User talk:Melty girl/Archive2

Emma Watson FAC

Hey Melty, I've been throwing around some improvement suggestions over at the Emma Watson FAC. I've put it down as a weak oppose. I'm assuming my response there is what you were after? Possibly a little long-winded (that's sadly just something that's in my nature). Were you after more support or more constructive criticism for the editor(s) there? They seem to be embracing my suggestions and implementing them promptly. --linca^linca 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I was only after not being the only one reading the article carefully against the FA criteria, and getting other perspectives. It's the first FA review I've participated in, and I wanted to make sure there were other reviewers for balance. I felt in a strange position being the only one who seemed to be digging more deeply. So yes, this is what I was looking for -- for you to give a review that was a close reading, whatever that turned out to be, support or oppose. And I agree, the editors have taken the feedback seriously and have responded well. I just didn't want to be the only one! Thanks, Melty girl 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Block request (copied from Trebor's talk page)

I've never made a block request before, so please forgive me if I don't know the ropes. Over the past year, a person named Rebecca Urian periodically vandalizes the Cillian Murphy page by replacing the subject's wife's name with her own. If you check the history, you'll see that she's done it with different user names and without logging in. Today she resurfaced as Rurebecca92 -- it's a new user name and her only "contribution" was to again write herself in as Murphy's wife. Can she be blocked? Thanks, Melty girl 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For simple vandalism, the easiest way to get a block is to report the vandal to WP:AIV. If they are a general vandal, you will have to go through the warning templates before reporting them. However, since this is a returning vandal under a different username, report them straight to the noticeboard with a sentence explaining that. In this case, I've blocked the account for you. Hope that helps. Trebor 20:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --Melty girl 20:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cillian Murphy FAC

Hey Melty girl, nice to hear from you. Sorry I got drowned into many other things and couldn't get back last time. I recall though that I had a look at this article after GA and really liked it, so it would be my pleasure to read it again and check it against the FAC. Also glad to see that you expanded your userpage and put a little more info on yourself; I had always liked your edits and style but now I see that you're quite an impressive person in real life too. Anyway, I will definitely provide my comments on your article within a few days. Thanks for stopping by and take care, --Kudret abi^Talk 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking out my user page. I finally caught the user box bug, no? Looking forward to your feedback. :) --Melty girl 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it. I am trying to collect some boxes too, perhaps I'll put some up soon :) I'll certainly get to the article in a few days, take care for now, --Kudret abi^Talk 04:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a busy week with school (just doing dab editing during my part-time job, heh), but I'll take a look this weekend! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again there, sorry about the mess; actually I am very satisfied with TW so far and this is the only time something like this happened, perhaps I'll let AzaToth know about it and he can have a look. My intention was to create a version so that the citations would only appear in the ends of sentences and then offer it for discussion to see if it pleases both sides. However, I am now corcerned that more than 3-4 consecutive citations appear a little distracting as well. I wish there was something to automatically group hem together but this seems like metaWiki related stuff. Although very intriguing for my technical self, I'm not sure if I'll have the time to dive into the code for the <ref> tag in the near future. I looked at some of the changes the Karanacs made and I must say that I do not agree with all of them. Some of them just seem to be stylistic changes which do not seem to improve the article that much, and as you pointed out in the discussion, in some other cases they actually take some information out. However, I think there will have to be a compromise if there is any chance that Karanacs will change to support, which may happen as he opposed "until has had a thorough copyedit", so leaving some of what he wrote in could be a good idea. As for VanTucky, I also don't think he ever returned back to the page and some of his suggestions caused concerns for other reviewers so maybe I'll invite him again to see what happens. Finally I fear that although well cited, the his distinctive blue eyes statement is causing some of these fansite type accusations and giving people a negative bias from the start. Perhaps they might even subconsciously think "this is just a teenage girl with a crush on this actor" and that image may immediately impair their judgment for the rest of the article, despite all the objectively positive points. So perhaps this part can at least be put in quotes suggesting that it is not something you think personally but something some critic or so said. Or maybe it can be clarified to something explaining what impact his eyes and his stare have on his fame and notability.

