I have edited the article to meet all the suggestions made by you after your assessment. Please do a reassessment. I have re-entered the film in Requests for assessment--Anoopkn (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now using proper reference templates. The cast list is now in 2 columns. In the reviews of the film there is not too much criticism involved. Please check yourself: http://www.rediff.com/movies/2008/nov/06sst.htm, http://sify.com/movies/malayalam/review.php?id=14791402&ctid=5&cid=2428

Regarding copyediting, I think they are giving preference to GA/FA articles. If you insist, I will submit it for copyediting--Anoopkn (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assessment, and the time you spent on the article. I cannot expand the plot as I am yet to watch the film. I am out of station. The film got released last month only, and the DVD is not yet out. Anyways, I will work towards making it a GA, may be after watching the film. Thanks once again for the guidance.--Anoopkn (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nehrams2020! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehrams I've started List of American films of 2009 and a few of the other 2009 lists. I'd appreciate if you mentioned in the newsletter that the 2009 lists have begun and that help is required to expand them! ‎Cheers The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehrams2020. I replied to your requests at Talk:Trial of Lex Wotton/GA1. -- Suntag ☼ 15:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An extraordinary number of anonymous editors have been vandalizing Marley & Me on a regular basis. Would it be possible to put a lock on this article so only registered users can edit it, even if only on a temporary basis? Thank you very much, and happy holidays! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with but will respect your decision not to lock the page. In felt if the article was locked and people were forced to register to edit it, the vandals would lose interest and leave it alone. There have been far more than a "few" instances of vandalism; for some reason this page is attracting a lot of attention from many anonymous editors whose history shows this is the sole article to which they have contributed. By the way, you removed a bit of POV but let stand speculation about the potential four-day box office take that wasn't supported by the source cited, so I removed that as well. On Monday an accurate quote can be added. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehrams2020. I've responded to your criticisms at the above article's GA1 page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with Percy Shaw Jeffrey - it was good to have someone else look at it. I just couldn't see the problems with it, but now they become obvious. Anyhow, thanks! Jarry1250 (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assessing the Matte World Digital article so quickly! I appreciate all your work on Wiki. --Utilizer (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehrams. Would you mind reviewing the above article - this is honestly all I'm able to come up with. Google throws up 260 results, and all of 'em are Wikipedia forks or have nothing to do with the man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add fair use rationale as per the bots request regarding use of this poster on the Tim Palen article, but noticed you beat me to it. Thank you kindly for this efficient work. I did slightly change the wording (Palen photographed and designed the poster) and added a reference to Palen in the general description as well as clarified that it was boar meat (not simply a steak). I hope these minor changes do not bother you. Thank you again. hornoir (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I had completely forgotten I would need to add Fair Use Rationale to the image page. I usually don't create articles, so some of the more standard practices are... well... forgotten by me. Thanks again. hornoir (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the nice welcome to the films area. The rest of wiki-world should take lessons from you guys. I look forward to seeing you around the pages, and I'll "watchlist" the suggested links. Have a good one! ;) Ched (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you I will do my best to address these points soon. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the GA Review. You made some good points and recommendations and I believe I have addressed them, and responded at Talk:No worries/GA1. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your closing post at Talk:No worries/GA1 - Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Heh, I agree, and I always try to review two WP:GACs for each one I nominate. Thanks again for the review, Cirt (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image permissions? Sounds vaguely familiar but I honestly don't recall whether that was something from flickr reviewing or something that came through OTRS, but in any event thanks. But don't feel you have to repay me or anything - you raised some valid points in the review and the article is better for it. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay thanks for clarifying/alleviating my concern about that, no worries. Yeah, it certainly is interesting to research and read the sources describing how the term has become become more pervasive in other cultures. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gladiatordvdext.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that 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, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of us think that we've fixed it up. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to an unfortunate recent episode in which Eco was indefblocked (and then retired) for real-life harassment, we have a coordinator slot open. See discussion here. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --AlotToLearn (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering to what extent and in what way this page was being used? To me it seems to be more of a welcoming for newly signed up members - is that accurate? I've been working on something kinda similar in my userspace (here) which is intended as more of a general invite to editors old and new who aren't project members but may be interested in joining. Given your involvement with the above page and indeed Outreach in general, I was wondering what your thoughts are? Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. :) I'll try and finish it off and move it out of my userspace later tonight. PC78 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. New template is at {{WPFILMS Invite}}. PC78 (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, when is the newsletter published? There's something I was hoping to get started with before the next issue comes out. Also, are there some browser issues or something with the newsletter? It always looks a little messed up on my screen, though not majorly so. I can post a screenshot if need be. PC78 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See File:WPFILMS newsletter.jpg. It's the vertical line which runs through the text that I refer to. PC78 (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be every issue. I have noticed it before, just never got around to mentioning it. PC78 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/December 2008 Newsletter; it looked the problems may have been caused by having tables within tables, so I made a few changes accordingly. It now looks fine on my screen, how about yours? PC78 (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've found the Newsletter template. I'll try and make a few adjustments there. PC78 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made a few changes to the main template so see what you think and if it looks OK. I've commented out the sections for the quote game for now, they need adjusting too but if there's no hurry (I see they haven't been used in the last few newsletters) then I'll not rush. PC78 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nehrams, what's up? I hoped you had a Happy New Year, I know its late, so that was pretty lame, but whatever. ;) Yeah, I saw the image, but its not what I was looking for, but I didn't remove it from the article, just that I moved it to another section. I, however, added a new one that I received permission for its use, from a user at Flickr; the image is of her at the 2009 Golden Globes, a little bit updated. I was wondering if you could search for an infobox "material" image of Liv Tyler, since the image right now is not that great. The image doesn't have to be "fancy" or whatever, just a good shot of her, you know what I mean. :P I would appreciate it if you could help out. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I totally agree, cause that way, it would make everything else much easier, when it comes to searching for these images, of course. :) I'm really in with images 2003 and both 2008s. To make your job easier, do I have to choose one? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, 2008 [first one], 2008, 2003, 2007, and 2006. To be honest, I'd prefer with the first 2008. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome and thanks for helping out. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I had a feeling that something like that would have come up, but its fine, let's see the results of '03. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its great and thank you very much for your hard work in getting it. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, that's the image that I really wanted on her article. Thanks for getting it, I appreciate it a whole lot. ;) Request: Do you think you can maybe find an image of David Schwimmer; the infobox image is fine, but I think adding one more wouldn't hurt to add to the article (in the paragraphs and stuff). --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, please go ahead and upload it. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work Nehrams, thanks for getting us better quality images! Nice job amigo!. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that maybe you had been working on Valkrie or something which looks a great film, superb plot, haven't seen it yet. I haven't been editing film much of late although I started all of the Bollywood films of the 70s which I'm gradually working on, but I've been making a number of flickr agreements particularly for images of Africa. My recent is Zangbeto which is fascinating and just plainly weird at the same time. Are there any films you are currently working on -ah I see Tropic Thunder is it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles look great. Incidentally Drum (2004 film) just passed GA. I haven't worked on that article but in my struggle to improve Africa content on here did much of the work on the Zola Maseko article, the director. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well not especially but it would help!! The main ones of A listers I'm trying to get at the moment are decent images of Shania Twain and Catherine Zeta Jones and Jude Law. Perhaps I should ask a few people on flickr perhaps. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent out flickr requests for images of Shania and Jude Law but in my attempt to get one of Catherine Zeta I came across this. All these images were taken by the uploader who seems to be an Italian photographer. To me they look like his photos because many are taken at unusual angles that don't normally appear in press photos and he claims ownership of them. There is a high amount of extremely valuable actors related images in there. I've just asked permission anyway Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has he agreed to let all his images under OTRS or just individual ones? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there are better images of Zeta and Clooney thats all. He also has some really close up images of Obama's inauguration, you'd think he was a professional who would want to profit from them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Law done. Afraid I haven't had a response yet over Catherine Zeta. I also got us some good images of Shania Twain. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered at 04:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

