Jump to content

User talk:Millahnna/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter

The September 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) 04:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Flight of the Phoenix (2004 film)

Re: "reverting unexplained cast order change, killing cast table per films MOS, removing absurd IMDB ref since they aren't even reliable for that these days." Knock off making disparaging comments, things do change over the years. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Sorry. Was killing some edits from a long-term unhelpful IP and let his patterns get the best of me. The IMDB thing was seriously odd though - first time I've seen it referenced like that. They've been notoriously wrong on cast spellings and order lately so the combination of the odd usage really threw me. Millahnna (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Gottcha, it just seemed to be an overly effusive comment, considering that at one time, cast tables were acceptable and that IMDb was recognized as an authority in limited ways, mainly for cast lists. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
OK I know I was snotty about the imdb thing but did I come off harsh on the cast tables? I thought I was just being brief since it's something I do so routinely (the switch back out of them I mean). This interpreting tone on the interwebz thing is going to be the death of me. :D Millahnna (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Apologies

Fvchick (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I got your message regarding the links I had previously posted. I apologize, I am completely new at this and assumed that since other movie sites like rottentomatoes.com and allmovie.com were allowed, it would be ok to add another review site as well. I thought that a movie review of a movie was relevant to the subject.

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Look at Us Go - Star Trek (film) Reception

Love how the IP's getting a smackdown for their unreferenced talk about how many, many fans hated the film, or whatever. :) Doniago (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
The Losers (film)
Babylon A.D.
John Hamburg
Cameron Dye
Don Mancini
Thirsty (novel)
Firestarter (film)
Rango (2011 film)
The Lion Tamer
Super 8 (film)
Andy Panda
Check and Double Check
TriBeCa Productions
Will Work for Food (TV show)
The Trumpet of the Swan (film)
Killers (2010 film)
Marc John Jefferies
Cloverfield
Edgar McGraw
Cleanup
Jonah Hex (film)
Glen Tilly
Abraham Whistler
Merge
Teaser trailer
List of RealD films
Slaughter (2008 film)
Add Sources
Andy Barclay
Child's Play (film series)
Toy Story 3
Wikify
Robert Tsai
Vampire Kisses (novel)
Tyler Perry Studios
Expand
Predators (film)
Mason Novick
The Scorpion King

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 00:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

There is a plot against me.

You see! Geoff B (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Bwahahahahahaha. Ahem. Heh. Man that's a bad one. Millahnna (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A Prophet

Hi,

I actually created an updated plot summary version on the talk page of A Prophet which I was hoping could garner some support. I've added all the necessary details and as you can see several sub plots were missing and vital to the story. If you agree with my version, I was hoping to restore it immediately. Thanks!!! Valoem talk 19:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick play with it here. Your eye is welcomed, M. Geoff B (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit?

