Talk:The Phantom Edit

message: I never see this as reason for juvenilizing StarWars.  He makes a good percent from toys,merchandise. --Ericg33 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   George Lucus needs to sell toys. 

message: *How the crap can you obtain "Star Wars Episode 1.1: The Phantom Edit"? --Ryanasaurus0077 00:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to get it

message: I believe the section should be severely reduced in size or even removed. It has nothing to do with the subject of this entry, The Phantom Edit, and looks like advertising. --Tail 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and am removing the entire section. I see no suggestion of notability whatsoever, and the lengthy explanation of the edit (including a link to the creator's Myspace) suggests it was added solely for the reason of promoting that particular TPM edit, which has no place on Wikipedia in general, and is not even particularly germane to this article (as Tail noted, the article being primarily concerned with The Phantom Edit, and not TPM re-edits in general). I'm also removing the The Phantom Re-Edit section for the same reason, as it already receives mention in the Other Fan Edits section. 71.104.220.135 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars ~ Episode I: Balance of the Force - MagnoliaFan Edition 

message: How many 'I hate Jar-Jar' websites, blogs,and reviews should I link to to justify the text in the article that Phantom Editor changes parts of the moive that were 'unpopular.'? BoosterBronze (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: It says that the editor was "revealed to be Mike J. Nichols of Santa Clarita, California in the September 7, 2001 edition of the Washington Post and the June 1, 2002 edition of the Los Angeles Times." 
I'm pretty god damn sure when you reveal something you can only do it once.. So... I'm gonna take that down. 63.245.171.227 (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revealed Twice? 

message: Seems like, after all the edits, the overall length would be severely affected. Perhaps the difference in run times should be included in this article. RobertM525 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I'm the first to jump on the "Han shot first" bandwagon as far as George Lucas revising his own movies go, but if we believe revisions even by the original director are a bad idea, why do we reward fan edits (no matter how professionally edited or well done) with page entries? I question whether this is notable outside fandom. 68.225.171.64 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already information on the re-releases of the original films on their respective articles. As this fan-edit exists separately, it is given its own article. Indeed there does not have to be an article designated to each and every fan-edit that is made of this movie, or any other, but this one has received significant media attention to warrant its documentation. – NuclearDuckie (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I recall when it first showed up he along with all his companies by his command, were against it and had to killed everywhere it popped up with DMCA bullshit
anyone else remember this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.146.67 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  GEORGE WAS ENTIRELY AGAINST at first