This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Orphaned non-free media (File:Kim and Jason from CBMI.jpg)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Kim and Jason from CBMI.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" 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) 03:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Bears at Rainbow Rescue Beam.JPG)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Bears at Rainbow Rescue Beam.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" 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) 05:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Bloke films
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
LOL I must be a very masculine bloke as I just found Top 50 Bloke films and most of them are a staple of my DVD collection! LOL I have virtually all of them in my collection and it isn't even that big!!!Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 17:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The Hobbit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Barnstar of Diligence
I seldom give someone a second barnstar, but feel it is warranted here, due to your continuing good work with the GA Sweeps. Thank you! Johnfos (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Jamie Campbell Bower
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Nice find [1]. I brightened it just a little bit and increased the contrast so his face would be a little clearer. I was hoping a good image could be found for his article. How funny, I followed his Twitter posts from Comic-Con. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Could you please keep an eye out for a good image of Joseph Gordon-Levitt? I keep looking and haven't found anything suitable yet. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Rossrs and I have worked on assessing WP:ACTOR articles and it might be worth taking a look at our comments on images at User:Rossrs/Sandbox2#Work to be done and User:Rossrs/Sandbox3#Infobox improvements. (You might want to ignore our editorializing on some of the photos, but, hey, it's cathartic.) Some of observations may be moot at this point, since some images have been fixed, found, or replaced, but it's a place to start. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sweeps Query/Concern
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:PresN notes in his running total that he reviewed and passed Music of Final Fantasy VIII, Music of Kingdom Hearts, Universe of Kingdom Hearts, and World of Final Fantasy VIII, however in checking the articles there is no review for any of them and at least clearly does not meet GA criteria (Universe of Kingdom Hearts) having many unsourced statements and excessive non-free images. They also all appear to be articles on which he is an active editor. I have posted to his talk page to ask him about the reviews, and he says he "doesn't remember" and has now tagged one with the GAR. However, as he is an active editor, this still seems rather inappropriate. Should they be added back to the worklist? -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps Progress Pie
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi,
I hope you don't think it is too cheeky but I uploaded an update of File:GASweepsProgressPie.jpg to include the July 2009 figures, as they hadn't been done when the other charts were updated. It was as much an exercise in creating charts in Excel 2007 as anything for me. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the pie wasn't that complicated. just have spreadsheet with;
Articles left to sweep
Articles left to sweep
Highlight all the sheet and click on create pie chart - voila! Jezhotwells (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. I recropped and touched out the nice lady from the original photo on the new one you uploaded. Take a look and if you don't like it, I can switch it back. Thanks for finding it! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I cloned in a shoulder on that side, but it's so dark it isn't easy to see. I'll change it back. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It's fine. I actually don't think the image looks a lot like him, or as he looks on TV and in film, anyway. Maybe he's just aging badly. It's good you found a free-use image for Dangerfield. I was tired of seeing that one with the cigar. Joseph Gordon-Levitt wasn't at the premiere? He's been very busy promoting (500) Days of Summer recently, perhaps he's more concerned there. In any case, two questions. Why didn't you take your camera, and who does Brendan Fraser play? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You chose wisely, I think. How cool to be able to attend events like that! My biggest thrill for the summer will be going to the Children's Museum to see the King Tut exhibit and the zoo to see the komodo dragons in a couple weeks. Whee. There's a huge trend these days to make comic book based films, they seem to do well overall, I'm sure this will be a hit. There was a lot made of Fraser's appearance in sources, but none of it confirmed much of what he would be doing. It sounds like nothing! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah geez, I wouldn't even wait in line 2 hours to get half price tickets to see A Chorus Line on Broadway back... too long ago. Besides, we'd just seen Cats the night before (and to set a time frame, this was when Betty Buckley was still doing Grizabella). I've spent a great deal of time at the Audubon Zoo and the Aquarium of the Americas in New Orleans, though I've not been there since Hurricane Katrina. We've nothing as grand as the San Diego Zoo in Indiana, though the Indy Zoo has grown and is much better than it used to be. My goddaughter has family passes for the zoo and the Children's Museum, so it won't cost me much of anything, except for the fee for the Tut exhibit. I'm always happy for a free day and this can be viewed as a vacation to Egypt, the antarctic, the ocean, and Indonesia. My advice for younger people is... never forget to travel, you'll regret not having done so when you're young and have the freedom to do so. Ack, I sound old. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Good for you, you're half my age and have been to as many states as I have, though mine are mostly the eastern half of the US. Don't overlook Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and most especially, Maine. For me, there is a lot of "never wills" in my countries since I'm not allowed to fly now. Maybe that will change. In any case, good on ya! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
GA sweeps user box
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Advise, please...
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
starting a page in the 1939 movie Balalaika - which I've seen on YouTube - the sources I found seem to be equal parts mis-information and mis-conceptions. Should I go ahead and write a plot summary anyway, without in-line references, or cite references only where they apply? Perplexedly yours, Shir-Eltoo 19:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much: I'll barge ahead and rely on you to tone it down. Shir-Eltoo 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Improving "Social Security (United States)"
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am new to Wikipedia. As an actuary at the Social Security Administration, I was interested in what Wikipedia had to say about Social Security. What I found was generally fair and accurate, with numerous citations. I also noticed that you are listed as a person to contact about improvements. I feel that I can make some improvements, but am not sure how to go about it. If you would like my help, please let me know how to start. If you have specific areas that you think need improvements, let me know about that. (In particular, I am an expert on "bendpoints", which I noticed was listed as an open issue.) Steve.F.McKay@ssa.gov 173.69.178.40 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Office Space reunion images
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey Nehrams, I was going to send a request for the use of this Flickr set from the Office Space reunion, but I noticed you had already secured the usage of the image of Diedrich Bader. Therefore, I was wondering if you could try and ask for permission for the others at some point as the uploader would probably be more amiable to you, as you've dealt with them before. Thanks, Gran2 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
i was trying to put this page up for debate, but couldnt figure out how to get that done ... i do like wiki, but it seems pretty geeky to use (you need to be an expert to use some of the functions ) --anyway as a physicist i am pretty sure any other physicist would agree the article on "atomic theory" as well as another on "atoms" is not at all broad in many ways... for example not including ANY mention of Boltzmann ... if you read the wiki on boltzmann you ll see how central he was to the atomic idea developing the statistical theory of gases based on atoms, which gave extremely strong observational evidence for the atomic hypothesis to be true which only a few believed at that time. On the other hand there is lots of discussion of baseless atomic speculation from virtually prehistoric times ... the article is unbalanced and not broad in coverage. It is a useful and important article and i shall improve it by addition (not erasure!), however before i do the research to be complete, i think i should first give others... possibly knowledgeable science historians, a chance to do it properly .
Thanks for your advice, i still dont know how to do a community debate on this, i will look into it, but i am sure in the meantime the article is not broad...and thus shouldnt be classed yet as a "good one", according to the wiki guide.(blanci007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanci007 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Vampyr clean-up
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for going through the article. I missed out when that other reviewer passed it without giving it a thorough sweep. I was going to do it but it was quite late where I was. Thanks for the help! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I had to look twice. Are we sure that's Peter Jackson!?! [2] Heh. He's just a shade of his former self! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Stuck On You film.jpg)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Stuck On You film.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" 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) 06:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Timon Ma UncleMax.jpg)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Timon Ma UncleMax.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" 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) 06:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
OTRS
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for volunteering for OTRS. There are 161 emails in the English-language permissions queues as I type. Looks like you'll be busy xD Stifle (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
WikiFilms Project
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I am the new member that you contacted that joined the project about films. I have a question about it. I wish to help expand the project by creating a page on the film Spider-man 4, however, some users tell I am not allowed to make a page about it. What is your suggestion on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Academy Awards
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, hope you are doing well! I am interested in making the Academy Award pages consistent, so on the talk page of the awards task force, I've been having discussion with GS and a new editor about a possible table format. I've proposed a template, and since you have done some work with tables, I was wondering if you could share your thoughts. Does the table have the proper columns? Do we even need tables? Discussion is here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Images
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
That's a fantastic image. Thanks! Gran2 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Flickr
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Do you take requests to pester Flickr users to re-licence their images? Bradley0110 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you have a go at getting these pics? [3], [4], [5], [6]. If you can't, thanks for trying anyway. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for getting those. Should I wait until the OTRS permission has gone through before creating derivative versions of the same photos? Bradley0110 (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Imperial Triple Crown :)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Nehrams2020 for your contributions to articles cinematic and otherwise in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Nehrams sorry for late response.