Well, I had a sleepless night and I'm quite tired so I hope I managed to make some sense. You already know that I think you are one of the fine and quality people around here and I hope that your efforts and hard work will be rewarded ultimately. Regards, --Kudret abi^Talk 20:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I meant to get back earlier but I find myself so tired these days, physically and emotionally. First of all you are always welcome to come over and vent, it's actually a pleasure to read your writings and opinions. I think you are right in many of what you said, especially about the looks. It is an objective fact that the good looking actors overwhelmingly outnumber the standard looking ones so it is not rocket science to figure out that the looks play a major role. And although in theory it should be perfectly fine and encyclopedic to include this well-cited information, it unfortunately seems to be difficult for a lot of users (including perhaps some your the reviewers) to be able to make the distinction between an "an adoring fan" saying "omg his blue eye's are like sooo sexy, he's such a hottie" and a factual-and-acting-related comment made by a number of professional movie critics.

Also on a different but related note, I believe I understand how you feel right now quite well as I am an in academics and I have to go through such peer reviews on a regular basis for publications. And believe me the same things happen there as well. There are so many reviewers that review papers with bad faith, i.e. trying to look for the tiniest problem so that they can reject it. They think it is a competition and try to minimize the recognition gained by others so that they can look good themselves. There are also those that reject your work without even reading it, with standard template-like arguments such as "not a significant contribution" or "not suitable for publication" without making a single comment on what the problem is. Or there are these so called "big guys in the field" who will reject any other work that does not reference and praise theirs first. And unlike the reviews here these people are given three to six months or even more to review your work so after a silence period of months you get a rejection with a single page or less of comments with virtually no content as to the specifics of what was wrong or what can be done to improve it. Thankfully this is not always the case and about half of the time we get qualified people who are truly dedicated to the process and have a good faith towards their colleagues and appreciate the beauty of moving things forwards together as a community and in collaboration. However the other half that I mentioned initially is a real painful, disheartening and discouraging experience, which made many people quit or think about it, including myself, but I guess you somehow manage forget after a while, find things that you like in it, hope things will improve, and then move on, and then the cycle repeats. Sorry it got a little long, perhaps I needed to vent a little too. I recall reading somewhere that you were sick so I hope you are feeling better now; take good care of yourself, and please keep visiting me sometimes, best wishes... --Kudret abi^Talk 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hippie Hippie Shake

Oh, there's way too many upcoming films to realistically track. I tend to focus on genres like science fiction and superhero films. Also tend to follow unconventional films with interesting premises, like RocknRolla. Since the project started development in 1998, I'm gonna check Access World News to see if there can't be more development history explored about the film. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You may need to enter Access World News through a university library or a public library. I can access it through my university library. It's not freely available. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you want to put that film article up for WP:DYK? It's at the minimum size to be included, though we may want to see about adding more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, your article is linked on the main page in the DYK box. I've had a couple of film articles show up there -- see User:Erik#Did you know?. Also, I've expanded the lead section of the article, so that should boost the character count. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On 28 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hippie Hippie Shake (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yahoo! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick

I like your username - it makes me smile. Raul654 18:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Emma Watson FAC

Hi there. Although I'm naturally disappointed at the failure of Emma Watson to pass FAC, I wanted to thank you for your professional and constructive approach to the review. Even when the review page got long enough that we started losing things to do, or it seemed your comments weren't being acted upon, you never stopped being civil. So thanks for that. Since I fully intend to launch a new FAC in a month or so, I wondered if you would mind finishing the discussion that was ongoing at the FAC, particularly the points that were left marked as "Concern remains" or "new comment":

• Lack of context in the "Harry Potter" section - do you think this has been adequately addressed?
• The "Celebrity" secition in general. Since this section has now been removed, I essentially want to know if there is anything from it that you think should have been kept.
• The {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} issue (minor though it is).
• The best way to subdivide the "Harry Potter 1999-present" section
• Overfocus on Hermione rather than Watson - has this been adequatley addressed?

