User talk:Esn/Archive01

Welcome!

Hello, Esn, 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
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wet Goddess dolphin novel

Hiya,

Theres a bit of a question on this addition to the Zoophilia article. maybe you could check out the talk page and comment? The question is, apart from being a personal writing on someone's personal website, is this notable at all? Could you give some background to the novel and its significance? Would appreciate it, thanks :) FT2 (Talk) 12:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Russia

Hi there. I see that you edit Russia-related topics. Come check Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist. Cheers, Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Please join us in discussing a topic concerning a Rotten Tomatoes % in the Wikifilm infobox. Your opinions would be appreciated.

Template_talk:Infobox_Film#Rottentomato_meter_rating--P-Chan 23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleopatra article

What kind of help do you need? The article looks pretty good to me. Please respond on my talk page. Mak (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the article seems quite nice. If you want to add references, just put in a section header, then the link to the specific page under it. If you want to cite one specific fact, you could put in <ref></ref> around the citation, then put <references/> under the References header. See meta:Cite/Cite.php for more info. Keep up the good work! Mak (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sudsakorn

Thank you for your contributions to the The Adventure of Sudsakorn. I've added the Thai title, which I found at the Thai Film Database, under the external links. So that was easy.

As for the Sudsakorn vs Sud Sakorn issue I will leave that to you and others to decide. I don't speak Thai either, but I do know that the transliteration of Thai to English is imperfect and that the standards for do so are generally not adhered to, which is why you see so many differences. Do a Google search, and pick the most common usage. It's up to you.

Also, I want to mention that I oppose the use of question marks, blank sections and statements like "not currently known" in Wikipedia articles. Simply, I think it looks unattractive and doesn't look very encyclopedic. Focus on what IS known and write about that. If you have questions about something, find out the answer, or leave the questions for the talk page for other Wikipedians to ponder. Again, just my view. I do appreciate that someone else in this world cares about this film enough to work on an article about it, and I encourage you to use whatever resources you can muster to find out more about it.

A video or VCD of the film may well exist, but it's probably only for the Thai market, with no English subtitles. I don't really know for sure, and until someone knows for sure, having information on the page about a video version isn't helping anyone. I sincerely hope this helps. Wisekwai 14:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that is, but I will keep an eye for it in the local shops and ask around. This is very interesting. Feel free to contact me at anytime regarding this. Wisekwai 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Living people

Hi, I notice that you've been doing some good word categorizing animators, and thought I might just pop in to suggest that in the future you use Category:Living people instead of Category:Living People, as the latter uses incorrect capitalisation. Additionally, gwhen a parent category has been subdivided, articles don't have to appear in the parent cat, only the subcat. So something that is in Category:American animators shouldn't also go in Category:Animators. All the best, Ziggurat 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:Categorisation#Some general guidelines (point 3), and there's a discussion of exceptions at Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. Regards, Ziggurat 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Comedy Films Question

You have done a good job contributing to this list and I was wondering if it would be better if we combined the short Comedy films into the feature length films and call them something different? I don't think it is necessary that the two be split apart. Of course, I should probably mention this on the talk page first, but I want to hear your opinion about it first. I am also wondering since we divided the films into single years if we should make those subheadings, which would obviously make the Contents box much longer. Let me know what you think or if there should be any other changes as well. Keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 03:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have more knowledge in the early 1900 films then I do, so let's go with what you want to do. I may have added some of the films from the short Comedy films to the main feature films, so I'll go through them later and remove them if necessary. I was wondering also if it would be better to convert the single year headings into the Contents subheadings. For example it is set now for 1991 as 1991 and I think it should be set up as ===1991===. This way, users and visitors can just click on the individual year if they wanted to from the Contents box instead of a decade. Nehrams2020 03:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we should go ahead and put it on the talk page for a few days, and then move it based on the feeback we hear. However, I'm sure just me and you will be the only ones that will really take notice of it, so we'll see how well received the idea is. I'm going to go ahead and change the headings, if after it has been changed you think it should go back to the way it was, let me know. --Nehrams2020 04:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WWMPAAD?

