Archives

Apr-July 08

Thanks for the work you've done on this article. I would have hated to have had to remove its GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad to help with the article -- it's an interesting piece. I like these ones that cover tidbits on a wide range of subjects (a little bit of science, history, mystery, etc.). Good stuff. Anyway... you're correct in your assessment that the rest of the article needs some sprucing up too -- especially the cited references. I plan on rewriting the "bog chemistry" section as soon as I locate a couple of sources. Cheers. CactusWriter 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 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) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in this discussion, since you had commented before on the possible scope of a Nordic task force. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the alternate spelling of Ananda Thandavam, my search 1 and search 2 gave lots of sources that show the project had begun filming at least as early as February 2008. I added external links to the article so it might be improved. I is no longer a matter of crystal or NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found a legitimate reliable source for the Ananda Tandavam article -- this one published with a bi-line in The Hindu newspaper -- which discusses the on-going film project. That's good. It also denotes notability because of Sujatha (who is, unfortunately, not mentioned in the article.) I added a keep to the Afd based on that. However, it's good to keep a couple of things in mind when finding sources. The number of hits on Google is somewhat meaningless -- it is more important what those hits reference. We are looking only for reliable third-party sources, i.e. legitimate published material like books, national magazines and national newspapers. Which, I know, can be a very frustrating limitation, but is a necessary one for maintaining work at an encyclopedic level. It also means that we need to be wary of internet material, like blogs, which are notoriously unreliable and are often driven by rumor and gossip. They tend to feed off each other. (for example: in the case of Ananda Tandavam, notice how many of those google hits repeat the exact same sentences without providing any source). If we use blog material, than Wikipedia becomes just another piece of the internet rumor mill, instead of a filter for good solid information -- which is what an encyclopedia strives to be. When dealing with upcoming films and other speculative material, it is best to be cautious. Legitimate info can always be added to WP as it becomes available, but it is difficult to wipe away the bad information once it hits the web. Anyway, keep up the good work. Sorry if I've rambled. Cheers — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understood and agreed. Placed them there temporarily only so that others (or myself if I have time) can take a look and expand the article. Was essentially a "drop and run" to show the article was not Crysal and met NFF... and only as a temporary stop-gap to show the direction to look for additional sources. And your "ramble" was appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll now be most pleasently surprised. Thanks for the encouragement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just found out that Oscar Films has changed its name tp "Asskar"" films. How does one change an article name? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good working with you. Thanks much. I was surprised a few minutes ago when I had an edit conflict (chuckle). Must have been you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... he was just lazy, and capitalized on it also being his first name. He probably would never had had any problems, except he decided he liked their logo... and he got away with for quite a while. But as his popularity grew, so did the attention on him. He should have figured it would happen sooner or later. But that "mistake" is not preventing Disney from wanting to work with him. He's a comer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we meet again (smile). So am I Sancho Panza? Will we ever run out of windmills? (chuckle} Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I must be Oliver Hardy. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've nominated an article you created, A Victim of the Mormons, for consideration to appear in the Wikipedia:Did you know section of the Main Page. You can see the hook I created for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on September 19 where you can improve on it if you'd like to. --Bruce1ee^talk 08:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the DYK nomination on A Victim of the Mormons. I had considered doing it myself when I wrote that piece. I appreciate your jumping on it. Cheers — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the prod-template from this article since I don't agree that it meets the criteria for deletion. I don't agree that the OR and style concerns are severe enough to consider deletion instead of improvement. Also the article does have sources but lacks in-line citations. If you continue to think the article should be deleted we can discuss it in an AfD.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on removing the prod. The main concerns about the article were the sources and references -- of which there were none. The only items on the page were two external links: one to a UN study on using indigenous knowledge for environmental conservation, which doesn't address the issues in this article; and the second link was to the IPACC, an indigenous peoples advocacy group, which doesn't qualify as an objective reliable source. As you noted, the writing style is a problem -- POV problems exist because the tone seems reflects only the POV of IPACC rather than any other independent RS. (IPACC already has a page on WP and if this article offers nothing more than a repeat of those ideas, is there a need for this page?). I'll be interested to see your improvements. — CactusWriter | needles 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there CactusWriter, thanks for the courtesy of the prod notification, appreciate it. Further to Maunus' comments and actions, I've explained some reasons I'd contest a deletion at the article's talk page. Also note, the IPACC article was created afterwards, with material split off from this indigenous peoples of Africa one. IPACC is IMO quite notable enough for its own entry, and both articles are needed and appropriate. The Indigenous ppls of africa article itself was originally split off from the main indigenous peoples article. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, cjllw, and for moving the discussion to Talk:Indigenous peoples of Africa. I should have done that myself. I've replied there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the discussion. Mrh30 (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well done. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Victim of the Mormons, 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 again for putting this out there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add the Film banner to the talk pages of biographical articles; we don't cover bios - the Actors and Filmmakers workgroup of WP Biography does. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed my mistake and was in the process of undoing those tags when you notified me. I'll take care of it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We now have Category:Danish film stubs so can you go through Cat:Danish films and help stub tag them as {{Denmark-film-stub}}. Cheers The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I;ve done up to The Five Obstructions starting with A. I'll leave you to follow on as i se eyou;ve started. Keep up the good work on Danish film BTW. Its looking better than it ever has although a massive amount of work required. One thing though. Can you avoid using tables for cast sections. See Casino Royale (2006 film) as an example of a cast seciton for FAs. Cheers The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now. For the moment, I've tagged Q through Y. And, as far as the cast lists are concerned, I know -- my more recent cast lists look like this. It's always a problem when these styles change over time -- at one point everyone on WP was pushing for tables, now it's back to prose. Who knows what the fashion will be next year? Grids? Venn diagrams? Ah, well. Personally, it's always more important to simply add good content. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Yes I agree. We have had numerous discussions about it at WP:Films though and the consensus seems to be in favour of against tables. And might I say what a fine job you;ve done on that article, that cast section is exactly what I mean. If only we could develop all 1910s films the same way. Glad you also are an editor like myself who thinks content is of prime importance than the stupid ANI and village pump dramas and wiki lawyering we can on here. Look forward to working with you at the the new task force. Regards The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to do eventually is to have lists for eahc of the years in Danish film in detail like we have have with e.g Template:CinemaofItaly etc. The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I see the efficacy of breaking the lists down by year at this point. For any given year, there are less than ten Danish films of notability (often much less) -- so each page will appear as a bunch of large templates with very little content. The question I ask myself is what do I use the lists for? In general, I use them to search for specific films that I think were made during a broad period of time, say the 90's or something. It is then that I want to be able to scroll down a single list, rather than clicking on page after page. For that purpose, the decade lists work well for me -- large enough to have a lot of content, but not so large that they are difficult to scroll through. Of course, I am not sure how other people use them or why they use them. And I can understand if the pages are expanded in prose that describes the year, the highs, the awards, anything notable (although there are already notes on the page, plus links to other lists and the general Cinema of Denmark article which covers a lot of that already). In other words, I am not convinced of the need to spend a lot of time on that kind of breakdown. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there are only 10 notable films a year then there is indeed no need to split. I had anticpated there would be nearer 50 notable films from each year. Perhaps the industry wasn't as big as I thought The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a small country of only 5 million people, producing several notable films per year is pretty impressive. Of course, more films are made, but merely being made does not denote notability. In reading through books on the history Danish cinema, there are plenty of films which are mentioned only in passing -- many which aren't mentioned at all -- and if these films aren't that notable in Danish books, they are hardly going to be notable on the English WP. I think if the Danish film section hits 500-700 film articles for the past century, that would be amazing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup thanks. I agree to about the films. If we have 500-700 good articles on Danish films eventually this will be beyond anybody's expectations. If you have book sources, this is great news The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - I'll be working on this over the next few days. Lugnuts (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work and thanks for your earlier comments! Lugnuts (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing though, I;m sure not why a large number of those films have been de-linked from her article. WHat is the criteria for blanking them out? What constitutes notability? If the film is well liked or not? FOr instance Familien Olsen, the 1940 film seems to have some notability. Directed by Lau Lauritzen and Alice O'Fredericks, both notable directors, screenwriteen by Fleming Lynge