User talk:Cornucopia/Archive 3

Hello!

Hey there - sorry about not replying to your earlier message. I'm a terrible correspondent. At any rate, congratulations on Christina Milian reaching GA status - it's well-deserved with all your hard work. --Laser brain (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I could do that. Do you want to put it up for peer review and let me know when it's listed? That way we have a good record of feedback given. --Laser brain (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Friends

No problemo. I'll search a bit more later today for the last two numbers. As for The Last One (Friends), there is some things that I need to fix first, but I will probably nominate it tonight. :) TheLeftorium 15:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dexter

Hi, I saw you were working on an article about the Dexter pilot, well, so am I, perhaps we could collobrate? Let me know.--Music26/11 17:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: What are your thoughts on a Dexter taskforce.?

Hi, glad your back. I see you have taken a look at the article so far, there's a lot of work to be done, the reception section can be really be expanded (your metacritic link will be a good help for that, of course). There are also various recaps in the "interesting links" section at the bottom of the page. You can work on whatever you want, I myself am not so strong on writing the reception of an article, so if you don't mind. But if you rather work on the production or plot summary, that's fine with me.--Music26/11 11:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, great work on the reception, I've proposed a Dexter taskforce, hopefully you'll join.--Music26/11 12:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on my way, but I want to finish the production first (I was working on it when I received your message). You can go ahead and write it if you want to, but it would be really great if you could try and find some casting sources first. I've looked around a bit, but the only thing I have so far is about Hall and Lee. Don't feel obligated (of course), but if you have some spare time...--Music26/11 13:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you'll problably read this later, but here's a recap, sections about the distribution (online streaming on sho.com) and CBS scheduling controversy (PTC) could be added. I won't disturb you anymore, goodnight. --Music26/11 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the plot, but what is the italicised part at the beginning for? Also, what kind of screenshot do you think should be provided (I own the first season DVD, so I can provide one). Do you think the article should mention the CBS broadcasting controversy, and finally: I don't know from which country you contribute, but can you watch videos on hulu.com? Because I think there's some valuable casting info there, but the videos can't be watched outside the U.S. I really hope I'm not bothering you with all my questions. Anyway, nice job.--Music26/11 13:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was about to work on the lead (so it summarizes the production and reception etc.), but tomorrow, I'll be in Germany and stay there for about three to four days (vacation). Hopefully, I'll find some spare time tonight to finish, otherwise you (or someone else) are free to do so, if you think the article looks fine, you can post it (and nominate it for DYK and GA, of course). Oh, that reminds me, what do you think would be best for a DYK hook, the hurricane and Miami/L.A. stuff seems good, but a ratings hook could also be nice. Anyhow, I'll speak to you soon.--Music26/11 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just notifying you that the article is published and the DYK is nomited (I followed your advice on the hurricane hook).--Music26/11 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Article has just been promoted to GA status and is now listed for PR.--Music26/11 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing much, I was planning to maybe work on another Dexter episode or on a movie article, but I wasn't planning to do anything much. I'd be happy to collobrate, so if you would like to too, than you could notify me.--Music26/11 13:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could work on a Dexter season page?--Music26/11 13:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think season pages are pretty useless too, however, at the rate we are going right now (we= me, you, and 97198) I thought we could maybe aim for a good or featured topic, for which a season page would be needed. However, you're right, we should work on the episode articles first. Don't worry, I haven't even finished watching the first season yet. If we're going to work on episode articles, we can start from the beginning, and "Crocodile" would be the next episode. Thoughts? Also, the DYK for "Dexter" is currently on the Main Page.--Music26/11 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, have a nice time. It has been great working with you. I'll see you around.--Music26/11 12:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for creating the sandbox, but I find a bit confusing working on a page with some much leftover space, so I just work on seperate sanboxes.--Music26/11 14:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lost Characters

Heh thanks :P I was pleased I managed to get it finished just before the new season starts, although I wasn't able to work on it as much as I wanted to because I had exams the past few weeks. Any idea which character you're gonna work on? I can't decide who to go for, I've been focussing on the dead characters just cause there tends to be a lot of stuff from their death that can go in development and reception.

PS Great work on the Friends article! Sanders11 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alex (Lost) was the first Lost article I tried to improve :) At the time I thought I did a really good job but looking back it's really not that good. I'm sure a bunch of the stuff from Rousseau's article could be used in Alex's. I was wondering if Bernard might as well be merged with Rose's article, much like the Nikki and Paulo one, just because when I was doing the Rose article most of the reviewers would refer to them as "the couple" and stuff like that rather than individually, and a fair chunk of the development of the characters is similar. But to be honest I didn't look for sources for Bernard's article so there might be lots out there. Sanders11 (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah I didn't think of that, you make sense. I didn't go for GA with it cause I felt the development and reception were both a bit bare. Also there seemed to be mixed views online as to whether she should be called Henderson or Nadler, Lostpedia has her surname as Nadler and the talk page there says thats what the Lost mag says, but on the talk page here it says it's Henderson. There's an interview in one of the editions of the magazine too but I couldn't find it online anywhere to add. I'm sure they will pop up a fair bit this season and there will be plenty from that. Sanders11 (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the magazine, so I'm reluctant to add it when I can't tell which it should be. Luckily the UK is only a few days behind the US, however along with airing the first two episodes, they aired a "Lost on Location" programme which had a few spoilers in it, which I didn't expect and so now I'm a bit disappointed :(. Sanders11 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Friends pilot

When you have the time, how do you fancy totally rewriting the plot summary section in the Friends pilot article? I wrote it a couple of years ago and it's complete rubbish. The article will never pass FA with it still there. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks a lot better. Of course, there will still be someone at FAC who will find some fault with it (I hear that articles are being failed because editors are using the Latin alphabet...) Bradley0110 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I did see. Congratulations! The pilot is largely completed: The PR brought up a lot of good points--mostly that it needs a good copyeditor unfamiliar with the article to go through it in depth. Other than that I think it's ready for FAC (nominate it if you feel like it). I'm a bit iffy about the infobox image though, since it doesn't really represent the entire episode. Bradley0110 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding this one but the trouble is Ross's face is obscured. I think the most important thing to include is Rachel's wedding dress, plus Monica and Ross. The other three aren't that important since they don't really do anything in the episode. Bradley0110 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I would have suggested the official site but I think they only have a couple of wallpapers. Bradley0110 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stuff

Yes, I'm back from Melbourne... I actually spent more time along the Great Ocean Road before ending up in Melbourne itself, but I did see some great tennis matches (including Federer!). According to my calculations you should be here now - back in a few days. ;) —97198 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took close to forever for me to get back to you (a bit dramatic... a day and a half). Forgot to say, the new sig is very snazzy. :) Glad you had a good time here, I hear it got extremely warm! I did indeed see Federer v Safin - I also caught Dokic v Wozniacki, Peng v Serena Williams, Azarenka v Mauresmo, and Sela v Tsonga on Rod Laver. All very good, and I think I'll be back next year! —97198 (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we're even, then. ;) I'm impressed - my own multitasking generally consists of doing nothing whilst wondering whether I should be doing something (which I should)! —97198 (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hear it's excruciatingly hot down there! Mid-forties today and tomorrow? No homework (yet) so I'm not too strained... just watching the tennis (i.e. Federer smashing Roddick). —97198 (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I know! I'm surprised I didn't tear up. I did want to give him a great big hug, though :( A great match in any case, and I think Nadal deserved to win regardless of his knicker-tugging habits. —97198 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully! —97198 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to I Not Stupid Too

