If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure that spoiler that guy posted is just bull and he hasn't ruined anything for you.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hope so. I have read that the script has been leaked. Also some people have seen the film. The page is protected until May, so that should help. Thanks. —Mike Allen 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've been on all kinds of Scream sites lately for research, if the script had leaked it'd be huge news. There have been test screenings. I won't go into details because anything I say could imply other things but from what I've heard at least, what he wrote is wrong because I've not read anything about fan complaints concerning that character and any poster. If anything it was complaints about a trailer and another character that revealed too much. So yeah, I think it was just someone trying to be clever and make up fake news. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, just so its not spoilt for you, that edit on the Prescott page, if you read that magazine, its a lie.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see it. I'm trying to stay away of videos and info being released. I basically spoiled Saw 3D by watching every video, interview, reading Saw forums, etc. Lol —Mike Allen 22:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you could spoil Saw 3D, not been so disappointed with a film in a long time, or a franchise. All went downhill from 3. But yeah, the important part of Scream is the mystery which is why I don't understand the like 100 video clips they've released of it, which I've done my best to avoid, but from comments about them, are spoiling the hell out of it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah pretty much knew that if Gordon was brought back he would play a role in the whole game too. But didn't think they would go the route of all the YouTube theories 4 years ago. LOL And from reading everything, I already knew that Bobby was a fraud, Jill would be put in the RBT, that her getting smashed by a go-kart was a dream, etc. Yeah the whole movie was bad. I guess they are releasing as much as possible on Scream 4 to make sure people KNOW it's coming out since it has been 10 years since 3. I've just watched the first 2 trailers, and the TV spots on TV (not my choice). —Mike Allen 23:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't really follow Saw media, after like....5 I gave up on thinking it was great and it just doesn't work without Bell being alive. Even so, as soon as I saw Dagen in his first scene I knew he was faking, it just seemed badly written and the whole police station massacre is so not what these films were about. And yeah, Gordon being involved was so obvious, you don't bring him back for any other reason since there was no way he coud have lived without help. I'm glad its over tbh so it can stop damaging itself, which sucks because I was a really big fan during the first three.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah they were and I wasn't expecting it and my request for protection was ignored so I either know who the killer(s) are or I don't because it doesn't make sense from the things I've read. I'm going to try and watch it today in like 2 hours (alone :( can't get anyone to go) so I can check that crap, but yeah you're right, treat it like the plague for now and stay far away, always some jackass trying to run everyones fun.

And definitely stay away from List of Scream characters, single IP keeps adding stuff, I keep removing it as unsourced while trying to not look at exactly what he has written but its the same guy so I know its bad whatever it is.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Saw it, its good, better than 3 and 2 at least, not better tahn 1. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

So were you spoiled? I knew as soon as Sydney couldn't find "her".. lol. It was good though. The dialogue was funny and I liked the opening scenes. I was like WTF TWICE? The plot needs a copyedit and toned down.. run on sentences galore. lol —Mike Allen 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was spoiled because some jackass IP felt it was necessary to post that a day before the film came out, like it would make his dick bigger the earlier he posted it. I hate that about Wikipedia. But I ignored it and just made myself believe it was speculation because it didn't make sense and by the time it was over it still didn't make sense, the shorter-killer (try to avoid names for anyone reading your page) was a weak ass villain and had no relationship with Sid so I didn't care about him at all, the other was OK but not much compared to Billy and Stu and they went ridiculous on making people act suspicious. That "one" character who is making shifty eyes, vague threats and generally acting like a serial killer for the entire film so much that you know it won't be him. I don't know I'm conflicted about it, its better than 3, I think its better tahn 2 but it seems like a lot of stuff was cut out and I don't know why but Woodsboro seemed fake. But if I'm right they didn't shoot in the same place (also, now I realise Sidney didn't mention nor go visit her father...hmmm...), but it didn't seem to still have the same small town, isolated vibe, most of the houses had neighbours to the side and across the street compared to say Stu, Casey and Sidney's house and I felt like Ghostface seemed watered down (no way in hell either of them could throw a grown girl through a door) with the voice app. And if they're basing themselves on Billy and Stu, itd be nice to get some references in there, Dewey never mentions Tatum and the Scream killers don't seem to get much recognition for starting it all.