who was a noted screenwriter and the film stars both Osvald Helmuth and Ib Schønberg who was noted actors?? The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blofeld. I had blacked out many of the films of Alice O'Fredericks on her webpage and had left red-linked only the ones which I felt certain that I could easily defend as notable. Although she was a wonderful and important Danish director, many of her films are considered fairly pedestrian and aren't even mentioned in the historical literature (other than by name, synopsis and cast list). Her important works were really 1: Far til Fire (and the sequels, although a case could be made to merge them all into one article), 2: The Red Horses (and the other subsequent Morten Korch films), and 3: The Burning Question & We Meet at Tove's which were early women's rights films. As you say, a film like Familien Olsen had Ib Schønberg and Osvald Helmuth, not to mention Jon Iversen, but it is much harder to find any discussion of the film in sources which could build it's notability -- rather than simply saying there were famous peope in it. Given the recent efforts to mass delete the non-notable films, I figured it was better to concentrate my efforts on films which are without doubt important, notable and are readily discussed in books and journals -- of which there are a few hundred -- rather than spend a lot of time defending the more marginal films. I figure we can always work back into the smaller films later. I hope all this blather makes sense. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I guarantee that none of the films would be deleted. I';m not sure if any mass film deletions have ever been accomplished on here or are done by completely amateur or independent filmmakers. All I can think of are short films or silent films or z films which have no mainstream claims to notability whatsoever. The majority of ALice's feature films appear to meet all of our requirements. Howveer I agree that the ones mentioned in books ar elikely to be the most significant. The thing though is that many of the plots etc exist on danish film websites so many people would argue that wikipedia is better for having a basic article than not. The reason why I think it is important to cover the films is also because it ties a number of actors and directors together and infrastructually improves the conneciton of danish cinema in the filmographies etc. Eventually I would hope that most of the danish films and actors will be of a high standard. If you can concentrate on devleoping the ones in books to a high standard, this would be aweseome. Which ever way we look at it, the subject on wikipedia is enhancing considerably The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well-taken -- that the entire subject of cinema can be strengthened by inclusion of all the sourced material we can put into it. Some people lay out the bricks, other people fill in the mortar. All I can say is: Go for it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool analogy. What we want though eventually is a complete skyscraper!! The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do would be to expand all of the actor biography articles we have. Anyway to date i must have started well over 50 actor articles including Osvald Helmuth and Jon Iversen!!. We recent drive this afternoon fills in a lot of red links. ANything you can do to translate from danish to expand any of the danish actor articles would be an added bonus! The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes I created that template and intended adding them until Lugnuts kindly helped out. I;ve stubbed a few actors. Please could you expand Else Højgaard as asoon as you can? It just had a speedy delete tag placed on it. It has a full bio in Danish at the official site The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done OK, I expanded the Else Højgaard article. She should have no problems. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is wonderful work. Amazing!! Well done! The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should propose it for a DYK. It would be good to get some DYK's under our belt for the Nordic task force for Danish actors and films The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I;ve created ASA Film. Can you expand it? Also see Yak racing if you like yaks The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I'm sure we'll manage but come back asap!!. Danish cinema and Nordic cinema on wiki though could realy use a power boost though in starting articles which Lugnuts and I are grand masters of on wikipedia! The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The color of some of the film posters it has to be said are pretty shocking. Check out Fodboldpræsten. Urggh its like a snotty pea soup color! The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Far til Fire page should be an article covering the whole series. I;d imagine it would be possible using books. I;d then move this page to (1953 film) The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- the Far til Fire series of films can be condensed into a single article with short synopses of each film. It would also allow that article to possibly someday build towards a feature size article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup and anyway much of the info that is in that article at present is about the series rather than that particular film. Even the cast is a summary of the series. It will also need clearing up whether to move the titles to the english "Father of Four..." as at present they are linked in english The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- I've switched it around so Father of Four is the article title and Far til fire is the redirect. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh-oh -- wait, that didn't work quite right. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- now its done. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 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. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Else Højgaard, 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.

