User talk:The Filmaker/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, The Filmaker/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism complaint

I would refer the other user to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR for violating the 3 revert rule. TKE 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

You and Pawnofwhite have reported each other for vandalism. I have blocked you both until such time as I can determine who's telling the truth, which shouldn't take long. DS 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• That didn't take long at all; you're unblocked and Pawnofwhite isn't. DS 04:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks, sorry for any confusion. It all got a bit hectic. The Filmaker 07:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Machinima

Hey there. Sorry for the spam, but, since you were involved in bringing the Red vs Blue article up to featured status and in maintaining the related articles, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in the idea of a WikiProject Machinima to coordinate the improvement and maintenance of machinima-related articles on Wikipedia. I know that you've been busy with Star Wars stuff recently, so I'll understand if you decline. See Talk:Machinima for more information. Thanks! — TKD::Talk 01:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Luke's brother Bendak

While it is known that Bendak Starkiller was a duelist in Knights of the Old Republic, I'm not sure where you got the information that a Bendak was originally Luke's brother, so for now I have removed it. If you could source this information, you can put it back in, or I will. – Xolatron 14:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins

Hey, thanks for expanding the Batman begins plot, but I was kinda wanting to go from 1 to 2 paragraphs....at its current size, it will have to go back to like 2-4 paragraphs if I put it up for FA later....just so you know. Also, I was told if we get another 12 references for Episode II article they'll give it Good Article status. :) All the best! Judgesurreal777 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins/Batman Returns

I'm happy for my synopsis to be edited and expanded on slightly. *However*, this is ridiculous - this is not a movie guide or a film database, this is an encyclopedia. These step by step guides are too long, and are filled with spoilers - what you're putting up are practically novelizations of these films. The point of these entries is to give an overview, not an obnoxious play by play and it needs to be condensed. The plot of Batman Begins centers on Bruce coming to terms with his parent's deaths and becoming the Batman; anything about Carmine Falcone, the Scarecrow or Rachel Dawes is secondary, as these characters only exist as plot devices for Bruce's transformation. If they're to be mentioned at all, it should only be in passing, as their existence is secondary to the film's overall point. If you insist on keeping this level of detail, then the sections should be re-named from "Synopsis" to something more telling; a Synopsis is short, what you're writing read like descriptions for the blind.--71.133.5.97 00:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've worked on several articles myself, and read through the guides, I know the general guidelines for formatting a page and I'm also familiar with the proper formatting of an encyclopedia. In addition, I'm a film student and have written several "A" papers for advanced English Literature and film analysis/film history classes both about the films themselves and about film-makers such as Akira Kurosawa. So you can keep the bragging about being part of several featured articles to yourself. I'm not offended by the idea of my work being re-edited or the idea of having a synopsis that's slightly longer that what I originally wrote but I frankly find what's on most of these pages to be practically unreadable. It's long winded, filled with a completely unesccesary level of detail, presents a complete step-by-step where one is not neccesary and reads like it was written by 5th grader - the Batman Returns description is even worse. It's becoming obvious to me that what the contributors to most of these articles want are not professional-quality encyclopedic entries, but rather open templates with which they can do as they please. I've had this argument before and I'm becoming tired of it. If this is the low standard of quality that is desired by most of the contributors than I'll probably cease to contribute at some point - it's not worth the effort to have my work simply reverted to this garbage. --71.133.5.97 01:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I suppose I owe an apology. My last post to you came off sounding much more offensive and derogatory than I meant it. Furthermore, please understand that my frustration is not directed entirely at you. That said, let me re-itterate a bit. I'm not concerned over the fact that my contributions are being edited or expanded upon, wikipedia is open to public edits and that's part of what's made it so succesful - I understood when I started editing here more than a year ago that I was putting up work that could be re-written. However, I find that in many instances my work is being re-edited in a fashion that renders the quality of work woefully sub-par. I'm first to admit that I've made grammatical and punctuation errors but some of this material reads in a very poor fashion. Beyond that, my primary problem here is not the expansion of the synopsis, but what I feel is *over expansion*. I simply feel that it is not neccesary to give a step by step, play by play account of what happens in a given film. The goal here is to give a concise overview of the film's primary through-line without ruining the film for those who have yet to see it. Although I congratulate you on participating on some fine pages and doing what I see is generally good work (please don't take that insultingly, my work is far from perfect itself), I'm weary of what's being done here and I'm frustrated that rather than trying to work with me, you've simply reverted my material. Again, I feel that the primary focus of Batman Begins is Bruce's transformation into Batman and the psycological issues he's dealing with. The other characters simply serve as a means to portraying this transformation and as a result are secondary, and there fore, IMO, only merit a passing mention. I don't think we need to go over Bruce's time in prison, his near-killing of Joe Chill, the exact events of his time spent with the League of Shadows or his varying discussions with Rachel. --71.133.5.97 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Thought you should know about this.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 --P-Chan 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would have been interested in contributing on giving your opinion on such a project. I thought so because of your contributions to the ROTS article. You seen to know the princples concerning GA/FA standards and the film project materials. Didn't mean to spam you. --P-Chan 02:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added two redlinked future projects onto the Wikifilm Project Page. One of them, literally, has your name on it. Hehehe. --P-Chan 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode II