So it was decent, but there was a good chunk that just fell flat and could've been a lot better and I assume will be filled out on the DVD when they restore all the cut scenes.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Damn! I tried to warn you. Sorry. Yeah I thought it was him and Judy.. but then I'm like they are making it sooo obvious, so it can't be them. Then it thought it was Rebecca. Lol. SPOILER: I can not BELIEVE all of fucking cast died, but the original three and Judy. All new characters for Scream 5, if it happens. And then I'm sure one or all of the main three will be killed. They have to. They can't keep surviving.. as much as I would like them too lol. And was Robbie really gay? I thought it was funny that, you know he played Daniel Matthews in Saw II and they were bashing Saw in the movie. LOL —Mike Allen 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

ANYONE READING THIS, THERE BE SPOILERS HERE DO NOT READ ON IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN SCREAM 4: Oh yeah that was Daniel Matthews. I'm not great with faces. Yeah I was surprised mostly because I was under the impression that the old guard wouldn't die but would be pushed aside (Seriously, I rolled my eyes when she stabbed Sidney, after everything shes been through, no way does that punk finish her off, she just stood there) for the new guard but EVERY SINGLE NEW GUARD bit it. Every last one and if Kirby survived so what? Why would people target her? It was awkward because Gale and Deweys stories are like D or E stories, they're so small because they're building these new characters up...I can only imagine this is what all the rewrites were about because when this was getting off the ground she was coming home for her dads funeral and it was a new trilogy and etc, etc, etc and now we're back where we were 11 years ago except Sidney can beat the crap out of Ghostface. But still stands there and gets stabbed. I think maybe Robbie was gay, its hard obviously since I can't rewind and check and you miss stuff but I've read he makes an odd expression when they say that you have to be gay to survive. I'm a bit concerned at this point that they're going to end up like SAW. I thought 2 and 3 were blips but they introduced a whole bunch of write-off characters in this, the only one I would've liked to see more of was Kirby, and while I don't want Sidney to die, they can't keep doing this to her if not because it strains believability more than bringing Randy back, because anyone whos been through all this would CARRY A FUCKING GUN with them at all times. Plus there were tonnes of opportunity for people to dial 911 too. They need to tighten that writing up big time. I don't think SPOILER: Jill even did anything with all the VIDEO EVIDENCE of her crimes lying around (though maybe you can't see her in that so it doesn't matter). I'd prefer them to just look at Scream and remember what worked instead of Saw where they flat out forgot what it was about. Scream isn't gods gift but everyone had a genuine relationship and so you care about what is happening to them and Ghostface SEEMED scary, I don't know what they did here, I can't put my finger on it but they made him seem...well..weak, like they were literally kids in costumes instead of say Lillard and Ulrich who were tall and built and were quite clearly capable of the physical feats required of them.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I remember him making that face, but what I was saying is when he was getting stabbed, he goes "I'm gay, if that helps". I just wanted to make sure, in case someone adds it on his character page and someone think it's vandalism. He really said it, but not sure if he meant it.. I really liked Hayden's character Kirby. She was funny and real. We didn't see her die, so I'm sure of 5 is made she will be the main character. It does make sense now, that Ghostface was pretty weak. It was SMALL teenagers in the costume. I thought at times Sydney had too much power, but she's been through it 3 times already. I kind of thought she had died (or was going to leave it a cliffhanger). Then at the hospital, I figured she would walk through the door. I have no idea what the plot for Scream 5 (and 6) could be... —Mike Allen 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you can prove one way or another he was gay unless someone says it, it makes sense since there hasn't been a gay character in Scream before and I do think he was (though I think he said he loved Gale) but its basically up to interpretation though he flat out says "I'm gay...if that helps" and that sounds like an admission to me. With Kirby its kind of hard because they never mention her surviving so there will be some cheese involved in saying she survived. And I liked Sidney being powerful, earlier scenes were scary but that was the first time in the movie I got the old school intensity back and I loved it because it seemed natural for her to be tired of that shit and just go kick their ass. The ending was pretty decent, Jill had a lot more power than she should have had and no real reason for her psychosis but her fight with Sid was brutal and I loved, LOVED how she mirrored Sid when she thought she was dead, I thought that was a really great moment that represented what she was trying to achieve. And I think with the scripts now, to protect secrecy, they literally don't know who the killer is going to be. You could pretty much reveal any two people under those masks come the ending because I'm fairly sure they picked who they wanted it to be when they got to it. Jill has no build up but at least they thought of a motivation, you could've replaced Charlie with the other film guy, Judy, Kirby, any random individual and had it mean the same thing. Though two girls would have been a nice twist, but I guess you need at least one guy for the physical power.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Although current sources state otherwise, Casey Novak was infact censured not disbarred. ADA Kim Grelek did say she was disbarred, but obviously producers have changed their mind. [1] <-- A recent intervew with Diane Neal that may explain to you a little better :)

Oh and also Mike Allen, I know that it's informal to have a source, like I have just provided, (temporarily) but if you can remember back to the 17th episode of SVU season 12, how in the EADA Sonya Paxton section, around the time of the airdate of the episode, it was revealed that the character was killed. I didn't believe that, until you showed me the only real source at the time, which was also a Youtube video. Thank You :) If you have anything you would like to say, please feel free to take it up with me on my talk page :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, just quickly, I believe in New York for example, You cannot be disbarred and then 3 years later return...It dosen't work like that...Thats to my understanding, correct me if I am wrong ;) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The March 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) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mike, if you have time please check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scream_(film_series)#Contacting_Marco_Beltrami

I may be able to get in touch with Marco Beltrami himself for the Scream article. Could use input. Thanks for reading Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi MikeAllen :) Sorry to bother you, I was just wondering what is exactly going to happen to the SVU season 12 article once the season has finished? Will it be changed to the layout that the previous seasons have on their articles? Or will it be kept the way it is now?... Sorry, Im just curious. :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Like what other articles? Like Season 1-10? I would hope not. :) —Mike Allen 21:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Depending if you go as far with this as you did Saw 3D, here are some pics from the film premiere you might find useful.

• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000g7yxz
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000g4e7r
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000g5b91
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000g6g9x
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000h5ez6 (Oh Courteney, what have you done to your face)
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000g998a
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gafy6
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000ge5t2
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gbpy7
• http://i56.tinypic.com/2a0cj6f.jpg
• http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljiw8ew9jj1qcjou8o1_500.jpg
• http://i51.tinypic.com/1znmn4j.jpg
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gf99e
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000ggtwa
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gkehz
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000grx6a
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gqtb5
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gcrp3
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000ghrby
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gpbhw
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gtfz6
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000h66hz (Good one, had Craven, Cox and Campbell)
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gx654 (Teegarden, Brie and Shelton)
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000gwq0s (Roberts and Tortorella)
• http://pics.livejournal.com/dedebee/pic/000h7zk2 (Roberts and Hayden (Not trying to spell that last name)
• bunch of em http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/58252330.html

Looking at those pics, this does not bode well, most generic gathering of actors (New generation) I've seen in a long time. I've saved the pics in case they go down if you need them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure they are all copyrighted. :( I find pictures on Flickr and if they are copyrighted, it's easier to message the author and ask if they will release it under a free license. Who is the author to these images? —Mike Allen 00:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm...following the source it goes to wireimage. So:

• • http://www.hayden-photos.com/index.php?cat=66
  • http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/_e37lv1NkO7/Premiere+Weinstein+Company+Scream+4+Red+Carpet
  • http://wireimage.com/ItemListings.aspx?igi=493395&nbc1=1 - Lots of different authors if I'm viewing it right

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here's the Flickr search, but something tells me that "London film premiere" won't go with releasing any image under CC-BY-SA. But sometimes, you may be surprised. —Mike Allen 00:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

They don't have any particularly good photos anyway. That's a shame, I thought you were protected under fair use for stuff like that. Lame. Was dead excited to have access to all those great photos particularly the group ones. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah it's a touchy and sometimes confusing 'issue'. Articles are allowed to have fair use images, but not too many and only if there is critical commentary about the image. The film poster is being used under fair use (but there are people that are trying to restrict or change that!) as the poster represents the film as a whole. Since it is possible (even if not likely) that images of people can be released under a free license, that is preferred over "fair use". Unless the image is portraying something meaningful for the article (like a costume design, see here), can't be otherwise be obtained via a free image and has a strong fair use rationale---then it could be used as fair use. lol —Mike Allen 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

People on Wiki or film studios trying to change the use of posters? That's fairly ridiculous, they're slammed on phone boxes and bus stops, you can't possibly claim that any use of them is infringing on your rights. Sigh, copyright. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've seen discussion in the past here. I don't think it went anywhere though..

See Wikipedia:Future Films Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

What awards do we recognise for the films? On the List of Scream cast members page I took into account the Blockbuster Entertainment Awards because it was kinda sparse without them, I think there may have been a teen choice award in there as well. Obviously you can't cite them as having any particular significant like say an Oscar or even a Saturn but do we note them? It's mostly important because I've made the claim that Scream 2 fared worse with awards than Scream but if you include the lesser ones, I think it actually has quite a few more.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not really sure, but I would assume if an award has a Wikipedia article then it's been deem "notable". —Mike Allen 01:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense. The Blockbuster Entertainment Awards exists as a link on Wiki but it just goes to the article on Blockbuster the business which has no information about it at all. .

Do you think these sections should be on the page - Pre-season and Format? AJona1992 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't know.. it may be different this season? —Mike Allen 00:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was considering breaking the soundtracks (at the moment 1 and 2 as they have a decent chunk of info and sources) into separate articles, potentially called Scream (soundtrack) and Scream 2 (soundtrack) but I was thinking of using the article to have both Soundtrack and Released Score information, kinda like thus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darkwarriorblake#Scream_.28soundtrack.29 but neater obviously.

