User talk:Millahnna/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

The tautology article wikipedia

why did you revert the physics equation are not tautologies. Possibly because it is 'unsourced'? Well the fact is that f=ma is not a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.122.106 (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's not a tautology. As I said in the edit summary, I agree with the material. Scientific equations are not tautologies. But the section was unsourced and poorly written. The writing could be improved but to continue to readd it without sources is inappropriate. Millahnna (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reaper (TV series)

I see great minds think alike. I also did a massive rewrite of the planned plotline, but I must say I prefer yours. I'm just going to make some small changes (changing the bare URL link to read "An interview with the creators" and making the plotline its own section. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. I was hoping someone would fix the ref; I get real lazy about making them into actual cite web templates sometimes. One thing I wanted to make sure we add was the whole "no plans to bring in god as a character" thing. I spaced it at the time. I was also thinking about the stuff that Tyler Labine thought up (near the end of the interview) but I figured that would be excessive since the creators weren't really on board with it. It's a charming anecdote but kind of crufty. Millahnna (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I left you a message about this somewhere, but it has to do with the fact that infoboxes are for summarizing essential elements about a character from the entire article. There is not a reason to have them for a single section because the reader can read the section. WP:TVMOS wouldn't cover this because it's not a TV issue. It's just a matter of going against the purpose of the infobox. There should be only one infobox to an article in most cases, but certainly not one for every section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bignole. You did recently reply to me with something similar; I thought something might have been explicitly stated somewhere about it. Given how often this gets challenged when removed, I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't throw a brief line into the TV and Films MOS referring back to the main infobox template (which does note that intended purpose as a summary). Something along the lines of "List of characters articles do not need multiple infoboxes as that runs contrary to the purpose of an infobox." Millahnna (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I've put in a discussion at WP:MOSINFOBOX for clarity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for your minor clean-up, and for leaving the rest. It's more than a year now since I closed an AfD on his page as delete, but I think it's best just to ignore him. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I only just now saw this. Glad I handled it right...I wasn't sure what to do with it at first. Bitter is as bitter does. Millahnna (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your note

You made a valid point about my mistake in understanding the reversions of the reported editor. I have blocked the reported editor too post your and Betty's note. If there are any clarifications you may need, please do leave the same on my talk page. I shall respond in a couple of hours. My apologies for the inconvenience this all may have caused you. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Queen's English

Although I could honestly care less whether the LOTR is in the Queen's English or Pig Latin and am thus not going to change your revert back, I just wanted to further state for the record that I completely disagree with your rationale. Whether or not the movie was filmed in NZ and much of the pre/post-production was also done there, my analogy that by your logic this would also mean that all of the Wiki pages for Clint Eastwood's Spaghetti Western's would therefore have to be in Italian is 100% valid. It's a great movie and I know that alot of Kiwi's are proud of what their country has produced, but this isn't a "New Zealand" movie anymore than all the TV shows that were filmed and produced in Vancouver (X-Files comes to mind) are "Canadian TV Programs". So as simply a friendly piece of advice, I would come up with a little firmer argument other than "it was filmed here" in case someone wanders over to the site who wants to put up a little bit more of a fight than I. However no blood, no foul and enjoy your Wiki day! Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Clint's spaghetti westerns are American movies that were shot in Italy. The consensus on the LOTR page a while back was that NZ was the best choice of country identifier (due to production companies I think, been a while so I'm not positive I'm remembering that right, but that's usually how it works on projects with debatable origin countries). If I recall correctly, the film is considered NZ first and USA 2nd but don't quote me on that. Ont he downside, I'm a yank myself so I always have to run to the UK and NZ films projects and have them double check that I got my UK spellings correct. Inevitably I miss at least one every time I touch a UK TV series article. Millahnna (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Enough

Alright knock it off, please with the character infoboxes! They need a good add on but you keep changing it. So please stop it. I am asking nicely to please stop or I am going to be very angry. Get back to me as soon as you can and I am going add on to the infoboxes without you changing it every second. Thank You.173.72.83.98 (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What you are adding is mostly fancruft. I'm not the only person who is going to revert it. Get as angry as you like. Millahnna (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Disturbia (film)

Hi.

