring over when I get a chance. I always have to look up redirects when I do them. It's so infrequent that I forget the code.
I still think Moni is going to be able to find enough stuff to bring the Jenny article back and that I just wasn't finding it in the scholar searches (that or she's going to get mentioned a lot in other articles' themes type sections). Though she was only in the show briefly in terms of duration I swear I've seen an awful lot written about her over the years in terms of reinforcing various themes that spanned the show's entire run. I wish I were still in California (I moved to another state two years ago). I'd have access to some of the books and collegiate articles via a friend. Millahnna (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, I thought Jenny was a no-brainer and I thought I had said so before we ended up in a big mess yesterday, but Moni has come forward on the Buffyverse page to object, and one thing I am absolutely committed to is consensus, so if no one but me thinks Jenny can go, she stays. I just don't find there's much to say about her, but if I'm wrong and there's been all sorts of stuff I know nothing about, then I defer to those more informed.--TEHodson 01:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I think I remember you saying that, also. I didn't find much about her that was actually useful in the scholar articles yesterday and assumed that the mass of stuff I remember reading during the show's run was likely viewer opinion of the variety that we can't use (blogs and the like). But then I figured, given how convinced Moni was, that there was probably stuff that just isn't turning up online. I'm honestly not sure either way at this point. I sent an email to my homie to have her dig through her books and articles for me. She doesn't wiki at all so I'll have to sort of talk her through what I'm looking for. I've set some searches for old interviews, too to see if there was more about her casting or portrayal than I can recall. Millahnna (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
If you have an opinion one way or t'other, please say so on either Jenny's talk page or the Buffyverse page, or both, so there's a dialogue going with everyone's say well heard. I'm not about to do anything beyond what I've done. I feel a couple of other characters are not really in need of their own pages, but I'm not going to the wall about it. My fight was for following protocol and achieving consensus, and that's what I'm doing while trying to make an improvement or too, if possible.--TEHodson 01:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 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. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter

The April 2011 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. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Dark City

As you have done a lot of editing on this article in the recent past, I invite you to add your tuppence worth to a discussion about which actors to list in the lede and infobox. Your opinion would be appreciated. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 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. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter

The January 2012 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.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Would Millahnna like strawberries?

You're missed! Who am I supposed to kvetch to about plot summaries? (frown) Doniago (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Hi Millahnna

My name is Lai Lai and is a bona fide employee of MediaCorp Pte Ltd.

I have amended the content to MediaCorp's page on Wikipedia, which are up-to-date and factual. Please note that the content posted is not a form of advertising.

Would like to know what is your relationship with my organisation, what is your role and why the interest in updating content in MediaCorp page?

Appreciate your reply please. And if you have an email address would be great.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrpCorpcomms (talk • contribs) 04:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lai Lai. My apologies for takeing so long to get back to you. I'm not on wiki daily right now so I'm a little out of touch sometimes.
I only watch the page because of a specific problem editor who shows up frequently to change text on that and a few dozen other pages (some of which I already followed) on a massive scale. The only things I ever edit on these media company pages are proofreading type issues like spelling, bad wiki markup, grammar, etc. If someone changes a year there or series title or whatever, I don't dispute it and let the regular watchers of the page (few but some) hash out the factual details since I don't follow the company in real life.
The problem with your text is essentially the tone. I don't question that the changes you made that are related purely to factual details (the various lists on the page) are 100% accurate. It doesn't read like a reporting of available factual information for the most part and comes off a bit like it's straight from the "about us" section of the company's website. There are multiple problems with this type of approach to article text including copyright issues and conflict of interest problems. I believe I saw that someone had put a wlecome menu on your talk page. Id suggest looking through some of those links to get the basics of how articles are intended to work. In particular I'd check out the manual of style, look for information about conflict of interest and POV (point of view).
tl;dr I'm sure the details are correct but your text present conflict of issue problems because it sounds like it came straight from the company literature of the company you admit that you work for. Millahnna (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Millahnna/Archive_5&oldid=1143169503"