We should be able to meet up with these criterias, I'll see if I can find a Somaliland Shilling.
I would need to hear with my local bank, the references can indeed be a challenge to verify and clean up.
But its all really quite ' managable ' its a question of dedication.
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks Nehrams2020 for the Barnstar! I be sure to tackle more core-articles in the near future! Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Copyedit for FAC request
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Also, what do you think about the "Development" section?
Do you think its to specific about the creation of the band rather than the development of the movie?
Could you tell me what is too specific, so I could erase the information that is off topic to the film itself, as well as information that doesn't need to be repeated twice in the article.
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Nehrams2020. Just found you via your images in Wikimedia Commons. I'm studying Bay of Pigs invasion, and the alleged participation in it of a Douglas A-26 presently preserved at Robins AFB Georgia, but now evidently no such connection. However, it looks to me like NMUSAF records might have confused the aircraft with another preserved at Grand Forks AFB. I have never found any images of the Grand Forks aircraft, reportedly marked '434220'. If you have any present connections with Grand Forks, I would be grateful for a description of that one, not necessarily an image. I can advise on what to look for, in semi-technical terms. Feel free to contact via email, I'll monitor the relevant account. MTIA.PeterWD (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your response. I had indeed searched the AFB site, but no trace of preserved aircraft, as if they are ashamed of them. According to Ogden (2007), there should be 5 fixed wing aircraft and two helicopters. Google earth is not much use for my purposes. What I actually need is to get the tail number and judge the nose and cockpit configurations, and the latter can be awkward even when you're near the beast.PeterWD (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your advice. Just tried email to public affairs at the base, via website form. IE7 then gave me a 404, recomposed and tried in Firefox, that said failed email attempt. It might be due to my non-US ISP, I'll wait for a day, then perhaps try other options. Phone charges and time zones not very conducive to phoning from UK.PeterWD (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Update. No progress contacting public affairs, but last night I posted a query on a restricted-access A-26 group forum. Within a few hours, an image was posted that answers my queries about its appearance; at least it confirms the entry on the WP A-26 survivors list. Sorry I can't offer you an immediate link to the image, but thanks again for your attention.PeterWD (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
My bad
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Did not know I did that until now. I usually check edits by making each a new tab. Sometimes I will not be paying attention and hit undo or rollback by mistake. Total accident, my bad, sorry.--WillC 03:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Not like that, just hard to play Halo 3, check GA reviews, watch videos, talk to people, and eat all at the same time while you are half-asleep. Multitasking is hard.--WillC 03:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I own the first one, I got it for Christmas in 2007 I think. I passed the first level and stopped because I have it for PC and the controls are hard. I finally got a game controller for a PC and I'm too busy to even install the software so it will work. From what I have played, 1 was good, I hope 2 is better.--WillC 05:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I hope it gets here quick, it took me 16 hours to beat Halo 3, and I'm bored again. I guess I could play CoD. Stay on wikipedia long, you begin to seem like a nerd. Best to hope to find something which will cause you to rebel from your addiction. I got extremely addicted, but I have found a few things to cause me to not be on much.--WillC 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Indentation is good
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Stop deleting the spaces from the markup. They cost nothing and make it easy to jump the cursor using the keyboard. See the templates, they all use plenty of indentation and pretty printing. -- Horkana (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a policy either way and I can understand some editors wanting to go easy on the spaces but the fact that the templates include them I think is a good indicator that it is the preferred layout. (Also including a space in the line break (br) tag is an old trick to make it easier for poorly written HTML parsing programs to check through the source without choking.) Since the spacing changes aren't user visible I don't think it is a big deal but I would be more concerned if you deleted line breaks which do make a difference to readability and are visible to readers and not just editors. So again please use restraint and think carefully before you delete those spaces. -- Horkana (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Tropic Thunder
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Barring incidents such as last night's IP editor who had an unspecified problem I am fine looking over TT once you think it is ready to go to FA. As it stands (barring crazy edits) I think that your improvements have been fine, but if you need anything don't hesitate to leave a message. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll rewatch it myself before looking through to see if I can catch anything, but I tend to be monitor blind so I might print a copy out to read it the old fashioned way, as it is it's 01:21 for me so I can't do anything tonight. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Beanholidayposter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
WP Film Award
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
And two more deserving editors: LiteraryMaven for expanding the adaptations of The Tell-Tale Heart and Wildhartlivie for getting articles upto Featured and Good standards. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Pakistani cinema task force
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Nehrams, I'm incrementing my retirement down by 0,7% due to some pressing matters. I checked your page and, well, wow!, what can I say? If I were a more active wikipedian I'd award you a couple of Barnstars, but this is simply from deep down: my sincere congratulations for all your many achievements. Shine on bro! HoverfishTalk 10:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Image
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
Oh thank GAWD!! [7] Now people won't complain about our crappy Natalie Portman picture!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I read the Times article. I understand a lot of the image gripes, but I have never understood the complaint on the George Clooneyshot in Chad. You have a man who has become as notable for his humanitarian work as his film work, use an image shot while he was on a humanitarian mission, and the New York Times kvetches because it isn't glamourous??? No sense to me. We aren't GQ. Ah well. Improved images always improve articles!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I have asked some celebrities on Twitter to donate images for their articles, but so far, no new images. However, I did get a direct message from Joseph Gordon-Levitt thanking me for expanding his article. No good image though, so keep him on your list because the one we have now is crap. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I should keep asking, I think I will. He seems like he's kind of a fringe Hollywood type, not really in the mainstream, but he is one that answers tweets. The ones I find most interesting are Peter Facinelli (from Twilight), John Larroquette (who also answered me in a direct message once), Rob Thomas (who is always dropping interesting little tidbits), Brent Spiner (he's quite irreverant and has a sarcastic sort of sense of humor), John Mayer (who makes many odd observations), and oddly enough, Ethan Suplee. For the most part, none of them push their "product" or try to sell something, but make posts talking about details of touring (Thomas), or filming and training (Facinelli), or simply do it for fun like Suplee and Mayer. And then I get that cheap thrill if someone actually answers. Kevin Smith did a 24 hour tweetathon on Labor Day and basically answered every tweet he could manage. But yes, I'll ask Gordon-Levitt again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the voting instruction!
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Just come by and say you are a very accomplished wikipedian! Thanks for the voting notice.