Can you please see Talk:Disturbia_(film)#Suggested_new_paragraphs_for_plot - it should be self-explanatory. I'll be advising the anon, separately, on eir talk about how to link, etc. Can you see if the actual content might be helpful - if formatted correctly - or, at leasst some of it? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It was definitely Timmy. I like the general idea of what you tried to do here though, Chzz. Conceptually, this is something we could probably do more often to help new editors get over the learning curve.
And Eagle, no worries on the reverts.Millahnna (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, excellent help here Chzz, just bad timing I suppose. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
V annoying, yes. Sorry to have bothered you with it, Millahnna. And thanks, Eagles, for mopping up. Meh.  Chzz  ►  01:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I Love Your Work

Hello, Milhanna!! You were the first one to respond to me when I first started editing on wiki and were so very helpful in helping me get started. I've cut back on my editing and spent my time doing other things, but I still check back on wiki every now and again to see the changes being made to the plot summaries I've contributed to... and I've noticed a pattern: you seem to be "popping up" on just about every film I've posted a plot summary for. I support all of your edits (that is to say the ones on the pages I'm watching) and just wanted to give you a shout out and tell you you've been doing an excellent job.

Upon reading your homepage, I noticed you write. I do as well and editing wiki plot summaries was basically one of the ways for me to sharpen up my skills of coming up with synopsis' for my stories.

Anways, cheers and keep doing what you're doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithLD (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey how's it going? Long time no type at. I hadn't noticed we were crossing paths on plots since Heat and Inception. Let me guess; a fellow sci fi junkie?
That's totally what drew me to wiki, too (keeping the skills sharp). Sometime before I'm 40 I really am going to finish my novel and try to publish (no really, I swear). I've had some poetry published in anthologies but nothing paid or major. I do so enjoy stringing sentences together to make pretty word paintings. Wiki plots are definitely their own challenge for writing, though; that balance between too much and too little detail can be a real bear. Sometimes I catch myself falling into the trap of "duplicating the experience of watching the film". It interesting how my writing for film reviews and writing for wiki is so totally different. Millahnna (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for backing me on that talk page situation. Actually, I didn't edit conflict myself. At first, I simply deleted his nonsense for a second time and then decided to add the template and let his posts stand as they were, so that others could see what it was referring to. I'm fine with it as you left it though. The guy seems to have a history of treating the talk pages as a forum. NJZombie (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't sure which you were going for, but his conversation had nothing to do with article improvement and I've noticed the tendency on his behalf as well. I'm gonna drop a note on the talk page there so that we can try to address his concerns within the scope of "can we use this to actually improve the article." Millahnna (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Please understand that when you report a registered user who made a few non-egregious edits, received a couple of warning, and hasn't edited after that, you're pushing an admin to issue an IAR block - it is your call, but I personally don't appreciate such impatience. As an aside, why did you report Mdeleon80 (talk · contribs) ? Materialscientist (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for the guidance. Mdeleon was a misclick; I had the tab open at the same time I was looking at other problem edits from last night. His edits are problematic but not vandalism. I didn't realize I'd clicked report on the wrong user until your message just now. Very sorry. I'll slow down; clearly I'm over my multi-tasking limit. Millahnna (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Happy editing. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

Just want to say how much I appreciate your edits on the Marvel-movie articles. You and User:TriiipleThreat are both great editors with whom to collaborate. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For repairing the Scream 3 article. I wanted someone else to do it so it didn't seem like I was taking ownership of the page or just bullying JTalley, I hadn't even realised that he had completely reverted the article to a prior stage before your revert, I only noticed the plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Scream 3 and Crocodile seem to be their favorite films to bloat up. I don't think they know about their talkpage so I'm not sure how to point them to more constructive efforts. Millahnna (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hop