The paragraph about the ratings for Come and See is pretty good speculation, but speculation nonetheless. However, the user who deleted it should've given an explanation. Anton Mravcek 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Animated film infobox

"I'm a pretty new member here, so I'm not sure how to go about doing it, but I think it would be a wonderful idea to have an animated film infobox on the English Wiki like there is for on the Russian Wiki (this would be especially usefull for shorts - I think perhaps we should start a project to try to catalogue as many short animated films as possible, with a screenshot from each)."

I created Template:Infobox Hollywood cartoon with the intent of using it for Golden-Age American cartoon shorts. We might want to create a second for independent and foriegn animated shorts, or modify this one. Animated features, TV shows, etc. all use the same infoboxes in the English Wikipedia that live-action works use. --FuriousFreddy 06:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Hi thank you for joining the WikiProject. There is still plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. We are about establishing standards for Novel based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on Fiction books, otherwise called Novels. If you have any questions, do ask. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006

Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use on userpages

Hi, I notice the "My Images" section of your userpage contains a number of fair use images (movie posters etc). Please note that Wikipedia fair use policy is to not allow fair use (unfree) images to be displayed on userpages or other non-article pages, they are only permited for ilustrating actual articles where no free licensed alternatives exist. So please replace those fair use image thumnails with text links to the image instead. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ascent

As far as I can tell, these movies are (mostly) titled "The Ascent". However, a disambig page can be useful. So far we have The Ascent, The Ascent (DS9 episode), and The Prophecy 3: The Ascent, but of course you may want to mention Ascent Media, etc.) Keep in mind that disambiguation pages are for articles we already have. - Liberatore(T) 12:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to copy my answer here. Here it is.

Yes, a disamb page can be useful. For the issue of links to articles not yet created, there is a section in the manual of style which basically agrees with you. Still, I personally would limit the redlinks in a disamb page if I do not have any evidence that the relative articles will be created any time soon (that's a matter of taste, given what the manual of style says).

The reason for the original redirect is that the ascent is the (vertical) distance between the baseline (the line where all letters lie) and the highest point of a letter lying on that line arrives, in the given typeface. The image in Typeface#Measurements tells everything. (Liberatore, 2006). 20:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

One little thing...

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Slgrandson 21:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded spelling change with AWB...

Humorous vs humourous isn't a regional variation, it's a spelling error. There is no national version of English where 'humourous' is above a tiny minority use. Well done for standing up for regional variation, something I always try to do myself. --Guinnog 01:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is where I attempted to establish that 'humorous' is the main spelling worldwide. I hope you'll find the discussion as compelling as I did. [1] --Guinnog 01:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that link - it was indeed interesting. It might save you some controversy in the future to link to that discussion in your edit comments whenever you change "humourous" to "humorous" if possible - as you said there, it is quite a common spelling on wikipedia. Perhaps that is where I subconsciously picked it up, or perhaps I simply thought it illogical that the commonwealth adjective would use the American spelling as its base. Anyway, thanks for correcting me. I've been using "publically" too - I'm just a trove of bad spelling habits, I guess. I do have a suspicion that those two spelling variations (or errors) are becoming more widespread than they were in the past. The exact location of the line that something has to cross until it ceases being a spelling error and becomes a regional spelling variation has always been a bit murky to me, but I guess I'll leave that one to the experts to figure out (even if I have the nagging suspicion that they haven't got a clue either). Anyway, good day to you. :) --Esn 03:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the civilised discussion. I did the 577 edits I could find a few weeks ago, and yours was the only comment (adverse or otherwise), which is also a sort of measure of the goodness of the edits. --Guinnog 10:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