Think we should replace the IMAX Yoda poster with one of Padme and Anikan? Or which one should be replaced? The newer ones show much more context, but I think we still need one of those two. Cheers! - MIke Judgesurreal777 01:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I meant get ride of the Yoda screenshot for a cast photo, and replace the first synopsis picture with one of anikan and padme.... :) Judgesurreal777 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Good idea! And I'll find a few more references, you'll get the picture, and then I'll get that article Good article status, which always bolsters it for FA later on IMO. Judgesurreal777 02:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode II images

Hey Filmaker, I understand what your saying regarding the position of images to relevent events. So I think I may have something with this image. As both plot images are currently "action" if you know what I mean, we could change the last one to this, as it shows three cast members. Whta do you think? Cvene64 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'm not sure if its it the same size/resolution as the other ones, so I guess you could take your own. But yeah, I'm glad everyones happy. Good luck with AotC, your doing a fantastic job with the SW articles. Cvene64 02:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Empire Strikes Back

Hey Filmmaker, nice jobe with ROTS, and AOTC is very close to being ready for FA submission. I left a note on the peer review that you might want to check out. Anyway, I was wondering if you were going to continue doing Star Wars films, and getting them to FA. Because after I've completed work on the Laurence Olivier page, I plan to get The Empire Strikes Back to FA. You interested in helping? I was going to use the style you've used on ROTS anyway, but, if you do want to help, just yell out. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. ROTS and AOTC look beautiful, I might add, though with the Cast section, I would personally give a short note about the actor, rather than the character. As for Olivier, It's really in a protoype stage, I don't intend to leave it with just single paragraph sections. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, regarding Olivier, I've just finished work on one of his works, Richard III (1955 film), and it's up in FAC. Someone's telling me that the article just needs a bit of polishing and copyediting, and, since I know you were the prime mover in terms of getting ROTS up to FA, I was wondering if you could do me a favour and give it the once-over. If you can, fine, if not, that's great. Thanks. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, ROTS is one of the Best FAs around in terms of film. Personally, I can't stand ones such as Ran (film), and Dog Day Afternoon, but, as you said, it depends upon the person. I'm sorry if I came across as trying to tell you what to do, that's not what I meant, I was merely stating that that's what I would do, and it was the only thing that I didn't really like about the article. But, no, it should really stay the way it is, as you said. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

Another great FA completed, let me know what your working on next, always a pleasure working with people who make great articles :) Judgesurreal777 15:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode I > the film

LOL! The Wookieepedian 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Serenity

Hi! Your name came up as someone who might help us with an article? I'm with the WikiProject for Firefly and our article on Serenity the film just got knocked down from GA status and one of the criticisms was that the synopsis was not much of one but a blow by blow-- I pared it down a lot today but I fear it's still too long and may also read too much like as in-universe. Would you be able to help? plange 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you watch the series first! It makes a great film greater. The Wookieepedian 23:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you soooo much for helping us out with the synopsis! It's so much better and I appreciate all the hard work you put into it! BTW, did you like it? plange 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Wars newsletter

