User talk:ColdFusion650

Archives

Archive 1 (March 8, 2007-June 9, 2007) Archive 2 (January 11, 2008-April 19, 2008)

We don't remove entire contributions and editor's hard work because of your opinion. When an article has various meanings we create disambiguation pages. Thank you for your consideration. NathanielPoe (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Coldfusion.

Throughout almost the entire world, works are protected by copyright as soon as created. There is no step of "copyrighting" something.

In the article I referenced, Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright:

In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office.

Prior to 1978, the U.S. was the only significant holdout to this. At that time, when you created a work, you still had to take actual steps to "copyright" it; generally either publishing the work with a copyright notice or registering it with the Copyright Office. That went away with the

, which took effect in 1978 (hence my 30 years reference).

There is no longer any act that can be thought of as "copyrighting." One can register one's claim to copyright; but the copyright exists independent of that registration.

It remains correct to say that a studio owns a copyright in a film; but it's erroneous to say it "copyrights" or has "copyrighted" a film. Hence my edit. I concede my comment "'copyrighted' hasn't been a verb for over 30 years" was excessively snarky, but it's pretty much true: there is no longer any act under any significant country's laws -- certainly not the U.S., which is the country of origin for "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" -- where one "copyrights" something. TJRC (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no act that you can call "copyrighting". It is at worst wrong and at best misleading. There's no question that "Lucasfilm owns the copyright" is correct. Let's stick with what's correct. TJRC (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with your edits to Indiana Jones...Crystal Skull, but can you explain this sentence from the plot summary:

The skeletons form into a single alien that allows the knowledge in Spalko's head to kill her.

How can knowledge kill you? An earlier version simply said the alien glared into Spalko's eyes, causing her to ignite and disintegrate. I saw the film yesterday, and that's exactly what happened. Did I miss something? Is knowledge deadly?

Thanks for your tune-ups to the entry. I'm washing my hands of this dreadful film until the hubbub dies down and every misguided fanboy/fangirl practices their novel-writing skills in the plot summary. Kinkyturnip (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my query about too much knowledge = death. However, your reply contained contradictory statements. You wrote:

Basically, it's a fact that if you have too many neurons firing at once, you have a seizure and die....So if intelligence is proportional to the number of neurons firing at once (common in fiction even though it's actually the opposite, smart people have fewer neurons firing because their brains don't have to work as hard), too much intelligence can kill you.

I think I get the gist of what you were saying. But this film is for a general audience, not only sci-fi buffs, so it may be a stretch to assume the ordinary viewer understands a common science fiction device. (If it were a time machine, that would be different.) So perhaps framing the statement with an aside, such as your own "a common science fiction device", would make this more comprehensible. Dunno. You decide. I've had it with this braindead-on-arrival film. So have at it. Good luck. Kinkyturnip (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the phrasing in the section about Sean Connery to "turned down an offer to reprise his role" because it's not self-evident that he played the character before. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ColdFusion, just wanted to say great work on keeping the

]