Was wondering if you have an opinion on that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me, if you think and can show that the soundtracks are notable to have their own articles? By notable, I guess that would mean award nominations/wins, background of the writing and development. I don't know though---people make soundtrack article stubs all the time and it doesn't get AFD. If there is no soundtrack production details it can be placed on the film article and if the album has too many tracks, it can be collapsed. I'm just skeptical about having a separate article for everything.. the reader may not come back to the main article if there are forks of other ones scattered everywhere (not saying the Scream articles are doing that). —Mike Allen 00:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I only know I put Scream 3: The Album up for AFD because it had been a stub for like 6 years and they all said keep. I might leave it for the moment, see if anyone complains. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mariska Hargitay to quit Law & Order SVU Should this be mentioned? And if so, the scary thing is, is that it goes with the episode summary of the season finale : "Detectives Benson and Stabler investigate a case where a woman scheduled to testify in a high-profile rape case is murdered. As an end result, one of them may wind up paying the ultimate price." :0 -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It comes from the National Enquirer.. so no. Wait til, and if, it's available in mainstream sources. —Mike Allen 08:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hope it doesn't come out in Mainstream...don't want her to leave...or anyone else to leave...except Gillian :| -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

...Do you know how to get an Ip blocked on here? The same guy keeps reverting info concerning Mrs. Loomis in the Sidney, Character and Scream 2 articles ala http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Scream_characters&diff=426213331&oldid=426122195 . It's like the people who can't accept that the villain of 4 was shot to death not electrocuted except this guy just will not stop. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can report them to WP:AIV, but they won't be able to block for long because of possible collateral damage. —Mike Allen 23:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bah, I like Wiki but it really needs to sort something out so that people who positively contribute don't have to spend chunks of time searching through edits and undoing crap all the time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know what you mean. I get discouraged very often, lately. Remember to assume good faith.. LOL.  ;-) —Mike Allen 11:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think this is why I stopped editing a long time ago. Years ago I used to do a lot on the DBZ articles (but I was new, I know now that they were pretty FAN-like rather than sourced) and got disheartened when all that work was just erased (which it does warn you of before you make an edit). The hardest part is the tiny edits, things you can barely notice and sometimes (i don't know if it is just me) wiki loads REALLY slow, so checking 8 edits by the same user get's tedious very fast. I do think some things, especially articles that are expected to undergo constant editing like a soon-to-be or newly released film should have protection from IP edits and unconfirmed users for the period of their release, nothing wrong with being preemptive, it's just common sense. Scream 4 and most of the other Scream articles have calmed down now TWO WEEKS ON, so why they couldn't protect the articles I asked for two weeks instead of 24 hours...it's a silly thing to make life easier for everyone. I changed the plot on Thor, that's been a better experience, people seem to largely be leaving the plot alone and I'm purposely not getting invested in the rest of the article so I don't have to concern myself with it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with protecting a week before a film is released and about a month after. That's usually the time where IPs vandalize or add unsourced statements. But now if that happened, this wouldn't be the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit".  ;-) —Mike Allen 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

There should be limits though, I don't think asking for two weeks of protection for high risk articles is a lot. Look at Scream 4 and Ghostface. It was anonymous IPs that posted the identities of the killers a day before the film was even out, for reasons either selfish or selfless it doesn't really matter, it's a very, very bad thing that harms regular contributors as it did me and if I had the power I'd block that particular IP until the end of eternity. And when I went to ask for protection I got 24 hours, both times, at which point I gave up and just dealt with reverting vandalism myself. And Fast Five, again I've not invested myself much intentionally but I rewrote the plot to cut out the fat, but the ridiculous edits being made to that thing; people changing the budget and gross and arguing over nicknames and junk and it's almost entirely IP based and at a higher level than it probably was for Scream 4. It just seems sensible to offer that limited protection (After all they can still sign up and mess it up after only 10 edits) so that contributors don't have this mountain of edits to check whenever they come by just to make sure someone hasn't slipped one single character into the middle of a huge wall of text to be a jerk. I don't know what Scream 4 did to get the lengthy protection it has had but I think two weeks is fair for any film/game/music/book/comic article that is to be released and is expected to be popular and thus attract a lot of idiots. That is the main reason I'm not investing myself in other articles until I finish the Scream ones, it's a huge amount of effort tracking the minor vandalism. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just discovered the page view tool, that makes me feel a little better, knowing half a million people have looked at Scream in the last month and it's had few changes, so the work I've put in is being seen and hopefully appreciated by a lot of people. Should see the spike the day after 4 comes out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

People kept adding unsourced cast members and character names for Scream 4 and it got protected for almost a year. :-) Fast Five is a train wreck (the article), people were copy and pasting from other sites for the box office analyst, the cast, etc etc. I've been cleaning up and reverting for a week. I thought you knew about the page view tool??? I always check it for pages I work on. :P —Mike Allen 22:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nah, I wondered if there was such a tool but I never look far on Wiki, it's a chore to get through some stuff, too much reading to find a small link you're after. But it's made me feel better. Course then I got Ruhrfisch's peer review, but it wasn't so bad, almost done all the changes then hopefully take it to GAC. And Fast Five needs serious protection, I thought Scream would but FF is just, as you say, a train wreck, I rewrote the plot but people are obsessed about adding car models and such. It's a shame though because some of the IPs are making useful edits, but its like a 15 to 1 ratio of bad to good. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I also just discovered Twinkle, makes things more fun. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for all your kind help in dealing with the ongoing vandalism of the mentioned article. Vandal apparently has a strong hatred for subject and has been vandalizing article for over a year. I feel that page should have permanent protection.--XLR8TION (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll be filing for protection if it happens again. Very strange individuals in this world. —Mike Allen 00:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The April 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) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

