User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 2

Hi.

Sure. When you add a fair use image, you need to explain why you believe the image is legally include by claiming fair use. Usually this includes different "rationales", like "There is no free version available of this image", "It is being used to illustrate a point in the article, and not only decoration", "It is not possible to misuse the image due its low resolution, small size, while at the same time presents invaluable information for the article", "It does not prevent the copyright holder from exploiting the product illustrated by the image", "The image presents a unique point of view that is not possible to illustrate in prose", etc. If you check, in example, {{album}} you will read To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use In other words, for every article the image is being used, you need to explain why you believe it can be used. In example, see Image:Goldmoon.jpg and Image:GoldmoonRiverwind.jpg for some idea about what to do. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 02:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all the rationale seems appropriate. I also suggest to tag Image:PerfectScoreDVDCover.jpg and Image:Theoutsidershinte.jpg with {{orfud}} (don't forget to substitute it) because they aren't being used in any article (fair use images not currently in use should be speedy deleted). Also, when you upload images from Amazon, add the full URL to the image and to the page containing the image, and use the {{Amazonimages}} on the image (along with the fair use tag) to indicate the image has been picked from Amazon. And if the image has some kind of watermark (like a "30% off" label), use the {{imagewatermark}} template as well. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 19:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I did all that you have suggested. I must thank you, your attitude has been very friendly and you have been very helpful! :) Cbrown1023 02:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remove any taunts from the AOL IP vandal from Kylu's talkpage when you come across them, instead of replying. Kylu's told me (in person) that she has no interest in replying to him anymore. Please see WP:DENY for the reasoning. She says, "Thanks for trying, though! I appreciate it!" Aquene 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right. The stub-start distinction can get pretty tricky. I usually don't know the films and I read the plot and if I get a fairly good idea, provided infobox, awards, cast or reception are there, I can consider it Start. Subjective may be here how far one needs to go to get a "fairly good idea". I won't get into random reassessing, but when I bump into something obvious, I give it a hand up or down. Hoverfish 14:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

n/t ^{(talk/contrib)} 23:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Should be all done. :-) Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks it looks great! Cbrown1023 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 02:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm.... this is a challenge. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 02:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed that I replied on my talk page :) -- UKPhoenix79 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

re Bronx Science thanks Tvoz 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

I saw your vote to delete my article regarding Nelson - Marek yacht designers. Please reconsider your position in light of two things: (1) further editing to the article and sunstantial refereences, and (2) the proposal and suggested criteria for deletion are based on the criteria for a "corporation"; however, Nelson - Marek was a design team and should be evaluated on their contrubution to yachting and yacht design, not their standing as a corporation. Note that the editor citing search results is using "Merek" rather than "Marek" in the searches.

Thanks!

Kevin Murray 01:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my decision still stands as delete. Cbrown1023 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider the notability of Bruce Nelson and Bruce Marek in their contribution to yacht design racing. How does their importance in society compare to actors such as: Luke Benward, Adam Hicks, Austin Rogers, Philip Bolden, and Andrew Gillingham, about whom you have written articles? This is not to belittle your contributions which are important to you and many other people, but please don't belittle what I have contributed which may be of equal importance to myself and others who share a passion for yacht racing. If you are unsure of this issue, please remove your vote rather than oppose my article.

Thanks.

Kevin Murray 02:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from rudely commenting about my contributions, if you comment on them to improve Wikipedia or my editng skills, that is one thing and I will take those to heart. But if you are just doing it to prove a weak point, then just don't. I created those articles because they needed to be created, if you feel they should be deleted, place take it up at WP:AfD, I would not vote for their keep. Futhermore, please do not contact me again on this matter, as stated twice, my decision stands as delete. But please feel free to contact me on any other future matter on my talk page. Cbrown1023 02:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though my vote is delete, the fact that you are working this hard to bring the article up shows that you are a good editor. Cbrown1023 03:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind thoughts. I am sorry that my last note offended you - not my intent. I respect what you are doing trying to protect Wikipedia from being junky. Please keep up your good work. Are you a sailor?