Made me laugh

Saw your post on the Indiana Jones...Crystal Skull talk page and laughed out loud. Needed some humor after suffering through guerrilla reverts and the "Crystal Skull Trivia Insertion Contest" ("the Russian colonel bends down to tie his shoe in the desert", "we briefly glimpse the Ark of the Covenant and its Pterodactyl wings," "the wind blows open the chapel doors and whisks Indy's hat down the aisle".) Ugh. Appreciate all your hard work. Kinkyturnip (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i tihnk it is an obvious forshadowing to lucas' plans to bring lebouf in as ford's replacement why do you keep removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.166.178 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fail to understand why live performance is unimportant to you, while an incidental appearance in a webcomic remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.61.164 (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the details about that other skeleton to that IP, as I couldn't recall it either. It's hard to keep track of all the details when you've only seen it once. He could have ponied up the bucks for a second visit to the theater, one would think. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for someone to make a connection between the Mayan pyramids and the 13 shining skeletons vs. the Freemason pyramid on the $ 1 bill and the 13 shining stars. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the preposterous stuff that went on in the first three films, I'm amused by critics who claim the fourth one is unrealistic. But since you bring up time travel, how about Indiana Jones and Curse of Marty McFly? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously got to wonder how people are so short-sighted to not see the info was already in the article. Anyway, thanks for chasing up that IP. Alientraveller (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Spielberg stated it's the same warehouse in Empire magazine. Just another historical inaccuracy in the series. Alientraveller (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same warehouse as in Raiders? That would stand to reason. I don't recall that it was given a name in that film, though, it was just a George Lucas joke at the end, where this priceless item was being stored in some warehouse, as if it were a case of Navy beans or something. At least it's good to know that it was stored in a (supposedly) secure Area (or Hangar) and not in some garage in D.C. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for adding that source a few moments ago. Could you go over to the talk page there so we could dicuss this a bit further? Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article looks like a needless content fork. Everything in it could easily be covered (and maybe already is) in the main article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a word-for-word copy, then it could be nominated for deletion on the grounds of redundancy. Some user(s) seem obsessed with this fact. It's like the fact that the original title of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi was Star Wars: Revenge of the Jedi. Big deal. There's only the one movie, no matter its title. It occurs to me that "Saucer Men from Mars" was probably a joke among the creators. Even if not, it was likely never going to be the real title, since it would give away too much of the plot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that needs to be in the Indiana Jones franchise article. This morning I was just curious as to where it was filmed. There was definitely some Yale filming for this latest picture. I'm not so sure about the original, which seemed to consist of that one shot of a gothic spire, which I am not totally sure is actually from Yale. But I think that fact needs to be somewhere, as someone else might like to know. But I don't think a separate article is in order, because there's not enough material. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, there could be a summary of Indiana Jones locations. There would be a lot of material for that. Assuming someone hasn't already written that. It would also take some research. The starting point would be the general locations listed in the closing credits of each film. Then someone would have to track down sources that discuss the details. Obviously, a fair amount of the stuff is done on soundstages and in post-production. True location-shooting is what I'm talking about. As one example, the canyon where Indy threatened to bazooka the Ark in Raiders is the same canyon that R2-D2 walked through when he was attacked by the little hooded guys in Star Wars. That's well-documented, but such a detailed example can encourage and lead to endless minutia. It's a delicate balance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before getting that carried away, how about this for the Crystal Skull article section on production:

Marshall College, the fictional university where Indiana Jones teaches Archaeology, made "cameo" appearances in some of the previous films (also sometimes termed "Barnett College"). The school was used more extensively in this film, and location shooting was filmed at Yale University. The series producer's name was apparently the source of the fictitious school's name. [1][2]).

I say "apparently", because that's the way the sourced article words it. It's actually fairly obvious, given Lucas' tendency toward self-referencing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've made over 3 reverts on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull already. JT's edits are not simple vandalism. Please be more careful. ~~ N (t/c) 18:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. May I ask why you reverted my last revision to the article? The no erz (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for responding. If you read the article after making your revision, you might have noticed that there are some issues: firstly, the following sentence is too vague (we cannot assume readers have any knowledge of the plot), is written "in-universe' (please see
  Wikipedia:Writing about fiction
  ) and is redundant (the sentence before this concludes "...who first appeared in the pilot episode.").

" First appearing as a student attending the same high school as John Connor, she intervenes in an assassination attempt, revealing she had been sent by John's future self to be his bodyguard; she later assumes the identity of his sister." Secondly, I am confused as to why the length of the second paragraph from my edit was a matter of concern to you as the second paragraph in your revision is only a few words shorter. Furthermore, under my revision, the information in that second paragraph is more interrelated; there were three statements about 1) the character's name 2) Glau's casting and 3) her return for season two. Currently, that paragraph shifts points between 1) the character's name 2) her role in the series 3) character attributes and 4) her role on the show again. I am going to make another edit to the introduction, incorporating a few of your ideas and a few of mine.The no erz (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my report? That detail was once incorporated into the script for Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, with the Terminator selecting Arnold Schwarzenegger's favorite Austrian chocolate wafer. When fans learned that a scene had shot where the Terminator ate chocolate, the reaction was overwhelmingly negative and the scene was omitted yet when they had Cameron doing the same thing, no reaction was made what gives? O_o. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhawk27 (talk • contribs) (talk)

Yes i did read it, but that goes for all Terminator T-800 Series with real flesh over the the robotic skeleton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhawk27 (talk • contribs) (talk)

you want Proof!! here it is... The original treatment by James Cameron included the detail that the Terminator needed to eat periodically in order for his human flesh to survive. A scene is included where the Terminator eats a candy bar, wrapper and all. This detail was incorporated into the script for Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003), with the Terminator selecting Arnold Schwarzenegger's favorite Austrian chocolate wafer. When fans learned that a scene had shot where the Terminator ate chocolate, the reaction was overwhelmingly negative and the scene was omitted. There's your proof... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhawk27 (talk • contribs) (talk)

sorry i ment to say look here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhawk27 (talk • contribs) (talk)