[[1]] For starters, you don't Twinkle an established editor like that...you should at least leave a note on his talk page. For second, I think my edit was perfectly acceptable. Placing the actors in two columns eased the readability of the article ; the practice of linking references to other movies to the articles on them is repeated throughout the article. In addition, you removed a sizeable amount of content without mentioning it on the talk page. (FYI, I undid it) Purplebackpack89 17:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE doesn't forbid use of the tool to undo good faith edits if "an appropriate edit summary is used" which was the case here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Still should've left a note on my talk page or the article's talk page Purplebackpack89 18:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why your page if it's someone else's edit that's being reverted? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh, Birdy, my edit WAS reverted. Milly reverted someone else's edits, then my edit Purplebackpack89 20:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I would have reverted all at once if I had noticed. I check the most recent edit before acutally looking at the page history and realizing that a bunch of madness in violation of site wide and films MOS policy had been added. That said, when an established editor can demonstrate that they grasp the basic concept of WP:EGG they can get snippy with me. Until then, thanks but no thanks. Since those links have been removed previously, with perfectly understandable edit summaries, I didn't feel the need to waste my time dropping a note on the page of an editor who seemed to my eye to be willfully ignoring policy and guidelines in such a way that did not improve the article (i.e. this was not an ignore all rules situation). I fugred that had I done so, I'd have gotten a bunch of attitude for my efforts. Nice to see my instinct was not off base. Millahnna (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Regarding plot summaries, I had an idea I wanted to pitch to you earlier this week. As we both know, recent films get their articles' plot summaries constantly edited. There are changes upon changes, even if the summary is within range. I'm wondering if that editing energy could be funneled elsewhere? I was thinking of a template that would be like {{plot}} + {{current event}} that would basically say, "The plot summary of this recent film will be constantly rewritten, so editors are encouraged to add other information about film, such as production and reception." I was also thinking about linking to the talk page for a list of references (websites, which would be easier to evaluate and add) for proper funneling. I'm just not sure how reality would respond to such a template; I am just trying to think of a way for people to stop worrying about the plot summary so much. It's probably the most-edited section of all film articles, where if someone adds a tidbit about production or reception, it's usually permanent. What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I think it has some pretty strong merit and would be curious to see what other film peeps think (I know I frequently run into Doniago in my plot missions and he made that template for warning people about really ridiculously long plot additions). You're probably right that people wouldn't necessarily pay much attention to it much like those who are determined to be useless don't pay attention to the equivalent for ongoing news related events. But it would probably be helpful for folks who read but don't edit on the site to be aware that the summary is in flux. A second sentence pointed towards readers (as opposed to editors) might not be a bad idea: "this info is going to be changing constantly for a short time".
On a tangentially related note, I recently suggested to Nehrams that he add a section to the films newsletter noting films that are getting home releases soon, since he already notes films with impending theatrical releases. My thought was that the DVD release of movies is always round two of "plot summary hell" so I thought it might encourage editors to temporarily adopt articles to help keep an eye on things. So if you make the template you might want to make sure it either isn't specific to "new film" or includes some phrasing that notes home release as well, since some movies will likely use it during both periods of time. Plus DVD commentaries are great opportunities for adding production info so that ties with your example text above.
As an example, I know we went through two rounds of heavy plot editing with Shutter Island and I didn't realize until a week into the second round that it was because the DVD had just been released.
I'm pretty tired from royally messing up my sleep schedule (it's 5 am here). Am I making any sense? Millahnna (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI: I read your message, but having a busy weekend. Will respond when I have the time! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I threw together the following. Let me know what you think. Direct link: User:Erik/Plot notice. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Erik/Plot notice