chess terms

Actually you'd be surprised at how many languages retain antique names for chess pieces. Of course what's more interesting than the russian retention of elephant, is how it got to be elephant in the first place. From persian pil meaning chess piece, to fil in arabic (arabic lacks /p/) and add to the beginning the definite article al-, you get alfil, which we can easily see going in the ears of a romance speaker who hated pesky consonant clusters to alefa which sounded close enough to greek elephantos. Weirder still, in French, this sound ended up as aufil, which later was replaced by fou which means (like english fool) crazy or mad, and then transferred BACK to greek, who doesn't use the same sound, but uses the same semantic to name their bishop. I have a great book мир шахматных фигур (world of chess pieces). It goes over the etymologies in great detail.--Josh Rocchio 07:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Prostite menja... Ne by tebe skazal chto znachit "mir shachmatnych figur", esli by ja uvidil jazyki kotori znaete v tvoj budke babeli.--Josh Rocchio 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the book is by Isaac Linder, Moskva, Izdatel'stvo AO "XGC", 1994.--Josh Rocchio 02:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your judgement

I would like to question your judgement regarding this edit. Questionable claims of a possibly slanderous nature on living people should be removed immediately, not merely tagged as "citation needed" and left alone. --Cyde Weys 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite simple - I made a mistake. I don't usually edit "living people" pages (especially ones that have so much attention focused on them) so although I had heard of the rule before somewhere, I forgot to employ it in this instance and did what I would do for any other wikipedia article. Sorry about that. -Esn 19:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Unfinished

Hi there; try {{underconstruction}}--Anthony.bradbury 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know that one.--Anthony.bradbury 23:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw your request for a "needs expanding" box at User talk:Anthony.bradbury. Are these at WP:TMG any good? {{Expandsect }} {{ Expansion }} --Mr Stephen 08:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Pleased to help. Mr Stephen 11:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Twelvemonths.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Twelvemonths.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

If you scanned it in yourself, please specify so on the image page; otherwise, specify the web page where the postercame from. Regards, Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---

It's a poster for a film. There's a fair use rationale for it, right below the notice that you posted. I quote,

"It is believed that the use of scaled-down, low-resolution images of movie posters

   * to illustrate the movie in question or
   * to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork

on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

Also: [2], [3]

The image is only used on ONE page - the site of the film. What is the problem here, and how does it violate wikipedia policy? Esn 01:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did this image come from? Fair use requires that the source of the image be credited. If you scanned it in, say so on the image page; if it came from a web page, tell us the web page address. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... didn't know that. Well, the source is the Russian wikipedia. [4] From the info at the bottom of the page, it seems that a user took a picture of the poster and uploaded it. Is that an adequate description? Esn 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that will be sufficient. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)

The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My Criteria

I'll go through my reasoning as best I can. It's based off these guidelines. From the style page, a film article should have: infobox, lead, plot, cast, production/background, reception, notes, references, and trivia sections. The assessment measures how close an article is to this standard.

First there are those articles that are clearly stubs. They have anywhere from less than a sentence to a paragraph, or they might be just an infobox. Or they could be an infobox plus a lead (as many French and Korean films are).

Starts need to have at least one complete section (usually the plot) or multiple partially completed sections. I don't think that a full cast, trivia, awards, or soundtrack section really constitute an article unless the plot is mentioned in the lead and there is an infobox. Without an infobox a start should have a full lead, plot, and cast section.

Sometimes an article is borderline. When an article is not wikified properly, one needs to read through it to see if there are short sections or paragraphs that detail the plot, cast, reception, and production. For wikified articles, the difficult ones are those with a lead, infobox, short plot, and short cast sections. I'll usually err on the side of start for these. It is important not to just jump down, see the stub template and mark it as such (I've changed a few where other editors must have done that).

B articles are relatively rare. The major determinant is whether a majority of material is present. If everything but a production/background section are present and fleshed out, the article will be a B. I have rated some starts where I think to myself, "This is a strong start and would be a B if there was anything about the production or reception."

