User talk:TheRealFennShysa/Archive 3

I can source the statement removed to a number of newspaper articles, but I'd rather not edit war it. If I were to do that, can you explain how it violates NPOV? Are there similar sources which state Moore's work hasn't helped establish the medium as a vehicle for film adaptations? As to being unneeded, I can live with that if that is the consensus. But it's wrong to remove it because Moore diaspproves of the adaptations, because that's not the point being made, and it's wrong to remove it as unsourced since it can be sourced, and it is wrong to remove it for being POV if that POV is asserted in secondary sourcing and no opposing POV is so sourced. Thanks, Hiding T 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair play. I had always thought that image captions weren't to be referenced, hence I didn't reference it. Since it can be referenced several times over I don't think POV applies, but if it is unnecessary, I can live with that. Never mind, I'm probably just reacting badly to an edit summary that wasn't intended to come across the way it appeared to. Take it easy, Hiding T 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 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.

Why have you removed two different references to the Animaniac characters having voices that sound like Groucho Marx, Ringo Starr, and Mae West? All you have to do to prove this point is rent some of the old films, and you will see that the voices of the characters are strong imitations of those actors. You can also find several references to this similarity on the internet, including on Amazon.com sites selling Animaniac DVDs which mention the similarity of the voices. MCB in Boulder (Feb. 28, 2008, 5:46 pm, MST.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.195.177 (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert my edits. You are breaking a policy, read the talk page in the Episode IV article. We have not agreed yet. If you continue to revert I will revert your edits and report you if you continue to do so. I dont want to, lets finish the discussion first before we revert. // A Raider Like Indiana 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I had enough. Do what you want, Im not here to fight. // A Raider Like Indiana 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

About Cars 2. Even though the film has officially been announced, the film is 4 years away from a release, and because of that everything is subject to change. Per WP:NOTFILM, the film should not have it's own article, as it hasn't entered production yet, and there is no source verifying the date of filming. So, I've redirected the article to a more relevant place until such time comes when there is more information available and the article can be recreated.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope I am in error, as it saves me a lot of work not having to replace the IMDB news items Filmmaker and I put there so long ago. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000970/bio http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121765/business http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121765/awards What about these 3? They aren't news items, are they reliable? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply. Alone Coder (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have nominated "Revelations" for deletion but I noticed it has survived that before. I may do so again after good discussion on the matter. I feel that "films" like this one are too close to violating the spirit of TRADEMARK/COPYRIGHT Law despite a Filmmaker's approval(for now) that it behooves their separation from an online encyclopedia. I have seen this film yes, and it is a mockery of STAR WARS in my opinion . The long cast-list on it's wikipedia entry denotes a bias by the creator of the article, naming every single cast member like that (as if it were pertinent). By putting this "fan film" on Wikipedia it opens the "Pandora's Box" of opportunity for other "fan-filmmakers" to pos their creations here no matter how trivial or inappropriate. My suggestion to the makers of "Revelations" is this: make an original film of your very own and not skirt the edge of copyright/trademark laws by using a Hollywood Production like STAR WARS as your base. Thanks for responding to my post on discussion earlier and I welcome your view on this. I do not plan on making any adjustments to the article but I do think the "cast list" needs trimming. MaxButterchuck (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)MaxButterchuck[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JTWoodsworth_-_misleading_user_page_and_sockpuppetry. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel that notability is presented? --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - I think I'll AFD it. A single mention in a local paper isn't very notable. The book chapter is irrelevant because it represents an argument to the future. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

although it might be a while, I made the mistake of opening the Lightsaber article. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WPIX. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed someone logged a WP:ANI incident against that user. I added the point about The CW, including a diff where he's basically saying they don't have the right to violate "grammar rules". This has to stop. I'm not getting into the edit war, though. I'll see what action is taken first, if any. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-posted - already responded there and linked to it in another discussion. :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rollosmokes looks to be back, this time as User:Black Waves. I've moved the issue back to WP:ANI. Here we go again? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm just informing you that I've reverted your recent removal of my edit to the Star Wars article. You removed the term 'seventh generation' and wrote in your edit summary that there is no such thing - actually, there is, see the wikipedia article on them found here. All the best, TheMoridian 15:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I present you with this Barnstar for keeping your cool in the face of personal attacks and standing up for others in the face of attacks. Thanks! JamesAM (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Green Goblin's Last Stand, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Goblin's Last Stand (2nd nomination). Thank you. GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]