I like it... direct and specific but not so specific that we can't use it multiple times on any one article if needed (theatrical release, home media release, special edition release, etc.). One question; the choice of the word "overwritten" gave me pause though I can't really articulate why exactly. It feels to me like I'm interpreting that word one way while thinking you meant it another. And that probably makes no sense at all. Might I suggest "changed" as an alternate verb? Millahnna (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
"Changed" works for me. I had "overwritten" in mind because of the futility of editors' contributions to the plot summary, but I can see how it can seem too aggressive. BTW, I notified Doniago about the discussion and the template. If we plan to roll it out, we should have some documentation, mainly on the template's usage, such as theatrical/DVD releases or even high traffic where the plot is especially targeted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
"High traffic where plot is specifically targeted." That might apply in fits and starts to any film with a debatable ending or twist. The things that came to mind were Book of Eli (blindness) and Shutter Island (though stable now, there was a lot of hashing out the details to eliminate any POV on the twist). Some of that can be addressed with editorial notes once an article is stable though. Just a thought to throw out there for documentation. I've never really worked on a template's documentation before so I'd be interested in helping with that for my own edification. Millahnna (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, your help would be greatly appreciated! At the template page, just click the light blue "[create]" link (which leads to User:Erik/Plot notice/doc) and add documentation. You can use Template:Plot/doc as a base. We can use your suggestions about certain times where the plot summary might be edited often. Any qualms about the name "Plot notice"? I considered others like "Busy plot" but went with this with the knowledge that it could be changed later. Also, do you think there would be any reason for editors to oppose the template's use? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I could see plot notice being confused with Doniao's plot warning template (for those editors who just can't resist adding 3000 words to every plot summary). I don't believe his template is very heavily used so it may not be a problem. I can't think of any reasons that others would object to such a template; some may feel that it won't really change the situation much (and they may be right) but it certainly isn't likely to make it any worse and just may help. Question; do you think this is something we should put in the plot section or at the top of the page when it's used? I'm running down hypothetical scenarios in my head and can see an argument for either. Millahnna (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I've always had it in mind to put the template in the "Plot" section when necessary. I feel like the template will be overlooked if it's at the top; it's easy to overlook when one has seen articles with a header template listing various issues. I'll have to look at Doniago's warning to compare, but I'm okay with a rename. Just as long as it makes sense and is short. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, anyone else who can provide feedback? MikeAllen, perhaps? After feedback from him and Doniago, we could explain it in full at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of anyone I regularly see on plot duty but I'm drawing a blank. I think most of the films peeps branch out much more than I do. I know Jack Sebastian provided some solid critical feedback on the plot warning template (brought up some concerns I hadn't thought of) so he might be someone to ask, if you're familiar with him (he should be in my talk page history recently for some vandalism reverts). He did a killer job of pruning a particularly nasty case of plot bloat back when he first registered so I always think of him on plot related stuff. Millahnna (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we give it a test run at Saw 3D? I'm sensing that one's going to be targeted a lot... or should we discuss it at WT:FILM first? I guess I'm wanting to try out this template! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this is good idea. Let's use it on Saw 3D. I'm more concerned about adding reviews and the box office performance.. not the plot. Maybe it'll encourage more editors to help out under those sections. Also, could you two drop by the Saw 3D talk page? Thanks.  :) Mike Allen 17:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Under the "Cast table", "Plot summaries" and "Quotes within quotes", I have asked some questions. Mike Allen 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Public opinion's first strike... yay. :P Erik (talk | contribs) 19:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe they'll respond... ha. Mike Allen 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt it. I still haven't seen the flick yet (and probably won't for several months) so I can't be much help on the page. I've had it on my watchlist for a while now though so I'll be watching out for vandals and such. Millahnna (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Have either of you ever kept up with Twitter and Wikipedia articles? :) This is what they're saying about Saw 3D's Wikipedia article, haha. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Priceless. For once they thank us for spoilers. :D Millahnna (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, now I know why my ears have been burning. :) I was at a sci-fi con over the weekend, but saw Erik's notice and am catching up now. Not sure whether I'll have anything (useful) to add yet, beyond saying it may be a good idea but I'm not entirely sure whether it will ultimately make much of a difference. Anyway, back now and happy to offer what meager help I can!
Reviewed. Posted some feedback on the [Template's talk page. Doniago (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I missed it on Twitter. What was said? Mike Allen 10:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The gist was "glad I read the spoilers on wiki so I didn't have to see the movie because that ending is bloody stupid." I lolled. Millahnna (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we saved one poor soul from wasting their money... :P Mike Allen 23:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

R90C

I thank you for correcting my spelling. I will try to write correct sentences. --Marionett in the mirror (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Happy editing. :)Millahnna (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Thanks...

...for cleaning up my talk page. I think this is a different one; what it is to have a fan club! JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I figure it means you must be doing something right.  ;) Millahnna (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And more thanks

Hello Millahnna. Thanks for continuing the work of reverting the nonsense edits made by Grayssake. I went to sleep last night hoping that the warnings the Corvus and I had posted on s/he's talk page would cause them to stop. Now that I am back online I see that you had to do a batch of reverts afterward. Should this person return to this genre change style of editing I think that we can report them to AIV. It might help to point out that the genre changes are nonsense as well as mentioning the number of deleted (read hoax) articles that they have created. Pests like this are such a pain but, hopefully, normal editing will return eventually. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Weirdly, when I reported them to AIV the block request was declined on the grounds that they haven't done any vandalism since you gave the final warning. Either I'm misreading the holy hell out of the timestamps or I'm missing something about the weird discrepancy between timestamps (I see two totally different timestamps on your level 4 warn between the talk page itself and the history of the page). I've asked the declining admin about it. If you check my contribution history it should be one of my edit right before this one. Millahnna (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
That is too bad. They clearly had edited after my last warning because there were several more articles that had been messed with from the time that I logged off and went to bed. The way AGF is applied varies from admin to admin whether to block this kind of editor. As you pointed out in another location this editor has made almost zero edits that improved an article. Update: As I was doing some last second checking before saving this I noticed that the admin you contacted has blocked this person. Yippee! A few hours peace. If they return we will definitely want to point out this previous block. Thanks again for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 16:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Daniel followed up with me and went ahead with the block (24 hours). It seems the time stamp discrepancy threw him off too. As a bonus now I finally know why said discrepancy exists. That one has been driving me bonkers. Millahnna (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists

I've reverted your revert. I disagree with you about 'avowed' but that wasn't the main point of my edit. Bradlaugh's long trouble with attempting to take his seat was because he wasn't allowed to take the oath, a Select Committee having found (by a very narrow margin) that he had no right to affirm. Bradlaugh took the view that he wanted to affirm because that was the best solution given his atheism, but that if not allowed, he would take the oath and get on with being a Member of Parliament. Members of the 'Fourth Party' then objected to Bradlaugh taking the oath because he had himself asked to affirm on the grounds that the oath was meaningless to him. And when he did eventually get to take his seat in January 1886, it was by taking the oath and not by affirming; MPs were not allowed to affirm allegiance until a few years later. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I totally see what you mean about the rest of the text. As for "avowed", I feel the word is important to include, especially in light of your changes, because it means "openly proclaimed". So it's important to note that Bradlaugh was open about his atheism, as that seems to be the source of the trouble you detail. Millahnna (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Your message

I've replied to your message on my user talk (in the next section). Thanks for your help, Millahnna. Tiderolls 13:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Protect page

Would you protect Clash of the Titans (2010 film) page? --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin so I can't. I'll take a look and drop in a request if it needs it though. THanks for letting me know something was up. Millahnna (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Poltergeist

Hi. Regarding your reversion, I agree that the reversion was valid, but as a friendly suggestion, saying "no thank you" in an edit summary may be perceived by the other editor as snarky or incivil, and therefore could be considered an inappropriate edit summary. It is best to cite the relevant policy (or principle of good writing) when providing your rationale in the edit summary, without comments that could lead to tension or bad feelings among those who may end up needing to collaborate on an given article. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and thanks for the friendly reminder. I usually reserve that kind of snark for obvious vandalism but I was rolling ym eyes pretty hard and kind of lost my mind. Thanks homie. Millahnna (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter

The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 05:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Inception/Heat plot revisions

Hello. I'm so new to wikipedia editing that I'm not very familiar with navigating the options for message sharing and the policies of article revisions. You were so helpful with advice for my revisions to the "Inception" plot summary that I've come to ask you to point me in the right direction for more help. I've touched up my original draft based on your notes and was wondering how I "justifiably" post my contribution to the main page. I don't want to become banned for not following the rules. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Also, I've added a condensed version of the plot summary for the film "Heat" which is waiting in "limbo" for the same consensus needed to post it on the main page. Question: can I post it to the main article if there is a note asking for help or must I wait for consensus? Does it normally take weeks (or months) to gain consensus? Again, any help pointing me in the right direction would be appreciated. I intend to start editing articles and because of my love of film and books, I've started with plot summary revisions. Also, how do I watch your page? KeithLD (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, one more thing while I have you... if I post my plot summary to the "Heat" film article, how do I remove the "this article needs help..." tag so that other readers won't think my contribution is the article that "needs help"? Thanks in advance for your help. KeithLD (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
You'll see the plot tag right under the Plot heading when you go to edit the section. It'll look like this: {{plot|date=January 2010}} Sometimes there's no date parameter inside the bracket but it's still the same tag (a bot comes around and fills those in when we tag articles with stuff like that). Millahnna (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sissy Boy

Its not vandalism, its referenced, its a real thing which genuinely exists. Why do people keep marking it as vandalism? Please reply. The last guy doing it has refused to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.99.8 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing a redirect into an article with advert qualities for a non-notable business. Millahnna (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

User:Millahnna/Sandbox//List of True Blood characters

I noticed you sandboxed this in August but haven't done anything since. Are you going to get back to it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to and soon before the new season starts (and the inevitable detail creep of inappropriate summary) but I just haven't had the time to start digging for all of the articles and interviews. What I have sandboxed is crazy out of date, anyway. If you want to hack at it some, knock yourself out. Millahnna (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know a thing about the series besides the fact that its theme song was one of my favorite country music releases of 2006. I don't think I even get HBO. I just noticed it was in the True Blood category and was wondering if it could be safely deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait, my sandbox page is in the category? Ooops. I'll go fix that right now. Millahnna (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

With/And

Sorry, I usually copy/paste the cast, already with the with/and's and don't pay attention. Lousy memory. I'll quit it. LtMuldoon (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No I'm sorry, that was totally snotty of me. I had just finished cleaning up after an IP editor who adds the with/and/as stuff and literally does nothing else. SO I kind of spazzed. I kind of figured that's what was going on when you were doing it. And you usually do manage to clean them up while you're getting all those articles started for the lesser known films. I rather admire your efforts to get all of the DVD releases out there. Millahnna (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, thanks! LtMuldoon (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 04:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Protagonist. Antagonist.