Project updates Greetings, Star Wars editors! Deckiller here. It's the first edition of the WikiProject Star Wars newsletter, and yes, it's a semi-ripoff of the Esperenza newsletter. I think it's important to begin with some good news: Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and Jabba the Hutt have reached featured article status! Kudos to the editors who helped obtain these achievements! WikiProject Star Wars is also on a mission to improve Star Wars articles using the following ideas: An out of universe perspective versus an in universe perspective (see Wikipedia:Writing about fiction and the future ammendments to our manual of style) Evolving lists into regular articles Moving excess information and specifics to Wookieepedia (and providing links to Wookieepedia per the "see also" and/or "external links" sections) Enhanced communication amongst WikiProject members More to come These should provide the basic steps needed to improve and "encyclopedia-fy" the Star Wars series of articles. Things to do There are plenty of Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/things to do. An update to the page is coming very soon, and it will represent the new and exciting changes that Star Wars pages will be receiving! Out-of-universe versus in-universe perspectives Although details are forthcoming, I would like to take this time to explain the gist of this concept. Wikipedia has generally agreed that fictional articles should write about the topic from a "real world" perspective, focusing on real world issues and topics, with a section or two for plot synopsis and so on. Jabba the Hutt is a solid character example, and Clone Wars (Star Wars) is quickly moving toward an out of universe perspective.

Article evolution As many of you know, lists of minor Star Wars-related themes are very common on Wikipedia; however, since these may be seen as violations of Wikipedia policy (and having seperate articles would breach even more policies), the tentative solution is to create general articles on a list's topic (for example, turning List of Star Wars devices into Technology of Star Wars, which allows us to cover everything from hyperspace to comlinks in a general encyclopedic fashion). This can be very tough for some broad topics, so the key is organization. I encourage all editors to list their ideas on the WikiProject talk page. It will be a very difficult — but tangible — effort. For an example, let me point you to the Final Fantasy WikiProject. Some of us over at that WikiProject decided to turn various components of Final Fantasy X, such as Pyreflies, Yevon, and the backstory — into an article describing the world of Spira. Location descriptions were given a List of locations in Spira article, and the details themselves were placed on the Spira (Final Fantasy X) page. This is a decent template to follow — however, we will need to place priority on out-of-universe, "real life" topics and perspectives in realtion to the article. Sounds confusing, eh? It won't, for examples will be popping up left and right in the near future! Signed... — Deckiller 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Great job!!!

Great job for getting the Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article featured! This is a proud day for all true Star Wars fans!--Chili14^{(Talk to me!|What I Do?)} 00:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Episode I

Sure thing! Get right on it :) Judgesurreal777 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

All set! Looks great, good luck! I'll be watching it if you need anything or if I see a chance to jump in. Judgesurreal777 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'll do a quick runthrough and see what I can find. Silence and Ryu Kaze are great copyeditors, as well. — Deckiller 03:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we might just about be all set; I just went crazy on the prose :). I'd rather have Tony see if he can fix a few of the leftover issues, since Ryu and Silence aren't really the type of copyeditors we need for this style of article. — Deckiller 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

TPM

What is it? I've searched everywhere. Tony 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

ESB

But those images appear in the articles for Episodes IV and VI, and since Episode V is, as those two others, part of the original trilogy, THOSE articles should match? Don't you know about simmetry? Esaborio 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then either remove the Special Edition posters from the Episodes IV and VI articles or add it to the Episode V one. Is that ok? Esaborio 22:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

query

I just wasn't sure that you'd meant "the events leading up to Anakin's fight with the Rodian child Greedo" and not that AND "the passage on Tusken Raiders (which foreshadows the death of Anakin's mother in Attack of the Clones)"—I think before it was just "this" as a back-reference, which I changed to "these events", which now clearly refers back to only the former item, not the passage on TR. Needed you to check it. Tony 06:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually...

I will be gone from August 2nd to the 6th, but I will do what I can. Though I it may clear FA pretty soon... :) Judgesurreal777 17:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Episode I FAC

Sure! :) The Wookieepedian 17:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Why did you revert me, I do not understand the "never has before" explanation. If "Among fans, the title is commonly abbreviated as "TPM" " what is the problem with proving this? Mieciu K 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Never has been before", until today. One more reference is not going to hurt that article, if the "TPM" is often used what's the problem with finding a citation? Mieciu K 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Mieciu K 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

New Hope thoughts

I think your right on both counts, it shouldn't matter, and it probably will. I do think we should take a day or two and find more references if we have only five, because they will probably try to hang us out to dry if we go in with 5 references. Great writing by the by! And I also saw Season 1 of Red Versus Blue on DVD, great show! I met the creators recently and they talked about the Wikipedia article. Judgesurreal777 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Allusions

probably "Cinematic and cultural allusions", since there are probably more cultural and cinematic references than to works of literature, though there is joseph campbells works, but this one is a good choice Judgesurreal777 19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks great now :) It needed a lot of references and you did it. I'll help copyedit. With a little modification, Empire Strikes Back will be Featured too. Judgesurreal777 23:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooops! Been meaning to, I'll do it in the next half hour. LOL Judgesurreal777 03:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

Looks great! Only a few minor fixes. I have a few things to ask about before or during candidacy;

• when did Lucas change his characters, from an old man and a lizard man, to what they are now?
• I would swear he drew some important inspiration from the film Metropolis.

