User talk:Erik: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:32, 22 September 2012

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Erik! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Roald Dahl task force!

Hello, Erik, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can join!

Merry Christmas

MayhemMario is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

"X in film" articles

Hi Erik, I wonder if I could ask for a comment from you at Talk:James Bond (film character)#Yet another deletion process. regarding the "X in film" concept and what it is and isn't supposed to be. I appear to be trying to explain the concept to some closed minds and an explanation from others may help loosen the thinking processes slightly! Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shared my thoughts. James Bond is a different figure from superheroes since he is more defined through the films than through the comics. So I can see why the different topics seem the same. Still, I think the content should come first, and we can always regroup the content based on what is available. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FILM discussion

Hi. I was wondering if I could ask for a comment from you on WT:FILM#Cast in lead and see what your opinions are on this matter. I am trying to help improve Princess Mononoke to GA status, but there are some concerns regarding whether we should use the cast members in the lead section per WP:MOSFILM#Lead. I am also concerned that an IP who edits the article claims to have a consensus regarding the use of "awards" vs. "accolades" (as indicated in this edit but when I tried to search for a discussion regarding a possible consensus, I unfortunately could not find any discussion about this matter. I was only trying to seek advice from other project members on how to improve the article as a whole, but I was accused of wikilawyering by the IP (which I did not intend to do), and I promptly apologized and explained my intentions, and a further explanation from you may help solve this matter. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is probably referring to this passage, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus," meaning that's the way it has been for a while. I don't think it really applies anyway since the article has not gotten much good attention historically. In general, "Accolades" is the most appropriate catch-all term, but "Awards" can still work if everything under it are really awards. Examples of non-award accolades would be something like being on AFI's Top 100. I would say not to press the issue and work on other aspects of the article. If there are additional disputes, start a discussion on the film article's talk page. I've watchlisted the article so I can weigh in. Hope you've been well! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 02:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and helpful advice, Erik. I have been doing very well! Also, I was concerned about the plot section as well, since I find it to be accurate, but I felt that it may need to be rewritten and I was trying to help clean up the plot summary's grammar as clearly indicated in the article's history and in the WT:FILM discussion. Once again, please accept my apologies for what I have done. By the way, I am working on the article in my sandbox and have offered some additional ideas here. :-) Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just so you are aware, we are trying to come up with a compromise in the plot section's ending regarding San and Ashitaka, as recently discussed here. I have already requested Betty Logan to weigh in on this as well. Any ideas or suggestions for a compromise? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think the plot summary needs much attention. Such sections are never immutable, where the other sections, once you write and expand them into strong, well-cited passages, tend to be permanent. It may help to add more content to the article body in general, especially to indicate to the editor that you want to add value and not change things for the sake of changing things (which I suspect is what he thinks). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Thanks. It's always thoughtful if I seek your opinion about this matter since I was only trying to help the IP understand certain rules and explain my motives and come up with a basic compromise as well, even though the IP says that he has been here for 6-7 years and says that he knows the "system" as well as indicated in the discussion, despite his limited command of English. On another note, I am going to add the themes section as well in the article and also, the reception section needs to be heavily rewritten as well, with box office records and commentary from film critics. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my email with a list of references for Princess Mononoke? Wanted to make sure. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Thanks again, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have been expanding upon the critical reception in my sandbox as well to include critical reviews and am trying to get the production section in chronological order, including pre-production, design, and also, I am planning to extensively the music section as well. However, we may have to remove some websites that fail reliable sources, apart from Nausicaa.net. Thoughts or ideas on improvements? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Erik, re Gladiator, thanks, does nicely. Your user name, you must have got it pretty early for such a simple and relatively common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunswicknic (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure about Gladiator! As for my user name, it was actually already registered, but nobody was using it. I was able to usurp it for myself. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can I ask, have you ever commented on a diacritics RM before? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know your level of familiarity with the subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with foreign-language film titles that have had them, and actor/filmmaker articles to a lesser extent. I don't recall commenting on a Vietnamese-language topic before, though. Let me know if there is a difference. Labattblue seemed to indicate this, which I understand, but I think that there are good points made about how English-language reliable sources mention the topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for this reply. Sorry to alarm you with the "timing" thing. You're right, should be careful how one says these things.

Film names, as I recall, they are either in English (normally) or in French/Czech with full accents in the rare cases when they haven't been internationally released. So not an area where diacritics arise I take it?

As regard the current wording of WP:DIACRITICS I'm just a bit tired of having the same conversation 100x. It's an old chestnut, every single Frenchman who gets his name Britishized on en.wp has that current wording of "WP:DIACRITICS" cited, but it's been edit-warred, like this etc.. Not sure why we should be following the on-top edits of a User blocked for his extreme xenonymophobic views. Was mentioning this nonsense only this morning with a Romanian editor following an attempt to Britishize a Romanian feminist writer. It's just very old and very tiring, and even more tiring now that (the odd Romanian case excepted) its so totally focussed on Vietnamese (which is what Labattblueboy meant, Vietnamese are ^[why?] the exception to the way we treat other Latin alphabet foreigners). I just wish someone would have a go at Chloë Sevigny's name instead of picking on foreigners.

Yeay I know, I'm evidently cheesed off with the subject, hence dumping on your talk page not on the RM. Frankly whatever with the Ho Chi Minh Prize. If you really want to move it go ahead and close it. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Very kind and collegial of you to alert me to a post in which I was discussed without my knowledge. I appreciate having had the change to respond! Much regards, Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you opened your statement more amicably. I don't think it is a good opening to suggest that the editor was up to no good for asking for help elsewhere. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to show NPOV when Critics dislike a film, and audiences love a film?

Erik, I see this a s serious issue. When you have a film, like Last Ounce of Courage, that has gotten nothing but terrible reviews from "professionals", but nothing but praise from audiences, how do you reflect this in articles? It seems illogical to allow the comments and aggreate ratings of "critics" in froma page, like Rotten Tomatos, but no comments or ratings from audiences....the only difference here is one is paid, the other is not....the opinion of one person of a film should not be more important that the opinion of 1000's or tens of 1000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.99 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manchurian Candidate/Lincoln Subtext Research

INFO TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF A LINCOLN SUBTEXT SECTION. [edit]

"The Manchurian Candidate" (1962) http://www.imdb.com/media/rm977372160/tt0056218

Dude, http://www.filmsite.org/manc2.html

Senator Iselin is reflected off the glass covering a portrait of Lincoln - juxtaposing the ghostly-thin, anti-Communist with a stalwart American from another era, as he fixes himself a drink. As a spineless puppet, Senator Iselin complains to his wife that he can't keep the number of Communists straight in the Defense Department: "I mean, the way you keep changing the figures on me all the time. It makes me look like some kind of a nut, like an idiot." She holds up a newspaper and proclaims:

Raymond's vicious, overly-smothering mother - sitting next to a bust of Lincoln and in front of a fireplace portrait of Lincoln - sabotages his relationship and potential marriage plans with the daughter of one of his step-father's political foes - she labels Jocie "a Communist tart." She interprets his romance as dangerous to her own plans, and maternally 'brainwashes' him to give her up:

http://www.filmsite.org/manc3.html

The celebration opens with images of American patriotism gone mad - there is a closeup of an American flag - a hand reaches out and defaces the flag with a trowel-like shovel. It scoops up the caviar from the star pattern onto a cracker to be devoured. The hand belongs to Johnny Iselin, who is dressed with a tall stove-pipe hat and fake beard as Abe Lincoln. He excuses his desecration: "It's all right, it's Polish caviar." Mrs. Shaw, who appears as Little Bo Peep (or Mother Goose?), reaches out with her long staff and pulls his arm - an apt metaphor for her controlling nature. Raymond, who is costumed as a Spanish gaucho, is extremely nervous about meeting his long-lost girlfriend.

The scene in the study between Raymond and his mother begins with a close-up of a black bust of patriotic father figure Abraham Lincoln - one of many such witty image compositions and motifs in the film (visually linking Iselin to Honest Abe). Raymond's mother divulges that she is his American controller - an agent for the Reds: "Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?" When he comes upon the Queen of Diamonds, she is unexpectedly called away and takes the card as a precaution. Jocelyn, however, finds Raymond in the study and is reunited with him - she is coincidentally (and improbably!) dressed as the Queen of Diamonds - the most appealing costume possible for him! After embracing, they depart to elope, and leave behind her card costume.

--johncheverly (talk) 7:25 pm, Today (UTC−4)johncheverly9/21/12/7:23pm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)

johncheverly (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)johncheverly9/21/12/8:30pm[reply]