Best, --Garbolia (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind offer of help. I just get started to learn the new world. I saw you used archived by MiszaBot III. It is so powerful! Can a new user be allowed to use it? -- Have a great day!--Garbolia (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I am delighted. It is really a difficulty for me. Please help set it up for me on my talk page with 7 days automatically archived. Big Thanks to you!!!--Garbolia (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I truly appreciate. I will let you know the result after 7 days. Thanks again. --Garbolia (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The image was dead on my PC. Red blank. That's why. Now does somebody remember seeing Richie? Does anybody know why Richie did Bobby Lupo? Himalayan 08:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. When I notice you reverting something fairly quickly, like you just did on Ben Stiller, is that because you watchlisted it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, sometimes I'm happy to see there's someone else around. The reason I asked was I wondered if you had Matt's buddy, the other Ben, on your list and if not, could you? He's been getting some really nasty vandalism edits [8] in the last couple of weeks, but more than many most of the time, and some seem to have been there a few hours when I've caught them (the one I linked was there for 3 hours today). Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I keep hours much more reflective of someone in... I'm thinking Samoa... than someone in the Midwest, so I seem to catch things that pop up when everyone else is asleep in the US. Maybe that's the problem. I commiserate with the vandal issues, I too would probably have more GAs. Someone recently mentioned working Janis Joplin up to GA, and she probably deserves it, but it hasn't happened yet. I have a short but amusing (well, it was to me) about the relative hotness of someone's favorite actor. The other night, someone reverted the addition of loving fawning from Peter Facinelli, who is on Nurse Jackie and plays the "father" vampire in the Twilight films. Apparently he is the "hottest man who ever lived". He's someone I ask occasionally for a good photo for his article. Early in the summer, Facinelli had a bet with Rob DiFranco concerning who would reach 500,000 followers first on Twitter. Facinelli won, so DiFranco had to dance down Hollywood Boulevard in a bikini in front of witnesses (a minor YouTube hit for a while). I left Facinelli a note to tell him that although he may be the hottest man who ever lived according to fans on Wikipedia, unfortunately we require reliable sources, so perhaps he could make that the basis for the bet between the two for the first to reach a million followers - that way he could establish his hotness crown in the media once and for all. So far no response, but I had a good laugh from it. (I'm easily amused, it seems.) Anyway, thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A few of the articles do cite the sexiest list (Pitt, Jolie, Gibson that I recall), but keep in mind, there's a fine line between sexiest and "hottest man who ever lived". I keep trying and I'll keep the Signpost in mind. I'm no David Shankbone, but I try to find images in my own way! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm relatively new to WP, editing for less than a year. I'm a little puzzled at the criteria used for your recent GA sweep of the HIV article, as well as the frequency of sweeping to maintain "Good" status.
I have pointed out some POV bias and confusion in the article on the Talk page. To me, the article is too heavily laden with HIV= AIDS, even in the lead where it talks about orphans. It's important to remember that HIV is NOT the name of a disease (and even AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease).
Just yesterday, someone uploaded to the Talk page a long list of researchers who question the mainstream view of the nature of the virus and its effects. Yet, the article itself lumps all dissent into a POV section titled "Denialism". This sounds like the same kind of scientific/conceptual arrogance shown by supporters of evolution who call that theory a "fact". Science has many fine theories, but they change over time. I'd like to see a less domineering approach by the main editors of this page and a less insulting tone when presenting the views of dissenters. For example, renaming the section "Dissident Researchers" or even "Alternative Theories".
I realize that this is a very highly charged topic. The Talk page clearly shows posts by people desperate for advice, as well as various fringe theories. But I sense that some of the "keepers" of the article have their own emotional charge, perhaps due to loss of a loved one. Martindo (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This month's newsletter appeared to have been forgotten about so I've just spent some time writing it. I'm not sure what else to add to it -- this is the first whole newsletter I've written -- so by all means add to it or move things around. Regards. PC78 (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Balalaika plot section...
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
finally added. Took a long time to thin it down, and even so it's pretty long.
2. Another issue: since censorship was in effect (came across a reference while surfing the web) much of the implicit sexual connotations were not spelled out. Except at the beginning, I tried to stick to the innuendos in the movie. Please let me know what you think.
3. Not finished yet; plan to expand the cast extensively and add reviewers opinions.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've had a good look through now, and I'd be surprised if you have too much trouble with Tropic Thunder at FAC. --MalleusFatuorum 15:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. If anybody removes the main image and replaces it please revert them...Himalayan 11:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
A favor
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Nehrams, since my last note I am back in Wikipdia mainly to participate in a problem in the biography of Meher Baba, which after the article was protected for 3 days and the user causing it was warned, now it has moved in the article's Talk page. I have spent many hours/days trying to make sense but this user jumps from one issue to another, I offer him links to check the validity of my words that he doesn't even notice, and pages keep growing and moved in the archives without any hope for any outcome. Just complains, fuss, accusations, without any real point at the bottom. Here is a recent example: [9]. I and another editor have checked various possibilities of finding some solution, but I don't find anything. May a user keep using an article's talk page like this indefinitely? What action can be taken to stop it? I don't expect you to solve this case, but any advice you have is greatly appreciated. Thanks. HoverfishTalk 12:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, meanwhile another administrator has intervened and things are getting smoother. Cheers. HoverfishTalk 04:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and thank you for your advice in my talk page. I appreciate. HoverfishTalk 04:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No problem, sorry for hitting you with all these GARs, but I just want to get all these GAs swept in a speedy(ish) fashion :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Cuccurullo photo
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Nehrams, can you explain what happened to [[File:WarrenCuccurullo.jpg]]? The image is compressed in some strange way. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Drmies (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:BlacksmithScene.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:BlacksmithScene.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:BlacksmithScene.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Clint Eastwood
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I still haven't forgotten about Eastwood. I also wanted to expand the John Wayne article but it is daunting!!! It might be Christmas time that I make a start on Eastwood's article. Somebody needs to sort it, I have two books on him but condesning and extraction the main points without going into too much detail is the toughest thing.Himalayan 16:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll see if there is anything further I can do to expand the intro. Unlike the Coen brothers there are no pseudonyms that need to be explained so I'm not sure what else I can do. The other presentation changes seemed acceptable to be but I looked at the colours of the Win boxes and I have absolutely no intention of going through the entire list manually making it a few shades lighter.
Since switching to the Beta version of wikipedia it is clear there is some style support so Editors who find it too harsh should definitely either adjust their own screen settings, come up with their own personal theme, or form a consensus and get the template fixed at source.
I'll look at Hot Fuzz now, had totally forgotten about it. -- Horkana (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
GAR question
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
First things first. Hi, how are ya? Okay. I was looking at the GAR Sweeps list and had a question, which was promptly referred to you. I noticed that Jane Fonda was on the sweeps list, but it was reassessed and kept in April 2009. I wondered if it was necessary to reassess it so soon. Thanks. Oh, and by the way. There is a discussion on WT:ACTOR about the Razzie Awards, if you'd care to stop there and render an opinion. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Actually, I think I was the one who asked for the reassessment after I looked at the article. I did some clean up on it and apparently, the reviewer didn't properly close it. Someone else apparently finally closed it. Thanks for adding your opinion to the actor discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a standard list of info to provide to an image contributor?
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I will be requesting a photo from a living person for insertion into the top right photo box on her Wikipedia page. Is there a standard package of information that I could provide to ensure that the image would both fit properly and meet terms of use? Doc2234 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I will make the request for the image this evening. Doc2234 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Need advise...
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I was drawn into a hot debate by a message which may or may not be "canvassing." I decided to take part after reading the discussion and based on my own experience, not because I 'supported' anyone. Now one of the participants who's point of view was rejected has left me this message:
" If you joined as the result of canvassing you should withdraw, as your presence will unfortunately render the discussion invalid."
I feel strongly that this person is attempting to use the rules to manipulate the situation, but in all fairness I would like a second opinion from someone more knowledgable, outside the debate. Please let me know what you think, or whether you know someone I could refer this question to. {I would ask my mentor, but she is absent.} Thanking you in advance, Shir-Eltoo 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Still working on Balalaika! Shir-Eltoo 00:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks anyway! Shir-Eltoo 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Charlie Chaplin filmography
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. Could you take look at the Charlie Chaplin filmography? I'm looking for support to make it a featured list.Jimknut (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I've addressed them in the candidate page. Jimknut (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Noticed you made changes to 10 (film). Don't know if you had time to look through the history for the if you are interested in working on it further there are quite a few details that have been removed from the article as it was difficult to come up with citations for them. Notes such as: Dudley Moore only got the role after George Segal quit the day before shooting. Apparently unhappy at the amount of artistic input Edwards was giving his wife Julie Andrews. Also the production section in this revision [10] claims Melanie Griffith was wanted for the role.
It would be interesting to have such notes included - IIRC they were deleted without even a request for citation - but it is tough to get sources for older film articles. So much that can be restored to articles, so many deletionists too lazy even to request citations let along make an effort to find references. Oh well. -- Horkana (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Balalaika agian...