I have concluded my Tropic Thunder review, and given my support. I apologize for the long wait. (I also have a few new comments.) Pending formal supports from Erik and Steve (both of whom I've already nudged), this should be passing out shortly. Tentative congrats, and look forward to seeing this at FAC - which I'm sure from both article quality and editorial determination, should sail through easily! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need any more comments at the review? I'll gladly take a look if need be, but if it's not necessary (looks like it's going to pass anyway) then I'll skip it. PC78 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Happy New Year!

I'm not certain where to turn to with this, so I'll start here if I may.

I’m having a bit of a problem due to a discussion of a glamour photographer. I have not gone into my page, nor made any changes since I was told I really shouldn't.

However, because this ‘glamour photographer’ was deleted and resubmitted citing my name as well as Greg Gorman and other notable photographers – my page has been flagged for no seeable reason but his bombardment of using my name?

The original editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Optimale had scoured everything. Just because I met this glamour photographer at a lecture – I’m being thrown in by association because he kept mentioning my name in the Talk?

My article (now flagged): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Avenaim

His discussion links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rolando_Gomez_(2nd_nomination)#Rolando_Gomez

Now there is a “Talk” page on me because of him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jerry_Avenaim. In question (I don’t know why) takegreatpictures.com - is owned by Popular Photography and American Photo magazines.

Because of this photographer Rolando, I am brought into question? Why Bali would remove The Mamiya Master Showcase, Lexar Elite Photographer Awards etc. It makes no sense. These are much like the Kodak Icon award, and editor Bali states it’s just a sponsor?