In case you don't notice, you might want to add your opinion to a Wikipedia Project Film discussion of unhelpful "Protagonist/Antagonist" messing. I think you were the annoying bastard :P who made me notice this dubious phrasing and now I can't help seeing it everywhere and it annoyed me to the point that I'm try to get some consensus and get others to help out. -- Horkana (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

hanks for the heads up...I've been off wiki recently but will drop in there to comment in a few days. Millahnna (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter

The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: The Fourth Kind

No worries ;). Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 06:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Pillars of the Earth

Hi, the plots of the book and the mini-series are very different; disparate enough to warrant separate plot outlines. 72.152.143.55 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The plot of the series is already covered in the episode summary table lower on the page. The Synopsis section shouldn't be that long.

Oh, I see now. Sorry I do not know the guidelines for TV articles. 72.152.143.55 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

AfD notification

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Grey (2nd nomination). Drmies (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops?

I think you accidentally removed a post of mine here. Once I caught it, I reinserted it, arranging the indents to compensate. At least, i hope it was accidental. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Eep. Not sure how I pulled that off. Sorry bout that. Millahnna (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Cloverfield a horror film?

Hi there! Long time no see. :P I just saw your edit where you changed the cats in Cloverfield from action/thriller to horror, and I don't really seem to agree. --uKER (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey UKER; always a pleasure. Honestly I could go either way. I totally won't care if you change it back. I just got jumpy because random IP changed the genre with no edit summary while I was hunting down some problem edits from a different IP. Millahnna (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I seem to agree more with the action/thriller tags. Will go with those. See you around. ;) --uKER (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. This was one of my "huh...I assume this was this way from consensus I missed out on" moments so I probably should have thought about it a bit longer. Definitely more action than horror. Millahnna (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That stuff happens. You definitely do much more good than harm so you're entitled to it. ;) --uKER (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

titchmarsh - Fred

Hi, I directed the external to the exact page http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/55710/supplements/32 - Off2riorob (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice thanks. I stumbled onto it because of recent changes patrol and for the life of me couldn't find his name in the pages. I must have skipped one. Millahnna (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I almost fell asleep looking through all those pages and pages of names and the search wasn't showing any results. Thanks for you work, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

UAA

Re. I withdraw my report (but don't want to actually delete it in case that's bad form - yes; there is no need to remove a report - it'll be automatically removed, pretty soon. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why'd You Remove My Edit?

It's unsourced but I don't really know how to source it, besides reading the British character page or watching the original series. I promise it's all true though, and I'd do anything I need to to confirm it. Plus, if you're going to remove my unsourced edits then why don't you remove all of them? Like Bishop being based on Herrick, Sally on Annie, ect.?

But here, let me explain myself. This is why all my edits are true. Let's compare: I don't know why but Becca isn't on the character list for the UK show (and neither is Carl, this character from season 2...) but if you watch all of the first episode here you'll see Becca is pretty much exactly like Cara from looks to personality to even her role of dating Aiden and dying by Lauren/Rebbecca and Mitchell/Aiden choosing to save her. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT0zjvDg5tc The episode is in 6 parts, but you can skip through them to only the parts with her if you don't believe me.

Next is Ray/Lee Tully. Here's Lee Tully's bio from the British character page: "Lee Tully (Dean Lennox Kelly) is a werewolf who encountered George during Series One and offered to mentor him through his condition. He is much more comfortable with being a werewolf than George, and a combination of his "seize-the-day" outlook and clever advice on handling the condition won George's trust (and, to a degree, hero-worship). However, George pushed Tully away when he discovered that Tully was the werewolf originally responsible for George's own condition, and was only trying to befriend George to combat his own loneliness. Following his rejection by George, Tully left the area and he wasn't heard from until the season 2 finale when - at the Bible-bashers' lair - George and Nina notice some writing in a holding cell stating George, all the werewolves die signed Tully, indicating Tully encountered and died at the hands of Jaggat's 'cure'. His first name is revealed to be Lee, as Lucy names him as one of the four who died in the chamber." Even though it's not exactly like him they are a lot of like such as being George/Josh's mentor and a more experienced werewolf, as well as the guy who turned George/Josh into a werewolf.

I said Bridget was based loosely off of Janey from the UK series, and that's because she was Owen's girlfriend. So if Danny is based off of Owen, and if Bridget is his girlfriend, then she's based off of Janey, obviously. I said loosely though because otherwise she isn't anything like Janey, but she is enough role-wise to say that she is based on her, although loosely. For example, here is Janey's bio. "Janey was Owen's girlfriend and fiancée after Annie was murdered. She owns a nearby tanning salon, and Annie often seethed at her "orange" appearance along with her shallow and somewhat dense personality. After discovering how she had died, Annie attempted to warn Janey of Owen's violent side, but was thwarted when Owen discovered the two of them and dismissed Annie's presence as a figment of Janey's guilty conscience (for their affair while Annie was still alive)." Although loosely, she shares the role of being the American Owen (Danny's) girlfriend and Sally, Bridget and Danny had a similar experience where Sally tried to tell Bridget things but Danny dismissed them.

Next is Bernie. Not only does he have the same name as his American counterpart, but doesn't all of this from his bio sound familiar? "Bernie (Mykola Allen) was a schoolboy who lived in the neighbourhood. After Mitchell scared away a group of kids who were bullying Bernie, the two became friends, and Mitchell became something of a father figure to Bernie. Unfortunately, a turn of events involving a vampire porn/snuff film DVD caused both Mitchell and George to be accused of pædophilia by Bernie's mother, Fleur, and for the two of them to be ostracised and persecuted by the neighbourhood. This blew up into a riot during which Bernie was hit by a car and rendered comatose. With Fleur's consent and knowledge, Mitchell turned Bernie into a vampire to save his life, but was racked with guilt about condemning the boy to the life of a vampire. Both Bernie and Fleur have moved away and their whereabouts are unknown." His change is slightly different (since Rebbeca did it, not Aiden), the fact that he killed the bullies bothering him, and since he ends up dying by getting staked in the American one, but other than that he's just alike pretty much.

Here's the link too to the British Being Human character list so you can see for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Being_Human_characters

So do you believe me now? Even though I didn't source it I know it's true since I watch both the British and American one so I know both shows well enough to know this stuff. If you can think of a way for me to source it though I'll be more than glad to do it, so I won't have to constantly explain myself like this. 1Dbad (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not believing you; I've made some of the same observations myself. But without reliable sources noting the comparisons or flat out stating that the US characters were based on the specific UK equivalents, it's original research. As soon as I saw your edit I started looking for reviews and interviews that make the same comparisons - I think in the long run it would be interesting information to include for the casting section. Millahnna (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Like I said though, there's not really anyway to source it that I know of because of course people involved in the American show won't go around saying what characters are based off of who on the American version. And people involved with the UK version of the show have hardly talked about it too because they're too busy making their own version. And very few reviewers of the show have actually bothered to watch the UK version, hence why a lot of reviews don't mention stuff like that. It's just something that anyone who watches both versions can pick up on (like you have too), but if we really can't say that with our own experience from watching the show then we should remove the rest of "such and such is based off of the character such and such from the original version" (at least for every character but the main three, maybe), since none of them are sourced either. Either they all need to be sourced or none should be sourced, since it doesn't make sense to let some slide and others not slide. At least that's my opinion, but then again I like consistency, lol. But, I'll do some digging for reliable links then, because I'm determined for it to be on the article if possible because I think people would like to know and it's useful information, and plus I always like to know who's based on who on American remakes of British series. And really? I hadn't thought of that, but that would work. As much as I'd like it on the character list (if not both) I would settle for at least that, since it's better than nothing. (and what people would pull up in the first place anyway) But would you still remove my edits if I added that information to the casting section? I'd kind of like to know so I don't want to do it just to have it undid again.
And I saw your edit summary. Actually what I gave in my first reply wasn't plot summaries, but character summaries. Same difference I suppose since they have info on the plot either way, but thought I should mention that. And while unsourced original research, it was from my experience of watching every season and episode of the UK show so far and doing the same pretty much with the American one. I hate things like this where it's true but you have a hard time finding something that confirms it's true due to Wikipedia's standards. And oh, I wasn't 'bloating' or being 'coinceited' either, so I don't know why you listed that in your edit. You just said what I said was unsourced so I was trying to show you where I was coming from; and when I undid your edit I didn't say anything bad about you. No need to make this personal. But if I really did come across that way I'm sorry, because I didn't mean to. 1Dbad (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for my reply

but if we really can't say that with our own experience from watching the show then we should remove the rest of "such and such is based off of the character such and such from the original version" (at least for every character but the main three, maybe)

You're totally right with this, and I hadn't noticed that this was noted for other characters. For now we should pull it. But I think eventually we'll see reviews and interviews noting the comparisons we've made. But unfortunately, per the original research policy we can't make those statements based on our own observations. It's really frustrating sometime when something is so obvious but it prevents more problems than it causes. Keeping the main three shouldn't be an issue; the show runners have talked about the one-to-one comparison to their UK counterparts in interviews. It's something I've been meaning to go looking for (the articles where they've talked about how they are similar and different from the originals) but haven't had a chance to do yet. This sort of thing is always an issue on list of character articles - they tend to get updated with plot summary and very little else. But as the show progresses there will be more material to drop in so that the article isn't so in-universe and has more real world info.

But would you still remove my edits if I added that information to the casting section?

If we can find the links to back up the comparisons, absolutely not. I think it will be great info to provide once we have our sources. It's exactly the kind of thhing I mean by real world info (casting the roles, how they are changed from originals by creators, how actors interpret the scenes and characters).

Actually what I gave in my first reply wasn't plot summaries, but character summaries.

That was actually a reference to an edit that came after yours. Someone added waaay too much plot detail in there and I was reverting past two people's edits. Since the lines for our edit summaries are so short, I find it hard to be clear about that sometimes.

And while unsourced original research, it was from my experience of watching every season and episode of the UK show so far and doing the same pretty much with the American one. I hate things like this where it's true but you have a hard time finding something that confirms it's true due to Wikipedia's standards.

I know exactly what you mean. It drives me bonkers sometimes. I like to drove myself nuts last year looking for this little bit I remembered from an interview about an actor on True Blood. But it really does prevent more problems than it causes. Imagine if every person who had an off the wall interpretation of a scene came in and said "well this bit reminded me of this thing in another thing so clearly the other thing was an inspiration."

No need to make this personal. But if I really did come across that way I'm sorry, because I didn't mean to.