I would be enormously grateful to hear any of your comments on these issues. I've watched this page so it will probably be easiest to reply here. Many thanks in advance, Happy‑melon 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. As you might have guessed, I'm not a Harry Potter aficionado, but this process sucked me in to rooting for the article and helping out. I didn't feel it was right to raise so many criticisms and not see the whole thing through. It's a strange feeling not to know when the FAC process is going to end -- but it's good to know that an article can always be renominated if it fails to make the cut. BTW, I must also praise you for your perseverance and good humor throughout the FAC process. It's obvious that you take Wikipedia standards seriously and don't fall into the trap of taking criticism personally, and that's the key to both improving Wikipedia and building a productive, constructive community.

Thanks for gathering these dangling issues. Maybe you can get us started by answering my {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} question on the Emma Watson talk page, and we can take it from there. --Melty girl 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Angelina Jolie

Here. Flyer22 05:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oró Sé do Bheatha 'Bhaile

Hi Melty girl, I'm not sure which word would best suit. Have a look at this article Oró Sé do Bheatha 'Bhaile and let us know what you think. Regards --Domer48 20:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed it from 'created to reinvented'. The song was originally a Jacobite song, from the Williamite War in Ireland. It was about Queen Maeve, the pirate queen. Pearse added some stanzas and used it as an IRA song, thus reinventing it and increasing its popularity. Check this version out [1] -RiverHockey 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy FAC

Hi Melty girl - it's good to hear from you. I don't spend much time on Wikipedia these days, so it's hit and miss with me, but I'm glad you're still here, and putting in such a strong effort. The FAC process is flawed and frustrating, and sometimes you can't win. Some people will object on very trivial points, rather than just edit the article themselves. Others set an impossibly high bar for the nominator to reach : FAC is not to identify perfect articles (because there are no perfect articles, else we'd close them from future edits) but is to identify those that meet each criterion to a high standard and overall represent the 'best' of Wikipedia. Some reviewers seem to be unaware of this and view it as a quest for the Holy Grail. I think it's worth keeping this in mind. It's also important to remember that a reviewer can object on any actionable grounds, but as a nominator you have the right to politely disagree. Please don't feel that you have to jump through hoops to please everyone - you are not required to follow every suggestion, nor are you required to agree with every comment. You are required to respond to each objection and if you state your case about why you disagree with a particular point, while also taking whatever action is reasonable to address any valid points, you can only win the respect of other reviewers. Reading through the FAC, I think your responses have been thoughtful and co-operative. You've actioned what you've felt able to, promptly and with good humored responses. You've disagreed with some points, and have explained why. I think that is absolutely fair. It's always been a problem that hit-and-run reviewers will object and then suddenly become mute when asked to comment about the changes made in response to their objections. I think this is all taken into account when the FAC is assessed, so I wouldn't worry too much about the things you can't change - and reviewers who lack the courtesy to continue to monitor progress on FACs they have commented on, have always been a problem. This is my take on things, of course, but I've had articles reach FA status without unanimous support, so hang in there. Rossrs 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- I apologize it took longer than usual. I was archiving my user talk page and saw your discussion and realized that I hadn't gotten back to you. I'm hoping to do an actor article someday, as I've really only worked on film articles with the exception of trying to clean up the inappropriately Featured Article Watchmen on my subpage. Maybe I'll come to you for advice or something! It just seems like a lot to write about a whole person's life in a single article. I've found films to be manageable "projects" with a pretty short timespan (for the most part). Anyway, hope to bump into you again! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bah! I just saw Liquidfinale's comment below and hurried over to the FAC process. I can't believe it wasn't promoted! I feel bad now, having wasted too much time before submitting my comments and follow-up support. Do let me know when you re-nominate it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Melty girl; I just peeked, and all of the issues I raised have been resolved. You asked about askmen.com; I'm not happy that website apparently tried to install something on my hard drive and I had to get by a lot of ads, but information about reliable sources is at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources and WP:RS and has to do with its reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Keep in mind that the highest quality sources should be used to source WP:BLPs, so it would depend on what you wanted to source. It looks like you should be ready to resubmit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only other advice I can offer (besides saying that I think it's ready and it should do fine) is that I don't agree with the advice Rossrs gave you above. Even minor issues are fair game at FAC, and should be addressed at FAC; there's nothing as frustrating as asking a nominator to fix minor issues post-FAC, and having them reply that they don't need to change anything, because the article passed FAC. I think you will do well if you take *every* reviewer seriously (except obvious trolls) and work to keep a very constructive tone, without appearing to attack the reviewers. I think when people go into FAC expecting it to become adversarial, they may fall into self-fulfilling prophecy territory. Best of luck, and nice job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice -- I really appreciate it. I think I was too combative in many instances. On the other hand, what do you do when a reviewer gives you copyediting advice and makes copyedits to the article that are grammatically incorrect or factually weaken the article? Do you state your case (perhaps more nicely than I did), or do you weaken the writing to try to be cooperative? The latter seemed risky to me, since subsequent reviewers might judge the article as poorly written. Not sure... Melty girl 00:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Emma Watson