Kevin Murray 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol :)... sorry, but no I am not a sailor. :( Cbrown1023 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative to change the cultural impact section of that article from list to prose. If at any time you become bored with that task or for some other reason do not wish to continue, feel free to add it back. Thanks and have a great day or night. :) Cbrown1023 03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to re-write the whole article again. A film with such an impact deserves a better article. I'll use other FAs on films as a reference. Since I'll be working on it for a while, I decided to join the project. :) Nat91 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Good luck! :) You may want to consider putting templates on their such as {{rewrite}}, {{editing}}, or {{underconstruction}} so that users know that you are rewriting. You could also make it on a sub-page of your user page. Thanks! Cbrown1023 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping! I was previously unaware of Portal:Film.... do you think we should add something about the Collaboration of the week to that page? For that matter, shouldn't there be something about WikiProject Films on the Cinema Collaboration of the Week page? TheMadBaron 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The film portal probably shouldn't have anything about our collaboration, because if you look at the bottom, there is a list of like 6 other projects and some of them have their own collaborations (or are currently working on it). Cbrown1023 22:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For the Cin Collab page, we should have a navigation bar, like WP:WPBIO, but you could also put a link to it at the top. Like < Wikipedia:WikiProject Films Cbrown1023 22:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for the gift-userbox you left on my talk page. Unfortunately I'm a bit ascetic regarding my user page - I prefer my edit history to speak for me. But nonetheless, the sentiment is appreciated! Many thanks as well for copying the Filmmaking template - I think that's the first time anyone's ever cloned my design (which you already have noted is a bastardization of WP Bio). I don't know which colors would work best for your tastes, but all I can say is that I'd prefer it to be recognizably distinct from WP Filmmaking. That's my only request - I'll leave the rest to you and the community. Best of luck and keep up your excellent work, Girolamo Savonarola 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man. It's good to hear!--P-Chan 00:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Denying recognition from 217.235.250.66. Cbrown1023 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See editor's message for converstations... Cbrown1023 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to do this but I had to notify them about the 6th revert on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR from 217.235.250.66. I really hated doing this and I even begged him not to do it again :-( Oh well... I can only hope that next time he will be willing to use the talk page before starting an edit war. I do hope that you will still take an active part on this page and restore it to your watchlist. -- UKPhoenix79 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I know he meant kinda well... we just have to realize that some users views of what is right is different from ours and most of the Wikipedia community: his feelings that lists look better than prose, that he can revert as many times as he wishes (I stepped back because I violated 3RR and didn't want to do it again.), and other things... it's okay though. I'm just glad it is over. :) Cbrown1023 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you stepped away because of 3RR. I just wished it turned out differently. I really try to work with people out there and I hate it when things dont work out... I thought for a moment he might listen... oh well -- UKPhoenix79 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the times that I wish we had an opened and closed parenthatical together [( and )], so that I can make a happy and sad smiley...... :)(, that doesn't work........ :$? :%?Cbrown1023 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

¯\(°_o)/¯ sorry dont know how to do that one, but it would be cool. Personally I'd stick with the frown since we couldnt convince the user to stop the constant reverts :-( -- UKPhoenix79 01:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is sad... :'( (that makes a crying smiley on AIM)... I like your attempt though, it is very Picasso-like; you gave me an idea... :| it looks stoic-y. Cbrown1023 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot take full credit for that. Go to Emoticon to see more ideas! Yea your bland emoticon suggestion is quite right. -- UKPhoenix79 02:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad; just look at his talk page... it seems like we are all attacking him... :( (this is of course not implying that he is a man, it is just that it is easier to type in the masculine pronoun...) Cbrown1023 02:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comment to my post to WP:AIV. My point about "immediate" blocking was that when a new editor's first-ever contribution is to blank an admin's userpage and replace it with a racist obscene remark, we shouldn't have to go through the usual regimen of four warnings before making a report. Of course, the fact that the victim was an admin wasn't the point; that just points out the obvious sockpuppetry involved. In any event, the IP is a dynamic IP so it will probably be moot as the vandal will be gone by the time the report is answered. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification on that, I definately agree with you. I was just wondering... but thanks anyway. Cbrown1023 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I was puzzled by your changes to the Dr. Strangelove infobox, and wondered if you could clarify a couple of things....

1) You changed [[1964]] to [[1964 in film|1964]] - I can see that this is preferable where the rest of the date is not available, but when the full date, January 29, 1964 is given, I'm not sure that this is appropriate. It seems to me that the change turns turns January 29 into the kind of date fragment that other editors are likely to remove.

2) You changed <br> in the infobox to <br /> - I know little about coding, and I'm curious to know what the difference is, but more to the point, I've been consistently following the example infobox for The Terminator given at the style guidelines page, which uses the <br> format.... if this is incorrect, it should certainly be changed.

BTW, will you be voting for the next COTW? Only we're due for a new one tomorrow, and I just supported Strangelove again, creating a tie....

Oh, and thanks for fixing the error at the top of my user talk page. (DOH!)

TheMadBaron 10:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I was under the impression that we were supposed to place in film in the infoboxes because it is the same as the actual date except more specific. If I am wrong; please tell me.