I saw your edits to I Not Stupid Too, which I am the primary contributor to. Just wondering, are you planning to review the article (it is currently a GA nominee)? Or are you just another member of the anti-fair use brigade, trying to make life difficult for article writers? Note that these screenshots were carefully selected and I asked an admin to write detailed rationales for both of them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Update

Thank for the update. I'll visit there. --Efe (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Always welcome. Have a good sleep Corn. --Efe (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

Yeah, I was annoyed when I noticed that the CW changed their images. As for the Lois image, though I prefer the older image, if we replaced it then it seems like it would now throw off the rest of the images which use a profile shot instead of a full body shot. If you can find the old image like it was (the CW was the only place I could find it originally), then I would gladly swap it back. Right now, it seems more about keep consistency among the articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem. The original image at IGN, has IGN's watermark on it. That means, the only image we could use would be the one in the article you linked to me, but if you crop that image it will look distorted when the infobox attempts to make it bigger. It'll look out of focus and pixelated (I just attempted it). We'll have to find another version of the original image the CW had.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - February 2009

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sombre

Here's hoping, indeed. Some people I know on a farm in rural Victoria say the fires came close to them, but the wind died down at the right time and is now heading in the other direction - lucky. I'm heading down to the Yarra in a week and a bit, so might get a better feel for it being down there. —97198 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Going down for a wedding. Luckily I'm not getting ecessive homework now... but unfortunately my MSN thingy is going through a phase of not opening (or doing anything) when I want it to. We'll see. ;) —97198 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I guess... How's the schoolwork going? —97198 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that :) At least you've got the whole weekend now. —97198 (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Smallville/Images

Hi, Carnucopia, what is your opinion on the new images of Smallville characters. Please tell us your opinion. We have discussions on this topic one more time.Sha-Sanio (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two of us who think that the current image on the page shows old characters, who don't belon gto the cast anymore and we want to replace it through a new image, only bignole is objecting something. Please help us decide.Sha-Sanio (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Viewers" Sourcing

Hello there. I had recently been writing an article about the first season of Burn Notice (see here). I realized that I probably ought the cite the information that gives the number of viewers per episode. For the second season, I could get all of this information through the Nielson website. But I was wondering if you knew of any method I could use for the first season, as the Nielson information does not go back that far.

Thanks, NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Crit at Hall

The same reason I didn't put one at Friday the 13th (franchise), because there are not enough reviews to provide an accurate representation of the critical reception. Before Jason X and Freddy vs. Jason (and the new one) there just aren't enough reviews. If you look at the reviews that are there they are more recent reviews, and not reviews from the original release, which means that it is also skewed. The same is true for Halloween, in that most of what is there is not only limited, but more modern in its review. That is why I generally will criticize any film page that uses an RT rating for a film that is so old that it only gets like 20 hits on RT (the average film today gets closer to 70+, depending on the release), and of those 20 the vast majority are from the past few years. Friday the 13th's legacy is built almost from its horrible reviews, and the same for Halloween (minus the original, which critics rather liked), and RT doesn't accurately represent that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Friday

I loved it. It was funny when it was supposed to be, and the kills were pretty inventive. Jason is more of a "force" in this film, as the characters, for the most part, don't really know who or what he is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought The Mist had a great ending. To me, Darabont's ending was better than King's original ending. It was so grim, and, to me, to beliebly realistic. I mean, if you were put in that situation and you knew you were all going to be eaten alive you'd probably make the same choice. It's very Twilight Zonish, because the guy makes the hardest decision of his life, and then learns that had he only waited a few minutes they all would have been saved. I've never heard of that other one you mentioned. I just read the plot on its page, and I hope the movie isn't as convulted as that plot made it out to be. As far as Friday goes, it's hilarious (but intentionally hilarious). When Jason isn't killing people they're usually doing something so stupid that you're laughing. To me, it's a fun movie that has about thirty years of history to support it. If you've never seen any of the Fridays, I'd suggest renting them. I'd rent 1-4, 6 and Freddy vs. Jason. Really, 2 and 3 don't have a lot to offer (3 is in 3-D, but I'm not sure if you'll find a rentable 3-D version). But, I include them because the continuity of 2, 3, and 4 all take place withint the same few days. 4 is probably the best of those, and 6 was another fun Jason movie. FvJ is just a fun Freddy and Jason clash.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you don't know what happened to the people in the store. The only survivor you recognize at the end was the woman that left early in the film to go get her children at home. The one that no one wanted to go with because they were so scared. I don't think it was saying that religion was bad, or that those against it were right. I think it was showing that in a time of chaos, sane people will circumb to whatever hope they can, and in this case she was the one providing them with hope. She was the leader that organized them through fear. It's a natural reaction, though it could have been taken to an extreme. I've always been a fan of Jason over Michael, but that's because after part 4, the movies don't try to take themselves too seriously anymore. Michael continued to try and do that all the way to the end, and it resulted, IMO, in some really shitty sequels (and like 3 different timelines, because they kept changing things).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in Friday, there is typically only one person that is going to be strong enough to defeat Jason (except in Part 4 and Part 6, because it's more of a team effort). In Friday, they are all pretty much stupid characters, because the points of the movie are not generally about connecting with the characters but anticipating who is going to bite it next and how cool is their death scene going to look.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're awesome :)

Can you check this out for me please: Talk:Prison_Break#Season_Four_Special? Thanks. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

When you revert, give a reason please.

You reverted a very simple edit of mine on the Moonlight article which moved the IMDb and TV.com links from the infobox to External links. Had you read the discussion which was linked in my edit summary, you would have seen the discussion on the move of those two links. Once all IMDb and TV.com links are removed from all television infoboxes, the option to put them in the infoboxes will be removed. Neither source is very reliable, so there is really no reason that they should be in the infobox.