• Why did you do that?Character assination is giving untrue facts about somone,my facts are true look at the pictures i to am a fan of emma but she lied she said she woundn't pose nude without a good reason,how is that a good reason she posed nude for no reason whatsoever,ifeel let down because she would do this,she did it to herself,if she wasn't going to do it why did she it makes no sensePoint93 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your change because it was unverifiable -- please read WP:BLP and WP:V. In this age of Photoshop, the existence of a nude photo is not proof that it is really the body of the person in question -- you cannot use the photo itself as a reference. The photo is likely a fake, but if it's not, it will be written about in the legitimate press, and a firestorm of controversy about this immensely popular young actor will break out (i.e. Vanessa_Anne_Hudgens). The very absence of such a controversy is a big hint that the photo is a fake. But in the highly unlikely event that it is Watson in the photo and controversy ensued, then you would have a valid source to cite from the legitimate press. But as far as I can tell, the photo is a fake, and you must not link to it because that's character assassination of a living person and puts Wikipedia in legal danger -- again, please refer to WP:BLP. As a side note, what you actually wrote in the article was vague and weak ("Although she has"). But that doesn't matter, since the photo is likely a fake anyway. All in all, this kind of libelous addition must be removed immediately. If you continue to add this information, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Melty girl 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ok,I hope it is a fake i'm not trying to do any harm but Iwas annoyed because i thought that emma had liedPoint93 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

Dear Melty Girl, In response to your message, I would say the following. As an Irish-American who was raised in a Pro-Treaty household, I have grown up hearing many stories about the time portrayed in the film. As a Traditionalist Catholic who attends a Chapel run by the Society of St. Pius X, I was horrified by Damien's transformation into a Left Wing extremist. I was especially scandalised by his yelling match with the priest. However, I loved the character and was devastated by his death.

As for Damien's death being Teddy's tragedy, that is exactly how I see it. Damien goes before the firing squad with his head held high, while during the same scene, Teddy's face reveals a man whose heart has already been ripped in half.

The people I felt most sympathy for after viewing the film for the second time were Teddy and Sinead. Teddy will spend the remainder of his life haunted by the death of his brother. I would not be at all surprised if he were to blow his own brains out.

As for Sinead, the loss of Damien is more devastating by far than the murder of her brother Micheail. Although they do not seem to have been married, Damien's execution was every bit as devastating as the loss of a spouse. Although I understand why she drove Teddy away at the end, it seems to me that it was a foolish thing to do. Deep down, Teddy is the only person who can understand her grief. Kingstowngalway 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but your background isn't exactly relevant to the synopsis of this film. And your personal feelings about the character aren't really relevant either. Your personal interpretation isn't exactly what belongs in the synopsis -- on a film like this personal feelings about the characters and the meaning of events will differ widely. Try to stick more to telling what happens and leave your feelings about it out. --Melty girl 17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Melty girl, I hope you do still intend to have a go at toning down what I agree is the noticeably POV tone of the synopsis as it currently stands. (See my addition to the discussion at Talk:The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film).) Beir bua. -- Picapica (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there -- I replied at the article's talk page. Maybe you can pitch in too? --Melty girl (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm game. But first, even though I've seen the film twice and it seems like only yesterday, I do need to rent a copy of the DVD and take some notes / make sure I've got everything in the right order..! -- Picapica (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been meaning to buy the DVD on half.com. --Melty girl (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake whatshisname