2) <br> is HTML and <br /> is XHTML. Wikipedia uses XHTML (see also XHTML#Common errors). This usually doesn't matter; but it should still be changed. I changed the style guidelines page to reflect this.

About the Cin Collab: I agree that Dr. Strangelove could become a FA but am torn about the fact that we shouldn't be just repeating the same article over and over again... idk, i'm not sure...

About the user page; ha-ha... I was just nitpicking. Cbrown1023 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the XHTML thing. I've probably messed up quite a few infoboxes changing the code from <br /> to <br> because I thought that was the better form....

The main objection to wikilinks to years, as I understand it, is that they usually serve no purpose, and just clutter up pages.... it is generally thought better to remove links from pointless parts of dates, eg 1964, or January, whereas complete dates are acknowledged to serve a purpose (though I'm blowed if I can remember what it is). As such, the full release date for a film could, and perhaps should stand.

However, this is just my interpretation of what I've read.... I'm not really sure what the correct protocol is regarding years, and I don't know if anybody is.... I wish someone would establish a consensus, though, and publicise it, because the current ambiguity makes it very hard to establish style guidelines within a project.

Maybe we should join in the discussion in the MoS talk pages some time, and see if we can't nail this thing....

I thought the re-nomination of an incumbent COTW was a bit odd, but thinking about it, why not? After all, they re-elected Bush....

TheMadBaron 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether criterion 2. b. is disputed or not - the criterion is there and should be enforced. Many people dispute inline citations in FAs, but they're still required. Only when the Good Article criteria changes and doesn't require inline citations can these articles not be failed on 2. b. While 2. b. is there, it's to be upheld - personally I feel this is an important criterion too. Additionally, many articles had warnings on their talkpages, but nobody took no notice - their fault. LuciferMorgan 00:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, when I put this part up in brackets about the criterion being disputed I'm merely stating they have a right to debate the issue on Wikipedia should they wish. When I delisted the "Horror film" article its Notes weren't visible, but somebody has since made them visible. I still would have considered defeaturing based on the criteria as it isn't well referenced. If you feel "Horror film" was unfairly delisted there's a process called "Good Article Review" - this is where an article can get relisted if consensus is reached favouring this. Please read the GA criteria requirements (at WP:WIAGA) first, then if you feel "Horror film" meets this criteria then nominate the case for review. LuciferMorgan 00:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

From what the Films Wikiproject assessment says as you so wilfully quoted;

The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class.

Has it passed the process? No. So is it GA? No. LuciferMorgan 03:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's silly that you wish to plainly assign articles a GA rating. The reason I didn't assign another rating as I thought it up to the Films WikiProject. LuciferMorgan 10:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a small problem with the CineVoter template.... note that the template I posted to this page earlier now says that you voted for The Blues Brothers, which is a big fib. I'm pretty sure there's a simple fix for this, and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to tell me what it is.... TheMadBaron 08:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just substitutue it when you put on a user page. This means that you post {{subst:CineVoter}} instead of {{CineVoter}}. The act of substituting it preserves the code that was there at the time of placement (the reason it changed, I'm sure you've figured out is you update the template; but this should fix that). This act will cause it to no longer be updated by the template page. Bascially, just substitute it by placing subst: in fron of the Template name. Cbrown1023 12:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it was something like that. I've edited the code shown on the COTW page to include the subst format so it doesn't happpen again. TheMadBaron 16:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA done I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera) I appreciate The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's not useful, please take it away. The reason is that I forget who voted for what, and who is on, and it's only found by going to edit history. This new memeber that started editing with us, could put also his name, even while the collab is running. To put it in the template would bother less? Hoverfish 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way I have a personal tribute as Jake on this Week's Collab: A Jake-fish. Hoverfish 21:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for welcoming me! I'm sorry to bug you soon for advice but here I am! Could you explain to me the etiquette for Recent Changes/ New Pages Patrolling. I stumbled upon it quite by accident a couple of nights ago and tagged a fair few pages for deletion etc. I've been around longer than I've had an account so I know policy pretty well but I don't want to tread on anyone's toes because I'm too new for RCP. This is basically a long winded way of asking whether it would be better to wait before I get involved with more clean-uppy tasks? Thank you.

Farosdaughter 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Of couse it's okay to get involved in RCP and NPP. After all, it's the normally new users who created the pages that are deleted! I would also recommend it because if you ever want to become an administrator, your possible supporters will want to see that you have contributed to it... Cbrown1023 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The "non-notable business" that you thought was behind the Digital Opportunity Index (DOI) article turns out to be the International Telecommunications Union, an agency of the UN, which is both notable and not a business. I've rewritten the article to make this more clear, and I've added information about the index to the ITU article, and I'm suggesting merge or keep. I invite you to reconsider your vote. cheers Xtifr _tälk 11:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You posted a notice on my talk page about Edit Summaries. Did you even read what you posted? Summaries are to help fellow contributors in understanding what you changed. For your post on my talk page, you listed "(Edit Summaries)" in the Edit Summary. How does that help me in understanding what you changed? In addition, in your actual post on my talk page, you failed to identifying which of my posts caused you to visit my talk page. With out actually identifying which of my posts caused you to take such a step, your post came off as some sarcastic snip at me for which you cannot back up. What is it you expect me to learn from your unsupported post that I don't already know? -- Jreferee 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

2:47 18 November 2006: That is 2 hours before the above post. You look from that edit earlier and none of your edits have summaries. That is why I posted that on your page. Also, when creating a new thread on a talk page, the title of the thread is put in the edit summary (that is why my edit summary was that). Cbrown1023 15:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It also does not matter which one I am referring to because they all should have one and you cannot add an edit summary after the fact. Cbrown1023 15:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• All of my edits to which you refer have summaries In each edit summary, I indicated that my eidt was a minor edit, which they are. That is what the m means in an edit summary. As for putting the title of the thread in the edit summary when creating a new thread on a talk page, I have never hear this. If any of this is a Wikipedia guidline (or policy), please provide me a link and I will be happy to take your suggestion in the spirit that it probably was meant. -- Jreferee 16:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

lol... no I mean the + at the top of all discussion pages. When you start a new thread through that, the subject/headline is the edit summary. Plus, edit summaries are preferred for all edits. It's not a "Major edit summary" it's an "edit summary", for all edits, even minor ones. Quoting you "Summaries are to help fellow contributors in understanding what you changed", if all you put is minor, how am I to know and understand what you change? (Note that none of these comments necessarily apply to talk pages.) Futhermore, if Mathbot's edit summary tool also counts the use for minor edits, they are obviously needed. (Mathbot's tool is frequently used in WP:RfAs) Your edit summary usage was 73% for major edits and 9% for minor edits that is very low and I suggest trying (we all forget sometimes) to summarize every single edit. Thanks, Cbrown1023 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you refer me to some guidelines on this? If there is a template of a director, or series of films, before the stub, the appeal for help gets hidden to where one might not even see it. Hoverfish 23:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally that does not matter; if the article is a stub, a category gets added with the stub template that lets editors find it (like Category:Film stubs is added by {{film-stub}}). The guideline you request is available atWikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#General rules, but it is just a "common practice" (I just re-read that)... Cbrown1023 01:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

i want to know if u liked the artilce i wrote or not and i got a new image that needs varifcation, artilce is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo

could u talk me through about how to get this image viewed by wikipedia? Tu-49 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First, the article should be wikified.

Second, there is Wikipedia:Peer review which should give you better suggestions.

Third, what do you mean by "viewed by Wikipedia"? Cbrown1023 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

to have them shown Tu-49 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you have questions about? You've uploaded images before... (see also Wikipedia:Uploading images) Cbrown1023 01:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

...for the welcome! :-) Best regards, --Tkynerd 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your vendetta against film characters by removing all the information from the page and creating a redirect without discussing it. Cbrown1023 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your "vendetta" against WP:NOT a plot summary and WP:FICT. Characters certainly do not warrant an article if it's simply a redundant plot summary. Interrobamf 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay , but you are basically "deleting" articles without an WP:AfD. This is a definate breach of policy. Put it up for an AfD and then you can delete it. Cbrown1023 18:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Then you won't mind showing me policy that states I can't redirect redundant articles. Interrobamf 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed: The first one should be sufficient. Cbrown1023 18:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to point this out, but it quite clearly says "may". The redirected articles don't fall under the "first one". This isn't relevant to this situation. Interrobamf 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the may is referring to deletion and you are certainly deleting the pages. Cbrown1023 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting is not deletion, nor is the history gone. Interrobamf 18:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But you are deleting the content of the article (it can still be reverted but then again, the same thing applies to vandalism)... More, you are redirecting pages... the point of an AfD is to decide if the page: kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia—please note that it cannot be transwikied to WikiTravel [1] or Wikinews), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. (from WP:AfD). As you can see, redirect is one of them. Cbrown1023 18:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You continue to see policy where there isn't one. Redirecting is simply one action that can be the result of an AfD. AfD is used when the nominator wants the article deleted, something clearly indicated by the name itself. AfD is not for cases where somebody just wants to redirect it. I tire of this argument; if you cannot cite policy that expressly states I can't redirect, please stop bothering me. Interrobamf 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I had deleted the film project banner is that many people had mistaken the article for the Kurosawa film version, or just for a film, and put a lot of erroneous information on the page. As the page is only for the play I felt the film banner was erroneous as well. The only mention of the films on the page is that they have been made. I'm not sure that warrants the play's inclusion in WikiProject Film, unless all plays that have been made into a movies at some point get film banners? --Doctor Sunshine 22:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to delete this message. The page that you removed the banner from was Talk:The Lower Depths (1957 film), it was a redirect from Talk:The Lower Depths, don't worry, I undid the redirect. But you should be careful about that in the future. Cbrown1023 22:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I was starting to get a little confused myself :} --Doctor Sunshine 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