So, will you tell me why you reverted? I won't redo the edit until you do, but please be swift replying. Thank you. LA @ 07:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I was aware of the discussion, and honestly, I don't remember reverting you. I am guessing I accidental pressed "rollback" while checking my watchlist and reverting other vandalism; otherwise, I have no idea how this happened. Anyways, I reverted back to your revision, cheers. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans! All is right with the world. Have a very nice day! LA @ 07:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. I apologize for my patronizing tone. I didn't realize. LA If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 08:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:B000A59PMO.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V52125623 .jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:B000A59PMO.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V52125623 .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) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox for GA reviews

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)

DYK for Dexter (episode)

On February 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dexter (episode), 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey back

I guess I'm partially responsible for the lack of communication! Good luck with that wikibreak of yours... though I get the feeling you kind of like spending time editing. :) Haven't been up to much off-wiki, and I've been a bit lazy on-wiki too. Nice work with Music on the pilot - I might try and do a copyedit sometime if you guys are aiming for FA (or anywhere near!). I also saw the Dexter episodes in your sandbox (unfortunately season 1 production info is a bit sparse) and thought I'd let you know that I was planning on writing Return to Sender (Dexter) (1x06) over the weekend, hopefully. What're you up to? —97198 (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation - I'll definitely try and see Changeling sometime. I watched Sunshine the other day, which I loved (the first half anyway, as the second turned into a horror film!), and Mr. Brooks, which I recommend if you haven't seen it already. It's a bit Dexter-esque (actually, the writers first pitched it as a TV series before Dexter was made, but it was considered "too soft"!). Hopefully the Dexter pilot will survive FAC - I don't have any plans to ever take an article there myself... the whole process seems pretty ridiculous to me, and most people's issues seem pedantic and fairly petty. Maybe I'll find the motivation one day! —97198 (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen that either... will have to look into them both! Are you watching Dexter season 2 on Channel 10? Season 3's almost coming to a close on Showtime. :) —97198 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Showcase. There is an Australian Showtime, but it mostly shows movies and Showcase is the "sister channel" which shows both movies and cable shows. I loved season 2 more than season 1, so keep watching! :) As for Lost... I'm watching on Channel Seven so I've only watched the first two episodes (the third is recorded and I'm putting off watching it!) which I thought were disappointing. Maybe it's just because of the hiatus between seasons, but I'm just not that interested. Two episodes in and I've already lost the plot with all this time-travelling business! I briefly considered giving up but decided that I'd kick myself later if I couldn't hang in there for the final two seasons. I hope it improves. :) —97198 (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL about the new characters - I guess they can all be irritating at times. And is it just me, or does Kate look considerably older this season? ;) I'll try and get to ep 3 when I can, though I'm actually going to see Slumdog Millionaire tonight (for the second time). You should watch it if you haven't - it certainly did deserve an Oscar (or eight). —97198 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Bollywood at all... excluding the dancing/singing sequence at the end where they go all-out! (The song actually won the Oscar for Best Original Song.) But it's great. —97198 (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Awww :( I do hope you return soon (but all the same, good luck with the workload). —97198 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not bad at all! And happy (almost) holidays to you too! It's funny that my editing has slowed down more than yours in spite of your (non-existent?) wikibreak. :) I just have so much stuff to do lately, and it's all a bit stressful, but I still try and log on at least once a day. How are you finding things? —97198 (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you should try the whole stress thing sometime. :) I'm also the world's worst (or best?) procrastinator so that doesn't really help with anything. Good luck with all your FLs, and the other crazy stuff you're managing to get done! ;) —97198 (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You saw Twilight??? Oh, that made my day! I'm surprised you thought it was half-decent - I assumed after seeing it that only diehard fans of the book could actually enjoy it, and that anyone who hadn't read the books would just laugh! They're making the second and third films around the same time (now?), I believe, so it all looks good from there. :) I'll look at the FLC as soon as I can, but (speaking of procrastination) I have a massive assignment due tomorrow which I haven't yet finished... Should probably do that now. —97198 (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually have another assignment due tomorrow which I haven't yet started... Stress levels would probably go down if I could get myself organised! But I promise I'll take a good look at the FLC soon. :) —97198 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, hope you're happy now! :P —97198 (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, the assignments were okay, just practicing my skills in writing unexciting essays! :) I imagine you're probably keeping busier than I am? —97198 (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm only released on Wednesday :( Are you doing anything special? —97198 (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant my holidays start on Wednesday :) Wedding sounds good - and there's sure to be some good cake! —97198 (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going up to the Gold Coast for a week, which should be fun. But no cake! —97198 (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with my family but unsure where we're staying. I've been to all the parks over the years but I think this year I'll be making pilgrimages to Wet'n'Wild and Movieworld, my two favourites. I thought there wasn't much at Dreamworld for anyone who's not into big rollercoasters - are you? ;) —97198 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I guess I'm not really into that feeling. :) I'm fine with most things except rides where you either turn upside down or where you're strapped in from your feet hanging upside down (that was one in South Africa)! —97198 (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - March 2009

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Moonlight tv series Mythology

I noticed you removed my excerpt about photography. Specifically the expert said, "A vampires image can't be captured by analog cameras because of the silver emulsion in the film, but a vampires image can be captured by digital cameras because digital cameras don't use silver emulsion." The excerpt was reference in ref 29

"^ a b c "Out of the Past". David Greenwalt (writer) & Fred Toye (director). Moonlight. CBS. 2007-10-05. No. 2, season 1."

Please watch the episode. If you don't have the show on DVD then you can go to YouTube to the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoRtc3h4dMU&feature=related [1] . One minute into the YouTube video you will hear the reference I spoke of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xybernauts (talk • contribs) 04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for not removing the quote again, but I don't understand why you removed the portion about how digital cameras can take a vampires picture. I think that's the most important part because it is a very unique aspect of the Moonlight mythology. I think it's very important to add this tidbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xybernauts (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Children of Men

I was hoping to discuss the edits you made to the Children of Men article here and here. I am not sure that the actress you named was vital to an understanding of the article. A problem that a great many film and tv articles have is a preponderance of bloat (excessive detail added to plot summaries). When determining what should and should not be in the plot summary, a good rule of thumb is to ask yourself if you had 90 seconds to give the plot of the film, would what you added be necessary to that explanation? If not, we don't need it, as brevity/conciseness is one of the key features of the Wiki-en.
I certainly do not think that you are adding cruft and garbage. Your addition is quite thoughtful; I just don't think we really need it. I didn't want to remove the addition without discussing the matter with you first. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Veronica Mars awards

Just to let you know I removed some awards from the section in the S1 page as they referred to S2. This made the section smaller, so I just put it into the end of the Critical Reception section. I hope you don't mind, and feel free to revert or change anything you don't like. Also you might find it helpful to look at the diff as you can use the awards I removed from the S1 page, in the S2 page you're working on. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Friends reverts

Regarding your reverts on Friends, why can't we use another article as a source? Jay (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary.2C secondary.2C and tertiary_sources, it is OK to use tertiary sources to support specific statements, as long as the bulk of the article relies on secondary sources. And the channel's official website is available in the 111 Hits article, so I don't see a problem with sourcing. Jay (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. I've modified the above link to mention a clause of Wikipedia as a source. However, you should have added a fact tag to the statement, instead of removing it, as it belonged to the "doubtful but not harmful" category. See Wikipedia:Citing#Unsourced material. Jay (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - April 2009