These are not hard and fast, but rather guidelines that need to be adjusted for short films and animationed films and other sorts of articles, like concert films. One final thing: there are a good deal of articles that combine the book and the movie or the play and the movie. I look solely at the movie section, and this often results in an anime film recieving a B from the anime project and a start or stub from me. If you want anything clarified, let me know and I'll try to be more clear. It also might be easier to understand if you pick a few films and have me explain how I arrived at their rating.--Supernumerary 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This page should also be of help if you are wondering about criteria: Category:Film articles by quality. It's not just a category, it and the style guidelines should give you all the information you need to assess film articles. Cbrown1023 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: future Class

Sorry bout that. :) I started the Future Class. Must have been a click mistake on my javascript. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiproject Web Animation

Great to have another member. Kc4 05:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

I responded to a post you made at Category talk:Film articles by quality. Cbrown1023 02:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Krysař

Hi Esn, what is the source for using spelling Křysař insted of Krysař on your page? I did not find any /using both Google and Czech search engines/. Regards from Prague JanSuchy 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Err... well, I seem to remember seeing that spelling somewhere when I created the article - but would you believe it, I can't find it anywhere either, now that I'm trying to look for it! Time to change the spelling in my user page. Thanks for the attention, and by the way:

Could you be so kind as to give a cursory glance at my list of stop-motion films article and see whether I missed any from Czechoslovakia/the Czech Republic? Stop motion was and is quite popular over there, and I have the feeling that I'm still missing some stuff - thanks. :) --Esn 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Benfer

Do you know what happened to the Robert Benfer page? I could find no warning for a such speedy deletion, and it was deleted before I had time to add the references I had compiled... 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC) The Hero of Time

No, I have no idea. I'm not an admin and I'm not a deletionist, so I've never really familiarised myself with the deletion process over here (though I have had to witness a few). I think, personally, that whoever deleted it made a bad decision and needs to justify it. If someone is directing a film which will star minor Hollywood celebrities, is listed on IMDB and has massive web popularity, how can they be considered not notable? By the way, shameless plug: why don't you join the Web Animation WikiProject? I see far too many notable web-animation-related articles ruthlessly deleted on wikipedia, and there needs to be a force to fight against that, I think. The people who want these articles to stay up must be more organised and get their voices heard. There's not much happening there right now but really - before anything can happen, we need more people to join. Esn 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you looks at the page's history, you can see who did it. [5] Why not raise the points I mentioned on his talk page, and show him the references that you gathered? The most important reference that must be found is a reliable 2ndary source which would confirm that Knox has a substantial fan base ("A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following"[6]). I'll check by in a while and try to help out. Esn 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Adventuresdentist.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Adventuresdentist.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Achmed5.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Achmed5.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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.

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Achmed6.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Achmed6.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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.

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

I am not a member of the Image Police, so I do not know what they are after just now, but it usually helps if you add the fair use rationale to the fair use image. See Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. The fair use rationale for a screenshot should be very similar to the one for the CD album cover art in their example. Alex Bakharev 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

references

Hi, if you want to use the same reference for more than one fact, use the following syntax:

The first time you use a reference, put in the following: <ref name="insert any name">insert the reference</ref>

The second time you can then use the following: <ref name="name chosen above"/>

The references section should then contain the following: <references/>

I'll go try and fix it. Errabee 12:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, but on the other hand that wouldn't allow the name of the article and the date to be listed in the references section - it would just give the url link, which isn't as descriptive. Neither would that method allow for a separation of Russian and English references, which I think is needed here. So... I'm not sure if it needs fixing - I kinda like the current look of the references section (also, it's listed in chronological order, with the newest articles at the top). I WAS wondering if maybe I was using the wrong symbol for the references ("↑") than is the conventional one. Esn 12:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. It does allow the name of the article and the date to be listed. Just watch me work on it. Errabee 12:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well I'll see before judging. Does it also allow them to be listed from newest-to-oldest and separated into Russian and English references? Esn 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, neither of those. Of course, you could always use the {{ru icon}} to alert people that it is a reference in Russian, as I have done. The order of the references is the order in which they are used in the document. Another advantage of this system is that it is very clear how often certain references are used, and you can click on the reference to go to the place where it is used. Errabee 12:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it may be better for me to change it to a footnotes system (like the one in WP:References#Example), since it seems to have the strengths of both systems - you can control the order in which the links appear in the references, and also see what the reference is used for. Your system does have its strengths, but it looks a little more cluttered and has some disadvantages too - I'll try to convert it to another "standard" system (by the way, you might've asked on the talk page first before changing it - that is the policy after all, and it would've saved some effort for both of us). Esn 12:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

