Archives

Archive 1 (March 8-June 9)

... Here we go again. Can you explain to me the point of having a heading called 'Feature films' that contains information at least 70% of which doesn't come from the feature films? And what is the point of having a 'Young Indiana Jones' section where 30-40% of the information doesn't come from Young Indiana Jones? Can you explain to me how that is encyclopedic?Mikejstevenson 16:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK ColdFusion, with your reply, you've laid your cards on the table. You clearly couldn't give a stuff about the article being encyclopedic. You know perfectly well that I have a more than valid point, and yet you can't be bothered to do anything else other than make petty comments that, frankly, are rather childish. If this were the first time I've benefited from your particular brand of "peer review" I might be willing to "assume good faith". As it is, I'm willing to assume that you're a childish pedant. The sad part is, you represent the majority on Wikipedia, particularly the majority of those who work on this type of article. If you do get made an Administrator it will be perfectly in keeping with the way Wikipedia is going. Mikejstevenson 08:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I've got a major one of my own. Also, I haven't watched those Indy movies since I was like 10 years old, so I wouldn't be that good at breaking down the "appearances" section. I find it's easier if you are familiar with the material. I can supervise (if you like) and make suggestions here and there, but since I lack the knowledge of the character I won't be able to make any major additions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that will be fine. I say, first lets organize the article better. Then, we can worry about what needs trimming.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of expanding.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to talk about plot trims; I just took Transformers from 1,013 words to 528 words.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity I had a look at *your* article on Indiana Jones, many months after having abandoned it due to your childishness and "This is *my* article" style antics. And I can say with all honesty you've turned it from an interesting, informative collaboration to an informationless, inconsistent pile of useless drivel. Well done. As I think I told you once before, it's people such as yourself that have contributed to the fall of wikipedia as a collaborative platform - it's just not worth the constant arguments because someone has 'dared' to edit your favourite page. Well done an achieving your goal of making the article completely irrelevant. Mikejstevenson 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about that, sorry...I have no involvement in the technical side of things. Adam Bishop 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 1455 Featured Articles (I just did a count). The count on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index appears to be incorrect. Regards, — BillC ^talk 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut and paste the list from WP:FA into a spreadsheet and applied a count from there. — BillC ^talk 13:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you switch form this template {{User:TydeNet/UBX/wiki user since}} to my fork of the template {{User:Tcrow777/templates/wiki user since}}. See the difference (no offence to the person who created the original template).  Tcrow777  talk 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to work together with you on Freespire.  Tcrow777  talk 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Freespire is a potential featured article, it just needs improving.  Tcrow777  talk 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think you should continue to work on Ubuntu, I will see what I can do about Freespire.  Tcrow777  talk 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you said on your user page: "Wikipedia has 1,853,084 articles. 1452 are featured articles, and 2464 are good articles. That makes 0.21%. That's not enough. Get on it people.". That is the truth.  Tcrow777  talk 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpecialWindler talk 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to expand upon the production, I suggest you track down Don Shay and Jody Duncan's book on The Lost World, the sequel to the making-of book which set me on the FA path for Jurassic Park. Cheerio. Alientraveller 15:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if you ever get bored... Alientraveller 17:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. I don't think it will pass GA because it is pretty bare. One of the reasons I passed The Lost World was because of the expansive reception section. The production section in TLW is somewhat larger than that III, so it may be hard to pass. I did notice that the plot section was broke into like 7 paragraphs of like 2 sentences. That should be merged together to have more concise paragraphs. I'll read over it for c/e a little later today if you like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention. The image should probably go. The production section isn't expanded enough, or detailed around that particular scene enough to warrant the use of the image. Because of the size of the article, the poster in the infobox should do fine (for now, until the article can get expanded).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your comment of support to Alientraveller - however as I pointed out to him earlier (before he blanked the message) Sysops are required to treat WP:3RR violators equally. I also note that what you both indicate to be vandalism does not immediately stand out as such at this time - however even if it is - it would not be a type of vandalism that allows for breaking of the three revert rule. Given specifically that your talk page states that you wish one day to be an admin - Can I suggest that you report persistent vandals to WP:AIV and you will find that a sympathetic admin will consider your request to block such a person - thus removing the requirement to revert constantly.--VS ^talk 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey why did you undo my entire edit just because (you claim) there's some disagreement about the 'naming' of the T-101? I added some good stuff and you reverted the whole thing for no real reason. If you really disagree with something I wrote, feel free to change it, but don't just revert my edit entirely. My edit was a positive change to the article, don't go dismissing it out of hand for minor nitpicks like that. Middlenamefrank 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, there may indeed be some disagreement about the name of the T-101. That doesn't answer my main objection. Don't go walloping all the hard work I did on that edit just because you disagree with a small portion of it. I'm reverting it, if you don't like something in it feel free to change it. Middlenamefrank 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand perfectly well. For some reason you feel very proprietary about this article and don't want me messing with it. I didn't make it longer just to be longer, I corrected some things, clarified others, and cleaned it up grammatically. None of those things are violations to the concision of the article. They're called improvements. Look, I'm not going to get in a pissing war with you about this or anything else, but you really need to understand that you don't own this or any article. Other people are more than entitled to make changes and you have no right to stomp the out, then try to rationalize it. Middlenamefrank 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with this attitude of yours? Are you going to make me call the cops on you before you'll 'allow' me to make a beneficial change to the article? Get a life! Middlenamefrank 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Raidersdvd.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just commented on an entry involving you at WP:WQA, and I wanted to make sure that you were aware of it. It can be found here. Sarcasticidealist 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the Black Sea bit was a joke. Less clear was whether the bit about requiring permission was a joke. A possible interpretation of what you wrote could be "I consider editing without permission to be a genuine and serious offense for which I am suggesting a whimsical punishment." I'm glad to hear that you don't feel that people require permission to edit, though - it shows that you haven't utterly missed the point of Wikipedia, which is nice. Sarcasticidealist 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed that on your user page, the phrase "editing these articles without authorization" was linked to WP:OWN. That makes it substantially clearer that you're kidding (or that you think that WP:OWN means the opposite of what it actually means). Of course, your comment on User:Middlenamefrank's talk page didn't include this link, which might have been, in hindsight, part of the problem.