The WikiProject Horror Newsletter Volume I, no. 3 / April 2009 Previous issue The Coordinator nomination has been extended! Please go to the nomination page now to add yourself to the election for a coordinator position. Voting will begin on May 1st. The current Collaboration of the Month (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) has been extended by a month! The next collaboration will be selected on April 30th, 2009. Please place suggestions for the next collaboration here and/or vote on current suggestions. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Now is indeed the perfect time for happy-holiday-wishing, so I thought I'd do the same. :) —97198 (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do that in a second. And I'm only leaving around the 18th, so I have a week and a bit of doing nothing beforehand! —97198 (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I guess I disappeared too... and am off to bed kind of early, so bye again! :) —97198 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work over here. :) I meant to watch Fringe when it started here, but I missed the pilot and kind of gave up! On another matter, I finally got around to catching up with Lost over today and yesterday. I think I watched seven episodes I'd recorded! I didn't really enjoy the first two episodes, but I watched the next couple and got back into it, and now I can't wait to watch the rest of the season. I imagine you're keeping up? —97198 (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I last watched "Namaste". It is a completely different show, I agree. If you told me in season 1 that by season 5 all of this crazy stuff would be happening, I don't think I would've believed you. I kind of preferred the simple days when I could just watch without using so much brain power! —97198 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I hadn't heard about the expected deaths. Sounds exciting :) —97198 (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with Ausiello & Kristin :) Charlotte always irritated me... somehow, she became more bearable as she started to die. And I can't say I miss Claire either - she was just generally annoying and I have to cringe at her accent. It embarrasses me slightly that I talk like that! :P —97198 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, the whole Jack-Kate-Sawyer-Juliet love-square/circle thing has definitely run its course. You'd think there was nobody else on the island! And I don't mind the Aussie accent in any Australian context (i.e. real life!) but it always comes across so strong on American shows. But still... last time I was in America they seemed to think my accent was English! ;) —97198 (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for disappearing again :) —97198 (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I did have a great time, thanks, though I'm fairly exhausted. School only goes back on Wednesday so I have some time to recharge my batteries :) Hope you enjoy the wedding, and let me know what the cake was like! —97198 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Raisins? Oh no! :( Glad it was good, though. The queues for rides were fairly long, though some had no queue at all. I don't know if you've been on the Scooby Doo rollercoaster at Movieworld, but the queue was about 40 mins long (the longest) and after I'd just got off, it was closed because a bolt had come loose or something. Anyway, literally hundreds of people came flooding out of the hall who'd probably been waiting for ages - I wouldn't have been happy if that was me! —97198 (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, sounds like those friends of yours copped it pretty bad... good thing they complained! Are you still on holidays? —97198 (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Queensland also went back last week (so we skipped some of the holiday crowds at the theme parks). I generally try not to confuse myself by figuring out who goes back when! —97198 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did watch the film - finally. I'd put off seeing it until now because I hated the book when I read it about 5 years ago. Can't remember much of it now! So I finally gave in and watched it, and it was definitely better than I'd expected. I'm not too much into fantasy, though... my imagination is quite limited. :) —97198 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I only really watched it as an excuse not to be doing more useful things. :) Since you're into horror films, thought I'd let you know I watched Hide and Seek - which I see is actually billed as a "psychological thriller" but which almost scared me to death! And have you seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show? I saw that a few weeks ago (and again since!) and absolutely loved it. But definitely the strangest 90 minutes I've ever sat through in my life! —97198 (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, enjoy! Definitely give Rocky Horror a chance. I spent my whole first viewing just digesting how strange the whole thing was, as I imagine you would too! I'm really disappointed that I've only caught on now because the stage show left Sydney at the end of last year and I also would've loved to see the film at this cinema I passed when I was in New York last year which was still showing it as a midnight movie! Definiely, give it a try, it's one of my top 3 now! —97198 (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really listen to much music. Hardly any, actually. What songs I do have on my computer are mostly from movie soundtracks! It's a little very sad. :P

Haha, actually I have none! :) —97198 (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Complete Arc Format vs Season-By-Season Format for Lost

Jackieboy and I both think that because of the time traveling going on it is becoming harder and harder to use the entire "Arc" storyline, and that it might be easier and better for readers to do it via a Season-By-Season analysis of what happens for characters on LOST. Your input is certainly welcome. I am mixed as I actually like, for example, opening up Farraday's page and seeing how his arc starts in the 1950's. Yes, it can be confusing but well, anyhow, feel free to let you opinion be known on Jackieboy's talk page. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured List contributions

Hey Cornucopia, it's great to see someone of your age contributing at such a high level to WP (and also an FA). Please do not leave. On a related matter, since featured material dispensed with date autoformatting more than six months ago, and has been strict about the linking of years etc, I notice that you participated in an RFC late last year on these matters, and expressed opposition to the concept of date autoformatting and to overlinking.

I'm afraid these issues are the subject of another RFC, and now there's even a temporary ArbCom injunction against the removal of the square brackets around dates. (Apparently it’s still OK to delink on an occasional basis, for example, in featured articles/links that you nominate, but caution may be the best approach for the moment.)

The injunction will be in force until the matters are finally resolved at a current RFC. You may wish to make your views known again on this same issues, whatever your opinion now. It's open until Monday, I think. WP:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll. Tony (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Thanks for contributing your voice to Questions 2 and 3; however, Question 1 is the most concerning ofr full community input. Tony (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reflists should be the same within themselves: this usually means choosing the one citation template (or none at all, just manual, would be my preference, since it's simpler and retains editorial control); the main text needs to be consistent within itself. I think the reflists will eventually be modified to enable better choice, and thus consistency with the main text. Tony (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Smallville and sandbox

Thanks for all the links, that really helps. I reverted your change to the mainspace for the time being, because it isn't really "Reception" at the moment. It may be that when we develop that section we'll just put the Awards in this since that "section" will be relatively small (speaking of, I'll have to check IMDb to see if any other awards are listed because I only put the ones I had sources for in that section).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Electrik Red

On April 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Electrik Red, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Moonlight Promotional Image.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Moonlight Promotional Image.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) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for RichGirl

On May 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article RichGirl, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)

The article Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cornucopia! It was a pleasure working with you too. :) --SilentAria ^talk 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To π or not to π

TV Guide is a very low-brow publication that wouldn't know a Greek letter from a Russian letter (trying to avoid a cliché here).
The DVDs, which should be considered definitive, since they are under the producers' control more than a magazine is, use π.
π is in a very large font in the menu of Disk 2, which is why I made it big-big, and not just big. I can see it in the menu at this moment.

Varlaam (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode title puns

Most, or perhaps all (?), Veronica episodes contain a pun in the title.
My 23-year-old sister does not get many of these puns.
That is because the writers are considerably older, and have a lot more cultural reference points in the '70's and '80's.
I think the puns are clever, usually. I get the joke, usually. I am willing to document what the joke is for the benefit of users younger than myself.
I edit 8 Wiki pages myself and I welcome input from my readership.
I would like to explain those jokes for the benefit of your readership. Where would you like that information to appear?
Sincerely, Varlaam (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration on Friends (TV Show) Seasons

I'd like to propose working on articles for the 10 seasons of Friends. Friends is one of the best television series for the past decades and deserves good season articles. Are u interested in collaborating on that? Till now from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television there is User:Theleftorium, User:Matthewedwards, User:Bradley0110 and me.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Elope

Why is the revision taken out of context?

Your reversion deletes sourced material.

Furthermore my edits fall in-line with the status of Dangerously in Love which was highlighted by Wikipedia as a featured article due to quality of written communication.

Part of my edit included a copy-edit too, as well as dividing the information and renaming headings more appropriately. Just because her other albums aren't listed like the changes i've made doesn't mean that they have necessarily been written in a good style/format.

To say my comparison of this article to one of Beyonce's is ludacris especially considering that even Fantasy Ride by Ciara and Human by Brandy have similar standards and there is no way either of those is comparable to Beyonce.

I dont understand your reasoning for reverting my edits?? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Again I intervened in the article to cross-reference all of the sources. Then a large level of content was repeated and misplaced. All i did was to move the information into new sections. With regards to Milian's departure from Def Jam a clean-up was necessary. Two sources say she left with both parties agreeing it was needed due to creative differences. The later in the article it said Milian was dropped. That would imply something differnet. All i have done is try to make the article more consistant. You seem to assume that if you didnt make the edit it isn't correct or appropriate. It is rather frustrating that i make useful edits and then you revert them leading to me having to explain myself. It is almost as if you have assumed that you are guardian of the article and have to approve all changes. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

Friends guest stars

A user who has contributed to WP less than 50 times over the last two years and has not contributed since February is a little disappointed that you redirected the guest stars list "without consensus". I've reverted his last undo but it's worth watchlisting the page in case it happens again! Bradley0110 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"How are things" article-wise? I've done a mock-up of how I envision the characters page here. I've just done season 1 as an example for now, but the other seasons can be filled out as it goes and the main characters merged there. Real-world info (poll rankings, cast interviews, etc) can also be dragged up. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever notice this garbage? Bradley0110 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant the crappy article about Mike that somebody wrote but I'd redirected it by the time you'd looked. And, yeah, we should probably use the cite episode templates as (Season X, YYYY) does look messy. Glad you like the overall look. Bradley0110 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I've just done Season 1 to see what it looks like. Bradley0110 (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll let you do that before I carry on so there are no edit conflicts. Bradley0110 (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could access these two articles, which may or may not hold lots of Ursula Buffay goodness?

• Mendoza, N.F. (September 11, 1994). "If you're 'Mad' about her new 'Friends', you've gotta love Lisa Kudrow". Los Angeles Times. p. 98.
• Johnson, Allan (February 22, 1995). "Cross Pollination: Ursula and Phoebe Are Twin Successes For NBC's Popular Thursday Comedies". Chicago Tribune. p. 3.

Bradley0110 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, add the full refs with credits, airdates, season #, etc. When I first started changing the format I added all of the empty fields so they could be filled in later. I think we should keep the ep titles within the text until it's all done, then review it afterwards. I'll carry on with seasons 3-5 this afternoon. As I cheer on Roddick. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Prison Break/GA1

As Director of WP:CHICAGO, I was wondering how Talk:Prison Break/GA1 is progressing. Are you still making progress?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The One with All the Gouging

You wouldn't believe the amount of crap WHE pumped out over here to keep the cash flowing in after the show ended. First, the episodes came out on bare-bones double-sided DVDs with no extras bar the "I'll Be There For You" music video on every single disc. Then they re-released the same discs but with new packaging. Then they released two different complete collections... containing the same double-sided discs. Then they released "The Best of the Guys" and "The Best of the Girls". Then they released a Christmas episodes compilation and a wedding episodes of compilation. In November, they're finally releasing the extended editions with commentaries that the US have had for years. Alas, no sign of a widescreen remaster. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You have televisions and DVDs in Australia? :O Bradley0110 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

taahm

can you help me get Two and a Half Men. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I need most help on the oder of refrences you now like when it is a magazine, and some sections that need expanding or creation as season synopsy. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Aussie question

Do you know of any reliable sources for Australian TV ratings going back to 2002? Preferably online? Bradley0110 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about OzTAM actually! It doesn't look like 2002 ratings are online but thanks for the help anyway. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

30 Rock

Thanks for the comments, stop by when you get a chance! Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Poke. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, and I see now how much you've contributed on 30 Rock. We should work together in the future. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well my next project on this subject will be 30 Rock (season 4) to either retain or renominate the Featured Topic of Seasons of 30 Rock. WP:MLB has also been working up a FT on List of Major League Baseball awards and we're nearly done, but a couple big kahunas still require work there. Plus image restorations are always good for work, starting a resto on the SMS Moltke (1910). Lemme know if you start anything and want some help, plus any aid at 30 Rock (season 4) would be awesome. And watch season 3, it's hilarious! Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

30 Rock

Hi Corn. I'm having trouble seeing exactly what was removed in this diff [2], but I was wondering if the content can be moved into the body instead of deleted all together? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. I got nervous when I saw that much text getting cut and with the moves of some of it I couldn't quite make out if anythign worthwhile was lost. I'll try to have another look to see if I can't at least find some part of what you did that is worth objecting to and reverting. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fine with me! I've been just copying/pasting the entire table to ensure all the summaries stay up to date, but obviously that'll miss small changes if not updated constantly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Tommorrow/This weekend Imma try to write Sun Tea (30 Rock), and maybe during my Thanksgiving Break next week write Danny Baker (30 Rock) (though I feel I should wait on that to see how solid his character is). Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, Imma wait on Baker. What 30 Rock project do you want to make a long term goal (I know we discussed working together)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Electro Love

Your attitude to editing is not acceptable. I do not make up rules. If songs leak online and there is no citation for the leaks then how is it notable? Including information about a leak is only justifiable if it invokes an artist reaction or label statement. Including information about leaked songs without such circumstances is basically advocating and advertising the fact that songs have leaked and therefore encourages people to go searching for leaked material as well it acting as a promotion of leaked material. How would you feel if you were a hard working artist and your material leaked online and then to make matters worse websites like wikipedia were promoting the fact that your work was leaked? Wikipedia rules require application so all i have done is remove information about leaked material because it is not notable. Most leaks occur on blog websites, 99% of which are not suitable sources for wikipedia.