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
It goes slowly, but it goes. Even begin to master url references. Yes, the plot is still too long and I'm a bit shaky on the Censorship section, but it's getting there. Question: should I add a Crew section or not? List of music is on the way, but will need help putting it into a table: title, composer/work, artists. And how about putting the cast in two colums? Thank you, and happy editing to you too! Cheers, Shir-Eltoo 22:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. May also have enough for a Balalaika (1936 musical) stub. Shir-Eltoo 08:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Done! Table and all!!! (Ain't cut-and-paste a great learning tool?) Added "Musical score" and "Trivia" sections. WHOOPPYYY! Shir-Eltoo 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
SOS of sorts...
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Song of Songs (film) should actually be Song of Songs (2006 film) as there is another movie of the same name from 1933 (Marlene Deitrich) - or possibly 2005, according to IMDB - but for some reason I can't edit the page title. It also needs to be added to the disambiguation page. Why couldn't I edit the page name? Cheers, Shir-Eltoo 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Solved above problem by creating new page, re-directing, and re-organized disambiguation page BTW. Now want to nominate Song of Songs (film) for speedy deletion as it's empty and purposeless. Got lost in maze of tags that DON'T apply. Could you PLEASE tell me which tag to use and how to nominate?
Another question: typed "torrent" in searchbox and got the ship, no ref to the movie and no dis. page showing. Had to go to Greta Garbo to find it. Any ideas? Cheers! Shir-Eltoo 12:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILMS tag & assess
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, just wanted to ask a question about the Tag & Assess project: I'm new to this & the guidelines page was pretty confusing, are we just reviewing & looking for errors & doing cleanup or are there tags we're supposed to add aft we complete our work on it so that you know we did it? I read thru the project guidelines but my eyes were swimming... Tommyt (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much for the reply! I'll give it a try this weekend, maybe sooner! Tommyt (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Went thru about 10 articles, didn't really see anything that needed improvement, they mostly look good. Could you look some over for me & let me know if I'm on the right trail or not? Thanks! I'm still very unsure about tagging 'em or upgrading or how to actually add the tags if necessary. Also, the one for Bootstrap Bill Turner is a character, does it belong on this list? Tommyt (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks again, think I've got a handle on it now. Question: where does the assessment tag go in the article itself? Not sure where to place it... Tommyt (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the msg. Got thru quite a lot of them in my 1st group. Starting work on the next 50... ah, I can taste that revolving barnstar now... %-D. Tommyt (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Clint Eastwood
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Check out the diff. Article has doubled in size! And I've only reached 1970!! I am not too bothered with making it an FA, I just want it to be as informative as possible and good reading material. It will need condensing later hopefully not much, otherwise splitting into sub articles might be appropriate. Does the article look better so far?Himalayan 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it wasn't me who added -2007, some IP probably added it yesterday and it went undetected... What I was amazed to learn from his biography is damn this guy was a serious womanizer by anybody's standards. You know what they say about the silent types... Well Eastwood must have slept pretty much 1000 women from a young age. And when he bought the Hog's Breath Inn in Carmel he used to hire pretty waitresses (most of them under 21) and sleep with them all in turn in a room upstairs but if they went around bragging about it they would get the sack and a new pretty waitress would be hired! Everywhere he went Eastwood had affairs and one night stands whether it was with Italian secretaries in Rome, beautiful French film actresses in Paris etc. He slept with most of his costars and would disappear into his trailer at noon and later at 5 to have sex! About the only woman he didn't boast about sleeping with was Shirley MacLaine from Two Mules for Sister Sara. Both Eastwood and Siegel were scared of her. She was a night owl and described as being "stronger than a man", you know the kind of woman who would take the piss out of you if you tried to be nice to her. I was shocked to learn about the extent of his affairs and his wife for many years pretended she knew nothing about his affairs! He is mostly a cool, quite guy but as Don Siegel described him when he lost his temper he could be vicious, extremely nasty and you would not want to get on the wrong side of him. Very interesting not to mention a real eye opening! read.Himalayan 12:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Actor names & links in film plot summaries
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This is a response to your changes on A_Bill_of_Divorcement#Plot. Is there a guide somewhere that says film plot summaries shouldn't contain names of actors, with or without links? Almost all the summaries I've seen have them. --Codrdan (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
> I have been removing them
But most other contributors include them. Is there a way to get some kind of official decision or discussion about this? It's a general issue for films. --Codrdan (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, and thanks for reviewing the above FLC. When you get the chance, can you revisit to ensure that your concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have commented on this. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thank you for the quality upgrade to Golden Raspberry Award, much appreciated. ;) Cirt (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I removed a ton of cruft from it and unsourced stuff, and then sorta started from scratch again by adding sourced stuff and basic background and history. I created a relevant list, and improved quite a few other related lists, so sorta getting around to improving the main one. :P Cirt (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Mrbeanposter.jpg
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Mrbeanposter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Race with the devil.jpg
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Race with the devil.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Goodbye bafana.jpg
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Goodbye bafana.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello again! After reorganizing "Critical reception" and references, I've "gone about as far as" I know how with Balalaika (film). Please look it over and give me your comments. I would appreciate it very much. Cheers! Shir-Eltoo 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and for the image: you have no idea how much I appreciate them. I've spent so much time on this film because (a) it's my first major research effort and (b) I saw it on TV in the 50's. The depiction of Russian emigrees' poverty in Paris was heartrending for a child and, as I learned years later, all too true. This movie still seems to withstand the test of time: it periodically crops up. - I'm taking your comments to heart and will make one final push to expand it before moving on. Really and truly, Thank You again. Shir-Eltoo 13:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Nightandthecitydvd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Tokufan = Rx4evr?
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Think it's the same person? He's socked before. Going by his edits on Hot Fuzz it's him. Geoff B (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Table of contents...
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Just found a movie on my list, Dark Blue (film) that doesn't have a contents box - never added one myself, think you could point me to the instructions? Thanks!! Tommyt (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks!! Tommyt (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Child is waiting.jpg
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Child is waiting.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hilary Duff GAR
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. There's an editor who has been actively involved in a dispute on this article wherein he removes all mention of a personal life section. He's now opened a WP:GAR on the article and has begun his own assessment of the article. He's given a week to fix the "problems" he notes which include challenging cites to the Razzies.com website (all nominations and awards from there are listed on its forum), Contact Music, etc. I have verbally challenged his ability to conduct a GAR on an article on which he's been in a dispute, setting time limits, and his ability to do so unbiasedly. This is pertinent since his GAR nomination was started with the comment "I am shocked to see that this article is still at GA-Class. Delisting it will hopefully lead to major improvement of the article." It appears that is his goal. Could you please do something about this warrior? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Even when the editor has three times said he is going to delist the article, given a time based deadline for changes and has been verbally challenged more than once regarding his ability to conduct a GAR? Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Flywheel
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Say, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Flywheel (film) article sometime soon; there's someone trying to delete it (and it may not be notable enough to keep yet) but I'd appreciate your advice to let it die or your help to help it live. It used to be a bit bigger it just got chopped down some by the same person who wants to delete (in case you want to look at its history page.) I'll appreciate any reply; have a good day! Invmog (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Help with GA review
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I am interested in getting involved with the Good Article review process, and since you are listed as a Good Article Mentor, I was wondering if you could look over a review I did of The Baby Shower (Seinfeld). My review ended up being pretty short, so I'm not sure if I'm missing some issues in the article or if I was just lucky enough to pick one without any issues. I hope to review more articles in the future, but I want to make sure I'm doing it correctly first. Thank you! Cerebellum (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks. Yeah, it happens to be one of the 500 or so articles I watch. It's been a mad-house over there at Chez Murphy. She was always so thin. It puts me in the mind of Karen Carpenter... just sayin'. I watch King of the Hill every night. I would think they would have to retire Luanne. Sad thing, that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in at the Garner page. I think most active editors agree. The ears piercing thing is mentioned at least 6 times... so what? I didn't get mine pierced until I was in my 30s. I noticed when I was searching for sources on Murphy that one webpage (I want to say OK magazine) was using our photo on the page. Kind of weird. We'll certainly hear, at any rate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I always notice your work with the images. Anna Kendrick. What a person. I originally didn't like her in Twilight and I see that she's been multiply nominated, so I didn't like her for a good reason. Her character was supposed to be unlikable! You do good work! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the key is working together! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Found it on the list and have begun cleaning up and sourcing. No disrespects, but I removed tha tag so it would not be deleted as I worked on it. I just wanted to alert you as I am not finished, but believe it meets NF, even for a campy stinker. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Officially
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Bite Me (film)]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.