What became of the preemptive protection arguement? Just seemed to be "policy says this". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I said it best here. Semi protection is apparently OK, but PP is definitely NOT. To be honest I didn't really care for the PP. To reject a change you had to go through 4 (FOUR) different pages! Bump that. It does need some more work.. —Mike Allen 21:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hell I only did one PP today on Thor I think and I realised immediately that it was an annoying prospect. I'd rather have them request changes on the talk page than deal with that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

LOL. Yes it is a useful feature, just poorly executed at the moment. Which is perhaps the reason the majority of people do not want it to be used at the moment. Not sure, I haven't read through alllll the loooooong pages of teeeexxxt. I bet you the next time I jump into something like that, I will. :P Carry on. —Mike Allen 05:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, how are you meant to go about getting permission to use a photo again? I want to use http://www.flickr.com/photos/nachrichtenmuenchen/5670442149/ though anything from here http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=fast+five+premiere&m=text#page=2 would be good but only two people have pics, Nachistrhi-something and Dwayne-johnson-something and their pics are "All Rights Reserved". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good afternoon, or night.. where ever you're at. I was just about to head to your page. I was wondering on what basics did you change the Scream template's color to this reddish color? :-\ We have to respect the color blind. Also, did you add this review for Scream 4? It appears to be a "film critic" from The University of Buffalo--so I removed it. I'll email you about your Flickr query. —Mike Allen 23:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was already red, a really neon red, it was the box type that was broken, once I fixed the box the colour started working. And I don't think I did anything to Scream 4 except for the plot and adding that soundtrack info.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I read color before I changed the box, I mean as far as I can tell it's clear since even if you're red color blind the text is still readable. But maybe I'm missing something Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmm I see. It wasn't showing the old color of the template when I went back in the history, the diff showed you changed it from "red" to hex color codes. I've never even noticed it having color. You're right, the color is probably soft enough for the color blind. I am just wondering why it needs color at all? —Mike Allen 00:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because I like fancy things. No it did have color in it's code, it was set to "red" but because it was set as "Horror Navbox" the color didn't work for whatever reason. When I just removed the "horror" part, color started working. I don't mind the color being removed, I just liked how it looked on Scream (film), moving from red to blue to gold. I'm big into aesthetics. http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html this shows you if your contrast is compliant or not but I don't know how to get the color code for the active and visited link to see if they are compliant to AA. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Whats goody? Anyways, I have read your edit summaries and even though you're 100% right, I don't know why they keep adding Facebook as a reliable source, I have found this [2] - the website reveals three of the seven "bad girls" of season seven's surnames. I didn't add this, because I'm not too sure its a reliable source, you feel? AJona1992 (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It looks like they used the Oxygen press release and then added the last names. The press release doesn't include any last names. Does Oxygen even release last names, it's usually first names and a 'nickname'? I'm not sure about PopTower. Might as well use it as a source since people are going to be including last names and everything else without a source. —Mike Allen 03:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oxygen promotes them with their first and nickname. I'll go ahead and do that now, but if it ever comes up as an issue I guess I'll just remove them, until further sources appear. This can lower further vandalism from IPs though. Take care bud :) AJona1992 (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Regarding the question you asked me in your edit summary when you reverted my edits, "you do know that the WP:LEAD summarizes the whole article. Not just bits and pieces. Have a look GA or FA biographies", please be advised that edit summaries are not for arguing with other editors. They are for summarizing your edits, and citing whatever policies are directly relevant to them. Discussion with other editors should be conducted on talk pages.

Regarding WP:LEAD, it states quite clearly on that policy page that the Lead is to be a a summary of the article's most important aspects. Hargitay is most well-known for her role on SVU, and for being the daughter of Mansfield and Hargitay. These are not "bits and pieces", but the things for which she is notable. She is not notable for being an alumna of UCLA, how old she was when she got there, or being married to Peter Hermann. By contrast, Angelina Jolie has indeed been in the press for her relationships and her charity work as much as for her screen time, so including mention of those things in her Lead is apt. There is no mention, however, of any details of her schooling in that section.