Anyway, I think I've hashed to death the question of whether or not you were joking, especially given that you've made it abundantly clear that you were. I'll shut up now.Sarcasticidealist 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days since we had our interaction, and I hope we've both had some time to think about how we behaved. I know I've cooled down considerably, and I hope we can work together to bring the quality of the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article up well beyond B-grade. I'm a great fan of the movie series and I think they all deserve better than a B grade.

I'm willing to admit that I took it personally when you reverted my edit in its entirety, due to what I considered a minor quibble with one of the technical details, and I overreacted somewhat. I apologize for being a bit uncivil in my response to what I considered a personal slight. It's clear that I unknowingly stepped into a hornet's nest of disagreement on the detail of naming of the Terminator characters and got caught in a pretty heavy crossfire.

That being said, I still consider your action to be heavy-handed, and I believe a more consensual approach is needed. That article needs a lot of help (there's not even a spoiler warning before the plot synopsis!) and I intend to give it. I'm going to start with what seems to be your sore point, on the talk page, in the discussion you already started. Let's figure out a way to improve this article. Middlenamefrank 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, please note that you will need to provide a credible source for the information you are trying to add. Please also be aware that policy (WP:COPYRIGHT) prohibits linking to that website. Matthew 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's a common misconception that commas should not be included within dates, indeed they are automatically added in the rendered version. However, the MoS states clearly that an American topic should use American dates (there are commas in American dates), it would make it grammatically incorrect not to use commas (think of it like this: if the software fixed typos on the rendered version, would it be acceptable to have them?) Please remember that Wikipedia is forked, a lot of these mirrors don't use the same setup as Wikipedia (consequentially they may contain bad grammar if commas are removed). There has been discussion about this before, with the consensus being to not remove commas. This said, I'm going to revert your revert, I'd rather not get into an edit war... so please open up a discussion thread on the talk page if you disagree with me. Have a good evening/day :)! Matthew 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on WP:DATE, it's quite an active discussion page... so I'm not sure which archive has the specific discussion. And yea, there are several users that have persistently removed commas. Thanks, Matthew 20:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a new discussion on the MoS talk page if you're interested. Matthew 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, glad to be working with you on the Terminator 2 article.

I'm writing about your recent revert, effectively reinstating a paragraph from the lead that I removed. I removed the paragraph from the lead because it conflicts with the rest of the lead by not being in a real-world perspective.

I appreciate that you cited WP:MOSFILMS in your edit summary, but I can't discern from what you wrote exactly which aspect of that policy you were trying to assert as your basis for the edit.

I hope I might be more thorough by pointing out the following. I'm using the policy Writing about Fiction: Real World Perspective as my guideline WP:WAF#Real_world_perspective. Specifically:

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, must be written with the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information.

Here is the paragraph you preserved, which I find inconsistent with the real world perspective policy (preceded by the acceptable paragraph with which I believe it conflicts):

T2 was a significant box office and critical success. It had an impact on popular culture, and is considered by many to be hugely influential in the genres of action and science fiction.[1] The film's visual effects include many breakthroughs in computer-generated special effects, marking the first use of natural human motion for a CG character and the first computer generated main character.[2]

After the Terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor in 1984, thus failing to prevent her son John from being born, the machines try again, sending a more advanced Terminator to attack John himself in his childhood. As in the first movie, the future John Connor sends back a protector for his younger self, this time another Terminator.