24% of critics gave the film a positive review. That doesn't imply in any way that the film received generally negative reviews. It doesn't mean 76% of critics gave the film a negative review either. How the average critic scored the film is calculated by Metacritic. Metacritic reports "Mixed or average reviews," and that's what we generally go with in articles. We don't simply say "generally negative" based on individual interpretations of the Tomatometer. Swarm X 04:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You may or may not make a good point, but I have to ask whether your last sentence was particularly necessary. It certainly didn't come off as especially civil. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, your Talk page indicates that you are currently on break. You may wish to remove that notice. Doniago (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologize, the last part of my comment was not civil and was written in frustration and I have removed it. Swarm X 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Very cool. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it Swarm; I was super snotty in my edit summary so I totally understand why you got frustrated. I do tend to just remove the negative/mixed/positive sentence when it's getting changed back and forth a lot (more common on the middle ground) but I didn't have to be such a tool about it.
About the content specifically, I actually didn't realize we were getting our mixed/negative/positive directly from Metacritic's commentary on their aggregate scores. So thank you for the information. I have no idea where I got my mistaken impression, but there it is. I figured the Tomatometer concept was usually safe (although fuzzy in the 45-65 range sometimes) because if 24% gave a positive review then the other 76% gave a neutral or negative review. In looking more closely at the reviews since you dropped me this note, I see why that could actually be misleading. Millahnna (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Understood. It's a common misconception that the Rotten Tomatoes number equals "average critic score" so I can understand why people change it, but the fact that it kept getting changed kind of agitated me. A theoretical situation would be 5 positive reviews, 10 average/neutral ones and 5 negative reviews. The RT score would be 25%, but it would be wrong to say "generally negative," right?
In any case, removing the text altogether was probably the most sensible solution in that situation. Removing it simply didn't occur to me because the phrase is practically used everywhere. Thanks for the cool response, though; I did realize after leaving that comment that my tone was pretty accusatory. Regards, Swarm X 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Group hug everyone! :) But seriously, glad to see this has been worked out, and I found it a bit informative as well. Doniago (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Lol.... You're a goober. I really do need to watch my temper though. Swarm and I could have been in blow up mode like "that" (finger snap) if I had kept up with the snippy. I think I need to lay off the telenovela articles... they make me cranky. Millahnna (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For the reverts on my talk page. I've ticked "Sam Moser" off in the past (if you Google Sam Moser Ian Thomson and you'll find that he's spammed multiple forums), hope he ignores you. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Man when you draw a fan club you attract the special ones. Millahnna (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
OK freaky...over the last two days that guy has spammed at least 20 google groups threads with the numerology 777 stuff. I mean like made a new thread with replies every two hours type of spamming. I just... I don't even... Wow. Millahnna (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Hey, I made a series of broad revisions on the Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides article. I appreciated your help with the Rio (film) article, and I thought I could get some feedback from you on the Pirates article. The edits are substantial, but I have explained them in detail on the talk page. Any and all feedback is appreciated. Also, I may have reverted some of your edits in the promotion section because I was pulling the information from my user space. Sorry about that. Feel free to go back and make any adjustments in that area that I may have overwritten. I'd also like to add some pictures to the article, and I'd love to get your opinion on the one's I have proposed on the talk page. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I will definitely check in later when I have more time to sit down for a longer read; I'm about to take a nap so I'm not at my most focused. I'm probably not the best person to ask about images though; all the rationale stuff goes right over my head. You can always as at WT:FILM: they're awesome about feedback when I have random major revamp moments and I've gotten help with images there before. Millahnna (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sophie-Anne Leclerq

Why do you always keep deleting her page. It not like its wrong or unfair to anyone if she has a page. Left4Deadseries FAN (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not enough material in reliable secondary sources to establish notability for the character to have her own article. That could change as the series progresses but right now, not so much. The consensus a while back was to redirect for now. We can change that if it becomes warranted in the future. If there's more stuff out there now that I'm unaware of, bring it up at the list of characters talk page and see what others who work on the True Blood articles think. Millahnna (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ew. Sorry. I made a mistake. Well we'll have to wait for the fourth season to be released. By they way next time awnser on my talk page because its too small and I hate small things. It reminds me of a stubb page. Left4Deadseries FAN (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Article

I ask since you're a recent editor....Does the last part of the "future" section on this article look legit to you?.I can't find a source for this supposed "backstage tours" info.70.48.208.221 (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I saw that get added a few days ago and started looking for some sort of source but forgot all about when I got distracted by something else. Thanks for reminding me about it. Millahnna (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Slither (2006 film)

I rewrote the summary so it's no longer a copyvio and I was wondering what you thought about it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that you did that, thanks. I'm still not entirely sure if it was true copy vio or reverse (copied from wikipedia) but better safe than sorry. I'm hoping to finally get off my butt and see the film this weekend so I should be able to expand details if we need it. I think what you have looks great. Millahnna (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It's a fun movie, I hope you like it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It's got Rooker and Captain Tightpants in it, what's not to like? :D Millahnna (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hope you will forgive me for disambiguating the link to the film. Not all talk page stalkers are lucky enough to get the reference to Captain Tightpants and the '73 film isn't as much fun. :-) MarnetteD | Talk 19:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time I've ever noticed that the talk page stalker template is "tps". "I'm gonna need you to come in on Saturday and finish those tps reports." Yay. I think I just overdosed on nerd. Millahnna (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Good one. I would take care of those reports for ya but there is a new episode of Doctor Who to watch tomorrow . As a US fan it is a little slice of heaven to no longer have to wait days or months or years to see them. Just thought I would add to the nerd OD quotient. MarnetteD | Talk 20:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap. And Amy shot the poor kid-stronaut. Man that show does some real nice creepy. Millahnna (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You got that right. Steven Moffatt is the master of that. Among the many "The Empty Child", "The Silence in the Library" and my all time scariest fave "Blink" are all down to his genius. Enjoy tomorrow nights ep. MarnetteD | Talk 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I still have nightmares about Blink. shudder Millahnna (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Giles