Could you look at THIS and advise if I am preparing it correctly, as I have never done such before. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on a side note, I was unaware til I hit your page, that my buddy Joe Gatt has an article on Wiki. Don't tell H&T.. (chuckle) as Joe has a lot less notability than do I. What a world. Anyways, your input as requested above would be much appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Michael, I haven't had any previous involvement with the DRV process and am unable to provide you with any advice on how to approach it. I understand that you are preemptively preparing for deletion of the Michael Q. Schmidt article (although it appears to me it could possibly end in a "no consensus" decision). I may be wrong, but as I understand the DRV, it is only to dispute the afd closer -- asserting that they made a wrong decision -- and it is not a dispute about any of the substantive arguments in the Afd itself. Nor of the nominator, even when the behavior of the nominator is so blatantly suspicious (hey, how does a funny fat man make such viscious enemies anyway?)

Now please don't take this personally -- but in any of these cases which can appear to be COI or self-promotion or spam -- it is best to step back. On this, I have some experience. Four members of my immediate family have WP articles -- none of which was written by anyone even remotely connected to them. And a couple of other family members could have articles but don't -- and they won't unless someone else decides they are notable enough. I think that is one of the unwritten criteria for notability -- other people, completely unconnected to you in any way, personal or business, should desire to see an article written about you. Until they do... no big deal.

By the way, I enjoyed the web interview you cited -- you're a funny personable guy. So don't sweat the Wikidrama. Just walk softly and carry a big schtick. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much. And yes, I agree with trying to seperate myself from the situation. I have been preparing for a deletion and have asked for input as you know... and your own view on the situation is much as others have advised and what I have myself concluded. A DRV should be short, and to the point. If one needs to be done, it should not be done by me. As you know, I have been active in AfD discussions for months, and have defended or saved other articles. So if I squint one eye and step back and look at the history of this article as if as an outsider, the whole deconstruction prior to nominating has a distinct smell of fish. But it does seem there are a few editors who want the article, and that speaks volumes. Keep laughing and keep smiling. We will meet again at other AfD discussions. Best hopes, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand already exists and the Ruth Crisp AFD is on it. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. I also placed a courtesy notice on the originating author's talk page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found the Sitges source that positively verifies the film's screening. Have just begun a MAJOR sandblasting of the article to make it encyclopdic. And advice, assistance would be greatly appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad... the page I found was for Sitges 2003, but not Sitges Fantasy Film Festival December 2003. I messed up a translation when I had written before. My bad. In the meanwhile... the article is much sandblasted, and slightly better sources. More yet to do, but its time for bed. More tomorrow. The 3 MUFF awards can at least be added in the interim. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I can appreciate your effort to establish notability for this film -- but I think you might have forgotten what the term "coverage" means in this context. As stated under WP:FILM#General principles and defined under WP:GNG, coverage excludes all self-submitted websites, blogs, press releases, etc. As such, there is not one single solitary reference in that article which qualifies as coverage. None. Although Screen Australia looks impressive, the only info there was submitted by the filmmakers themselves by using the website's "Submit Your Film Here" button. ([check it out]) Most any semi-pro filmmaker (or even amateur) could add their film to the website. It doesn't qualify as coverage -- and certainly doesn't establish any notability. As far as the MUFF festival awards -- minor awards at a very minor film festival. Screen Australia doesn't even include MUFF among the listed [Australian film festivals]. In fact, any articles I find about the 2003 MUFF only mention Bullet in the Arse in passing when talking about the glut of local amateurish B-movies and the general lousy schlock quality of the films. And these are by Indie film guys. As I said, I can appreciate your attempts to salvage small indie film articles. But this one? I think you're trying to sow a silk purse here. There are too many which actually deserve that effort. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Indeed, the article was so very long, my beginning to cut its fat was a good exercize in editing. It is a short film that one awards at a local festival. Now Sitges might have been nice to add... but there has been no coverage elsewhere.... even trivial. And I have been looking. Sometimes a shiney stone is just a shiney stone, and not a dianond. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that reference--I don't know how it slipped past me, just carelessness (I wish that the preview for individual sections would show you the References also!). I did, however, take the liberty of reversing last and first name, for consistency with the other three references. Thanks again for your sharp eye. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- and thanks for returning the favor by cleaning-up some of my mess (although my preference for "last name/first" is a long-ingrained habit). I definitely agree with you about previewing sections -- it ain't easy when editing refs. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I'm with you on the first/last name thing, but lists of notes here aren't alphabetical anyway. First first and last last saves a comma, and that, I think, makes for easier reading. Mind you, I am usually a stickler for those kinds of things, but since WP isn't married to a single style, I let pragmatics (and perhaps my sense of esthetics) play their part too. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I understand your point about simplicity. And it's true that there's no consensus on citations -- and consistency within an article is the most important thing. However, every citation system uses last name first, not because of any alphabetical listing, but to more easily identify the 2nd listing of a individual source, which as you know, will appear simply as last name, date and page number. So, in a long list of references or later in the bibliography, it is easy to locate the first use of the reference. I've used Wikipedia:Citation templates, and often try to stick with Harv refs. And I try to follow the FA articles as a reminder (although I often fail while working on my usual stubs and start articles). But something like Mario Vargas Llosa is a good how-to example of all Harv refs, while Joseph Priestley House shows an APA mix. Umm... is this a tad much for an article like Flush!: The Scoop on Poop throughout the Ages? Talk about making a mountain out of a... well... hill of some sort. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Did not know I should have done so. Your good looking out is appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got the rest. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. It was no problem at all. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know how I misread the list I had found... thanks for catching this one. At least in is IN the top 10. Appreciate the correction. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for correcting me. When are you going to put up an article on her??--Silver00 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies is for anyone interested in a particular profession, nationality, etc. to find names of people that might need a bio. It serves as a starting point for interested editors. I don't actually write all the bios, I only maintain the list. It is just one of my side projects. Personally, the bios that I write deal mostly with Denmark. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CactusWriter for your help, actually I want to write an article on Zohra Sarwari she is a muslim motivational youth speaker as well as author of a book. I have made many attempts but my article gets deleted every time and thats toooooooooo frustrating. But when people like you and Marasmusin are there newbies like me will not go crazy :) Hope I get the article included in wikipedia. Actually the tutorials are difficult or there is to much material that a person gets lost thats why may be I missed things even after reading. No easy step-by-step tutorial available. too confusing--Silver00 (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since her biography continues to be quickly deleted by administrators, it is most probable that Zohra Sarwari is not notable enough yet to have an article in Wikipedia. This should not be taken as a slight against her or her work, it simply means that there are not enough independent sources who are talking about her. (Independent sources would be national newspapers, large magazines, books or scholarly journals) This is simply the requirement of an encyclopedia. And that vast majority of the world falls into this category.

However, I expect there are other biographies or topics in which you have an interest that you can help to create or edit. There is a lot going on here -- and it can seem complicated, at first -- but no one expects anyone to know it all from the start. Don't worry, you will get the hang of it. Perhaps start by reading articles and making corrections where you find them. You can also find existing article stubs (tiny articles that have only been begun and need expansion) and help to expand them. Tell me, which topics, people, professions, etc. are you interested in or have studied or are studying? I can probably point you toward a group of articles which are in need of help. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No she is great speaker and she had been interviewed too. I am interested in homeopathy a kind of alternative medicine or complementary medicine system.--Silver00 (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. With homeopathy as one of your main interests, I would suggest you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine. Go to the Core Project Articles section to find links to the project's most important articles. Also, in the quality assessment table there, click on any of the color-coded links to see lists of articles, for example Category:Stub-Class Alternative medicine articles or Category:Start-Class Alternative medicine articles. Any of the articles in these lists could use some attention from an editor and are a great place to start editing. Let me know if this helps. — CactusWriter | ^needles

Okay thanks for the info CactusWriter as soon as I get some useful material I would like to share it on Wikipedia.--Silver00 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your handling of this situation, I award you a barnstar! Great work! - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 1, 2008 @ 21:40

Excellent! Glad I could make your day better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 1, 2008 @ 21:59

The October 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. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent anti-vandalism efforts at the above article. If you're wondering why your revert is no longer in the history (or even your contribution logs), it's because I deleted two revisions from the article's history. Since you saw the text that the (now-blocked) editor added, I presume you understand why I felt it necessary to do this. Thanks again for your help and understanding. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your prod because the article author removed a speedy deletion template, which I have now restored. McWomble (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, I don't think an A7 CSD will apply here -- the article suggests notability through recording and airplay. I think this will require the Afd route. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been speedied once, about 2 hours ago. McWomble (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that documentary. I think it may be a part of the big Chaplin collection which I bought a couple of years ago. He had a poignant story and so did Albert Austin, who spent his last years as a security guard at Warner Brothers. Really amazing. I hope to beef up his bio and if you have any thoughts on that I'd be grateful. I have one or two Chaplin books, from my Chaplin phase a few years ago.--Stetsonharry (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future! I think your support !vote was one of the more effective ones, personally, even though it came in late. Thanks again!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bother you, especially at this late stage but I was wondering if I could get your opinion on my conduct during this discussion. Brief history: when I first started contributing to AfDs I had a tendency to get over involved and did not always act in a calm and polite manner towards other editors. In the previous months - since probably the beginning of this year I have contributed less to AfDs - concentrating instead on other areas of the encyclopaedia - and have tried to ensure I meet all the expected standards of user conduct in all of my contributions. This discussion was the first one for a while where after leaving my initial comment (or in this case making the nomination) I was then involved in continued further discussion where I disagreed with the other editors (including yourself). I was just wondering if you felt that I made my opinions known in a clear and civil manner and whether you - at any stage - felt that I was harassing you. I think I have come a long way since some of my earlier missteps and would like to make sure I don't fall back into negative and unproductive editing habits.

I'd also like to apologise for the incompleteness of my nominating statement in the AfD, since the issue of notability can be contentious I have more recently liked to base my arguments more on the core inclusion policies (such as verifiability and no original research). The points you made during the discussion showed me that this will not always be possible.

Finally I'd like to thank you for your informed and enlightening comments about local publications, you have definitely changed the way I look at them in regard to how they can be used as references on Wikipedia. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Guest9999. In reply to your question: No, not once during that Afd did I feel your comments were out-of-line - and certainly did not think of them as harassment. (I also hope my own commentary there didn't come across to you as if I was irritated by it. I wasn't.) Anabel Barnston was definitely borderline notable/non-notable. So your Afd nom was warranted. It is one of those many cases that falls on the edge of WP guidelines and policies, and which is best solved through discussion. And you and I discussed our differing interpretation of the policies in a reasonable way. In the end, you offered a good solution. I think the purpose of Afd was well-demonstrated there. And I felt your conduct was just right. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, it's good to know I haven't ticked off everyone on the wiki - although it wasn't in anyway your comments that made me worried (which were always productive and civil) just my history. It was definitely good to see an AfD end after positive collaboration. Again thanks for taking the time to deal with my query, regards, Guest9999 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So many thanks for helping me to write the article Behzad Razavi !Sicaspi (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome for the little bit that I did on the new article you created. However, I wanted to warn you that copying and pasting information into Wikipedia is against guidelines. It is a copyright violation. So this means that you will need to rewrite his biography using your own words. Let me know if you have any problems. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to write it in mt own word , but I have lack of time. But dr.razavi is a great auther in the world. Sicaspi (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but try to get to it within the next day or so. Copyright problems can cause immediate deletion. As far as the notability of Razavi is concerned, I think that is well-established by the awards - so there are no problems there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because copyright violation is a serious issue, I went ahead and corrected the article rather than wait. There is no problem with it now. There is one citation needed tag on the article for the sentence about being a top author for ISSCC - I wasn't able to find a source for that. It would be great if you could find a reference and add it in. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you so much ! I will try to find it , I will add this page from ISSCC:isscc.org/isscc/2004/ap/ISSCC2004_AdvanceProgram.pdfSicaspi (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Could you make sure you mention the page it is a duplicate off next time (in case it is not the same as the one being deleted). Makes me look less of a nitwit ;) - Mgm|^(talk) 15:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. You only helped me. I'm quite capable of looking stupid on my own. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 15:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did quite some editing on Danish film and actor pages. Could I interest you in writing the article Emil Odepark? It's not exactly Danish, but hey, Swedes are Scandinavian too :) Also, I'm trying to set up an article writing class. Interested in helping? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, there's too many trigger-happy people around who'd delete him just for that. (I do think he might have received awards for that, though, can't be sure). Perhaps creating an article on the film would be a better idea then. My idea for the article course would be to take a similar approach to it as User:Hersfold does with his user adoptions (see this page). Write separate lessons (information interspersed with exercises) to help people along from an idea to a fully-fledged article. I'd start with a lesson on article topic selection, continue with finding and using reliable sources, and through good writing skills and wikicode for templates and infoboxes all the way up to the blingy stuff like sounds, videos and other non-essential stuff to beef it up. Do you have any concrete material from that real-life idea for such a class? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, a lot of people who drop in have self-promotional ideas in mind. But there are quite a few people who are interested in contributing beyond their initial article idea. Suggesting interesting WikiProjects or similar articles that might warrant inclusion are ways to encourage them to stay around. (I agree, encouragement should be a major part of the course) I'm intending to pick up trainees by moving the page to Wikipedia-space once it has been fully developed. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your suggeestion/change for the cateogries of this new page. Once I learn how to add cateogries properly, I will add ones for "interpreting associations" and "interpreting" if there aren't any already. "New Zealand Sign Language" as a cateory, while not completely accurate for the substance of this page, is certainly more ideal than "Deafness" and is a relevant topice. "Deafness" is an audiological term that will stick out like a sore thumb to anyone well-versed in Deaf culture(s) and sign language interpreting matters. If you have time to change it, I think that would be appropriate; otherwise I can once I learn more about being a Wikipedian! Cheers. Aleniboy (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you hate me, I had recently checked my messages and this one thing I read: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at VeggieTales, you will be blocked from editing. Do not add corporate logos to ancillary articles. It is a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Logos for information. — User:CactusWriter 09:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I did not know I was doing vandalism on Wikipedia, how come I edit Wikipedia? Becuase I'm helping Wikipedia! I did not know that adding a logo was "bad" for Wi kipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.64.178 (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2008[reply]