Happy holidays!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Dillingermp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps update
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
We're so damn close, but unfortunately progress has dropped off once again. Any chance you might be able to spam another one of those updates you did back in the day[11] out to everyone involved? Two months of halfway decent participation will clinch this for good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Nehrams. Just wanted to note from the message spam, where you mentioned awards, you may recall the medals I gave out to you and others several months ago. I did that again a few weeks ago. Any reviewer who had, at that time, at least 100 reviews, I believe it was, received a medal. I intended to have another award made up for those who didn't reach quite that many, but my designer seems to have retired. Haha. Anyway, just wanted to be sure you are aware. :) Happy New Year. Lara ☁ 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can come up with. I have no photoshop skills, nor the program, but I can probably find someone. Maybe a new version of the reviewer's ribbon, specific to sweeps? Lara ☁ 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've requested that this ribbon be altered. The blue changed to green and the silver medal changed to gold. Sound okay? Lara ☁ 01:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me. If you'd like me to take care of it, drop me a note when it ends and I'll get to it. If you prefer to do it, that's fine too. :) Lara ☁ 01:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so there it is. Hope you like. Lara ☁ 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. As I indicated on the progress page, however, I am not interested in reviewing any more articles. After the work I put into the sweeps, and the quick responses that the professional wrestling project has had to every swept article that was put on hold, I think it's inexcusable that (1) David Fuchs refused to grant a hold period for the WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2006, and that (2) I received such a negative reaction from people involved in the sweeps when I voiced my disappointment. As it stands now, the sweeps will get done eventually. Based on that review, at least, it doesn't seem like they'll be done well, though. It was a good idea, and I'm sorry that it was ruined after all your hard work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What an absurd over-reaction to one review out of what, 2,500 or so? Nobody, not even you, doubted that the article did not meet the GA criteria, and that it still doesn't.
PS. Before anyone starts jumping down my throat I didn't do the review, so you can get off my case right away. --MalleusFatuorum 03:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, Nehrams2020. I wish more people could be as level-headed about this as you are. You are a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, and I appreciate all of the work you put into it. Malleus, we've been over this before. If you want to get in touch on my talk page, feel free. I respect you and your contributions, but I'm not interested in a drawn-out conversation here any more than Nehrams is interested in it taking place on his talk page. Jennavecia, please don't create section headers with antagonistic titles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Image tag
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nehrams, thanks for the welcome. Wondering if you could take a look at an article I posted this evening, and advise. I would very much appreciate anything you have to say. Thanks. Evalpor (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Image size
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Nehrams. I see that you've tagged a couple of my [poster images] requesting a reduction in size. Is the "less than 300px on one side" our only requirement now? Or does the total KB amount also need to be under a certain quantity? I've got several dozen of these poster images I'll need to reduce -- so I just wanted to make sure of our standards before I start. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles 10:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Heh, I would have to do a bit more research for that, but yes that would be quite fun. Care to help out with it at some point? Cirt (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a T & A drive??? Why didn't I hear about that? LOL, Cirt (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Awww, too bad. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Boy, am I glad to see someone show up on that article and work on it. I've got Kate Winslet going under a good article nomination and Daniel Day-Lewis with a GAR in process and I'm trying to address Forest Whitaker. I was starting to beg people to take on Ben! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Your reviewer for Stiller is working on Day-Lewis. I think it is okay. Help with Forest Whitaker is gratefully accepted, though! I don't know quite what to do with his television career. I know that The Outer Limits (or is that The Twilight Zone?) hosting needs included, but I haven't looked that much at the rest. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate the help. My next big project is with ThinkBlue and we're going to tackle Heath Ledger. Well, it's already underway on one of my subpages. I've done some on the Tag & Assess drive, but I have to admit, I've not done enough. Maybe I can attend to that some more. Thanks so much! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Film DYKs
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there Nehrams2020!
I just wanted to ask you how you keep track of the film articles that have appeared in DYK for the newsletter - Is there an automated process that takes care of this? Keep up the good work. decltype (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
...for the trees in the way. Thanks so much. I've been driven to distraction on here lately, between Kate, which I think will pass (hurrah) and other things. I hope this GAN will wrap up and things quiet down so I can concentrate on it. I think the filmography is fine, too. They happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Merging soundtrack articles
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Did the tag and assess drive decide to remove Soundtrack articles? There is very little explanation in your edit summaries on either page. The soundtrack article for The Holiday (film) was merged back into the main article without being tagged with a proposed merge first. Keeping soundtrack information in separate articles seems like a good thing, there seems to a Project Albums doing it purposefully, and I was considering separating out the soundtrack section of other articles too so if the guidelines have changed again it would really help if you could link to them in your edit summary. -- Horkana (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Image
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Oh, I thought it was the image. I have seen images throughout the web for different artists, and was wondering if maybe sometimes, I could put the link on the talk to see if it violates copyright.--Textaholic (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks for at last finding a decent photo of him without sunglasses! I'm still working on it although progress has been slow over Christmas. I'm working on the 70s in my sandbox......Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 10:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I decided to split the early life and work and 1960s sections into seperate articles which I've written so far and have condensed it a little. The article will take a long time to write so it will be some time before it was balanced so I will split in stages once the full work is compiled by decade so those who wish to read more detail can do so and those who wish to read a more condensed version can do so in the main article....Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 11:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't forget though that I have two biographies and once I finished one I'll skim through the other. I'll replace half the refs with the RIchard Schneical biography if possible which may contian the same info in places to even it up a bit. Once I've done the 70s and early 80s it really is downwhill from there, the 70s was undoubtedly Eastwood's peak and prime... Now if we could get every film of Eastwood's up to FA like Changeling..... Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 12:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
GAR Notification
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, another one, Samuel L. Jackson. Mostly it's just some additional sourcing, though there are a few "He did X, Y, and Z, and AA, and BB"-type runon sentences (I'm also not sure about the pop culture section as written.) List at Talk:Samuel L. Jackson/GA1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd lose that pop culture section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
on rescuing Forest Whitaker from losing its GA status. You did all by yourself. Sorry I wasn't around to help! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I *think* Kate Winslet it about to pass, but I must say, it is taking a long time. I dunno why. I'm already at my wit's end with the editor with whom I seem to have an ongoing conflict. She inserted false references to give Susan Atkins' cause of death as brain cancer. She's currently writing up a mediation request because she wants to insert wording claiming the prison's statement that she died of natural causes is faulty. Basically, she keeps inserting her own POV about what legalities are about cause of death and disclaimers to say the prison release should be qualified. I don't intend to accept a mediation request. We've discussed this previously at the talk page and basically, everyone agreed to leave the prison statement in the absence of a COD from a coroner, which has not been released. I want to scream. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but it is unnecessary. What the editor wants is to include her own interpretation of the prison statement, which said clearly "natural causes". She keeps wanting to include a statement saying that it wasn't "official". There is no proof of that. I am unaware of Wikipedia guidelines or policies that state we should attempt our own interpretation of what a statement means. I can find no evidence an autopsy was to be done, nor an announcement of results of one. This is basically just being oppositional. Editors already agreed on the wording. No one agreed to include two references that the editor says supports "death by brain cancer" which did not say that. How upfront is that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for saving Forest Whitaker too!Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've removed the {{non-free reduce}} -- the rationale explains why a slightly larger image size than usual has been selected. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Legion (1997 film) help needed !