Other than that, we are set!!! Good luck! Judgesurreal777 04:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Metropolis (film)

Fantastic, I think we are ready to give it an FAC run :) Anything else before we submit it? Let me know! Cheers, Judgesurreal777 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A New Hope

Sure; I'll give it a look over when I get back. Not much time between classes right now ^_^. Sorry about the pause; I've been away from Wikipedia. — Deckiller 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ANH Copyedit

Ooh, well, I don't know if I'm the best person for copyediting... I'm more on the construction side of things. But I do know someone who did a sterling copyedit job on my FA, Richard III (1955 film). I'll see if he can peruse through it. To me, it looks fine, but it's the little things, you know? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode IV

Hi. thefourdotelipsis (who left the last comment, above) has asked me to help you do the cleanup for ep IV. It shall be so! Not that big on Star Wars, but I am an excellent copyeditor. You may wish to consider putting the article on the Cleanup Taskforce... although if I do it you won't need to. Are you bringing the article to FA status? David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it,} _Pell-Mell 11:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm onto both articles, and anything else you want copyedited. I love copyediting! David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it,} _Pell-Mell 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I'm doing my best, mate. It'll take more than 5-10 mins, though. It'll be done within two hours. School holidays just started (about five hours ago), but I have work tomorrow, so I'll attempt to finish Pilot tonight. After that I'll move on to Ep IV as promised, but don't expect it finished until at least the end of the 17th of September (GMT+10:00). Once these articles are done I need to finish off the two Atlantis articles and then .... and I are going to bring Hamlet (1948 film) up to FA. If in the mean time you want me to do something then I'll put Hamlet on hold. David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it,} _Pell-Mell 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Mate, no offence meant, but I have found some very big problems with the article. Namely there is quite a bit of information omitted. I need to go to bed now, and haven't completed my full analysis of the article. I have work all day tomorrow (pity), but will get back onto the article during my lunch break tomorrow. I'll be finished by the end of the 17th of September. David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it,} _Pell-Mell 12:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry, I meant Pilot. Until I begin with ANH assume I'm talking about Pilot. I did a skim over ANH today during lunch break at work, and found a feew errors, but haven't actually sat down to read the whole thing yet... Mum has also just surprised me with the revelation of her plans for her and I tomorrow - I have a day of art-gallery-touring and house-cleaning, which is completly fucking over my plans here. Sorry, but you should expect delays. If you want, I'll help you get Pilot to FA (assuming that's your goal). Then we'll move on to ANH. Have you tried the Internet Movie Database for the ratings? I don't know much about IMDb, but .... seems to swear by it when getting info for Wikipedia... Cheers. David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Let us to it,} _Pell-Mell 10:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode IV

Sorry about seeming to bail out at the last minute there; getting used to college is time consuming :/. I'll be willing to give it a final copyedit once it's about to be resubmitted, since it seems there are users working on it right now. — Deckiller 03:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pilot, Posting.

I've a full day ahead of me in which I shalt copyedit Pilot and get back to you. Also, please add new messages at the bottom of my talk page, otherwise I shall not see it. David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{The rest} _{is silence!} 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Congrats on finding those ratings! I've begun implementing my cleanups, so if you edit within the next hour don't be surprised if it's not there (I am editing a permanent copy on my computer, and then I plan to simply copy the corrected code onto the article itself, over the existing code). If you (or anyone else) do make an edit, I will attempt to incorporate the edit into the final version of the article. Ta. Goiter McWilliostein, P. I. ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} Save Stargate SG-1! 07:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • It is done. The Duke of Copyeditting ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} Save Stargate SG-1! 09:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FA & GA

Thanks again for the comments Filmmaker. I respect your opinions. I also see how the GA can be a good stepping stone before a FA. For what it's worth, I didn't originate the article but only have recently made numerous contributions to it. Likewise, I hadn't added the trivia section, but have added things to it in the past, but I didn't know it was a violation. Thanks for telling me.

In all due respect though, I think you come off a bit bluntly vs. understanding. Ea. I think a "disagree" would've sufficed vs. a "strong disagree." Likewise, I respect your decision to disagree with the GA & FA nomination, and I'll that others like yourself may come along and delete them too;although, I think it'd be wiser to simply leave a disagree reply with a comment (which you did.) vs. totally deleting it. Secondly, and again in all due respect, I think you came off bluntly with your mention that an articles lack of referrence, citations, and etc., or that it had a trivia section, to be "major" violations. I again think a simple reply would've sufficed.