After you added the qubo logo to a 3-2-1 Penquins article on November 14, I left a note requesting that you not add corporate logos to articles. Two days later, you again added a corporate logo to the VeggieTales article, and I felt it necessary to leave the more strongly-worded warning that you quoted. I'm glad the second warning caught your attention and that you are now aware of the policy. Copyright violations on Wikipedia should be taken very seriously. I think it is great that you want to contribute to Wikipedia. However, reading the Wikipedia policies and guidelines will help you make useful contributions, and help you to avoid the warnings and blocks you have received. I'm putting a welcome template below which contains some helpful links. Good luck with your further editing. Regards. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:10ToMidnight.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, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I see that yesterday someone replaced my 10 to Midnight DVD cover image with an image of the original movie poster. Since the poster is the preferable image for movie articles, I've requested a G7 CSD of my old upload. Regards — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My current project on Wikipedia is increasing the quality and quantity of copyediting. We have people who are good with AP Stylebook and Websters, but we have very few people participating in article reviews who have many years of professional copyediting experience, and I'm wondering ... why? Some copyeditors have switched jobs, or are retired, or aren't sufficiently challenged, and wouldn't mind doing a little volunteer copyediting, and it would be nice to have more professionals in the mix. If you're interested in doing more, great; if not, this is just an informal survey, and I'd appreciate your ideas on what would attract more professional copyeditors.

Dan

The November 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. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little while back, at the beginning of November, I had said that if you ever were considering adminship, that I would love to support and/or nominate you. Do you have any interest in pursuing it? either way (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, either way. (For a short time there, I couldn't figure out who you were until I realized you had entered the "admin relocation program". That original moniker was a bit too notorious, eh?) Thanks for your thought about adminship, but I think I'll hold off with any decision about that for the time. And for two reasons. 1) Although I think I've discovered most of WP's important policy and discussion areas, there are a heckuva lot of backrooms around here. I'm only learning about the nooks and crannies as I stumble across them -- and a few more months to explore would help. I'd prefer to have a clearer concept of behind-the-scenes work if I ever decided to jump into it. 2) More importantly, I've got three "real life" book projects right now that should take me through February. I would love to have a good excuse to procrastinate on them... but I shouldn't. So I don't really have a large chunk of time to commit to the project right now. I'm just treading water for the moment. Springtime, probably the beginning of April, would be a better time to consider this. Cheers — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you seem to have used one too many ~ here, omitting your name from the timestamp equation. I've added it for clarity's sake, since I'm your follow-up voter, but wanted to point it out in case you'd like to remove my note and clarify it yourself. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]