Then you are an idiot for doubting James Cameron's own words that ncluded the detail that the Terminator needed to eat periodically in order for his human flesh to survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowhawk27 (talk • contribs) (talk)

oh yeah, believe what you want. You think you know everything about Terminator when in reality you don't know sqaut. Oh and you also won the award for being the biggest douche bag the world has ever know. (talk)

It rhymes with "3th". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting your edits to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Per Talk:List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes, all the episode articles, save for the two whose links I kept, have been deleted. If there are any comments you would like to make, the appropriate place to discuss them would be Talk:List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes. Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my suggestion on the talk page? I feel we should make the character list include all of them and merge Ellison and Cromarties to there. Alientraveller (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Jonathan Mostow Buck Jones Active terminator More American Graffiti Steve Sansweet Sidney Harman The Space Odyssey series Indiana Jones and the Philosopher's Stone Player's Choice Rick McCallum Red Heat Glen Buxton Knowledge Adventure Terminator (genetics) Random Hearts Chris Granner Tom Arnold (actor) Stephen Jones (BJU) List of noted film director and composer collaborations

Cleanup Kristanna Loken John R. Gregg Robin Griffith-Jones Merge THX 1138 Humanoid robot Title sequence Add Sources The Color Purple (film) Predator (film) Indiana Evans Wikify Islamic Salvation Front Tom Jones Lafayette Central Catholic Jr/Sr High School Expand The New Jedi Order Kit Fisto Howard Mumford Jones

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "PoV; lacks cites" might make for a less aggressive (and more informative) edit summary than "prove it." --Vaudedoc (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as you know..." Yeh. The catch is, this guy Foofbun, or whatever, has taken it upon himself to add the artist's name to many movie posters in movie articles. As I see it, that info should only be on the picture page, unless maybe the artist is really, really famous, like if it were Dali or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ColdFusion650,

Can you please tell me why you removed the links to the Ultimate Guide to T23D at hopeofthefuture.net twice? http://www.hopeofthefuture.net/info/t23dinfo_index.html

Can you tell me why you decided to remove it? Because to me, it looks like a good addition to the T23D wiki page and I don't think you are the one and only who can decided what is posted and what is not...

Waiting for an answer. Maurice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice2029 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue how to properly react, because I don't see a respond button or whatever, so I created a new section. If you can tell me how to properly respond, please do, because Wiki's help is noy any useful to me.

Anyway, you posted:

"That site is a fan page and does not meet the notability requirement. Links to fan sites should be avoided. We can't just link to every fan site with the word "Ultimate" in it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)"

If you don't link to fansites, why do you allow it to link to 2 other fansites (even 1 clearly says fansite):

Terminator 2: 3-D Battle Across Time at Orlando Rocks

Terminator 2: 3D Battle Across Time at theStudioTour.com - Universal Studios Hollywood fan site

That's a contradiction in my book. So allow no fansites at all or just allow fansites.

And again, are you some kind of admin of Wiki or so? Because you seem to make up the rules but you don't seem to stick to them yourself. So what's your role at this place? Maurice2029 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd point out that the basic problem of blogs - even official ones, like the ones that you reverted back into the article here are not notable to include, as the comments regarding the specificity of the model numbers are not from notable individuals.I didn't want to undo your revert without discussing the matter with you first.I look forward to your reply, and will bookmark your page towards that end. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I waited for a few days; withoyt response, I am reverting the addition of the blog as both nonspecific to the statement supposedly being cited as well as the basic fact that blogs are notoriously unreliable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently in an edit summary you asked if "whilst" is even a word. I'm not sure if you were joking, but it did pose an interesting question, to me at least. In any case I Googled and I found this. So, if you were actually wondering, it is quite interesting, if not, then please ignore this message. Hope I helped, or not as the case may be. --

]

Far as I know it's a legitimate word, but hardly ever heard in America. Maybe in England. I would go so far as to say that anyone sitting in a bar who would say "whilst" had better watch his back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your decision if information is important or not. Whoever added it, obviously thought it important enough. If you do not agree, you can always use the Talk page (Discussion tab above the article). Thanks for thaking this into account. Twerbrou (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well tried with the link :D. What you could consider doing next time is posting on the talk page why you want to delete those additions, and only after some time really delete them. Give people time to react. Twerbrou (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Revision History of Wikipedia:Mentorship records your participation the article's development; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a

, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 3, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TerminatorCarter.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  bot
  , and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:TerminatorVick.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]