The in-film events that I believe you are trying to retain in the lead can be kept there; however, in order for it to be done in a readable/policy fashion, it needs to be consistently real-word.

In plain terms (sorry if this sounds in any way condescending -- my goal is to be clear without sounding pedantic!) "After the Terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor..." is not written in real-world perspective, whereas "T2 was a significant box office success..." is.

I hope WP:WAF#Real_world_perspective, or simply the excerpt I quoted above, will explain this to your satisfaction. If not, I happily welcome you to discuss it with me. I'll place this discussion on the talk page for Terminator 2 in case you'd like to continue to work together towards the goal I think you're going for.

Furthermore, you may want to consider that the first paragraph in the "Plot" section essentially duplicates the paragraph in question. And, according to WP:MOSFILMS, that's where it belongs:

Lead section

The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country (if not the US), stars, and director (and possibly writer in some cases), as well as one or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film, such as "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made". The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced, and whether it had any lasting influence or significant impact outside the world of film.

Plot

(...) Describe the basic premise of the film in a couple of sentences. Introduce key characters, with actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor).

Now provide a more comprehensive plot summary.

Cheers,

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ColdFusion, you have deleted my article over three times. If you aren't convinced of the authenticity of an article, then place a citations need mark at the end of it. You don't have the right to delete someone's article, then demand that they place a source. For you convenience, I've placed a source siting the article. If you continue to vandalize. I will report you to the admin. Beem2 25 June 2007

Ok, I am confused.

So the movie opens right after the Car Chase scene from bourne 2. He goes to the pharmacy to get treated and then he goes to meet the Neski girl which they show in the 2nd movie and then he travels to Paris?

So according to you the time line:

1. ) Car chase in Moscow, shown in Supremacy
2. ) The Russians hunting him, shown in Ultimatum
3. ) Apologizing to Neski's daughter, show in Supremacy
4. ) Six weeks pass (Six weeks later tagline shown in Ultimatum)
5. ) 2/3 of the Ultimatum film
6. ) Bourne talking to Landy the second time, shown in both films. Remember, in Supremacy, Bourne called Landy twice. The first time, she mentioned the Berlin killing and Bourne was about to kill her. The second conversation is, in fact, the same conversation in both films!
7. ) The end of Ultimatum

But I think that 2 and 3 should be switched. When he meets the Neski girl he is still bleeding. Its only after he has met her that he treats his wounds.

And I am also a little confused with the scene in New York.

In the 2nd movie, New York is shown in summer time where as this movie, its Winter...whats going on there?

Mercenary2k 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to put the hangon template on the page, but the times I've been trying to, it won't let me on the talk page. Is there another way I can let the administrators know I'm doing more work on the article? Packerfansam 6 August 2007

Hi CF,

I suggested the merges of null set and negligible set into ideal (set theory), but I don't think your approach was just what I had in mind. Please comment at talk:ideal (set theory). --Trovatore 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you said you "merged" the content of Xianfen into Cellophane noodles, but I don't see that that content was actually merged. Also, are you familiar with the subject enough to know that this should have been merged, and that "xianfen" is indeed a synonym of "fensi"? Thanks, Badagnani 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have preferred to wait until someone more skilled with the Chinese names had come along and decided if it should have been merged, or not. There's no hurry because we want to do things right. If I knew for certain it was the same item, I would have merged without making a proposal and asking for comment first. Badagnani 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've now referred the question to a Chinese-speaking editor for his input. Badagnani 17:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a merge proposal with regard to Replacement I-35W Mississippi bridge and I-35W Mississippi bridge. Please do not execute the merge until the discussion has reached consensus. --Appraiser 17:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore this article. Some formats are missing from the redirect; and I can't see any discussion on the redirect. I can't now see what formats are missing, but the new list appears very short - ECW and SID are missing for starters. ^rossnixon 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted an edit of mine in the Borune Ultimatum article saying "(in part because Bourne had previously spared his life)" I would agree that it is mildly OR because nothing is stated explicitly, but this plot information is necessary to understand why there was hesitation in the first place. Removing that plot info is vandalism. Joshdboz 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that the removal of factual and highly relevant information without explanation is vandalism. Obviously as I said, I phrased it is in such a way that could be perceived as OR, but that calls for editing, not deleting. Joshdboz 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I came across as hostile - that was not my intention. Joshdboz 11:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as citation templates go, I like them too. I just did the old-school stuff cause some people (not I) have issues with cluttered sandboxes. Oh, and I wikilinked the dates. It's odd how you need to link the date but not the accessdate. Cliff smith 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the issue of WHY Nicky Parsons is helping Bourne is a crucial part of the plot summary. Removing it makes the summary confusing. Your stated issue with referring to this plot point is that you feel that any suggestion of romance between Nicky and Bourne constitutes original research. Well, stating in the summary that Nicky hints vaguely at her "past association" with Bourne is precisely what is in the dialogue of the film. She refers to knowing him before his amnesia, and that's all those two words imply. The summary, with that sentence, does not at all state that there was romance between the two. I feel that your constant removal of people's additions without any room for dispute is needlessly domineering. --74.121.50.59 02:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2 previous months, I have contributed about 14 different improvements with 6 edits on Freespire. Your edits on Freespire caused the loss of 15 of my improvements (some different improvements were lost several times). Several of your edit summaries could be taken as insulting ("rv vandalism", "and please stop with the dates. i know you've done this kind of thing before.", "read a few articles. this is standard way to do dates. when you write the manual of style, you can do it any way you want. by the way, haven't we done this dance before?"). You have apologized once, but never for your edit summaries. Finally, you have changed the style of date formats, which is, without necessarily being a regression, against Wikipedia rules.