Millahnna, unfortunately, I have to caution you as well with respect to edit warring. Rest assured that I am certain your edits were made with the best of intentions. However, while you may feel that you are merely restoring a consensus version, the reality is that you have still engaged in edit warring and a clear violation of the 3RR guideline. (At last count, you have made five reverts to the page within a 24-hour period.) I have elected not to block you based on your contribution history and your lack of any previous blocks, but please note that all editors are expected to respect the 3RR rules when addressing content issues. As such, I would ask that you abstain from any further reverts to the page until this can be resolved. Thanks in advance, and please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Ckatzchatspy 06:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand. One of those moments where I let my frustration get the better of me and I should totally know better. Millahnna (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What did you mean

Uh, on the revistion history of Riley Finn, what did you mean by what you said there?173.72.94.195 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake; thought you were someone else. Millahnna (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

A Prophet

oops, sorry, my bad, thanks for correcting me --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter

The May 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) 01:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Vampire Diaries

Please join this discussion. You're input would be greatly appreciated :) Jayy008 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Jessica Hamby

Can you put a picture of Jessica in her page. By the whay do you like the whay I have made her page. Left4Deadseries FAN (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I suck with doing pictures here; I always manage to bork it somehow. I've been on super light wiki lately so I haven't had a chance to check out the page in depth, yet. But you might want to ask at WT:TV to see if they can help with the pictures or have any tips for editing the page. They're super friendly. At a quick glance I'd say that the overall organization looks good but we're going to need some more real world info in there and more references. Look for stuff like interviews with the actress about characterization or how she was cast (just couple of examples). I'll take a deeper look and see what I can do to help as soon as I have some more time. True Blood pages are going to be one of my priorities this season, I hope. Millahnna (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter

The June 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Speedy deletion declined: User:Mybetsy17

Hello Millahnna. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Mybetsy17, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:G1 does not apply to pages in userspace; please send to WP:MFD. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. Honestly I wasn't sure what to do with that. Millahnna (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that you've asked how to nominate the page for deletion... If you have Twinkle, it does that automatically, just click on the xfd tag and choose miscellany for deletion; otherwise, if you do it manually, it's just like AfD. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, you are just about my favorite person today. LOL, thanks so much. I looked at those instructions and just went blank. Millahnna (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If you promise not to tell anyone, I'll confess that I've never learnt to open AfDs manually; without Twinkle I'd be lost. Just glad to be of service, however. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, it was a deletion issue that led me to actually reading up on Twinkle. That and recent changes patrol; doing it manually I'd take 5 minutes looking for the right template which is eons in internet troll time. I totally know what you mean. Millahnna (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Film Templates

Thansk for explaining about the film templates, I appreciate it. I guess I learn something new everyday on Wikipedia lol, despite looking up various things on editing on here. Saturn 56 (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It's one of those little things that I don't think REALLY matters all that much but I'm not certain that it doesn't group articles like categories in some way so I figure better safe than sorry. And Kudos for the good stuff you've been doing to tweak some of those tv show articles. Happy editing! Millahnna (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What is your favorite TV Show? Mine is Rookie Blue, I pretty much watch any crime TV show lol, I like NCIS too. Saturn 56 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm mostly a scifi dork and my favorite show was canceled years ago (Farscape). But I've been enjoying Rookie Blue a lot. I originally watched it because of the actors playing Andy and her fiance (I followed both over from sci fi shows they used to be on) but it's totally turned into one of my favorite not!sci fi shows. It's a little fluffy but it has a strong cast and that goes a long way with me. Favorite show that'sI actually still currently airing right now? I think I'd have to go with Fringe and Doctor Who. I have a hard time picking favorites, really. I watch waaaaaay too much television. If you like spy shows at all you should try Covert Affairs. It's not actually like Rookie Blue really but they remind me of each other for some reason. It's another show I picked up because I know some of the actors from si fi stuff. Millahnna (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