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi
sorry to bother you, but after looking around the Film project page and the SF related one I cannot decide who to ask for help on checking the page out I created.
I don't know how to go about making the infobox for the right hand side and wondered if you could redirect me to the right taskforce to halp me out.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Expanding James Hill (British director); managed to troubleshoot infobox and references, but the last one has given the program indigestion for some reason. I can't figure out why the page is balking at it. Maybe you can? Please? Cheers! Shir-Eltoo 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Featured Articles and anniversaries
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Saw your thoughts at WT:FILMC about Featured Articles in the future. I've been considering getting into the anniversary groove (having done Fight Club and trying for Psycho). I compiled a list of movies whose 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, or 100th anniversary will take place in the next few years -- mainly movies that are Core-class, are in the National Film Registry, or movies I thought would still be popular. It may help to set such anniversaries as deadlines, especially for films that really deserve better on Wikipedia. You can see the list at User:Erik/Sandbox. Erik (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That's great! At the conclusion of the drive, I'd like to get a collaboration department (re)started. I think that instead of everyone suggesting new ideas for working, that we already have a pool of articles to go off of (such as our core articles and anniversary ones such as this). I was planning on doing Dr. Strangelove down the line, so I'd probably want to start it in 2012-3 to ensure that is was FA quality by 2014 (that's what I call long-term planning!). I did remember you previously suggesting that we clean up our older FAs, but I didn't recall comparing the revisions. That's sounds like a good idea, and would definitely help in weeding out false statements and overlooked vandalism. I'm guessing that there are not going to be too many people eager to clean these articles up, but it is something that has to be done. We're losing our older FAs quite a bit, and if we plan to reach any sort of milestone goal, we need to hold onto these other ones (especially our core articles). I'd like to hear if any of the other coordinators have any plans as well, but I think using your list for a collaboration department will be a good idea. Since we are getting some people willing to participate in the Tag & Assess drive, I think that a contest department could also work, where we complete specific goals in quarterly/half-year/full-year installments. That could be a great way to push for higher amounts of GAs or for ensuring that all articles above a certain class have alt text, meet image requirements, etc. I think we're also going to need to push for expanded membership to increase participation. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
We can carry the conversation here, if you don't mind. I would support a collaboration department, but there are a couple of issues to consider. First, few editors at WikiProject Films can research well, and a portion of them are "lone wolves" like David Fuchs and J.D. I consider myself a pretty decent researcher (and hate myself for it). I am concerned the imbalance will incidentally exclude editors who have not mastered the learning curve of researching and getting, particularly for the mostly older films on that anniversary list. I have provided lists of references and shared references themselves, which brings me to my second point. While I would not mind sharing for the department, I am concerned about the legal ramifications of doing so as a formal process. Not a big deal for me to send a PDF to someone who needs it, but I worry about doing this too frequently and obviously.
About comparing revisions, do you think there is a way for WT:FILM to receive automatic notifications of when it has been a year for a FA or a GA? It may be too tricky for the notification to include the diffs to compare, but a heads-up will help an editor compare and clean up as necessary. We could also write a specific edit summary for each year so we can use that diff from a year ago. I am not sure about that kind of attention for GAs, though... a lot of them frustrate me because "broad" seems insufficient to me. The backlog is a nightmare, too. I am not sure if I will nominate another article for GA status; I only have eyes for FA status these days. :P Getting back to the point, annual notifications of our articles would definitely ensure continued quality. We should adapt it as a formal process to basically ensure that our WikiProject's good works stick around forever. (For rescuing the FAs Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard, I'd definitely help but could use collaboration since the films have already been on the front page, which is demotivating.)
To briefly go back to the collaboration department, I'm glad people are interested in helping, but with what I said about researching and getting, these people may not be transferable from tagging and assessing to collaborating. The key to getting qualified editors is to expand membership. You and I have spotted editors making their first few edits, and we welcome them on board. Not sure about you, but I fell out of that habit quickly. We need to get everyone in on the habit. Of new members, a portion will not really ever contribute, a portion will contribute here and there, and a (smaller) portion will either have the researching and getting skill set or are ready to learn the skills. One way to improve our odds of the latter portion is to get film studies students on board, either informally or contacting film studies professors about an assignment to write a film article for Wikipedia. I had this idea when I was still in school but never followed up on it. I am not sure if it could work, but I have seen classroom collaboration on Wikipedia, so there is a small possibility.
Excuse me for the tl;dr. :) Hope all is well with you! Erik (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I forgot more that I wanted to say. For future Featured Articles, we should make an effort to include video clips. This feature is very much in its infancy, and we can ensure proper usage of video clips compared to, say, screenshots. I plan to get a clip for Psycho (for what scene do you think, hmm?) and Steve chose a great one for American Beauty (film). The challenge is technical, so I think that we should start a "Multimedia" department to for guidance on both images (free and non-free) and video clips at some point. A good place to go all-out with video clips, especially, is The Birth of a Nation for its 100th anniversary because it is public domain. Erik (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that was all too long to read, so I'm going to wing my response and guess what you were talking about. Kidding aside, we do definitely need to increase the number of editors who are able to do research and significantly expand articles. A collaboration department would ideally help to expand the editor base with our more experienced editors hopefully mentoring to the others. Of course you're correct that reviewers may not be able (or aren't eager) to jump over to a collaboration department, but any interest is better than no interest. We wouldn't need to shoot for FA each time, and if editors know that they can gradually increase their level of participation as they become more familiar with the process, it's possible to see continued participation. I see what you mean with the list of references. It may be an issue if you (and the rest of us using our databases) are constantly providing these hidden articles. We may need to look over at WP:MIL, and borrow a few good ideas from their collaboration department (they already have been a great example for many areas of our project). Unfortunately we don't have the dedicated editor base as developed as theirs (maybe the military background helps). Our members are made up of a select group of dedicated content-builders, and a large amount of people initially attracted to the project but seem to gradually drop out. We were at 270 members previously, but after that roll call are sitting at 70. Your idea of contacting universities could be a great way to pull up those numbers (even if it's only briefly, it would help to expand the quality of our articles, and some might even stick around). Before we could start sending out form letters or visiting universities we would definitely need to have a well-developed and organized department that could provide the instructions and assistance professors would need to set up such an endeavor. Our style guidelines should also strive to be updated and detailed to again provide further clarification for new editors. However, if a classroom participation project becomes successful, professors might return again and again, and recommend it to others, while we get to see the quality of articles improve.
Regarding our current FAs, I don't know if we could set up an automatic notification. A bot might be able to do it, but we would need someone to set it up and to maintain it. We could keep a separate list indicating the year anniversaries or maybe add a talk-page project category that we can check each month. GAs would be easier to maintain at their anniversaries, but the fact that there are so many of them might be deterring. We already lost several due to lack of interest from the Sweeps drive. I think we're going to need to consolidate some areas of the project. We have various departments that are hard to maintain or are not really focused on at all. By removing some of these extra items we can be more focused with our limited amount of editors. We can always pull departments out of archives and restart them again if there is sufficient and prolonged interest. For example, I would say that we likely don't need to spring for any more task forces as it doesn't seem that the majority of them haven't involved collaboration and only handle the occasional editor's question. Usually it's for tagging the respective films just to know how many x country film articles we have.