I have added more source below if needed. Also another one I don’t understand being removed as a source is Photo Insider magazine? I have put their main page link below as well.

Further Sources and Citations

http://www.photoinsider.com/index.html
http://www.moneyinphotography.com/jerryavenaim.html
http://www.mamiya.com/photography-master`s-showcase.html
http://www.mac-on-campus.com/gallery/profile.asp
Olympus does not list Visionaries. The teaching program is lecturing and "Behind the Shot" series in Photo District News (online) http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/cp/olympus/behindtheshot/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000872823

Teaching and Speaking -

If they have occurred then most have been long deleted. And most colleges do not put it up on a web site. Some of these you have to scroll down or type may last name in a search on your browser.

http://csn-photo.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-01-07T17%3A11%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=15 Updated from previous edit.
http://www.samys.com/dsb_classes.php?ClassID=204
http://photoshopnews.com/?m=200504&paged=4
http://www.cygnusb2b.com/PressRelease.cfm?PRID=196
http://www.helixcamera.com/events/ja92206.html
http://www.disneymike.com/blog/archives/2005/10/jerry_avenaim_s.html
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/f-54.html
http://www.micropubnews.com/publication/article.jsp?id=1320&pubId=5
http://www.digitaldaysphoto.com/schedule.shtml

With all the photographic contributions I have made to the commons community. Images in which are how I make my living I may add, I am a bit shocked. I appreciate any help you can offer in this situation and I am writing on this page because you were a participant in my User Talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry_Avenaim . Thank you for letting me rant Jerry Avenaim (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my page, however I just cited reliable sources above. What could be more unbiased than magazine articles? And luckily many are still archived!Jerry Avenaim (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nehrams 2020! I'm new here and I need some help with a picture that I want to add to the Clark Kent article. Clark Kent is the one who is living in Smallville and is meant to become Superman you know. Thank you very much!!!Sha-Sanio (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehrams! You are an administrator and I need your help because I don't know if the image that I have is a free use image or not.It's really urgent.Sha-Sanio (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop a note of thanks for your taking the time to look at the Twilight (1998 film) article. I'll look through your suggestions in the near future. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, but I find myself in need of a few days away due to a recent "engagement" lately. While I sort of achieved the results I was hoping for in the article, I kind of feel emotionally drained, and a bit of a failure at not being able to reach an understanding with a returning editor. I will revisit the Twilight article in the near future. Thanks again for taking the time to look at it and offer your guidance. — Ched (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I wasn't sure whether to post this here or at your Commons account, but, whatever...) Nehrams, I've been working on Phil Hartman's page for a while now; it's currently GA but before I'm going to try an FAC I would like exhaust all possibilites of getting a free-use image for the page. So, I was wondering if you could try and secure permission for an image of Hartman; images are not really my area of expertise (especially not all that Commons permission stuff) but you appear to know what to do. I've found two potential images on Flickr with currently non-free licenses [1] and [2] but you may be able to find another one somewhere else. Anyway, I've rambled for long enough, any assistance you can give is most appreciated. Thanks, Gran² 16:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gran² 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you, that's really great! Gran² 11:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. While you're looking for Simpsons-related images, would you mind taking a look for an image of Nancy Cartwright? I'd like to have one of her that isn't a promotional image. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you very much. One final request, could you take a look for one of Julie Kavner as well? Then we'd have all six main cast members. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the Mantegna image. Here's to hoping with Phil's image. Gran² 13:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my images are mostly fluff but I'm curious as to why on the first image of the Zodiac (film) page the caption just explains their characters and wikilinks the actors. Do I just need to change the caption on some of the images? Also one of the sources that is not written in a template is no longer available, I'm going to assume it needs to be removed. Thanks - Peppage^blather 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious if my new images were more along the lines of what is needed. I have a little more editing to do but this part was bugging me. Also do i need another section if I expand the production section? I have to be honest here, this film isn't winning any awards, there is extremely limited information about the soundtrack, and the problem with having differences between the game and the movie is finding sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppage (talk • contribs) 12:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want me to write here that I was done or did you want me to add it to the list of articles that needed assessment? I am very appreciative of how much you helped me and for all the patience. This is the first time I'm trying to raise an article's status so thanks. --Peppage^blather 17:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be a pain but you stated that it needed to be copy-edited, and I agree but how can I tell who would be helpful in this area? Is there certain known helpful people in WP:FILM? I did start a peer review so maybe GA is in my future. Thanks. --Peppage^BRAINS! 04:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you get licenses for Flickr images from flickr users, please consider getting the author to change the license on the image in flickr to the desired license, then upload the image to Commons using the dedicated Flickr upload interface. This is much faster and easier to verify than sending in OTRS emails. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Yes, the article's in a good place and seems to have stabilized. I'd be ready to take it to A-class review or FAC, whatever you think would be best at the moment. Regards, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Adriftposter7.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that 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) 05:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Naked BroDVD.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that 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) 05:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:6990 poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Byoudou (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 5, Issue 7

Weekly Delivery

2009-02-16

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

For some reason the article dropped off my watch list so I didn't see your post about the images.