Granted, there may be some element of subjectivity as to precisely which details are salient enough for the Lead, so as a compromise, I left in her status as a former beauty queen, her TV and movie debuts and her founding of the JHF, but I removed the details her schooling, since I sincerely believe that it's a bit of overkill. I hope I struck a middle ground between the amount of detail originally in that section, and the amount I initially reduced it to. Let me know what you think. If necessary, we can discuss it further, and invite others to join in. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that you thought I was arguing with you, that was not my intent. I felt that's what I needed to say in the edit summary, and if you reverted, I wasn't going to revert back. I think you are right in the sense that I did go little overboard with the details in the summary. It's great the way it is now, so there's no need to bring anyone else into this over a lead section. Thanks for coming by and explaining your reason. —Mike Allen 04:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, hope you're doing well. As you're probably aware, the IP vandalism related to language and company information continues. I think we should centralize our effort combating this kind of IP vandalism. Sjones23 (talk · contribs) reported a recent IP vandal, so I was thinking we should have a task force to coordinate new addresses and newly targeted articles. You can use User:Erik/Draft for details and its talk page for discussions and notifications. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh! Thanks for letting me know Erik. Should we add all IPs are editing in that pattern, or just blocked ones? —Mike Allen 03:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think we should list blocked IP addresses on the sub-page. We can use the talk page to give a heads-up about suspicious patterns or to request help cleaning up an IP vandal's contributions. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit, you state in the edit summary "...tables are only used to display multiple items, the Upcoming films don't have a box office/gross, etc and will be moved into the main tables once released...". Is this policy or your preference? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, what's the point in using a table to list the film and release date? When I made the page, I just listed everything in bullet points, then I decided to include the film's gross and budget so I thought using sortable tables would work well for that. I don't see the need in using tables for the upcoming films, because using bullet points work just fine listing the release date. Also when you made the tables, you completely wiped out the upcoming 2011 films. Thanks for improving the table codes, I had just used basic wikicode. —Mike Allen 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no 'policy' on the use of tables. It falls under the manual of style guideline, which states, "Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." —Mike Allen 01:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to wipe out 2011 (think it was 2012). Oops. I formatted List of Paramount Pictures films similarly. The rationale:

• Editors arriving with new info will not see a good place to put it and walk, leaving Wikipedia with one less good edit.
• The empty boxes invite info.
• As editors do add info, e.g. "...Untitled Sam Raimi Horror Project..." and "...(limited)...", it is unformatted, and creates extra work when making the tables.
• Why not? The tables are easy read due to the columnar layout, and due to consistency with tables above. The empty cells tell their own story.

The case of List of Paramount Pictures films worked out very well. I suggest, if it's okay with you, doing an experiment by using the tables on upcomings for a couple of months to see if new info lands that expands the tables in a way that it might otherwise not have. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

(Note how much more expansion Paramount upcomings have received.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

One more... I just read "...If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice...". again. There is an advantage. The guidlines likely refers to data that will not expand horizontally. In this case, it will, thus providing the "obvious benefit". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well I don't control the page, and you obviously see a benefit in using the tables.. I was just going by the table guidelines. I notice that the upcoming films for Paramount are mostly unsourced. ComingSoon.net has the upcoming films listed on their site with a release date, which is what I use for Lionsgate. People before were just dumping all kind of films (mostly sequels) with no source for verification. I check almost daily for release date changes and new Lionsgate films. However, Lionsgate is a smaller company compared to Paramount and easier to track. —Mike Allen 02:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. Good points. You've got me worried about the validity of the Paramount upcoming entries. I'll check and see using your rather nice comingsoon site.

Why don't we re-add the tables and see how it goes for a short while. If it accumulates a lot of false content -- experiment over-- back to bullets. Would that be okay? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is that a yes? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oops sorry. Yes that's ok with me. :) —Mike Allen 23:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Sorry to appear insistent. I'm not trying to bully the page. I'm just curious to see if it works out. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you got File Mover privileges, does that mean you can move pages too? I want to move Fast Five (film) to Fast Five, I know you can ask an admin but figured it'd be easier to ask you if you are able. Btw, thanks for that flickr email, not heard back yet but if he turns it down the guy would have to be a d-bag Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can move pages. Since Fast Five is a disambiguation page, I'm not sure if we can make the film the primary topic. Not really sure.. better ask on WT:FILM. —Mike Allen 01:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well it's currently under debate for moving. Fast Five should really be moved to Fast Five (disambiguation) but Fast Five (film) should be the primary topic as the other disam links are to it's soundtracks, a band that I question should be there and a consulting firm which wouldn't b e the primary target of people searching for Fast Five. I think I'll just wait it out now though, not long till the debate will be closed and everyone is in favour so farDarkwarriorblake (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey fwend, need to ask your advice. I have User:Rusted AutoParts complaining because I disagree about his addition to the plot of Fast Five (film). Basically he wants to add the follow:

"The team go their seperate ways. Tego and Rico go to Monte Carlo where they lose their share in a game of roulette. Tej and Roman return to Miami, with Tej opening up his garage. Han and Gisele are seen driving through Berlin, eventually heading to Tokyo."