I'm in Canada and can't seem to find Covert Affairs on any station that I have, and I got this satellite box with 200 channels on it lol. I like the actor Lyriq Bent who plays Frank Best in Rookie Blue, he's my favorite actor and I liked him since I seen him in Saw IV. A lot of people say the Saw films became crappy after Saw IV and I now think I know why, since Lyriq Bent wasn't in any of the Saw films since Saw IV lol. Saturn 56 (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah he's great (easy on the eyes too). I found him because of Mutant X way back in the day. I'm surprised Covert Affairs hasn't been airing there; it seems to fit nicely with the shows that get aired in both countries (which makes more sense in my head than it probably does in print). I know what you mean about tracking shows from other countries though. I watch a lot of shows from Canada and the U.K. and it can be a real pain. I used to drive myself nuts trying to keep up with Regenesis when it was still on the air. They played it here in the states but not very reliably. It was never aired in order and the time slot changed every week. I finally broke down and watched it streaming on one of the sites I like to pretend I don't know about and bought the DVDs when they were released. I love The Listener but the US station that was airing it canceled it before the first season finished airing (stupid NBC grumble grumble). So I have to do the same thing with that show. Millahnna (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that The Listener used to air on CBC, a canadian station. Yea, and Lyriq is cute, I got him on Facebook (he's one of the actors that you can add as a friend, I added him since he has Tony Nappo, who has a Wikipedia article on here, as a mutual friend with me, I know Tony since he is from Newfoundland, which is where I live. He was in an episode of this Newfoundland show called Republic Of Doyle. It's a crime show but I don't like it lol. He also played Gus(the guy that got shot in the head when he stuck his eye to this door keyhole) in Saw II, so that's cool lol. Do you know any actors that are in movies or "local" shows that mainly just air in the United states? Who is your favorite actor? Saturn 56 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not personally but I follow a few on twitter, google plus, and facebook. Nathan Fillion, Wil Wheaton, Felicia Day, Levar Burton are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Most of the rest I ahve to look up to make sure I'm not destroying the spelling of their names. Millahnna (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

lol I am always correcting spelling on here, I did excelllent in English in High School(I'm now in University studying Sociology, taking the summer off though)and people were always asking me how to spell words they were having trouble with and if their paragraph structure was ok. The only thing I'm not good at is understanding William Shakespeare plays, I did well with Macbeth but the rest of the plays were a nightmare lol. Saturn 56 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a leg up on Shakespeare because I'm a theatre geek. Been in more than a few productions of his stuff and I think it's helped me to understand the archaic language a little better. But my friends who majored in English Lit can still point out some crazy detailed stuff to me that I never picked up on. They're like hard core Shakespeare nerds the way I'm a sci fi nerd. THey make me laugh. Millahnna (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha I'm a crime show nerd, I watch almost every crime show on TV. Saturn 56 (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

90210

I think you should read all of your reversion before quickly jumping in to change something you don't like. There was another word the user added to a sentence two lines down which made it make sense, that's the mean reason for my reversion. Jayy008 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ack. You're right I totally missed that second bit (spotted it in your most recent diff after I still couldn't see it in the previous versions). Thanks for the heads up and accommodating my concern when you edited after me. I'll check my eyeballs better next time. Millahnna (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you too :) It's always nice when it's easy to sort out a minor disagreement on here. Jayy008 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
101 reasons I'm always happy to bump into around the site. You're one of the always friendlies. :D Millahnna (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 :):) Jayy008 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Buffy edits

There's a real mess now, with all the edits this anonymous user has been doing. I've been reverting lots of them but it's slow and tedious and very annoying. It is fancruft indeed. There is no talk page for this user, though he/she may be the one who just took a name. I have left a message on that talk page. I suspect, too, the anon. user has been at work regularly, as plenty of the same material has been posted, removed, then reposted a day or two later. I've been going through the anon. edits one by one. Want to help? 86.26.130.136 has hundreds of nonsense edits to his/her name. Argh!--TEHodson 02:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We had some minor but tedious fancruft problems a couple of months back (you can read about it on the project page I think). But this sounds more severe. I'll take a look at it this weekend when I have more time to sit down and really stare at the articles. Millahnna (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've asked a couple of other regular Buffy editors to take a look, too.--TEHodson 02:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
At a quick glance on the most recent page the IP touched, definitely well intentioned. But a lot of that is more appropriate for the wikias (and very much welcomed so I hope he/she edits there) instead of wikipedia. I'll definitely try and poke around in more detail and hopefully we can get the IP on track since they seem so sincere and their writing is pretty solid. Millahnna (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds as though you've been on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse page and read the entries there, too (in the improvements section). If not, take a look and maybe direct them there.--TEHodson 03:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

About Despicible Me Plot

Hi, I thought I should run this by you first since you edit the page :). On the Despicable Me page in the plot it is mentioned: "The girls suggest going to a theme park to celebrate" however I was just watching the movie and noticed they don't suggest it to celebrate but do ask or rather beg to go (as at first they have no idea what he was exactly doing therefore they don't suggest to celebrate.) My only problem is I cannot find any evidence online to back that up (no clips of that scene per say), but do you think there could be a way to change it so it's not deceiving? If not it's fine just thought I might bring it to your attention. Thanks!