Thanks for reverting me on that external link. I don't knowh how on earth I ended up putting it back into the article. I was quite sure I was removing it, though the revision history doesn't support me in that at all. Bizarre. Jeffpw 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No sweat! I thought that must have been the case. --Melty girl 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for your feedback

Hi, thanks for taking notice of my suggestions; I'm happy with your explanations and changes. I'll just clarify one thing; when I referred to wikilinking "London stage" to the West End theatre, I meant you should perhaps consider keeping the same wording, so the sentence would read: ""2007 saw Murphy on the London stage in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine." However, having had a glance at the guidelines, I now see that such use of the pipe trick is frowned upon, so I was wrong, wrong, wrong! Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition: Having just gone to the page to indicate my support for its FAC, I see to my utter bemusement that it appears to have failed the nomination. Bemusement, as there seemed to be more support for the nomination than opposition. Sorry to hear that, but hey ho, maybe next time. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Running through, syncing the FAC category with the number of noms at WP:FAC, I was off by one. Found a Murphy FAC that wasn't submitted, and submitted it for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what this means -- did I mess something up when I resubmitted the nomination? --Melty girl 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Super weird. I could have sworn that I transcluded the FAC page... but I just checked the page history and I see you there, not me. I don't remember getting an edit conflict...? Anyway, thanks --Melty girl 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

angelina jolie actor

You are welcome. It is very nice to meet someone like-minded. From your userboxes, we share a few more interests.Aladdin Zane 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 2007 issue of the Films 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Once

Hi Melty Girl, I added the comments to aid with the assessment. I have marked the ones that I know have passed. I don't have knowledge on the subject so can't pass criterion 2 and i'm not the best person for English Grammar so can't pass criterion 4. You can see the current status by pressing Show on the line that says "Additional Information" in the Film banner. I also didn't get a chance to post on the Assessment page to say I had taken a look. Will do that next :). Cheers RWardy 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I get you now, thanks. --Melty girl 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It meets the B class criteria. I made a few edits concerning the spacing of the inline citations (they go directly after the punctuation), and have left comments on its entry at the assessment page for how to bring it up to GA class. Let me know if you have any further questions. --Nehrams2020 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: DYK

It's not short at all! It is a lot better than a ton of biographical articles out there. Definitely go ahead and submit it for DYK! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:DYK#Selections says, "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters of main body text in size." The Biography section, I just checked, is 2,000 characters. Also, the content about filmography and awards should count toward the substance of this new article (in my opinion). You should be OK with adding it -- just come up with a good hook! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Even when it seemed like you and Cillian Murphy were not meant to be, you stuck with him. When times got rough and stayed rough you were there by Cillian's side and so I award you the Barnstar of Diligence. (Next time pick an actor with normal eyes and the whole process will be much easier ;) Congratulations! JayHenry 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Melty - some very hard work gets its deserved reward. (Sarah777 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Well done! Make sure to let us know if it gets put on the main page. Cheers ww2censor 03:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!! I'm not sure what date to request except his birthday, and that isn't til May. I'd better figure out how to watch the queue so I don't miss it if Raul puts in on the main page. --Melty girl 05:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On November 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kirsten Sheridan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Melty girl. Thanks for your note point taken. cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reattempt

Hello, first of all congratulations on the well deserved promotion of Cillian Murphy. And sorry that I have not been able to return any of your messages. Thanks for your good wishes and concerns, you made me happy, good to know that someone cares. Things are not working out for me in real life and my work right now. For a while I will probably not be around a lot. Anyway, I hope you are doing fine and all is going well. Take good care of yourself... --Kudret abi^Talk 08:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, good to be missed; honestly talking to you is one of the things I miss the most about being around here. Anyway, it doesn't seem like things will get easy for me soon. I got some unfair treatment at work and I decided that I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I let it go, so I will be changing jobs soon. How are things with you? I noticed you have some new info on your page; I think my cat owns me too so I understand that very well. And you've got two lives in you, how wonderful... Well, good night, and take care... --Kudret abi^Talk 06:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Re-worded Oppose