I was wondering if you could tell me how to add any necessary comments to the image matrix parody or how to go about increasing the chances of getting it accepted as Non-free use. I think we are justified under 1,2a & b and 3 of the main rules, but need to make sure it has the best chance at survival.

Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for both the info and the examples and I'll get on to that ASAP --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehrams2020! Thanks for the welcome and info. Looking forward to collaborating.--Iswearius (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for responding to me regarding the Russell Crowe remsembling the character Kirk Lazarus.

I take on board your comment about original research, however I feel that we are being a bit selective at the moment about how we are applying that concept. There are numerous places where people have made subjective assessments about which real life Hollywood star a certain character resembles and you haven't edited these comments out. But for some reason when the same comparison is made with Russell Crowe and Kirk Lazarus, you feel it is a breach of the original research policy and therefore needs to be removed? To me it seems inconsistent and I don't understand it.

I'll give you a few examples of the subjective character assessments which currently exist in the article:

(1) Ben Stiller's character, Tugg Speedman, is quote "[can be] compared to a young Sylvester Stallone".

(2) Jack Black's character, Jeff Portnoy, is quote "spoofs Eddie Murphy's portrayal etc".

(3) Brandon Jackson's character, Alpa Chino, has a name which is a quote "play off of Al Pacino".

I don't find anything wrong with these subjective assessments but they all fail the original research test - at least as you are currently applying it vis a vis Crowe vs Lazarus.

There are no "reliable sources" which provide "objective proof" of the three examples I've cited. It's all audience conjecture. I notice that there are newspaper interviews cited to corroborate those examples, but strictly speaking they're all weak.

Example: The reference cited in the article for Jeff Portnoy spoofing Eddie Murphy is as follows:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/10/entertainment/ca-stiller10

"“TROPIC Thunder’s” movie within a movie centers on a quintet of buffoonish yet instantly recognizable Hollywood types – Black plays a “fart movie” comic (think Eddie Murphy in “Nutty Professor II: The Klumps”) saddled with certain chemical dependency issues while Downey portrays a pretentious Australian Method actor whose immersive “process” brings to mind Russell Crowe and Daniel Day-Lewis – filming the “biggest war film ever” in the jungles of Vietnam. A profanity-spewing studio boss (played by a nearly unrecognizable Tom Cruise) threatens to pull the plug on the production’s runaway costs unless its director (Steve Coogan) can get things under control. So he leads the cast deep into the jungle where hidden cameras will capture the vérité-style terror and dismay of hotshot actors out of their mollycoddled depth."

Now apparently this article is sufficient proof to say that the movie spoofs Eddie Murphy, when all it does is mention Eddie Murphy as an analogy to help the reader understand the nature of the "fart" joke. I could argue that that means the movie isn't a spoof of Eddie Murphy, but someone has taken the interpretation that it is. The same way this same article directly links Crowe and Lazarus and you've taken the interpretation that they're not linked or there are no "reliable sources".

If you're willing to quote newspaper articles as reliable sources, then you risk being inconsistent if you cherry pick the parts of the same article you personally agree with and dismiss the parts you don't.

If we want to be consistent it means:

(A) The Crowe vs Lazarus comparison stands

(B) We remove all other character comparisons in the article because they're based on the same evidence (in some cases the very same article!) as Crowe vs Lazarus.

What do you think? --MuhammadAus (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2009 AEST

No problem. Yeah, in the future that helps eliminate problems with the FLC nomination and less opposition for it to be promoted. Peer reviews help in doing that and they are a way to get a faster nomination promoted. In the future if you need a PR review, I'll be happy to review :)--TRUCO 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the project categories and noticed that all the old importance level categories are still there. Since we scrapped the importance ratings a while ago now, and as they aren't being populated by any other banners, these categories are all empty and of no further use (note: I've left the Australian, Chinese and Indian categories which do still appear to be in use). Is there any chance you can speedy them all as uncontroversial housekeeping, or would you prefer it if I went through the formality of a CfD? The categories are (and each contains 5-6 subcategories):

• Category:Argentine cinema articles by importance
• Category:Canadian cinema articles by importance
• Category:Film awards articles by importance
• Category:Film festivals articles by importance
• Category:Filmmaking articles by importance
• Category:French cinema articles by importance
• Category:Italian cinema articles by importance
• Category:Japanese cinema articles by importance
• Category:Korean cinema articles by importance
• Category:New Zealand cinema articles by importance
• Category:Persian cinema articles by importance
• Category:Southeast Asian cinema articles by importance
• Category:Spanish cinema articles by importance
• Category:War films articles by importance

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. There's also a number of unused C-Class categories, but we'll see how the discussion ends up first. While I'm thinking about it, you can probably unprotect {{Upgrading needed}} and {{Upgrading neededSB}} now that they are only linked and not transcluded. Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting us those images, I love Thandie! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Actors Award
		I, Dr. Blofeld hereby award Nehrams2020, another WikiProject Films Award for his fantastic contibutions to WikiProject Films. As if your excellent contributions to writing film articles and overlooking the project isn't enough I am in awe of the lengths you have gone to obtain us high quality free of famous actors that are often so difficult to come across. You probably have one of these if not several already but just a small token of my gratitude for your awesome work in the area of imagery. Best Regards Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Awarded 21:46, February 26, 2009(UTC)

Nehrams those image uploads are really AWESOME!! Thankyou SO MUCH for your work in this area, I greatly appreciate it and I mean that in every possible way as a general wikipedian anyway let alone one interested in actors. . Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're enjoying it and it is productive too. Yes I like seeking out flickr agreements of obscure countries too, it can be quite rewarding to see the articles polished up. I hadn't realised it was you who had uploaded countless other images over the past year or so, images I've regularly thought, ah thats good we now have on image! The more I think of it it obviously wasn't a cooincidence. Glad we now have one of Catherine Zeta too. Just goes to show that many people are very helpful in regards to images, sopmething in my view the wiki commons should develop something with as it potentially would undoubtedly massively improve the resource. I know also OTRS sorting can be a pain so thanks for taking the time to do that, it makes actors on wikipedia MUCH! better. Hope you are well Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your award to be from WP:ACTORS but it is equally a part of films so you may mention it in the films newsletter! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some flickr users actually seem to be quite honored by having their images feature in wikipedias main articles. This is growing into such a huge site that I'm sure the contributors to it will continue to increase even if the bulk of the work is centred around the "core editors". It is still early days really, wikipedia is still a toddler really, given time it will mature and quality will improve as we've witnessed with many articles already. I;ve created around 50,000 articles now I think, many have developed into fuller articles by other contributors or by myself, many are still stubs but it is still worth creating them in the end. Theres only so much we can do by ourselves! The main thing is that we enjoy the site, and I'm glad to see you also do. Basically we are free to make it anything we want it do be withint reason of course but that what I love about it, the freedom to contributee what you want, when you want. Wonderful creation this wiki thing. Yes at times it can be a pain in the ass especially in conflicts and things but the positive values far exceed the negative aspects of the wiki I think. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did a test a few weeks back actually to see if I could "live without wiki" and I actually had no problems finding other things to do. I find if you are away from it for a few days and find other regular things to do you soon forget about it and grow accustomed to just not being online. The thing I want! to contribute to wikipedia, I choose to be online, I choose to edit wikipedia because I enjoy it. I still to this day feel quite privelaged to even have web access, I didn't have it in my house until late 2005. I have become very active in the project chiefly because there is always just so many things to do and there is endless potential on here to build something the world has not seen before on one site. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I've got another bunch of film pages that can be deleted. These are all empty talk pages for archived or redirected project pages; none of them are likely to be used for discussion now, and they're just needlessly filling up categories.

Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unlike what I was thinking for those templates, i.e. replacing them with one or more subpages in the assessment department. I'm not sure we need seperate instructions for each of the things you mention, though; I would rather make the instructions we have more inclusive and less exclusive to films. At some point I would like to revise the wording of our assessment scale and tie these two things much more closely together, though I only have the vaguest of ideas how best to go about that at the moment. Also, I see that WP:MILHIST have a B-Class FAQ and A-Class FAQ, and was thinking it might be useful to have something similar for our own project. Regards. PC78 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "Instructions" is the best title for the page; perhaps "Article improvement" or "Improvement guidelines" would be better? Other than that I'm happy for the banner to link to that page rather than the two templates. The page can always be revised as we go along. :) Perhaps this is worth mentioning at WT:FILMC?

Regarding the C-Class discussion, I asked Rje to close the discussion and he closed it as "no concensus", though I think the proposal had enough support for us to not drop the idea entirely. As the opposition mostly came from the coordinators, perhaps it's worth having a discussion amongst ourselves as to how C-Class could best be incorporated into our assessments and how we can make it work to our benefit. PC78 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NYC Legoland.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Please note that back in September of 2008, you improperly removed the {{non-free 3d art}} tag from this image. This image can not qualify under a free license. The original artist(s) who created this artwork hold rights to any derivative works of the work, since it is in the United States. See Freedom of panorama for more information. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Code of silence.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know there were several RfC's dealing with this topic, for which you reverted me on the Total Recall article. Last I checked there was no consensus to change the rule (current rule being that the piped links violated WP:EGG). However, I will gladly stop deleting the links on sight, assuming that a new consensus was reached, and you can link me to it. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put me on the list for the newsletter. I don't seem to be getting one. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Nothing yet... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Eh, quite a dubious honour... especially since the entire contretemps was over basically some other editor's work, that I was only trying to protect from vandals. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, and I won't comment on it to the reviewers, citing WP:COLOR as a reason to remove the table heading colors is off-base. Look at the myriad of featured lists that employ color, and when I checked the Old Country for Old Men list against the color checker pages, the blue background for the filmography heading was perfectly acceptable. Myself, I think this is more of a personal preference issue that anything that is supported by the MoS. Just my 2 cents worth of comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the color either. The MOS doesn't really apply here—unless we had this happening. Anyway, it is just one of those things... Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehrams. I was wondering if you could get us better images of Michelle Pfeiffer and Kim Basinger (two of my 90s crushes as a teenager) and Danny Aiello. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Madagascar2poster.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that 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) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to ignore the message you left about the opening, sorry for being so late getting back to you. I probably don't have the skill-set yet for something like this. I'm still learning all the ins and outs of Wikipedia - getting the policy and guidelines all stuffed in-between my ears ;). I'll stay active in the project, and maybe next time around, when I feel a little more knowledgeable about Wikipedia as a whole I'll try to do more. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 09:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Firstly, sorry for not contacting you before changing the image. My mistake.

Secondly, could I ask you to please not revert the picture again, until we resolve this issue. I've asked User:Trudyjh to do the same. I don't want us to fall foul of the WP:3RR.

Give me a little time to check all the facts of what's going on there, and then I will post my findings and thoughts on my own talk page; I'll put another note here to alert you to this. It will be later today.

I hope we can sort this out and reach an amicable consensus.

Thanks for your cooperation.

--  Chzz  ►  11:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through User talk:Chzz#User:Trudyjh, and respond to the 'suggested solution' at the end. Thanks! --  Chzz  ►  12:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk, cheers --  Chzz  ►  22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to very humbly mention that, it might have been better if you hadn't put my new pic onto the article until Trudyjh had responded; I do hope that user will agree to the proposed solution, and I suspect that they will, however it might have been apposite to wait for the consensus before making the change. This is a tiny critique, and intended with all best intentions - ie from your erudite and calm manner in this discussion, I'm hoping you will take this the right way - as a constructive comment to help in future discussions. I'm happy with the way things stand, and am not suggesting any futher action on your part - it's just a comment. --  Chzz  ►  22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page of the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nehrams, I was wondering if you could review the Spokane, Washington article in an ACR. After you read the article, I believe all you need to do is apply the A-Class criteria to the article and put whether you believe it is worthy of being A-class in the section dealing with the review in the articles Talk page. Also, in addition to doing the assessment, it would be helpful if you could include some points for improvement. If you are up to review it, notify me here or on my Talk so I can stop looking for reviewers. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've made some comments on the A-class review for Spokane, Washington. I think most of your concerns have been addressed, and I am satisfied as well that it seems to meet the A-class criteria. So if you could take another peek at it in the next day or two, I'd like to promote this to A-class for WP:CITIES. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Creature from the Black Lagoon poster.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that 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) 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for all the hard work you've put into Toy Story during the last week. You've really gone above and beyond the call of duty in restructuring, rewriting and improving the article. GA here we come, hopefully! Tim Bennett (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its can get frustrating sometimes when nobody replies. I also have a request for eyebrow man Peter Gallagher. I could have sworn we once had a free image of him but there we go. Good work on Toy Story can't believe how many years ago that came out now! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I remember seeing films like Mrs. Doubtfire, the original Beethoven (film), River Wild and Jurassic Park and all that too and it really doesn not feel like that long ago. 16 years ago for most of them, makes me feel old! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clint is awesome, he is my favourite living actor I think, along with Dustin Hoffman and De Niro. One of the coolest guys ever. I love the atmosphere of some of his westerns like Highplains Drifter, The Outlaw Josey Wales and Pale Rider. Even Angelina Jolie and that think he is in a class of his own. I think I will try to get hold of a bography on him and see what I can do with the article. The John Wayne article also in particularly is atrocious it mentions practically nothing about his career and his films. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes hes an extremely talented director too. I liked the Dirty Harry films for the sheer intolerance that he showed when playing Harry Callahan. If most the vast majority of actors tried to play that role and said the lines he did it wouldn't work and would be laughable, maybe Arnie at his Terminator peak could have pulled it off, it wouldn't have been as cool as Clint though. He was the icon of bad ass in my view! He even sounds quite menacing at even 78 saying "Get off my lawn!". My favourites though are his 60s westerns though, the Dollars trilogy is one of cinema's finest undoubtedly. Yes I have a lot of Wayne films and have seen most of them on TCM, the Duke was one of my favoutite actors but I preferred the anti-hero, ruthless portrayal of the old west in Clint's films better. My favourite actor of all time though is Humphrey Bogart. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say, is there an awards ceremony for Wikipedia editing? If not I think I'll get one underway. Get back to me friend. Shamwow86 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nehrams2020. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C) 02:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just starting the review for this now. :) Can you do me a favour and fix the poster? I did have this resized at the last review, but someone has since come along and uploaded a larger version. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Clint Eastwood filmography looks good now. I'm glad that my suggestions helped you. In the meantime, do you care to take a look at the Gene Kelly filmography page that I put together? I'm hoping to get this upgraded into the "featured list" stratosphere. Jimknut (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I opened a case of sockpuppetry on User:Shamwow86. It is located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creamy3. After reviewing the conversations beween Girolamo and Shamwow86 on the election page, I took a further look at his behavior. And I felt this passed the WP:DUCK test too much to ignore. Regards. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't appear that he returned just for the election. But rather that he's been here all along. Blocked as Creamy3 last April, then he was Magicbullet5 from May to October before getting blocked, then Titchbits74 from November to January before being blocked. And now Shamwow86. The thing is, if he hadn't stuck his name into the election, he wouldn't have been discovered at all. Definitely weird. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea I've had: how about using the newsletter to showcase a selection of the month's film-related DYKs from the main page? Assuming they aren't too hard to track down, of course. It needn't be exhaustive, but it could help to plug some empty space. PC78 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have 11 DYKs from this month alone, which is more than I would suggest adding to the newsletter; we can just hand pick a few of those. Let me know when you make a start on the newsletter and we'll see how much space there is to play with. :) PC78 (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found room for another, but what you've done looks great! :) PC78 (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some remarkable work there. Kudos for that. DawnisuponUS (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I noticed your work on the article a couple of days ago and have been meaning to leave you a nice note about all of your improvements. If I had to guess, I would say that WP:OK -like many of the state and province based projects- does not really have a formalized review process. While I think your idea of getting this article up to GA-status in time for the 15th anniversary is fantastic, I have to give a couple of caveats first. First, though I am more than willing to help out, I have to say up front that I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert on the promotion process. As an example, I have only helped out on one GA-drive (for this article), and one FA-drive (for Tulsa, Oklahoma), and I was not a central player on either. Second, I have some outside-Wikipedia projects that are starting to pick up speed (including a couple of things with my kids as the weather continues to warm up, as well as my wife and I are learning Mandarin Chinese in preparation for our wedding anniversary trip to the PRC in June), so I will not have as much dedicated wiki-time as I have in the past (April - August are always my least involved wiki months). — Kralizec! (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am working on Centurion (film), and I noticed that this website in its "External links" section. I want to contact the author to ask about licensing some of the images freely. I looked at Wikipedia and WikiMedia Commons's pages about uploading images, but I could not find any specific instructions about the best way to contact the author and how to license the images. I know you've approached some people on Flickr; would the same approach apply here? If so, what needs to be done? I have a Wikipedia-related email which I can use to contact the author, but I am not clear on what to say. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you are intrested in Social Sciences GAN articles. I have nominated for GA article Cham Albanians. Could you have a look on it? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I just joined the films WikiProject (after writing the Liza with a Z article) and was very pleased to receive the newsletter. If you ever need help putting it together, I'm always happy to lend a hand. Howie ☎ 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What can I say... Thank you for rewriting the citations and the clean-up. Also thank you for reviewing the article too. I'm really pleased with the rating and hope to get it up to GA one day! Howie ☎ 01:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and congratulations on being elected as a coordinator for WikiProject Films! As the lead coordinator, I look forward to helping set an agenda for the WikiProject for this term and beyond, and I hope that you will actively participate in working through our agenda's objectives. I ask you to take a moment and review the goals of WikiProject Films (listed on the WikiProject's front page and reiterated here):

• To standardize the film articles in Wikipedia
• To improve Wikipedia coverage of films by adding, expanding and improving film articles
• To serve as a central point of discussion for issues related to Wikipedia film articles
• To provide the necessary framework to assist in bringing all articles within the project scope to the highest possible quality