I will try to watch your actions on Freespire, but please try increasing the quality of your edits and avoid to be offensive. If you find that you were wrong and could have offended someone, consider apologizing. I'm sorry to be unable to suggest anything more specific.--Chealer 03:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I've been working on this article on and off for a few months, but recently User:Asams10 added a little factoid with questionable "references". I'd really appreciate it if you'd check it out. Thanks, Cliff smith 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Could I have your opinion on something? The store's name and owner, especially, don't seem very notable to me. Like I said at Asams10's talk page, they both seem to fall under WP:NOT#INFO. Do they seem notable to you? Cliff smith 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the hyperlink sources he put on the page is a link to a forum, though it's discussing an LA Times article, which I assume he intended to be the source. Anyhow, I think that we should consider removing it. And what he tried to add with no sources doesn't seem notable either: it had no impact upon the LAPD or the public. Cliff smith 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see the article again. And the edit summary left behind is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Cliff smith 04:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since he made the personal attack against you, I think it would be best if you notified the proper authorities. But leave me a link to where you do so, please.

Also, even though he may have a reliable source for what he wants to add, it still falls under WP:NOT#INFO. It is of no consequence what gun shop the LAPD went to, nor who owned the shop. It's like stating the make and model of the car that the criminals intended to use as a getaway car: it's been verified, but it's not notable. Also, just because the LAPD did not apparently return the weapons doesn't mean that that need be stated either because, again, it's not really notable.
Cliff smith 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but as I said above, and at his talk page, what he wants to add is non-notable. It belongs on a page for Bob Kahn, if there were a page for that Bob Kahn (he isn't the only one out there). Cliff smith 23:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He put it back in. Cliff smith 22:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He also added another unreferenced statement at the end of the 1st paragraph in Aftermath and controversey. Cliff smith 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be really nice if Cliff'd relenquish ownership of the article and let others add stuff. I really didn't realize that he was going around in the background lobbying people to take care of this. Since I can't research anything as I'm off in the sandbox fighting for your right to consipre, I'll back down on the 'return' issue, but Bob Kahn is the owner of the shop and it's relevant.--Asams10 09:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Eh, saying as the Terminator looks over at the melting steel, then looks back at the frozen T-1000 beginning to melt, I think it's pretty clear what is causing the rapid warming. Yes, anything frozen in liquid nitrogen does melt in room temperature, but a steel mill isn't room temperature... because of the fact that it's a steel mill. Liquid nitrogen-frozen materials also don't melt that quickly.

I really don't think it's WP:OR to consider the steel as the heat source that causes the T-1000 to thaw out as quickly as it does. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you reverted a recent edit I made to the article, stating that it was uncited. "Minor changes to levels", I concede, is something that needs to be cited. However, there are some things that don't need cites because there is no conflicting point-of-view. For instance, take a look at these screenshots. This is from the PS2 version: [2]. This is from the PC version, which in the game's credits is credited to Ubisoft Montreal: [3]. Notice the different GUI's in both versions.

As well, the credits differ significantly between versions: Xbox: [4] and PS2 versions: [5]

Finally, this Gamasutra postmortem [6] of the PS2 version states that the PS2 version was developed in Shanghai.

Hope this satisfies your need for "sources". But notice how in game FA's, the developer and publisher infobox fields don't need cites?

Thanks, Green451 03:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]