YukikoGC (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)YukikoGC

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter

The July 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Just to let you know that I've reverted you at this article. Definitions of "Ape" vary. What matters is that it doesn't improve the sentence "Rodman may be the only one able to stop them before the ape revolution ends with the apes succeeding, humanity being driven to extinction, and apes becoming the most dominant species on Earth" by adding the words "the enhanced" before "apes becoming the most dominant species on earth" - it's quite bad in either version, and will need to be rewritten thoroughly. I would suggest this as an alternative to back and forth edit warring, not that I intend to revert you should you wish to revert me again. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Heya POC. Thanks for the heads up. I thought I saw what the IP was trying to clarify there, but I think you're right in that it really doesn't add to the plot in any way (you actually beat me to a self revert, heh). And yeah the whole shebang needs a rewrite (that sentence alone is a little bit towards the run-on end of the spectrum). I have a feeling that the point the IP was trying to make will sort of clear itself up as the plot section gets more solid during its (inevitable) months of editing, bloating and re-trimming. Millahnna (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Jane Spofford

Well spotted, this editor has been a problem. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking we might want to keep a look out for anymore users named after characters in the Witches of Eastwick. After that, apparently the Craft is up for grabs. Millahnna (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Millahnna. You have new messages at Sottolacqua's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Thank you for your assistance with the IP's. DrNegative (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. That protagonist thing is a particular pet peeve of mine (as is retelling the whole plot in the cast list). I hope I got all of your edits back in place when I've had to rollback and restore. Let me know if I bork something in the process. Millahnna (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Obsessed (2009 film)

Hi Millahnna. I am retiring from Wikipedia, so would you be able to keep watching Obsesessed? You may have noticed that I've sent it to GAN, so would you be able to watch that too? Thanks, and happy editing! —Andrewstalk 02:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi there MILLAHNNA, VASCO from Portugal here,

if you have the time, could you get in touch with User:Sottolacqua about this matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sottolacqua). I don't know what did i do (NOTHING maybe?), but got zero words in feedback and he/she's been active, i find it really disrespectful (maybe an exaggerated word, but it's the only one i can think of now).

If they fail to reply (i am asking your help because you two have conversed in the last week), could you take the matters into your hands, in case you are familiar with the contents described in my message to Sotto? Sincerely, i watched the movie twice last week and there seems to have been no reference to Victor dying in the film (although his fate was more or less a "no-brainer").

Keep up the good work, don't let that love for writing die (it was pretty much all i had, and let it do just that), regards. Ah, and if you can't do anything about my request (but Sotto sure can!), please redirect me/it to the proper "jurisdiction" - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Never mind, situation solved, i guess i was a "wiki-prima donna". I did not erase this message because of the last paragraph, unrelated, but all's fine between me and Sotto, sorry for bothering you - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Millahnna. I appreciate the help with my user talk today. I hope things are well with you. See ya 'round Tiderolls 05:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is too restrictive

Hi, Millahnna, I tried out Wikipedia and have found it too restrictive -- I'm leaving to create my own open and unrestrictive wikipedia. Democratic Earth ; you can find me @ http://facebook.com/democratic.earth —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Best of luck to you then. Cheers and happy editing wherever you may go. :D Millahnna (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album)

Thanks for the backup on this. I thought semi-protecting would help curb the problem and focus editors on the talk page discussion, but a couple of autoconfirmed accounts—Uafausti (talk · contribs) and Mrkite6270 (talk · contribs)—seem to be ignoring that in favor of edit-warring. Uafausti is particularly difficult as he's broken 3RR and descended into incivility and personal attacks ([1], [2], [3], [4]). I just realized I've probably overstepped 3RR myself, something I've unfortunately allowed myself to be drawn into before, so I must tread lightly and back off a bit. Any further assistance on the matter would be greatly appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Redundant since I just posted on your talk page, but I posted at the incidents noticeboard after seeing the latest round of edits. You and the other editors on the talk page could probably clear up the backstory a little. I'm just interpreting from the edits, the sources, and the discussion what's going on that started the whole mess so I may have something wrong leading up to it. I seriously just kind of walked into that mess. I don't even like Blink 182. oops? Millahnna (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Millahnna

Thank you for restoring an edit I made to the plot summary of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (film). I noticed your edit summary and was cheered up by it. There's a lot of personal interpretation crowbarred into film synopses sometimes and, although I guess it doesn't matter much, it always annoys me. So it was great to get some help with that. Thanks. Exok (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I was just following the IP since he does a lot of stuff that is a bit of a problem and has to be cleaned up ("he is the main protagonist of the film, he is the tritagonist of the film" was how I spotted him). That sort of thing ("implies") is a bit of a peeve of mine and given how many genre films with plot twists I watch, and the fact that I'm mostly a plot summary dork, I'm constantly trying to figure out how to write around that sort of stuff. People still try to muck up the Shutter Island film article with all of the potential implications in the ending. Headdesk. I guess it's just the sort of thing that gets people, those twists. Pyjamas sounds like a cool flick; I'll have to check it out. Millahnna (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. I hadn't even looked at the talk page until now so I didn't realize what was going on. I've added the article to my watch list so I'll try to help keep an eye on it. If it gets out of hand, we can post a request for other editors to comment on WT:FILM. There's always the chance this one film is exception (given how Inception's similar edit wars went down I doubt it) and either way it will be good to have more voices for consensus (and extra eyeballs). Millahnna (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Completely great in every respect. Thank you again. Exok (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


RT is RS?

Under what criteria do you figure it is? Srobak (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You did mean Rotten Tomatoes, yes (or did I misread something when you undid the editor who added it)? It's part of standard Film reception sections. See MOS:FILM. Millahnna (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I see. Well, that angle I will leave alone then - however... as RT is "undecided" I think the commentary on Apollo18 falls under WP:OR as an "unpublished synthesis of source material", as it does not accuruately reflect the consensus status from RT, displays inaccurate rating percentages, the film is less than 12 hours old in theatres and subject to a massive change in review position. At best - posting a current standing of the film is extremely premature. Srobak (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree; it's honestly probably premature for a reception section at all, at this point. On some film's I've seen people doing most of the edits wait to include anything from RT and Metacritic until they have at least 10 reviews to base their aggregate counts on. The section will flesh out as more reviews become available, though (and RT needs to be added as an actual ref still). This early in a film's release the reception section is almost as much of a nightmare as the plot section, quite often. Just as a heads up though; I don't know if you realize that when you did your undo, you didn't actually remove the reference to Rotten Tomatoes and you restored some really bad capitalization and sentence structure the IP had cleaned up. I've been having a couple of days of realizing after the fact that what I thought I did in an edit wasn't what I did at all so I thought I'd let you know. Millahnna (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Understood - I will double check the diffs next time before I implement them. :) That being said - do you think the article would be better served to nix the reception section for the time being, or should we rely on the anonusers at large to keep it halfway accurate without fighting about it in the process? :) Srobak (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering the same thing. I don't work on those sections from scratch very often so I'm not too sure. I was just looking at the RT page and it's up to 19 reviews now so at least there's a little more to go on. Want to move this part of the conversation to the film's talk page and see what other folks have to say? I'm pretty sure there's some of the more experienced film project editors watching the page. If nothing else, I guess it's time to start plugging in individual reviews and get the refs in place the way they should be. Millahnna (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about edits

Hi Millahnna. I am the director of An American Crime. I keep changing the critical reception section of our entry to try and reflect the truth of our reviews, but it's my understanding that Wikipedia must rely on Rotten Tomatoes ratings? The problem is, those Rotten Tomatoes ratings are just a smattering of online reviews that came out when the film was at Sundance. The initial reception was definitely mixed, with Variety and Hollywood Reporter leading the negative reactions.

But when the film finally premiered, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive, led by the New York Times calling it "one of the best films to appear on television in years." I don't think we would have been able to get the nominations we got without the critical response, as Showtime was essentially dumping it at first. Then, once they realized reviewers actually liked it, they supported it in going for nominations.

I know that it's impossible for a Wikipedia entry to attempt to capture all the complexities of the film business, but I think if you look at those reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see most are not from major publications -- and they in no way square with the fact that the film was actually nominated for performances and writing. It also does not square with the high ratings the film has from viewers on imdb, Netflix, etc.

Is there any way to express this in the entry? I've tried, but it always gets changed. And it's bad enough having to see that ridiculous Rotten Tomatoes rating all the time!

Thanks for your time and help. I hope I'm doing this right.

Tommy O'Haver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.70.65 (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tommy. First, I want to say that I personally loved the movie. I used to be a bit of a true crime nerd so I was familiar with the case and I've been a huge Ellen Page fan since she was on ReGenesis a few years back. She's on my "watch anything they're in" list so I would have seen the film even if I hadn't read about the case. And while I'm thinking about it, loved Ella Enchanted too. Totally not my usual thing but it was super cute.
It's not so much that we rely on RT's ratings as we use them as a source to pull reviews from and to attempt to get a consensus for a film. There are some older films that just don't have a presence on the sites we regularly use and we have to handle reception differently in those cases. I'm a little concerned, now that you've pointed it out, that we're relying strictly on RT in this instance. Looking at their page for your film, I definitely see what you mean (and I read a fair amount of positive press before the wide release so I'm a little surprised). Only a few of those reviews are from places that we would pull a review from for most reception sections in my experience (keep in mind that's not a section I work on often in most films). Metacritic doesn't have a score for the film at all (probably because of the TV aspect) and that's usually where our "positive, mixed, negative" stuff comes from.
I'm a little late in my day to do massive research right now but I can think of a couple of things to do. The section needs fleshed out; ideally we should have a few individual reviews summarized there so that we can sort of distill the overall reaction. SO in theory we would have, say, the positive New York Times review you mention (and it looks like we use their review as a source for other things in the article already, that's just sloppy of us) and a matching mixed and/or negative review. The goal is to find reviews that seems to summarize the consensus of positive and negative points. So for example we could use the Variety review to highlight the concept of the editing having problems (I disagree with that assessment but it seems to be a common issue in the negative reviews). I recall reading praise of the cast somewhere so we could use another review to point out that angle. Basically what we need are individual reviews from reliable sources that we can use.
Some of my talk page stalkers may have some ideas (a lot of them are way more experienced than I am). I will definitely look into this over the weekend and see what I can start putting together. Even if my research only turns up stuff leading more to the negative, the section should still be fleshed out. There's much more content out there on this movie than an the handful of reviews at RT. One thing though, be careful of editing the article yourself. You totally can but you want to make sure you stay as neutral as possible becuase of conflict of interest guidelines. Millahnna (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

I am glad you like the film, and Ella as well. I'm also glad I finally reached out to someone who knows how all this works! The New York Times article referenced in the entry is actually a feature that appeared before the film premiered at Sundance. I do have a copy of the New York Times review which I could forward. That Variety review will forever remain a thorn in my side -- his comment about the editing was ridiculous. But I suppose I should be proud of a few scars.

The film was definitely polarizing in terms of reviews -- the entry should simply reflect that at the very least. I think most of the negative reviewers just found the subject matter too morbid and basically unwatchable. But, like you, I love true crime, and I know that if I wouldn't have made the film, I would probably still be a fan.

I will stay out of it from here on out. But if you need anything, let me know!

Tommy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.70.65 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I got some suggestions from the more experienced film project people on how to proceed. I think it's going to be easier than I thought. I've revamped one reception section before and it's a little tedious (you have to read a bunch of reviews and try to get a feel for the consensus and then go back to all of the reviews and find the ones that explain the positive and negative points the best). So this will likely be my weekend project. It's pretty satisfying to complete it, though. I think I found the NYT review (they had two articles about it). I've started reading the individual reviews at tomatoes and I think NYT will work for pointing out the positive (the other positive reviews pretty much praise the same things). A few of the reviews that went on the "rotten" end of things are actually more mixed than they seem at first glance. SO those will be helpful too. And since I'm rather biased in my like of the film, I'll ask some other editors to make sure I don't bork the neutrality of the article when I'm all done.
If you know of any reviews (positive, negative, whatever) that aren't online that you have scans of, you could email them to me to look at if you want. I don't think you can use the "email this user" function unless you have an account and are logged in, though. It shows up in the right side menu but I can't recall if it's under toolbox or interaction.
If you ever come to the Portland, OR area to film something, gimme a poke (I get email when someone edits this page so you can always reach me here). I'm an old school theatre geek (mix of tech and acting but I'm probably a better techie than actress) and I'd be delighted to come lug cables for your lighting guys just for the experience. I'm not union (techie, SAG or Equity), though, so legalities and all that. Plus I'm just a random nerd you found on wikipedia, so there's that. Heh. :D Millahnna (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Millahnna/Archive_4&oldid=1140404513"