I only had "The team go their separate ways". He's arguing it's important to the plot but I argue otherwise, those characters are all minor background players and where they go and what they do with their money isn't important to anything in the plot that the absence of such information makes the rest of the plot difficult to understand. Am I wrong here? What do you think? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not. The team go their separate ways is enough.. the rest is plainly extraneous details. Tell them that Wikipedia's plot summaries should be concise and to the point, not go into every detail of the film. —Mike Allen 21:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

From what I can tell they aren't exactly a noob user though so I don't get why they don't understand. I told him on his talk page anyway, also told him he can report me for my "violation". Thanks for the feedback.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I don't see how she could have been considered an inexperienced actress with eight years of stand-up persona development. I'm not opposed to replacing that, but it seems kind of silly in retrospect, considering how many awards she won. Dualus (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you're correct, I hadn't really thought about those years as a stand-up comedian. For an "inexperienced actress" she did a solid job for a first major role on television. (But that's obviously my POV. lol) —Mike Allen 08:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I also took out some surgeries from the 1990s. If they were still an issue in her personal life, I'd be fine with them, but I can't imagine they are at this point. Again, I'm not opposed to replace if you can think of a reason to replace them, but they just don't seem like the kind of thing I expect in an encyclopedia. Dualus (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

She never kept the surgeries secret and still talks about them (mostly warning against it). You can basically see her transform on her show from season to season. Maybe adding that she regrets (if I can find the citation) having them, which will show that it is relevant to her biography. I wondered why the article spiked to 11.5k views on May 17. Now I'm discovering the New York Magazine write up.. what a read. —Mike Allen 09:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do disagree with combining the personal life and early life sections. All biographies here separate the sections, with the early life at the very top and personal life at the bottom. It's just too much to read in one section. See Angelina Jolie which is a featured article.—Mike Allen 09:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thank you. I'll break that section back up and put the surgeries back in. Dualus (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to butt in but is Roseanne not a big enough era of her life to warrant it's own section in the article where you could then discuss the surgeries? I know a few Bios have separate sections for a persons major work and Roseanne is 8-9 years of her life and probably what she is best known for. Besides the crazy.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure that there is no reliable source saying she is crazy, and I think such BLP violations are offensive. Will you please revert or strike that portion of your comment? The surgeries are in "Personal life" which follows a parallel chronology with the career section which includes Roseanne. Dualus (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you think that the paragraph on the revised-and-reconciled incest allegations should be removed? I don't understand how it could possibly serve readers. Dualus (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

This will probably be better off on the article talk page to gather more editor opinions. —Mike Allen 00:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm not sure why you took out those columns? Why not leave them? Certainly, budget data for Upcoming 2011 will be available soon, yet that column no longer exists. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I guess. The only budget I know that has been released is for The Hunger Games. The budget isn't usually reported until around the film release though. Also I updated a Paramount film and noticed the "co-production" in the notes is unsourced and the one I updated it claimed to be a co-production of all kind of companies and it simply was not true. I bet more are like that. —Mike Allen 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me for not understanding. Are you saying that you have no objections to me restoring all the columns? Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just the budget column, not the gross. An unreleased film does not have a gross. It's possible that someone will add a budget to the films (with a source), but I doubt it. :P —Mike Allen 02:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I tried it both ways, then boldly decided to restore all columns. My reasons are stated at Talk:List of Lionsgate films. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since Darkwarriorblake chose to start the discussion on my talk page, we simply continued it there. While your input will be more than welcome, please don't tag revert me until we all have an understanding (which is really missing at this point). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should be on the article talk page. I don't know what a tag revert is. —Mike Allen 01:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Hey bud, so The Bad Girls Club (season 6) was just reviewed and one of the questions that came up was "As I said, I have never watched the show and do not have a clear idea what the purpose is (besides entertainment). What do the contestants get for appearing and is there a winner? Were these all new contestants or were some from previous seasons? I think there should be a brief background paragraph or two that explains things like this." I was working on this User:AJona1992/Sandbox31, similar to List of Big Brother 10 (U.S.) HouseGuests. Do you think that, by creating individual articles about a season of the bad girls, would be better? Take a look at the sandbox I created awhile ago, and if it doesn't, then I'll just merge it into the Bad Girls Club 6 article. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you guys want a hand with some copy editing? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey Rob, yes, if you're not too busy, I would love to take on that offer :) AJona1992 (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will take a look later today. —Mike Allen 11:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think it would look better on the season pages, like The Real World season pages has it displayed. (see The Real World: Las Vegas (2011)) —Mike Allen 01:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'll do that. But do we really need to add colors? I feel that if we do, IPs would just decorate the whole thing. AJona1992 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

No. All those colors are an eye sore and not needed at all. —Mike Allen 04:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh alright, I'll begin working on it today (in the afternoon lolz) good night and take care! AJona1992 (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agreed with you about the perceived legal threat and started an ANI discussion about it. You can see it here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

As one of the three users contributing to the discussion at Project Film MOS the other evening, I feel you deserve an apology for my bad behavior (specificly the comment that you made mention of there). There is no excuse. I wish to assure you that I will not be repeating that mistake and hope in time I am able to gain your trust.