Should it be struck? It's from a new user and it seems queer in the way that it is written. Scarian^Talk 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and this is the first RfA that I've participated in, so I would hesitate to take action myself. But it does seem clear that somebody decided to create a new user name in order to oppose using a rewording of my writing. It's very strange. Makes me wonder if this person is trying to hurt VanTucky or me! --Melty girl 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

Good luck to you in the future. I'm sure it was a difficult process for you, but hopefully positive things will come out of it. --Melty girl 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Melty girl

You don't know me, but I'm Shahid. First of all congrats for getting Cillian Murphy to a features status. I know it was a stressful period for you. (btw, I was one of those who supported ;))

I came to ask you something. I see three FU images in Murphy's career sections which is great. I'm now trying to get a FA-class for Preity Zinta. It was a long process. We've got a GA, and then an 'A', but the FA failed, and some users took it to Good article reassessment (for no reason) and it was delisted (believe me, for no reason).

Now we've requested for a peer review, and some users claim that FU images are never permitted in biography articles. I'm shocked, and don't know what to do.

So, my question is, do you know whom I can request for help? Are they indeed not permitted? That's quite weird to me, especially when so many biography FAs have FU images. Were you encountered with such cases? I just don't know what to do. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still relatively new to WP, and the image copyright issues are highly confusing. I had to seek help to write the fair use rationales to those images. I'm fairly sure that FU images are not simply forbidden for bios, they just fall under strict scrutiny. I've seen FU images hold up to scrutiny in Jake Gyllenhaal, and I've seen them in many other actor biographies. As far as I know, it's all about the image and rationale relating to the prose -- the image must illustrate the text in a crucial way in order for the rationale to be valid. In each case of the photos in Cillian Murphy, they each help illuminate a key point in the text. So #1, I would ask your critics to produce the WP policy that says that, because I'm pretty sure they cannot; look at WP:FU. #2, make sure that the photo you select relates to something crucial in the text, that it illustrates something specific, and wasn't just chosen because it's pretty. #3, go here for better assistance on writing a rationale for the image than I can give you: WP:MCQ. #4, you might want to look through here: WP:RFCA. Good luck! ---- Melty girl (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy newsletter

Not at all, and if you ever have another GA/FA that is related to films, feel free to add it yourself to the newsletter, anyone can contribute to it. Again, good job on your work, FAs take a lot of dedicated work. That's probably why I'm stuck working on GAs! I hope you continue to expand biography and film articles, our projects continues to improve with new FAs. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake.

Yes, People is a reliable source in itself. However, the piece you have linked to does not prove they are a couple. If you read it it is all put together with comments from "friends" and snippets from interviews, none of which actually proves the two are dating, In fact, People just published a piece in which Jake said "I'm the hottest bachelor in America!". The Mirror explicitly quotes Reese saying there's nothing going on. The sourcing just isn't there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I appreciate it. I thought that people witnessing them together in multiple romantic situations was enough, i.e. in a hotel together, but if that's not enough, I guess that's that. BTW, you might want to be aware of this: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_images_of_celebs_in_Biography_article.3F. My recent FA article was recently attacked. --Melty girl (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I object to the relationship being documented (personally, I find this rather convincing and this interview also convincing - either way WFT are all committing suicide right now, it's quite sad to read), it's just there's nothing convincing to cite yet. Hang on in there and we'll get something for sure. :)On the FU images, both have been IfDed and survived, so I'm not that worried. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. On the images topic, you should know that someone just deleted one of the Cillian Murphy fair use images against consensus and without official review. Not sure what my recourse is. You should know that the Jake article has been mentioned in the discussion and who knows what action these two folks will take next. They believe that fair use images must never be used in bio articles, which is a pretty weird interpretation of WP:FU. --Melty girl (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Melty girl - don't take it personally or feel too bad about the challenge to the images. All you can do is state your case which you have done splendidly. Fair use has always been controversial and I don't think it'll ever get resolved. I'm all for removing surplus or unnecessary unfree images, especially if they can be replaced by something free, but I'm also strongly in support of keeping the ones that can be justified and can't be replaced, and I've commented accordingly. This discussion has been going on for the 5 years I've been contributing here, and it keeps raising its head. Hang in there. Rossrs (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that things have gone from bad to worse since I posted this. I'll have to take my own advice now ;-) Rossrs (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Cillian Murphy notes