I would definitely like to see the use of videos added to our film articles. Obviously we would need to have developed instructions so editors are not uploading random scenes similar to what caused our epidemic of screenshots and DVD covers. If FAC/GAN reviewers see these abundance of random videos with weak rationales, it's going to be all that much harder to allow for their use in FA/GAs. If we provide the steps for how to upload them and ensuring there is a strong reason to upload them (along with a detailed FUR), videos could become an important part of our articles. We're fortunate to have the topic that allows for videos, it's just a hassle that the majority are non-free. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I will have to take another look at WP:MIL. They are indeed a very strong WikiProject, and I agree with you that it has a lot to do with their demographic. In comparison, editors at WikiProject Films are generally a young breed with ever-changing life routines. For restructuring WikiProject Films, I agree with shuttering some departments, such as the future films department. I think that one in particular has run its course; I do not see too many knee-jerk creations these days. I think that the multimedia department would be more viable because it would be more about instructions to upload. A lot of the image-related technical content at MOS:FILM could be moved to such a departmental page, leaving just guidelines on how to use images, especially non-free ones. The departmental page would also provide steps for doing video clips and keep track of them via category. I believe that the task forces are a failure because it is too much structure for this WikiProject with its numbers and brief spurts of editing effort. It would be a very long time until we could utilize task forces usefully. For collaboration, I will keep an eye out for discussion. I would definitely be interested in helping with that. Erik (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'd be great if we had that much dedication from all of our members. I think my military brat background qualifies me to bring over their ideas and implement them into our project (at least that's my defense). Many portions of our project are underused (such as some of the departments or the provided cleanup listings, popular pages, etc.). I don't think that we should eliminate the task forces obviously, as hopefully down the line we'll have a larger editor base. I'd like to think that Wikipedia is not at its peak for editors, and I think that bringing in more university students/professionals would be a great way to sustain our membership. We should raise the minimum number of participants required to start a task force as there needs to be a true need for it rather than something that is just going to sit there (and require additional excessive tagging). That would also be a good idea to include the image information for the multimedia department. Hopefully Steve and David Fuchs could help with setting up the department based on their experience with the videos.
I was also thinking that sometime in the near future that we organize a sort of organized gathering regarding our guidelines. For say, 2-3 weeks (to allow enough time for everyone to contribute and establish consensus), our members go through and hammer out all/most of the individual items that need to be updated or clarified. We could have each item divided up separately and encourage editors to bring up new items to include or recall any sort of half-finished discussions that got buried in the archives without established consensus. This would hopefully allow us to then have a well-developed (well, even more well-developed) guidelines that could potentially cover most of the issues that keep springing up. Again, with these kind of finalized guidelines (obviously we're going to need to keep updating them based on new changes to Wikipedia such as the forthcoming flagged revisions) we'll have a better framework to support new and inexperienced editors (as well as put an end to some edit wars). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Note
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for doing the re-review for the article Leo Ryan. Just a heads up, I posted a status update note, at Talk:Leo Ryan/GA1. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Regarding your assessment of the Wiener Film article, I'd be grateful if you could advise on what you would think appropriate in terms of structure? I'm happy to work further on it. Also, I am surprised that you feel that there are grammatical problems with it - I translated the article to begin with and have just checked it again, and as an educated native English speaker can see no grammatical errors. Do you mean that you don't care for the style, whihc is admittedly very close to that of the original de:Wiki article? Please advise. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I have much feeling for your philosophy of assessment, but thanks for your helpful reply! HeartofaDog (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You recently rated this page to be a C-Class article, stating criteria 2. (Coverage and accuracy: It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.) was not meet. To help improve this article, what specificly is the article lacking in terms of coverage and accuracy? Thank you. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt clarification. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Soundtracks
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
As a admin, you should know that if an album makes it to the Billboard charts, it automatically is notable. So why are you merging the Gone in 60 Seconds, Wild Wild West and Training Day soundtracks to the films? I went through as similar problem when the Blade: Trinity soundtrack was suggested to be merged, but another admin declined stating that is a related but seprate piece of work. Not only have all three made it to the charts, but Wild Wild West went double platinum and spawned a #1 hit single. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikiproject:Album says that they are notable, a soundtrack is an album, related but seprate to a particular film, TV Show or video game, and if that album has charted or been certified, it is notable.Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
A double platinum, top 5 album with a #1 hit can't be expanded? I'm sure it could be if I or anyone else found the time. I've seen #1 albums that are stubs, doesn't mean we just redirect it. The fact is they are classified as notable enough to have stand alone articles. You are just one out of thousands of editors, it's your opinion but being that there are hundreds of soundtracks out there, I'm sure people will disagree.Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope to expand the articles that I created one day, as I feel each could be. But as of now I'm focused on just creating for the most part.Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Timothy Blackstone GAR
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I see that you removed the image File:SolyentGreen28d.png from the Soylent Green article. What is it about the image that does not meet the fair use criteria? As far as I can tell, it meets the WP requirements you cited (specifically items (1), (3), and (8)), unless you have a freely available replacement image in mind. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Please see Talk:Leo Ryan/GA1, when you have a chance. All points have now been addressed. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Cirt (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Heh, FA would be a longer term project for that particular article. Someday... Cirt (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review help needed
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I saw you listed as a GA mentor and I need some experienced advice. I recently reviewed University of Miami and was inclined to fail it, primarily for a heavy over-reliance on references from the university web page. This was the fourth GA nomination for this article, and the previous review (in October 2009) failed for the exact same reason, which had simply not been addressed before renomination. The details are in my full review.
After a brief discussion with the nominator, I agreed to request a second opinion, as he feels strongly and I am a relatively new reviewer. No second opinion has yet been offered.
In the meantime, my review comments have reignited an old edit war, which resulted in a quick fail of the first GA nomination. The nominator is trying to improve the references, but I am afraid than now the edit war will block a GA promotion on stability grounds.
I am not sure what to do. Would you mind looking at this article lending me the benefit of your experience? Thanks.
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
I wonder if you could advise me on a couple of things. I've been adding thumbnail precis reviews of Kaels film reviews and I am wondering if it is o.k as regards copyright. Also to make the page look better I added images of some of the film posters. On the article When The Lights Go Down another editor deleted all the images which makes the article look worse, but if its the rules. I did the same on the Taking It All In article page. Am I breaking copyright to quote so much from her books and is the use of images on the pages disallowed? Even if I used fewer, just one or two instead of ten or so . Maybe the articles are overkill anyway. Any advice? Thankyou. Sayerslle (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I dont accept the movie posters 'don't really exhibit anything related (?!) to the content of the quotes, so they should be removed.' All the quotes underneath the posters are about the films featured on the posters. I'm grateful for your advice but don't get your reasoning at all. Sayerslle (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I wrote one last bit about this on my talk page. If I reverted to the version with images, would I be asking for trouble? Sayerslle (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Do wikipedia have to pay for the images on the kael book pages?. It's true it is confusing , this issue and I don't understand it. Of course if wikipedia has to pay then the images should be removed. Is that really what happens? Sayerslle (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me. I guess I understand the reason for the removal of , if not totally all, then at least some of the poster images. When you spend a lot of time on an article you get a bit protective of it - I know wikipedia warns about this , and it does take time to learn all the rules, and the nuances of rules. Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread kind of thing. Sayerslle (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Smells like
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
a dirty sock to me [12]. Can you do anything about it? BOVINEBOY2008:) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Help needed
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Back in the middle of the Kate Winslet GA review, an editor (Abie the Fish Peddler) popped up and proceeded to do a complete rewrite of the article. I spoke against it, as did various other editors, objecting to the actions during the GA review and recommending that he stop. This led to questions in the GA review about stability of the article, effectively throwing the outcome into jeopardy. He finally stepped back and it passed. Two days after it passed, he popped in again, replaced a complete section with a rewrite, reverted it as a test edit, and basically posted a talk page comment about doing so and wanting to force discussion of it. The next post after that was from an editor with whom Abie regularly discusses things on their talk pages, telling him what a good job it was. I challenged that post as well. In my view, his actions also throw the entire GA review into question yet again. His post started out saying he knew he wasn't popular because of what he did (which seemed a little bit challenging to me). I posted a query about why he acted as he did earlier, and why he was acting as he is now. He not only refused to answer, he attacked me for questioning him about it, refusing to answer after 4 separate queries into his motivation, and basically saying my questions were uncivil and threatened to go to an adminstrator because I was being "uncivil" and challenging my "tone". To my mind, he is being assaultive in manner and by refusing to answer a valid question about why he would proceed to jeopardize a good article review and still continue to try and force discussion about a rewrite within a week of the GA passing, seems a bit pointy and aggressive to me. Could you please take a look at what is going on and let me know if my questions about motivation of action are improper? Why would anyone want to do this, anyway? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Isn't Seven Chances (1925 silent) a film in the public domain? As such, why delete a screen shot of the film? Luigibob (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"taking the roll"
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I just noticed today that my name was removed from the Active list of the Film Project without my permission or notification and that you were responsible. The explanation given (taking the roll) is not sufficient to justify overruling the express wishes of editors. Any good reason for your actions? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
"helps to ensure that active members are reached for project-wide issues/discussion as well as receive the newsletter" ???? Makes no sense.