hey there! Thanks for the welcome! I'm currently doing lots of research for inclusion in a number of topics related to films and actors. I have been looking at some of your edits to use as guide and as inspiration. I'm still learning the ways of Wikipedia and would wlecome your comments to some of my work later on.

cheers! Modelwatcher 07:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just so you know, if add {{-}} to the bottom of User:Cbrown1023/WikiProjects and User:Cbrown1023/Sister Projects it should keep the content from overlapping with what's on the main page when you click the show button. Just an FYI. Koweja 14:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Cbrown1023 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for making an example of me! =) Her Pegship 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks a lot for pointing that out to me! I had no idea the rules had been changed. It's been a while since I did any AFD's...

Next time, I'll use WP:COI instead.

Thanks, Green451 01:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody messed up Category:WikiProject Films participants. It shows a red link now!! Any idea how come? Hoverfish 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been deleted by anyone. It must've just been a glitch. I'll just recreate it. Cbrown1023 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cbrown, Someone had the idea to create The Battle (1911 film) and place a redirect to 1911 in film, so the link would be blue. I changed the redirect to The Battle (film) and will look for "what links here" to send them there. Should I ask for deletion? Hoverfish 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would (it's probably WP:RfD). I would also put a little note on the author's page telling them what they did and what they shouldn't do in the future... Alternately, you could just place {{db|un-needed; created accidentally}} or contact an admin and ask them to delete it. Cbrown1023 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cbrown, there is a new editor still trying to learn proceedings here who might use a proper welcome notice. In the begining it looked like he was doing vandlism and warned him with a test2a, but then I deleted it since he is showing signs of accepting proper cooperation and started discussing his edits. He is User:Liam7. Thanks.

P.S. By the way, don't let my age make you feel any distance. I don't. Hoverfish 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm, hello. I dont really edit wikipedia but after reading an article on Alan Duncan that had obviously being vandalised I deleted a sentence that was not related to the article at all. I then got an orange bar appearing on wikipedia pages saying that you had reverted my change, despite you not reverting the change at all. So yeah, I am slightly confused 86.146.205.127 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was some mistake... no worries! Cbrown1023 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

...for reverting the vandalsim on your userpage! —The Great Llama^moo? 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list of all articles that have been promoted to FA (and maybe even GA) class this month? If there is we should add it to the letter, if not we need to figure out which were promoted and list them.--Supernumerary 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There's not a list, but we should keep up a list... on the main project page. The only way I can think of is to look at the categories: Category:FA-Class film articles, Category:A-Class film articles, and Category:GA-Class film articles and see on the individual articles when they were assessed... we really should keep up a list! Cbrown1023 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The newsletter looks fine to me. Thanks for letting me know about the subst: on cinevoter and for delivering the welcome. Hoverfish 07:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your message!

Re:userpage & slight clues to my life: In my mind, your userpage is like your face on Wikipedia. It's what people see when they come to visit/talk to you, and it reflects your personality, mood, or current preoccupation; I decorated mine for Halloween like I would decorate my house ;-) . In this case I just wanted a way to remember the best friend I ever had... plus quite a few other Wikipedians know about my cat (coffee lounge, IRC) and this way they know what happened.

Thanks again for dropping by! — Editor at Large^(speak) 12:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• ReyBrujo
• Aquene
• Hoverfish
• grafikbot
• Shane ^{(talk/contrib)}
• UKPhoenix79
• Tvoz
• Kevin Murray
• Nat91
• TheMadBaron
• Girolamo Savonarola
• P-Chan
• Newyorkbrad
• LuciferMorgan
• EVula // talk // ☯ //
• Farosdaughter
• Xtifr _tälk
• Jreferee
• Tu-49
• Tkynerd
• Interrobamf
• Doctor Sunshine
• Koweja
• Modelwatcher
• Her Pegship
• Green451
• Ralbot
• The Great Llama^moo?
• Supernumerary
• Editor at Large^(speak)