Hi, congrats on getting this through FAC; you're doing an excellent caretaking job in the article. I just wanted to mention something I should have spotted at the time: your use of seasons in the prose to provide time-frames for certain events is an excellent variation on the tired old "In November 2007, he will"; "In July 2007 he said" etc. However, as good as it is, this method doesn't take into account the English-speaking Southern hemisphere countries, where Summer is December to February, Autumn is March to May, Winter is June to August, and Spring is September to November. I won't go through the article and alter these (unless you want me to), as I'm sure you'd prefer to incorporate the changes yourself. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This week is very busy, but I'll try to attend to this soon. Thanks for the note, Melty girl (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I did all the seasonal fixes, except for one. I can't find anything more specific for his wedding date in the available sources than "summer of 2004." Since the article specifies that the wedding took place in France -- in the Northern Hemisphere -- I think it's OK to leave it. --Melty girl (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Stick to your guns Melty Girl and maybe some sense will come of the fair-use images issue. I am with you on this one for now, so unless policy is changed and that, I think, is really what is going on here, Cillian just happens to be bearing the brunt of the attack for now. Pretty unfair though. Keep strong. ww2censor (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Ww2censor! I appreciate it. It is strange how they're focused on one article. I think it's just collateral damage from a totally unrelated ongoing war at Preity Zinta, due to the fact that an editor from there who I don't know asked me for image advice (see above). Sometimes this whole thing seems almost religious (image-deletionist creed) rather than based in logic about what's best for the 'pedia or the article's actual content. Some editors seem to have an almost puritanical, paranoid attitude toward images that's ill-suited for our era's visual reality and not based in law or WP policy. Anyway though, thanks for the kind words. --Melty girl (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"He was in the movie" is not critical commentary. Take it to WP:FUR. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, quoting critics from The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Village Voice and The New Yorker about his performances and discussing his processes in making the two films in question most certainly is critical commentary. And that's what's in the article for the two images you removed earlier today. Try reading the article first. --Melty girl (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, and sorry about the FU madness

Hi there, thanks for the nice words, I hope you ( both of you :) ) are doing fine. You're right, it's going to be hard changing jobs but I think it's better to do it now and get it over with, rather than to drag it and be unhappy for an indefinite period of time. I'm sorry about the image issue, I tried doing what I could for the right thing to happen, but it's very sad to see that some people are getting away with ignoring WP:FU, WP:CONS, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and are trying to enforce their POV as if it were policy. Well, on the positive side, the article is going to be on the main page soon, so that's something to be happy about :) Take care... --Kudret abi^Talk 06:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

True, main page articles are sort of vandal magnets. And yes, they usually don't want to protect articles on the main page because they advertise as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit so I guess they think it would look bad if someone here for the first time tries to edit something and gets a protection warning. Well, I will be around for about another hour or so before I fall asleep so I will try to keep an eye on the article as much as I can. Other than that, I hope things turn out in the best way for you; I understand and respect your situation and its difficulties and I have confidence that you will try your best to do the right things. About me, I spoke to a couple of new places and will see how things turn out. But I already feel some weight off my shoulders so I guess that's good. Take care, and congrats once again for the FA of the day :) --Kudret abi^Talk 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I thought I replied, but turns out I didn't; sorry, I've become very disoriented these days. You are right, sometimes making the decision is all it takes, once you know what you will do the rest becomes straightforward. Well next week is my final week on the job, the week after that I will be relocating for the new job. It will be difficult but I still look forward to a new start; one doesn't get very many of these. Anyway, hope things are working out for you and you are healthy and happy. Take care... --Kudret abi^Talk 08:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)