But I think I'll wait a bit... it's a big job and I have other work to do just now... :p Esn 12:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I just did it, is the official implementation of references in the Mediawiki software. I don't think I needed to discuss that, certainly not when you asked for help yourself on Portal:Russia/New article announcements. Errabee 13:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, external links in the text are very much frowned upon. I won't revert, but this is definitely not good. Errabee 13:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm very sorry about this whole thing. It was wrong of me to put the notice up on the WPRussia page when what I should have done was look more closely at the accepted reference styles to find one that fit more closely what I was looking for. Although you did indeed convert it to the official implementation of references in the software, my understanding (and I may be wrong - you've been here longer) from reading the WP:References page is that there is more than one official style of listing references. It seems to me now, looking at it, that the way I did it before is rather close to this, and a change to that particular style would've required far less work for whoever converted it. It also makes more sense, because this is one of those articles where the date of a source is rather important, so a referencing system where you can list the references in order of date would be more usefull to a reader of the article (a reader would likely want to go to the references and immediately see the oldest and newest news, instead of having to tediously search for them). I've fixed the links thing, though I haven't yet found the policy page which says that they're not allowed...(?) Esn 00:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry for the negative feelings here, but it is kinda frustrating that when you try to help someone, you get told you should have discussed it first, especially if the person you were trying to help had asked for help (at least that is how I interpreted your contribution to Portal:Russia/New article announcements). That feels like a slap in the face.

Anyway, your mention of your new article on the announcements page was completely justified; if you hadn't done it, someone else would have. But any mention of it will always result in someone looking at it, and changing things his or her way. That is really something you should be prepared for, as you don't own the article, even though you've started it. Errabee 10:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Animation

I agree the "major overhaul" needs a lot of work. See the talk page on animation, Greetings, --Janke | Talk 05:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image Request

Yeah, any movie poster or movie screenshot (or both) is sufficient in filling a photo request for a film article. I added the photo request tag to many different films as I was assessing them for WP:Films. Thanks for adding the poster, I'll remove the tag. Nehrams2020 17:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How to post Vandal Warnings

There are a variety of ways to do it, and they are layed out at WP:VANDAL better than I can tell you. The thing is, the edit you linked to doesn't qualify as "blatant vandalism" to me -- it's more of an editor inserting their point of view into the article. The editor may not understand that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a set of unsourced opinions, but an even-handed description. I agree with you that asserting that one comedian is "better" than another is problematic. But instead of putting a test2 warning (which accuses the editor of blatantly vandalizing a page) I'd assume good faith and post a gentler notice on their talk page -- perhaps linking to WP:NPOV and WP:V. You could also encourage them to engage on the article's talk page before making major changes. If they don't respond to you and persist in reverting the article without discussion, then a warning might be in order. Dina 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I posted a question to his talk page, saying that if he couln't explain his edits, then I'd have to revert them (I agree, its difficult to see what this editor is trying to do.) I also posted a welcome message to guide him or her to some editing advice. If he or she continues to change information without edit summaries or sources, I'll just revert it. Cheers. Dina 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Garbancito de la Mancha (French wiki)

Heureusement vous êtes vigilant ! En fait une source espagnole précisait que c'était le premier long métrage d'animation européen "en couleur". Je vais rectifier ce point, merci.Ji-Elle 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)