In future please be more respectable when talking to other editors. Because frankly you failed to express yourself articulately and you have no consensus to include leaked information. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You still didn't understand my point. My concern is that leaked songs have only recieved coverage on blog websites and therefore it is not appropriate to include information about such leaked songs. Furthermore you wrote statements like "as of 2009 around 20 songs had leaked" but this had not been sourced. Whilst there is no specific rule about music leaks, don't you think that it comes down to common sense? If you list the fact that music has leaked (e.g. by a blog) you are advertising the fact that music leaked and encouraging people to go looking for it. Cassie stated numerous times on twitter that a lot of music that has leaked is not from the recording sessions for her new album. Read WP:notability (music) and you'll see that songs are only considered notable if they have recieved independent coverage, charts or awards. Until this issue is resolved please do not re-add the content. Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

30 Rock (season 1) GT

Hey Cornucopia, I know you're semi-retired, maybe you'll see this or not, but I just wanted to let you know that 30 Rock season 1 has been nominated as a GTC, here's the link ---> Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/30 Rock (season 1)/archive1. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you deserve to know, you're one of the major contributors to it, it's only fair. :) I just did my part with a few. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's about time that your guyses work is being recognized and stuff. :) Yeah, I wondered why you guys didn't get the remaining articles, but then I saw that they were redirected and stuff. But, some user ended up creating the articles. One day I was working on "Believe in the Stars" and then it hit me 'Instead of working on all of season three, why not get the remaining ones from season one', so that's what I did. Before I started, I was gonna let you and Jamie know about it, but I saw that both of you rarely logged in and you didn't have your e-mail thing on your pages, so I was like 'I'll take my chance with it, if they get upset I'll just deal with it.' Well, season four is not living up to it's hype, if that's what you mean. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, it's one of my favorite episodes of season three. I know, I never saw that coming, but it was clever. Yeah, that's what I figured, that you guys got busy in the real world, and couldn't get to them. Oh okay, I was wondering if you were referring to that, the GTC, or season four, but yeah, it's mostly me. Yeah, I know, I've read. Don't you guys get it until July or something? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, that sucks, but if you get your friend to download it for you, it works out either way. :P Yes, indeedy corncobs, I am a female. :) Oh, well you're not the first one to think that I was a dude; you're probably the 20th person to assume that. It's the name that leads some of you to believe that. Oh well, what can one do? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, God no, that would be a travesty. Besides, blue is my favorite color, and it beats all other color's ass. ;) Oh no, wrestling has no background with this name, it's actually my favorite baseball team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, in which it's a homage to them, cause there's a sign that says "Think Blue", in the mountains north of the team's stadium. Yes, I'm a big fan of wrestling, but my favorite wrestler retired, so at the moment I'm coping with his retirement. Yeah, I've interacted with people who dislike wrestling, but hey, what can one do? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a month ago. It's too fresh, and painful to talk about. :( Well, at the age of 16 I fell for the man. I believe he's handsome, some may disagree, but I don't care, he's gorgeous. Yes, I do have experiences with images. Hmmm, Twitter, that's tricky. Sure, these celebrities take pictures and show them to everyone, but I don't really know how the license of that would work. I guess it's like MySpace and Facebook. Oh, congrats on 30 Rock passing. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm no home wrecker. :) I like the dude, but I wouldn't his marriage to end. The image "expert" that I know is User:Nehrams2020, he might be able to help you with that. Yeah, that would be great to use images from Twitter and stuff. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he should help you out with that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: How to be...

I doubt anymore information can be found; I looked through the internet and Google Archive search about the album and I tried incorporating everything I found into the article. But since it wasnt a big hit, Im not surprised there wasnt much. I could be wrong, but I dont have much faith in expanding the article with what I found (or didnt find). Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am; its real sexy, slick, and clever. Dan56 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Milian labels reply

Hey, indeed with regards to labels (especially UMG labels, you've come to the right guy, as I've mostly authored List of Universal Music Group labels!). First let me make it clear I'm not very familiar with the artist (except for maybe casually recognizing some of her singles over the years in the media). From the observations I made of her back covers using sites such as www.allcdcovers.com, I realized a very interesting setup. I believe that her native (original) signing was with Island Records in the US (where it operates under the Island Def Jam Music Group). IDJMG has a distribution agreement with Mercury Music Group, which is based in the UK. Mercury UK in-turn distributes the product to UMG national affiliates all around the world. Therefore, Milian being an Island artist in the US, she would automatically get global distribution via the UK's Mercury Music Group.

Mercury Group also operates the Def Jam UK label. Mercury appears to have assigned her to the Def Jam imprint that they operate, even though her native (US) signing is, ironically, not on Def Jam, but rather on Island. They could have just as easily assigned her to Mercury only, but since she's in the R&B field, she was picked up by Mercury Group's Def Jam UK team instead. Therefore outside of the US (and Canada), she is imprinted with Def Jam as a result of Mercury Music Group UK acting as the sales agent of IDJMG. Milian's Def Jam covers are a licenced product to Mercury Music Group through Island Def Jam, indicating that these Def Jam covers are non-US, and therefore, non-native. On the other hand, the native covers, which to my knowledge appear to be on Island label, don't entail any licensing because they are the original product.

To sum up, Milian appears to have been signed to Island Records (of Island Def Jam), and was imprinted outside of Island Def Jam's US territory with Def Jam through Mercury Music UK. Indeed, it's quite ironic that her association with Def Jam is not as a result of Island Def Jam directly, but instead via Mercury Music Group. Furthermore, the very first album appears to have been on Def Soul. She probably moved from Def Soul to Island within Island Def Jam. So her signings are Def Soul & Island. Therefore you are probably wrong about her being signed to Def Jam, unless you are a non-US consumer of her records, then you would be led to believe that, without knowledge of UMG's global distribution setup lol! Imperatore (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Debut album: the album was on Def Soul, as witnessed by the actual covers, therefore this should be inscribed as per wp:albums, which stipulates original labels. Also don't forget The Inc Records, by the way. Sites such as AllMusic are not always accurate with such technicalities, and in this case involving a defunct auxiliary imprint, Def Soul, they have no reason to bother being so specific. If she has referred to her label as 'Def Jam' plainly in interviews, then that was not right of her. She obviously figured that Island/Island Def Jam/Def Jam is all synonymous lol. Indeed sometimes even the artists themselves create such ambiguities, while lazy journalists do not help the situation either. In the article's prose, it could be appropriate to refer to it as Island Def Jam (much like the sources do), but the infobox should strictly contain the label only (as per wp:albums), and the evidence points to it being Island. Imperatore (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Christina Milian (album) should have "Def Soul" in the infobox, and Inc Records, exactly as you see on the covers (it's that easy). It's About Time and So Amazin have Island Records and should stay that way - Correct! In the artist's infobox, per wp:musicians and wp:albums compliance, we require label only, hence Island (albums 2 and 3) and Def Soul (debut). For the prose, there's no problem, in my opinion, with either Island Def Jam (the umbrella company) or Island (the A&R label), since it's not an infobox-like situation where you would have to conform to specific guidelines.

For your interest: Universal Motown Republic Group enjoys distribution in the UK through Island Records Group (The UK's Island operation). In-turn, Island Records Group UK distributes Universal Motown Republic Group albums to all UMG affiliates all over the world. Therefore, it's actually Universal Motown & Universal Republic artists who appear as Island Records artists outside of the US, rather than US Island Records artists like Milian (since IDJ trades internationally via Mercury UK). Furthermore since you're in Australia, I wanna point your attention to Universal Music Australia's local artist & repertoire operation known as Island Records Australia (www.getmusic.com.au/islandrecords/). In fact one of its artists, Gin Wigmore, also has a US signing with Universal Motown. Now that Milian is back in the UMG system with her upcoming album, this time on Interscope ... Interscope-Geffen-A&M trades internationally via UK-based Polydor Records, therefore expect her to be a Polydor artist too outside of the US from now on :P Imperatore (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not her fault it's due to preconceived distribution agreements that allow for Hollywood to become a globally distributed cultural powerhouse (US signings make global artists because of these pre-existing global distribution networks, whereas non-US signings do NOT have automatic access to global distribution). Radio Killa definitely should get its own page. Interesting that she signed an "acquisition deal" with Radio Killa, since Myspace already had her signed, hence Radio Killa now bought acquisition rights to the Myspace work. In the meantime, the new album "will be released as a joint venture between MySpace Records, Interscope, & Radio Killa"....so we have to put three labels on this one in the infobox!!