How did removing my name reach me? What...??? Is that like how you call someone up by taking their number off your contact list? Is that like how you make breakfast by taking out the garbage? You "ensured" that I simply didn't receive the newsletter I'd signed up for and guaranteed that I'd miss out on "issues/discussions". Consider it done!
Here's how it works FYI: signing up for a newsletter is a person's way of saying, "keep contacting me periodically" instead of a way of saying "keep your word for a few months and then break it." Your blunder, N., and it's an obvious one that is basically no different from vandalism. Maybe you put up a notice but why would we look for a notice about receiving a newsletter I already signed up for and was receiving?
If there's a problem with the newsletter going out to too many people (is that really a problem?), you could reference sign-ins to see who's still editing. Or make it a periodic subscription. Or just keep your word, the best of all. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: February GA Sweeps update
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
How do I remove myself from these user talk messages? Gary King (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah I see it's at 95%, so I guess that means it's almost done. If the newsletters stop when it reaches 100%, then that's fine, I don't need to be removed. Gary King (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Northern Red-legged Frog
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No idea how this became a GA. I've listed it as C-class for WP:AAR beacause its need of formatting, and its lack of a description section. I can deal with most of your concerns on the talk page, though, but I know nothing of this species. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I've returned to try and help finish up the sweeps. I admittedly left a couple of sweeps hanging when I had to abruptly end my participation. That's something I won't let happen again. I would appreciate it if I could get back on the "mailing list" for sweeps updates. I'd really like to provide a little energy to get this all the way done. H1nkles (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Shining external link removal discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Nehrams-
I wanted to express my dismay at the deletion of a critical external link to The Shining page. This link, channeled through its notice by Boing Boing is a careful dissection of what may be the most complex film ever made, is composed of fair-use frame blow ups and scene-by-scene description of what occurs in the film. I know the link is being used in a wide range of film classes at a variety of universities, and I am using it in my own, an anthropology class. At the very least, I strongly recommend a careful read through by the FilmProjects team followed by a viewing of the film and a collective discussion. Many crucial details are explored for the first time in these notes, most notably the reason the film's final date is exactly July 4, 1921 (it is the date of a famous Chief's curse-revenge) a date the main article addresses only as a general holiday "July 4". In many ways the pages have numerous updates that could and should be augmented into the main article, but the two editors, MarnetteD and WickerGuy, simply chose to delete it rather than explore what a treasure it really is. BEST! PS: Tropic Thunder was my fave from that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I am unsure how to sign off in Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Here is the link in question http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/23/physical-cosmologies.html --24.193.10.71 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your speedy response. I wish I could agree with you, but the double-standard is in full effect here. Half of the references on The Shining's wiki-main article itself come from purely web sourced material, never published before, much less verifiable than what you (and your two editors) claim to hold as a standard. All three of your collective responses to my notes are essentially rote, while the wiki-article is filled with the same type of data you label mine as, yet our data is epigraphic in nature, my sources are mesoamerican scholars that have spotted these things and added citations to the notes. Until you find some editors that are serious about that article and carefully follows the standards you are holding my link to, any decisions that have been made on its content must be viewed as arbitrary at best and lazy even vindictive t worst. I would get somebody serious about film and filmmaking to really examine how weak the article is, the paths for advancing knowledge seems to be camouflaged in these discussions. No apologies for my tone, film is not a hobby, it is one of the central collective tools for disseminating myth and the responsibilities of enjoining an audience to those myths is critical. You collectively control the central portal for knowledge, yet the data you exhibit is dated, mass-produced from sometimes decades ago. Where do I go to protest next? Thanks for your ear.--24.193.10.71 (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you have some problematic editors in your midst, his dissection jumps the gun numerous times, and is the most perverse form of peer review I've ever encountered - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WickerGuy#The_Shining.2FBoing_Boing—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.191.126 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Vipera berus GA review
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
You may like to review the progress. IMHO more than 90% done. Needs your perusal & further guidance. AshLin (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Actions taken as indicated. Stumped at developing taxonomy. May please see. AshLin (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Pleasure working with you once again. AshLin (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Nehrams - Thank you for making the assessment last month on the One Terrible Day page. I have followed your advice and would appreciate a new assessment. Thank you very much. Perry Hotter (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Photo request
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi there. I've been trying to find a usable copy of an image of Louie Vito for his infobox (one that show his smiling impish face, hopefully). Could you keep an eye out for one? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Great. Louie needs a photo on his article. I'm surprised one isn't up there yet, as popular as he got after Dancing with the Stars, but who knows. Glad you're still working a bit on your image quests. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Help needed
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi there. We've had an increasingly acrimonious issue at Talk:Dawn Wells. Without replaying the whole issue, some time ago, Wells was convicted of reckless driving that started out with a marijuana charge. Those charges were dropped. There have been varying degrees of content about this in her article, with the majority of editors believing it was not notable enough for inclusion. It has been to the WP:BLP/N four times, the last of which was in the last two weeks. One editor, Proxy User has been the leading force to keep it in, having been blocked twice for violations of WP:BLP and edit warring for the article. We took it to WP:BLP/N the last time and basically, there have been seven different editors post to the talk page with the opinion it being given undue weight and that it does not belong. Two editors, one of whom routinely posts in opposition to anything I have supported or been in opposition to and one IP spoke to keep it. Proxy User has even returned it since the discussion began this time around. The postings from him and Chowbok have become increasingly outrageous and attacking. We've been accused of "misusing administrator tools to support keeping it out, although no one talking there is an administrator, we've been accused of working for Dawn Wells to keep it out of the article, of meatpuppetry, of chasing off editors (who that is, I do not know), canvassing editors (two were notified of the discussion, both of whom who had previously responded on this in the past and who repeated their views once again), bullying and scaring off those whose opinions differ (no clue who that is) and not to mention some very direct personal attacks and general nastiness toward myself, Dayewalker and the other editors has not changed. We have seven against the content, two of whom spoke from the WP:BLP/N and three to use it. Basically, what's been going on now is that Proxy User is simply denying that there was consensus amongst the majority to keep it out, and does this by shouting (in bold) that there is no consensus and consensus can change, although no one changed their opinion or withdrawn. What this basically needs is someone with more authority to call it closed, I guess. This has gradually moved to be an article where someone should be topic banned for his behavior regarding this content. I know this probably isn't something you personally want to deal with, but we need someone, this has gone on for 2 weeks now, each and every night. If you're not interested, can you suggest someone who might be willing to deal with this or "call consensus" so we can quit arguing this? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I posted a final call for consensus on the talk page here and also left a note at WP:BLP/N for those who came from there. You can certainly voice an opinion if you want. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Help needed
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nehrams2020, I created a new article and there is an argument on it because it is an upcoming film. I have made my point of views on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/China_Spy . I would appreciate your input and suggestions. Thanks and regards!--Garbolia (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Nehrams2020. You have new messages at Garbolia's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Writing on film
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey. I ask you these questions since I know you're a major player in the Film WikiProject. I've been considering improving upon and writing a film article or two. I have good sources on the production side of things (saved my college texts from any film classes) but have a couple questions. First, is there any good way to find reviews or looks at old films? Some people have reviews up for just about any but most are just some guy and a website, tough to distinguish which are reliable. Second, are there any good tips/tricks for writing an article? I know they're definitely different from biographies; if there's a guide somewhere that would be awesome. Thanks, WizardmanOperation Big Bear 03:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
: 27 July 2009
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Kim and Jason from CBMI.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JamieCampbellBowerCCJuly09.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