Your replys are duly noted Filmmaker and greatly appreciated. Perhaps I've misread you and you simply were replying. If so I'm sorry. As for the GA advice I'll take it and take down the FA tag. Nevertheless, finally, again in all due respect, you've shared your opinion, which I greatly greatly appreciate, but please do not take down the GA tag again. If what you said is true (and I'm not saying it's not.) then things will take their natural course and it'll be my pleasure to accept it. Thanks again Filmmaker. DavidWJohnson 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Former GA Nominee

Thanks for telling me that it's policy to leave the old tag up until a GA status would be obtained. DavidWJohnson 22:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for another reply. In all due respect, I didn't try to renominate myself and I understand I'd need to go to a review if I wanted to. I was unnominating myself and took down any and all things that said I was trying to get GA. I spelled "unnominate" wrong so I'm sorry if that confused you. Since I'm not even nominated now I've again removed the Former Canidate tag you'd put back up again. If it still has to be there then feel free to add again. But do you understand, I'm no longer trying to get GA or FA for the indefinite future? So, isn't that that?

In general my sentiments towards censorship in general are that it's unbecoming for any of us who would hastily delete one's work vs. doing our best to encourage its transformation into the best that it can be. I think it's easy for us to be chomping at the bit so to speak to crucify someone vs. encouraging them. Call it an unconscious fallacy on our parts if you will, but I still know we can do better.

Also in general, as for "Weasel Words," again in all due respect, I think that was a poor choice of words on Wikipedia's part for a description about words in question, while "Words In Question" would've sufficed. I think "Weasel Words" is rude. What if the contributor had no intention of writing misleading words? What they take it the wrong way and never visit Wikipedia again? Is that good business? True, maybe it sounds funny, wasn't intended that way to offend, and leaving would be rash on one's part. But, is it good business? I say, No. I'll go so far to say that I think it's similar to the concept of our unconscious fallacies I mentioned above, and our tendecy to be rash in taking delight with coming up with descriptions like "Weasel Words." I think we can do better.

Finally, I'll hopefully sum up my point by using my work on the Public Access Television article as an example. Today I nominated it for GA and FA status. I expected feedback, but I'd hope it wouldn't all be what one in all due respect could call negative, rude, and abrasive. I politely answered most of the replys. Finally I reverted my nominations. Not anyone mentioned if they'd liked things about the article. It was all about how wrong it was. I'd hope someone would've at least noted my contribution of adding a link to the Wiktionary definition for Public Access, but they didn't. The same went for my addition of images, a History section and etc. In sum I think we can do better than that. I hope that we do.

Then again, perhaps since your a Star Wars fan I can use a Star Wars analogy to make my point. Therefore, Episode I's pre-Rebel government (Wikipedia when it first started) with it's Senators (Wikipedia Members) making suggestions (contributions) in the Senate and to the Chancellor (Adminstrators). Between Episode I and III the Chancellor was subplanted by a former Senator Palpatine, who was next given more powers, then given more executive powers, and finally became the Emperor (Wikipedia in the future, or even worse, now). Therefore, am I saying I see others and yourself like Darth Vaders? No, but couldn't all of us on Wikipedia be more like Ewoks? Aren't Ewoks jovial Filmmaker?

Seriously, sorry to hear you weren't in the best of moods today. I hope this helps you smile again. May the force be with you, always. Thanks again Filmmaker. DavidWJohnson 02:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ep IV

OK, I have quite literally finished my last exam until Novemberand I have all of today and tomorrow to copyedit it for you. I'll get started now. :-) As I copyedit using a permanent copy (and do the whole article in one official edit) saved to my computer, if you wish to make any additions to it please send them to me and I will insert them, rather than you putting it straight into the article, where it will be simply overwritten when I upload my copyeditted version. Hope this makes sense... Goiter McWilliostein, P. I. ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} Save Stargate SG-1! 04:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Your quote has been incorporated into the article. The Duke of Copeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 04:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • To make a biblical-length epic tale short, the copyedit will be done within the next two days, although I am hoping sooner. The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 03:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

ANH

Oh god no, absolutely no offense taken :) Ryu and myself are like one person anyway ^_^. He's not really into star wars, that's why I pointed that out. — Deckiller 02:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)