Sorry,

Mark--Amadscientist (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

We all get out of line sometimes. At least you learned from this. I hope you can continue editing film articles and remain a member of the Film Project. Thank you for your apology and I am sorry if I was uncivil or rude. —Mike Allen 04:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Automated process for archiving references on a page? I want to archive all the stuff currently on Fast Five that isn't already, which is pretty much all of them and I really do not want to have to go through the process for each one, filling out all the details and such. I know there are lots of BOTs on here that do impressive things, is there one for this? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

None that that I know of. Try archiving the ones known to go down, like news reports, The Hollywood Reporter, critic reviews, etc. Box Office Mojo pages are never taken down, so I wouldn't bother archiving them. I wish there was a bot to make this easier.. —Mike Allen 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It seems plausible to make one considering what BOTs can already do. Just check cite web and if enough parameters are met, archive it then add an archive date. It'd be amazing, bet it could do a full page in less than 3 minutes.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

We could ask on WT:FILM if anyone could make a bot for this purpose. Worth a shot. —Mike Allen 00:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

It would be best in your userspace. Currently, the article wouldn't even meet the "film project" criteria that we put in place for high profile films like The Dark Knight Rises. I would imagine that even when filming "starts" it'll be scarce on information and probably be better served on the franchise page until the point comes that it would actually pass the "significant coverage" aspect of notability. Your userspace will be a fine place to house it as more information comes in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was just looking at the source you had on your userpage for the basic plot and it listed Twisted Pictures alongside Lionsgate. The one source suggests that Lionsgate and Nu Image are just distributing (domestic and foreign). It also looks like 5 people have worked on the screenplay, with two new people working on it more recently. There's a lot of smoke with this film apparently, I won't be surprised if it doesn't get off the ground completely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You must not have been aware of the ongoing discussion at Talk:Black_Swan_(film)#Movie_poster when you restored that poster. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

No I didn't since they didn't bother to mention it in their edit summary. Thanks. —Mike Allen 09:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dude, how did you get a Google+?!? I would totally add you if I could actually get one. BOVINEBOY2008 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have invites! Email me you Gmail. —Mike Allen 01:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I apologize. When I saw your edit, my mind somehow transposed the distinction between the versions shown on the left and the right (the second time this has happened recently), and I incorrectly perceived the edit as if you had removed the benzodiazepine adjective, when in fact, you were the one adding it. Sorry about that. :-( Nightscream (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

What about Taco Bell? Is that considered an addictive drug? Cuz if it is, I'm wondering if I qualify to be on the show. Nightscream (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Hope everything turned out ok. —Mike Allen 03:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey,
I've seen that you reverted the New_Lara_Croft.jpg because the resolutiom must be low to comply with fair use.
I'm sorry, I am from the German Wikipedia and didn't read this before, now I've read, very interesting.
Thanks,--CennoxX (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. It's actually Wikipedia's fair use guidelines (non-free media). See WP:NFCC. Must be low resolution and have a valid fair use rationale. —Mike Allen 03:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Mike Allen 03:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Noticed your list of Infoboxes Gone Wrong. Love it. You might want to add this. BOVINEBOY2008 12:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh wow! Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The dicsussion at User talk:Bovineboy2008#Question inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nephilim (film) will be of help. WP:ATD certainly encourages that problematic articles with potential be considered for incubation for collaborative work out of mainspace. And, and as WP:ATD are suggestions for solutions to consider instead of deletion AFD, it would seem that a good faith discussion with the article's author and then a polite move to incubation could be a solution. Let him know that resting there it will have the eyes of many as it is being improved. And of course, and in consideration that the article is nicely sourced, it would make sense under WP:NFF and WP:FUTURE to have some mention in the directors's article at Ruben Fleischer#Early life and career (just added the sourced mention[3]). To do the move, all one need do is follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Article Incubator#The process to WP:MOVE The Gangster Squad to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Gangster Squad. Be sure to speedy the created redirect with {{db-r2}}, place the {{Article Incubator}} template at the top of the page and hide the mainspace categories by placing <!-- --> around them. After the move, and after the first redirect is speedied, a redirect to the section at the director's article would be of service, so that readers looking for it will find the information where it is offered in context. Hope this helps. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

And as the redirect to incubator was just cleaned up, I just took care of THIS Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oops! Thanks. :) —Mike Allen 04:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

How do you find production documents like the one for Horrible Bosses? Wanted one for Tower Heist Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here, though I don't see one for Tower Heist yet. —Mike Allen 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Mike, is the site usable as a reference? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The productions notes are PDF's that come from the production company, not sure about the rest of the content on the site. —Mike Allen 23:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again Mike.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have moved your comments. Keep in mind Rudin has now won 7 Tonys when commenting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's really all I had to say. Thanks. —Mike Allen 15:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply