User talk:Starstriker7/Archive I

This is the Primary Archive, which was the first archive derived from Starstriker7's talk page. As each archive contains thirty individual commentaries, this archive contains commentaries 1–30.

The date span of this archive is from 10 April 2008 to 8 November 2008.

-VegitaU (talk)   {1 | 2}

-Rodhullandemu (talk) {1}

-Jeepday (talk) {1}

-Nn123645 (talk) {1}

-Ruhrfisch (talk) {1 | 2}

-Ukexpat (talk) {1 | 2}

-IvoShandor (talk) {1}

-Livitup (talk) {1}

-Balthazar (talk) {1}

-epicAdam (talk) {1}

-Finetooth (talk) {1}

-Krator (talk) {1}

-D. B./Dtbohrer (talk) {1}

-Dr. Cash/Derek.cashman (talk) {1 | 2}

-Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk) {1}

-Pyrotec (talk) {1}

-BanyanTree (talk) {1}

-GeorgeLouis (talk) {1 | 2 | 3}

-Nehrams2020 (talk) {1 | 2 | 3 | 4}

-Wildonrio (talk) {1 | 2}

-BJBot (Bot) (talk) {1}

-Cirt (talk) {1}

-Bibliomaniac15 (talk) {1 | 2}

-The Spooky One/LukeTheSpook (talk) {[[User talk:Starstriker7/Archive I#invitation|1]]}

-Antivenin (talk) {1}

-Folks at 137 (talk) {1}

-Kudpung (talk) {1}

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Image:NGC 2608.jpg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please don't upload copyrighted material under free-use or public-domain tags. Thanks. VegitaU (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NGC 2608.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VegitaU (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted because it's not a free image, and WP:NFCC only allows such images in articles. Since it's a Google Sky image, it's their copyright, and I've had to delete it again as a breach of copyright. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 01:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Strange_deletion_happening Jeepday (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. If you haven't tried Huggle defiantly try it, it makes vandal reverting so easy :D. -- Nn123645 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nn123645 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-- Nn123645 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to look at it - it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Copy Edit Request: Would be happy to take a look, but it may take a couple of days. – ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay, I'll take a look at it today/tomorrow (Monday 15th). – ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped by the article and reassessed it, I left a few notes on the talk page. I saw your comment on Kranar's talk page, he's not about much these days so I just took the liberty of fulfilling your request. :-) --IvoShandor (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starstriker7. You have new messages at Livitup's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A little note for your Epic project; you can find a lot of useful info and sources on Stefan Negele's Database, just in case you weren't already aware of its existence. Also; feel free to drop me a line if you need a hand. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Balthazar; I was running into trouble, because I wasn't really willing to pay some thirty bucks to dig through news articles.

To think of it, yeah, I may be able to use a hand. If you would like to collaborate in building up the article, I think it'd be pretty great. However, I've never done something like that before here on Wikipedia. Seeing your contributions, I know that this is one of your favorite bands, so I know it wouldn't bother you all that much (unless Editor Review is a'bearing too much on your mind), and I'm kind of stuck on improving this article myself. --Starstriker7(^{Say hi}_{or see my works}) 13:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty bucks does seem a bit much for old news, especially when their are fan sites giving it away for free. Yeah; I'd be willing to collaborate on the article, although I'm not sure were to start with it. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, should be able to finish tomorrow (9/22). – ukexpat (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry it took so long. – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I got your note about the FAC drive. That might be a good idea, but we'd need way more editors to actually make it work. Also, we'd need people who have expertise on certain cities, or at least the area. Do you know of any other editors willing to help out on such a project? Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have already found links to the most specific WikiProjects available to each city, so we could find editors from those. However, Charlotte might be a problem. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 15:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at LA as time permits, but I can't commit to anything beyond that. Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No time, sorry. User:Krator (t c) 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have comments by Saturday (I'll be saving a copy of the article and will review it while on the train). --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 04:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, it is not necessary for individual GA reviewers to update the announcements list at WP:CITIES after every single review. I update this once per week based on the reviews that I see at WP:GAN. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize. I only saw that a good number of GA nominations had concluded already, so I figured I might as well take up the job. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly help you out with the article. I might not be able to straight away, but by Tuesday I should have started on it. If you need anything else, just contact me on my talk page. Jordan ^Contribs 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. I've been really busy, and was unable to respond to your request. I've started now; however, I do not, at present, have much access to the internet. I will do my best in spite of this fact. Thanks, Jordan ^Contribs 14:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several comments and suggestions at the article talk page. Contact me if you need me to explain, or just leave a note at the article takl page. (I have conducted my copy-editing much like a peer review.) Jordan ^Contribs 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently doing GARs on two other articles, but I could probably make a start on the GAR for Lincolnshire, Illinois on Monday.Pyrotec (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the validity of what is now Ref 27, so perhaps you could look at it. I've give the article GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "in 2005, Axum has an estimated total population of 47,320". I don't know what the Cities WikiProject guidelines are, but it is still the major town in northern Ethiopia, though its recent history obviously pales. - BanyanTree 02:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are right. I'm sorry for the whole matter. On the project talk page, the most senior member of the project noted that only inhabited cities should be subject to the project. I just didn't see anything that may have really hinted at it initially, and I didn't look hard enough at all. Thank you for reprimanding me on the subject. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 04:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "reprimand" is a bit extreme. I was just confused because I'd been to Axum in the past 10 years (you literally stumble over archaeological sites everywhere) and couldn't figure out why you thought it was uninhabited. Your comment does point out a lack of information on the current town, or at least badly organized content. I'll try to make some time to fix that. Thanks, BanyanTree 06:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This tiny community with thousands of visitors daily awaits your inspection at Gorman, California. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll leave my comments on the article's talk page. Thanks for the heads up, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I went through and made some edits throughout the article and listed a message on the talk page for what changes need to be made to advance the article to B-class. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the section and assessed the article as B-class. I also listed my thoughts on the section on the talk page. Let me know if you need anything further. Good job. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starstriker,

I will go through and summarize it a little more. How much shorter does it need to be? Wildonrio (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm done. What do you think? Wildonrio (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think we should actually quote them within the article instead of just using a reference to their quote like we have it now? Would we add another section called "Rossio and Marsilii's take on the Timeline interpretation" or something? Wildonrio (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wildonrio (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working hard to improve the quality! Just one more thing. I don't know if you're aware of this, but both writers absolutely despise how their script was adapted into film. They are both at odds with Tony Scott so much that they publicly ridicule him at Terry's website along with all of his fans. Terry Rossio has actually never even seen the movie, even though he wrote the script. Isn't that interesting? As it was being filmed, he become so upset with the way it was going that he couldn't bring himself to watch what a mess it came out to be, in his mind. This is actually one of the reasons the movie has gotten so many bad reviews from critics (57% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes) - the film was adapted very poorly from the script. So badly that most people are left very confused and think the movie doesn't make any sense. This is one of the reasons I appreciate leaving the timeline theory in the article, because it shows that despite the flaws in the film, there is a very well thought out underlying plot that could have been more apparent had they used a better director than Tony Scott. Do you think we could make a section about this dilemma? There are all sorts of quotes at Terry's site about how they feel about the movie. Wildonrio (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do you think you could restore everything from the previous very detailed version of the article and just make a whole new article called "Timelines of plot within Deja Vu" and add just a link to it from the main Deja Vu Article? That way we get the best of both worlds - just a brief summary of the timelines in the main article, but then an optional very detailed explanation in a side article focused just on the timelines. What do you think, is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildonrio (talk • contribs) 06:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the section, I don't think there is enough to warrant its own article. If the timelines were more clearly stated with reliable sources, and multiple sources had different interpretations, theories, viewpoints, etc. by more people in the film/journalism industry, then I would say there may be a possibility. At its current state, it should be fine remaining as a section within the article. If this were something like a timeline situation, for example for all six Star Wars films, then it would probably be more likely to warrant its own article. However, this article has plenty of room for expansion, and more focus should be spent on developing the other sections. Let me know if you need further clarification. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Deja Vu movie French.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think I have gotten to that review yet, I am a bit busy at the moment but a good way to help the process if for you to do a couple GA Reviews of WP:GACs higher up the list in your subsection. Cirt (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the article and your points. You're doing fine, I gave a couple of points that should be resolved before you pass. It'll be up to you to enforce their change. Good job for your first review! It can be a little intimidating at first, but once you get a feel for what an article needs to look like for GA status, it will be easier. bibliomaniac15 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new section under Reception called Film writers and director. I'm sure there are some problems with the formatting, wording, sources, etc. so please take a look and change anything you need to. Whatever you change, however, I still think this knowledge of the film writers being at odds with the director needs to be in the article somewhere. It shows that the writers are not in approval of the movie, which is important for views to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildonrio (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I see with my new section is that is a little biased toward the writers and gives virtually no mercy to director Tony Scott, who I'm sure has a say in the matter as to why he filmed it the way he did. I just don't know where to find a good quote of him defending himself on this subject or I would include it. Wildonrio (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you missed this or not, but just to let you know, I added three articles to the talk page that can be incorporated into the article. They are all reliable sources and should be great for expanding various sections. One of the articles exclusively focuses on the visual effects of the film, which I have used for such as articles as Evan Almighty, Live Free or Die Hard, or Tropic Thunder. You may want to take a look at one of those for ideas of how to incorporate it into the article. I hope they help and best wishes with the GA nomination. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Starstriker7!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

- -The Spooky One (talk to me) 06:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready for GA. I just caught one thing that might stand to be changed, but you've got the hang of it. bibliomaniac15 21:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As school term begins in less than a day, I won't be able to devote enough time to content editing as I usually do. To this effect, I have removed my name from the volunteers' list until I get enough time to return to editing. I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused. Best to you. Antivenin 08:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Gorman, California, the following new or heavily revised articles are now ready for your perusal and cooperation in improving them: Neenach, California, Sandberg, California, Scheideck, California, Mountain Communities of the Tejon Pass, Frazier Park, California, Lake of the Woods, California, Lebec, California, Three Points, California. Sincerely, and with great good wishes, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for starting a Collaboration of the Month at WP:CITIES, and focusing on Los Angeles as the first task. We could then do Chicago for December. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I seem to making work for you by adding loads of, mainly European, locations. The idea is to dilute the US concentration of the project, although I think that the scope could be more tightly defined or task forces could be initiated. I also feel that I should not rate places that are too close to home, as I might be too subjective. Let me know if I'm a problem, please. I've also tried, so far unsuccessfully, to start off a project on abandoned or destroyed settlements, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject ExtinctSettlements and add your opinion. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion that extinct settlements could be a task force within cities. Ghost towns could be assimilated into extinct (or be a separate tf). A few comments, 'tho'. The inclusion of extinct into cities (effectively that's what a tf does) has already been discouraged (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Abandoned settlements. There are already some existing or potential categories of extinct settlements - drowned cities, silk road, plague villages, etc, so extinct settlements may be richer than at first appears. Also, the ghost town project has a specific character that could be preserved - if there is interest.

Cities tagging will continue, then. I also do that occasional rating, mainly of US articles - it's educational. startrantThe thing that irritates, however, is the tranche of "cdp" articles with nothing but census info, that look like they should be merged with one that has a broader scope.endrant Folks at 137 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do please read the articles before tagging them as part of the Cities project. I'm having to manually remove dozens of tags from tiny villages in the UK. Please see the Wikipedia definition of city.--Kudpung (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to take a second look at the article, but it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I rewrote the leed for Gorman, California. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I was hoping somebody would eventually push this up to GA based on what is already there. For the podcast section, I don't really see it to be necessary unless it was a pivotal part of the film's marketing and there are reliable sources that can be added to the section. If there isn't, and if there is no other relevant information that can be included, then maybe it should be mentioned in a brief sentence or removed entirely. For the soundtrack section it would be good to mention reviews about the soundtrack, the type of music used, who wrote it, etc. It's better than having just a link to the main soundtrack page. This link could be used to help you in expanding the section: Allmusic. If you want to expand on the motion capture in the production section of the article you could use the following from one of my favorite sites VFXWorld: Visual Effects, 3D, Interview, and Best of 2007. I would also recommend trimming the plot some and expanding on the box office section a bit more as well as having someone copyedit the article before nominating. Hopefully this helps, and if you need further clarification or other help let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]