Hmm, I was just about to add the source from rapup.com saying it's a 3-way joint venture. I'll let you take care of it instead now, I guess. As for your claim "one song from MySpace was bought by another artist and Milian had no say in the matter" ... I will say that labels own recordings, not songs. Music publishers own songs through songwriters, while labels own the recordings of those songs by artists (most often the studio version). So that claim is ambiguous. Either way, 'acquisition deal' could mean they acquired rights to her as an artist from the previous label, and not actual material. Maybe I'll research further. As for the sources I found, they look fairly reliable about the 3-way venture, so I dunno... Imperatore (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL about Diamonds. What probably happened there is that she wrote the song and had it published with her music publisher (whichever company that is). Then Teairra Mari's A&R guy found the song while scouring the publishers for material and acquired the rights to record it for Mari. Under the law of most Western countries actually, you cannot block someone from singing/covering/recording your song, nor does one need express, written consent from the writer. It's just a freedom we have, and it allows for live performances to be possible and for shows such as idol to be possible. Therefore, in the business, it does not have much to do with the label, Myspace, directly. As for the 3-way, the logic is a bit antithetical because if the quotes say 'acquisition', then why would the previous label still be a part of it if its rights were sold off?? So yeah I see where you're coming from, but sooner or later it will clear up once more information becomes available leading up to release, so no worries. Imperatore (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL hip-hop drama, especially anything with Kanye's name attached to it, makes for a spectacle. Here's a Billboard article that confirms Radio Killa a joint-venture with Def Jam - http://www.billboard.com/news/the-dream-spreads-the-love-on-new-album-1003873089.story#/news/the-dream-spreads-the-love-on-new-album-1003873089.story. So you can make a section under Def Jam, or just make a separate page (even though there isn't enough info out there, it won't hurt to start the page in my opinion). And interesting about the 'open' deal; indeed going from IDJ to a small indie label was a bad idea, nor did her management see the advent of Facebook out-pacing Myspace in all this :P. And I'd also be interested if you can tell me how she ended up with distribution by Interscope if The Dream's venture is with Def Jam instead. Take care. Imperatore (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How immature of LA Reid, never liked the guy he seems very douchey in interviews, and he never gave Lady Gaga the light of day while she was briefly signed to Def Jam... The draft looks great so far, although the parent company is always the ultimate parent, hence Universal. Also, just remember that the page should be more centred on the label itself, so it might actually not be appropriate to talk too much about its artists/albums. Dozens of imprint pages are very underdeveloped, so this one shouldn't have a problem, especially if you make a point to update it once more info is available. Imperatore (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Also I removed her from the Def Jam navbox, although now that I'm thinking about it twice, even though their was no direct Def Jam signing, I guess something has to be said about her Def Jam association via Def Jam UK. Ultimately though, Def Jam's page/roster would have to be fixed to make the Def Jam - Def Jam UK differentiation. Imperatore (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried Google Books and three results came up, all of them from Billboard, but nothing substantial that you wouldn't already have or seen. I also double checked umusic.com for press releases, but nothing. Also nothing in Google Scholar (just in case they were featured in an industry source other than Billboard lol). I think it's safe to assume that there isn't any other publicly available info out there at the moment, or that would easily be retrievable from the web. I ran into a similar situation with Usher/Braun's RBMG (Raymond Braun Media Group), as I wanted to confirm its status for the the UMG list page and for Justin Bieber's page, but surprisingly no information came up either (They also deal with IDJ, Island specifically). Imperatore (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey it's me again. I've taken the liberty to replace Def Jam with Island Def Jam in the bio page. I verified to see if all the sources did indeed say 'Island Def Jam' and not just plainly 'Def Jam' which would make them inaccurate sources, and somewhat surprisingly, they actually all said Island Def Jam with the exception of the article about her being swapped for Rihanna. At first glance, this article doesn't look very reliable beyond the label technicality, so maybe you can find a better one... So I think we're good with deciphering the label situation, finally. We're still waiting on the new album though just in case any labelling of Myspace will ensue. Imperatore (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is beyond a subconscious element at play here. Let's not forget that in all of Europe, and possibly in Australia (can you confirm this?) the albums are labelled with Def Jam as they're sold out of the Mercury UK catalogue. If I didn't contribute to label articles/issues here on wiki, I would probably have gotten it wrong myself writing the bio! I also noticed that the Mercury/Def Jam cover for It's About Time actually says 'www.defjam.com', when it should read 'www.defjam.CO.UK', although they did get it right for So Amazin' (co.uk). And yeah, I'm definitely looking forward to her upcoming album, even though I'm not very familiar with her work (or the genres for that matter), I'm interested in hearing what all these 'hot' IDJ-affiliated producers will put together for her, even though ironically, she'll be taking it to Interscope lol.Imperatore (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The page looks great! Maybe you wanna go for a DYK perhaps? ... I made some (minor) tweaks as you may have already noticed. Furthermore, I clarified some label issues even further on her bio page (yes, there was still ground to cover, lol); specifically her ascension into the IDJ which involved The Inc. and its imprint Murder Inc., a connection with Ja Rule, which was distributed through Def Jam. I hope my new edits aren't that confusing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Milian&action=historysubmit&diff=365037549&oldid=365034227. Imperatore (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Images

Although it would be great if that counted, unfortunately unless the actors state that the image is allowed to be released under a free license, those are also copyrighted just like any other image. Your best bet is to contact the actor(s) through the Twitter account and see if they would be willing to release the image under a free license. I know a few editors have tried it, but I don't know their success rates so far. Let me know if you need further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Radio Killa Records

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Radio Killa Records, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.dimple.com/rel/v2_viewupc.php?storenr=391&upc=60251793657. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural

Hey, thanks for the help. I had been building up the article to eventually submit for FA, but decided to wait until the series ended and started working on the character and episode articles instead, lol. Ωphois 15:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do you do FAC's? If so, do you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fresh Blood (Supernatural)/archive1‎? A few people have given comments and stuff, but haven't responded in a while, lol. Either way, thanks again. Ωphois 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've pretty much finished the articles for the first two seasons. There is not really much production info in those episodes that doesn't apply to the entire season, so I just group the extra info into the season articles. I don't really want Supernatural turning into what a lot of TV show articles are becoming, which is an article for every episode that basically just gives a plot and repeats the guest stars and stuff that are already in the infobox. I'm finishing up "A Very Supernatural Christmas", and then will do "Dream a Little Dream of Me", and "Red Sky at Morning" for good articles, and "No Rest for the Wicked" as FA. After that, the order is pretty much whichever I can find info for, lol. The season 4 companion comes out later this month. Ωphois 06:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Naomi (90210)