Not personal at all; no worries. I just figured you undid before you saw my reply to you here. My edit summary probably seemed more blunt than I meant it because, again, trying to explain the reversion of more than one edit. And I do waaay too much recent changes patrolling which seems to lead to a severe truncating of verbage in edit summaries. I probably seem like a stark raving butthead half the time when I'm just trying to be brief. I think you have great instincts about the type of stuff we'll want to include on the article. We just have to find the articles to back up the info. There's not going to be a lot out there yet because it's the first season but it'll be awesome if we can start getting the article overhauled with this kind of stuff right away. I follow the UK version's article and a few other list of character articles that have been going on for years with just updates to plot summary and no real world stuff. So now it's particularly overwhelming a thought to try and fix them. The True Blood characters page is my personal nightmare. I'll get around to it?
One thing I've been looking for is an article I read just before the premiere that talked about changes made to the three main characters. I vaguely recall that it had some quotes from the writers and a couple of the actors (I think Witwer mentioned something about watching the UK version). I can't seem to dig up the link from the message boards where I read about the show though. Ack. Millahnna (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Reply #1: You probably didn't notice it since the recurring characters list seems very scrunched together. I miss stuff all the time because of that. I must say I'm sorry though, for I was the one who added who each character was based off of (well, for the ones with counterparts from the original show, anyway). I've actually done it for every character, except for Nora I believe. (I was even the one who had to add that Sally was based off of Annie, Aidan was based off of Mitchell, ect. lol) The reason you weren't able to get rid of it for some characters like Rebbecca or Seth even by undoing my recent edit though was because some of them I added a few weeks ago in different edits. I'm really sorry I did it though, I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to add that unless it was sourced otherwise I would have never done it; since I try to improve articles not mess them up.
I'm glad you like my idea though, and went ahead and did it. I like having consistency and like you said we'll eventually see reviews and interviews noting comparisons we've made so if we can just hold out we'll be able to add it soon enough. I'll be glad when we do though, so we can hurry up and add them, lol. It really is frustrating to not be able to add something so obvious, but you're right that the original research policy prevents more problems than causes them; I can definitely see how it prevents a lot of drama from unfolding. And I had forgot that the show runners have talked about their characters comparisons to the original UK counterparts before, but you're right, that shouldn't be a problem.
Reply #2: Great! I'll start to look for links to back up the comparisons myself here soon, so I can help too. And ah I see! I knew you meant the casting of the roles, the actors playing them, ect. when you said "real world info" but I didn't know you also meant "how they are changed from originals by creators, how actors interpret the scenes and characters, ect". That's great news and exactly what I'd love to have in the article myself.
Reply #3: Oh my bad! I thought everything in your edit summary was to me (hence why I took it so personally, lol) , I didn't know you were referring to other people. But that makes a lot more sense then. And I understand completely. I too have a hard time with edit summaries since the lines for them are so short. I just recently got to where I use them sometimes and it's always annoying when you can't fully explain your edit or properly direct it to who it belongs because it's so short.
Reply #4: I'm glad I'm not alone then! And me too. And I'm sorry you had such a problem trying to find it. I hate it when it's a little bit from some interview because it always seems to be harder to find, for some reason. Like here recently I was trying to find some short video clip interview with a television host actually but I ended up being unable to find it. (unfortunately) I believe the site it was on removed it sadly, and it was really annoying because the host said something in the clip that would have been helpful for this one article I edit. (because he said something that proved a lot of tabloid rumors about a new show were wrong) Ah well. You make a good point about the original source rule though. That would be very annoying and problematic and you're right that it does prevent more problems than it causes.
Reply #5: Glad to hear it. And actually I did undo your edit before I saw your reply to me here, so you were right, lol. And I know that now you were just trying to explain the reversion of more than one edits in a limited space so we're all good. Just a misunderstanding on my part was all. And that's probably part of it too, lol.
Thank you for the compliment about my instincts though! I'm really flattered and glad to hear that the kind of stuff I want to include on the article is good. You obviously do too since you want the same kind of stuff and more on the articles as well. Now if we can just find the articles to back the stuff up. I hadn't thought of the lack of stuff out there due to the show only being on it's first season, that actually makes a lot of sense and I'm surprised something that simple hadn't dawned on me yet. I agree with you that I hope we'll luck out though and be able to start getting the article overhauled with this kind of stuff right away. That would be awesome and very handy in case future seasons tend to have some characters based off of some of the UK ones as well. I didn't know you follow the UK version's article as well but I'm glad you do so you and I can look for the same things to hopefully increase our odds of finding sources to back us up. And that's true that a lot of character lists have just updates to plot summary and no real world stuff. I had never really thought about it before but now that you mention that that's true. And I agree with you that it's a horrifying thought of trying to go through and fix them them. Oh wow, I can't even imagine where to begin on some articles that I know of... And I'm sure you'll get around to it eventually. I wish you good luck for when you do though! I'd try to help but I'm more familiar with the books than the show so I probably wouldn't be of much help.
I think I remember reading that same article too, or at least seeing it. I'll try to search for it again myself when I can get my computer fixed (right now it has a virus), but it definitely sounds like a good article that would be helpful for editing so I'll be sure to see what I can do when I can.
Thanks again for being so nice about everything, really appreciate it. 1Dbad (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your recent speedy tag

Hello Millahnna. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding 9 tribes, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 21:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I realized right after I tagged that it was probably too fast (checking user profile showed he has some stuff that it looks like he intends to put in the article). I wasn't sure what I should do in that case; just remove the CSD tag myself and explain in edit summary? Thanks for keeping us recent changes peeps on track. :) Millahnna (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd leave it up for now as it does meet the criteria at this time. I've tagged the article with {{hasty}} (and they might leave a hangon tag as well) so a deleting admin would take that tag into consideration and let it sit for the time being. elektrikSHOOS 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're doing new pages patrol, it's also usually a good idea to work from the backlog forward as then these issues stop existing. And, you help to clear yet another Wikipedia backlog in the process. elektrikSHOOS 22:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. I dropped a note on the editors page to apologize for my trigger happy mouse finger I'm usually a bit more slow and methodical than that. And thanks for the shiny new link to look at as well. :D Millahnna (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Millahnna/Archive_3&oldid=1136163248"