Since you have stepped forward to take on the responsibilities of the coordinator position, my expectations are for you to play an active role in most coordinator-related discussions and to bring new ideas to the circle whenever possible. Since all seven of us will collaborate in discussions, I ask you to take a moment and leave a comment here about your background as an editor (I provided my own background). Outline what you believe your strengths and your weaknesses are, and summarize what you want to accomplish for WikiProject Films this term. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/B-Class to outline the various ins and outs of B-Class assessments (much of it borrowed from elsewhere). It may still need a few things, so any comments or crits would be welcome. I'm doing some work on the {{Film}} banner at the moment, so I'll look at incorporating this and the "Instructions" page you created. Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw your note on the WP Crime and Criminal Biography talk page. I'm currently fairly busy but will try to take a look at it in the next week or so. Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the article now. I happen to be a copy editor in real life, so I'll fix any style, punc, grammar issues. momoricks (make my day) 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm unable to take a thorough look at the article in the near future. User:Aude has worked on several 9/11-related FAs. They may be able to give you some useful input. Best, momoricks 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I see that the Clint Eastwood filmography has been promoted to featured list status. Does that make your day? Now let's see what happens with the Gene Kelly filmography that I put together (and overhauled several times). Jimknut (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, you have 346 listed reviews. For this very impressive and appreciated work, I hope you enjoy this award and display it proudly. لennavecia 03:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just performed a page merge from Oligotrophic to Oligotroph. Currently there are a number of pages that link to Oligotrophic; do you know of any ways of automatically fixing all the wikilinks to the old page? ←Spidern→ 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The standard wiki film article keeps the plot section fairly self-contained including (in parenthesis) the wikilinked actor's name following first mention of each respective character. - Steve3849 ^talk 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nehrams2020. You may not be aware, but the new Featured list criteria was implemented Sunday 5 April, 00:56 (UTC) following two weeks of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#New criterion discussion.

I've gone through the nominations and have noticed the following have received reviews from you, but no indication whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL:

1. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gene Kelly filmography/archive1 (Gene Kelly filmography)

Please could you take the time to revisit the articles and candidate pages, check them against the new Featured list criteria, and indicate whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL. It would be much appreciated as the nomination will not have to be kept open any longer than necessary.

Finally, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness of this message; the same wording is being sent to everyone who has outstanding reviews, with only the names of lists being changed. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ;) -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that this passed FLC already? I can't find any evidence for it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I'd advise waiting, myself. As for the reformatting of the lists, I'm not particularly for it, as I think that the articles described should match their actual titles; nonetheless, if you are set on that, I'd only ask that you re-alphabetize them accordingly. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the first editor made the mistake I redid the revision and in the edit description I put the IMDB page. That should be proof enough. This tells me your editors do not bother checking anything before they pass judgment. Had they read the comments they would have seen it was legit and this all would have been avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.208.20 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Accounting ethics, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Color me impressed! That's an exemplar for DYK submissions! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just ran across the File:AlmondShakerbeforeafter.jpg image in the almond article. Great photo! Kudos to you and your dad! — Kralizec! (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is close to becoming B but I want to add the score. Most of the other pages have a score on a separate page but I don't have a lot of information on it. Should I just make it a stub and have it on the separate page? I'm thinking just have to expand/fix DVD release section and fix any single sentences. --Peppage^BRAINS! 21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Aspenextremedvd.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that 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) 05:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Upgrading needed}} and {{Upgrading neededSB}} are now pretty much orphaned if you feel like deleting them. Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nehrams2020. I was wondering if you could help me with an edit-warring situation. I have reverted edits by 206.188.48.28 and 206.188.48.70 at least three times today to Amy Adams. It is not that I dislike their edits but their edits do not maintain or improve on the GA quality of the article. I have notified both on their talk pages as well as posting a reason for my reversions on the article's talk page. Is there something else I should do? Regards, Ladida (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Regards, Ladida (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's happening again but from this IP - 206.188.48.77. Regards, Ladida (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Regards, Ladida (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering how to upload graphs as images, such as this file that you uploaded. Currently I want to upload a graph to illustrate the voting for the licensing update. I already have my data in Microsoft Excel and just need to know the way to upload. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much of a change. Only 2 articles got reviewed last month. We need new blood (again...) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But remember, we don't need to do Sweeps when the first one is done (at least theoretically speaking). Since we would have picked out any articles that were promoted prior to the insertion of criteria, these articles won't be back if we have second round of sweeps. What's the number of GA swept for a barnstar? 200? I recall seeing one but couldn't remember. As for the green dot, well, I think if the sweep is finished, then we can be safe to put them up without much objections. Also, perhaps you could make the announcement yourself? I have tried promoting by using community portal but have little success. Maybe you have better ideas than me on using which venue to promote. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. You want to lead/coordinate the sweep drive this time (as demonstrated by my previous failed attempts)? Since you said there were some duplicates and we finally crossed the 50% threshold, does that mean the graphs sweeps running total page are incorrect? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to send the notice out, and to who? We used to have GA newsletter but it has gone on a hiatus for quite a while. Maybe you can drop a line to User:Derek.cashman to ask for a list of people that he delivers the newsletter to broaden the # of people getting that message? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]