Thanks very much for your suggestions. I think the sentences in the lead summarize things, but maybe I could add more details. I'm wary of changing the lead image from a screen shot to a promo shot, because I wouldn't want a sudden copyright issue to interfere with the GA process (maybe I'm overlooking something here). As for the alternate formatting of the article, I think either version is fine. I'd be glad to bring in other people and make it a matter of consensus. Thanks again, as I appreciate someone noticing my efforts and offering input. -- James26 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I followed your tip and expanded the lead. For whatever reason (maybe because I'm being so careful), this lead section has been a lot trickier and more time-consuming than any other I remember doing (even though it doesn't look it). As for the picture, I'm hoping a better version of the current image may come along, since I think that one's pretty fitting. Anyway, thanks for the advice. -- James26 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. If three images could pose a problem, then I'll just remove the "comparison to Kelly Taylor" image. I think the Tonight Show image probably makes a better visual statement about notability. I notice that the Maggie Horton article, which just went GA, has about five images. Interesting. Anyway, thanks for the tip. -- James26 (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on expanding any other articles right now. I expanded the Kelly Taylor page months ago, which still hasn't even been rated. Don't know if the effort is always worth it, since everyone's pretty busy in RL. Thanks for the invitation, though. -- James26 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adrianna90210.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Adrianna90210.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lost (TV series) FAR

We don't call for delists this early in the FAR session. That comes later. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Adrianna

Hey again, Cornucopia. Are you planning on adding any additional sources for the Adrianna Tate-Duncan article? Unless someone does, I agree with Jayy008 that it should likely be redirected, as it doesn't demonstrate significant notability with only one source (the articles for some other TV characters have over 20). -- James26 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on the expansion. As for Naomi, as soon as that article gets reviewed, I'm planning on going into semi-retirement like you. ;) It's been fun, but time to move on. Again, good efforts. -- James26 (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know where I can get one of those "Semi-retired" signs? It seems the Naomi article is being reviewed. :) -- James26 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Headers

"Production" and "recording" seem to be used interchangebly on album articles, since they seem to signify the same thing; articles like Music Recording and Record producer ("the recording (i.e. "production")") seem to bring this to light. Also, mastering is part of post-production, so technically it wouldnt fit into "production", but its a minor detail in the article. Articles that do use various headers with "Recording", "production", "development" and "conception", like all those Michael Jackson ones (Invicable, Thriller (album), Off the Wall (album)), Pearl Jam album articles, Madonna album articles, and so on. But since the terms suggest in most cases the same thing, with the exception of "Conception" (which might better be interchangable with "Background" in some cases), it seems like a style issue. Since the information on "Recording" and "Record label" (which deals more with Background on Big Boi and his issues with the label over the album's material while the album was not finished yet) seem to be at the same time, its fitting that they be included under the same section. I changed "Conception" with "Background" as the major header, since its a more general term that suits the 3 subsections. I hope that makes more sense. I appreciate your advice. Dan56 (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be one album article example. Now since this one is nominated for GA, if there is something wrong in any aspect of the article, then it will be dealt with in the process. But a style matter? Like u said, "The word conception itself is about how the album began, its very origin and its inspiration", which is what the first subsection deals with. I've considered your suggestion and appreciate the insight on what "Conception" actually suggests, but this seems like a style matter. On the Invicable album article, which u changed the header "conception", the title wasnt disputed in the article's GA review, so it seems appropriate to leave it as "conception" until making some sort of consensus at the talk page, sort of like I did at Talk:No Line on the Horizon for that article's change in content. Dan56 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldnt say "any ordinary editor", but the reviewers for the Invincible article (did u check it out?) seemed to be thorough. But I reverted your edit to that article, since its more appropriate to reach a consensus first, with it being like that when it was passed as GA. Also, the "Production" section u seperated contains some statements not dealing with production. Being "consistent" with other MJ album articles isnt accurate, since those other articles that passed GA or FA were reviewed by different editors. It should be easy to get a consensus for this, but it still should be got first. Dan56 (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's all good. But it cant hurt to inform the reviewers from the GA process that he/she might have overlooked the aspect, for future reference and understanding in editing articles. Dan56 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your response the matter with "Music" heading and I left a response. As for the "background", I see how "Recording" would be deserving of its own section, but its kind of hard to incorrectly use "Background" as a heading. It just seems like a general term that cover info about a topic's circumstances, in this case an album prior to its actualization?/release. This album's circumstances concern the "record label" content and the "conception", Big Boi's hiatus from OutKast with their idea to make solo albums and the title's significance to Big Boi at the time. Just minimal content about the album's circumstances that fits better as "Background" info than its own section. Dan56 (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

For an album to exist, it has to be completed, produced. Most of the label content was before the album was completely finished. Dan56 (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A baby in the womb? A fetus. A baby is what the fetus becomes when its born. Dan56 (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to the album, I wasnt saying it has to be released. An album is "A group of audio recordings, on any medium, intended for distribution as a group" 1. How can it be "as a group" if all of its material is not produced yet? Dan56 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasnt making "a friendly joke" or "being condescending". I do value your suggestions. U helped me understand how the "Recording" part warrants its own section, but you brought up the contrast with the "baby", so I responded with another contrast. That its not really a baby if its not born yet, like its not really an album if its not produced, that is all of its songs atleast are not completed and intended for distribution as a group or collection. Dan56 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If its in its early stages of development, then its not developed yet. Its still in development as a project. If an album is "A group of audio recordings, on any medium, intended for distribution as a group", and, in the case of Sir Lucious Left Foot, all the material/songs that proved to be the resulting album had not yet been produced, then it doesnt seem to be an album. Perhaps a project, still in development. Dan56 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, but that's using a general definition. The album did not come into existence as soon as the final product was created. That's like saying the album did not exist until the final track was recorded. I think I'll take this to WP:ALBUM to get some more opinion on the matter. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ready

Wow, Thanks SO MUCH for the expansion on the production and development on Ready. For my next article I will make sure to include/arrange this info in that fashion, so afterhand it won't need to be done. Candyo32 18:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So what about the section in Goodies (album)? Is it sufficient? I tended to focus on the production for the on the initially titled "background" section anyway since it was such a lack of general information about Ciara's discovery and the album development. Candyo32 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sophia Fresh

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adrianna90210.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Adrianna90210.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tina Fey Jane Krakowski.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tina Fey Jane Krakowski.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

VM Episodes

Hey, just in case you happen to be reading this at all, there's been a move to redirect many of the VM episodes to the list article. I could use help sourcing them, because some of them are indeed undersourced. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of FRIENDS as FA

I nominate friends as a featured article.Beacause you are one of the most contributors of the article, please help me in the nomination procedure.--nijil (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:DexterBornFree.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DexterBornFree.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)