User talk:Big Bird/January 2009 - December 2009

Re your note
Thanks for your message. The reason I went for semi- rather than full-protection is that there has been a long-running series of edit-warring accounts editing on this and related articles, most (if not all) of which have now been blocked (see the logs at the bottom of the WP:ARBMAC page). The pattern of these users has often been to instantly return under a sock account or as an IP to continue their disruptive POV-pushing. I'm reluctant to full-protect an article whilst other established editors are actively working on it, but neither should those editors have to put up with endless disruption from new and/or anon accounts.

I can appreciate your concern that semi-protection could give one 'side' an advantage in an apparent content dispute, but I've become wary about treating articles under the ARBMAC provisions in the same way as I would elsewhere on Wikipedia. I think we sometimes do ourselves no favours by extending WP:AGF too far - on these articles, it seems that all too often POV pushing is mischaracterised as a 'content dispute', and thus we prolong the agony while every good-faith editor feels obliged to jump through all the dispute resolution hoops... all the while knowing nothing will be resolved because they're not dealing with someone capable of, or even interested in, working within Wikipedia policy.

My aim is to always do the minimum required to prevent disruption, so for me full protection is very much a last resort. Now that new/anon accounts are prevented from edit-warring on the article, I will be watching its other editors closely. These all know better, so I'm quite prepared to block should disruption continue, and I hope genuine talk-page discussion will ensue if there really are content issues that need examnining. I hope I've clarified the reasons for my decision, although if you're still unsatisfied you're very welcome to take your concerns up on WP:ANI, or to request a page protection review at WP:RFPP. All the best, EyeSerene talk 15:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your further explanation. It's now clear to me that I've not acted in the best interests of article quality and editor consensus, so I've amended the protection as you requested and left a note on the article talk page. My apologies, and I appreciate the time you've taken to set things right. All the best, EyeSerene talk 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I am sure that you will again jump to article Jasenovac.... Can you write comment on talk page about my proposition ? If it is not OK, say why--Rjecina (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

&#9734;

 * No no, it's waving to say hi. You're excused for not noticing because the waving state is deceptively like the not waving state in a starfish.  How've you been?  How'd that thing you did in November go?  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  17:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilians
Hello... I'm currently having some trouble concerning the White Brazilians article, since a guy called Opinoso seems to believe being the owner of the article, and systematically reverts my edits... Would you be willing to take a look there and let me know what you think about it?

Thanks in advance,

Donadio (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood
Hi. Thanks for your words. I actually started 350 articles in one go and have gradually worked it down to 65 its very monotonous work trust me. I have deleted any which I believe weren't notable enough or couldn't be expanded. I promise I'll resume one sorting the others in due course. Its just it was a priority to get the articles red linked. Should take me few hours longer but give me till the end of Feb, things are tough at the mo but I will have that as a deadline, thanks for speaking to me and not prodding them, Regards   Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it's enough for me to know that you plan on expanding them, whenever that may be. My only concern was that you forgot all about those stubettes but it looks as though you didn't. If I start feeling motivated enough, I may do something to expand a few of them. Anyways, good luck with all your monotonous work and good luck with everything else in general.
 * Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I knocked it down to 45. Will try to do a little every day and have it done in a few days. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, then. I'll jump in for a bit today, as long as you don't mind. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for taking the time to gather proper evidence and filing a more extensive sock report on Brexx. I've been busy and came back to see the havoc he created this time and just filed a quickie report hoping that'd get him, but apparently not. So thank you very much for finally nabbing down this sock. Siawase (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Thank you for getting involved in all of this because I know how frustrating his BS can get sometimes. Let me know if I can help with this in the future.
 * Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Vettaikkaaran (2009 film)
Hi, you have recently posted on my talk page about the deletion of the article mentioned above. Please undo the deletion because the film's shooting schedules have been made up and is due for filming next month. Also I was going to include more info about its notability, however it had already been deleted before I could return to add more info. Please undo the deletion so I can give more info about the film. --Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter
The February 2009 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Vettaikaaran
I'm not completely satisfied with the article passing WP:NFF, but with production due to commence this month I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't object to another AfD, though. The current article was written in the author's userspace and it's been moved across to mainspace prematurely, IMHO. PC78 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Template 10
Hi. Thanks for your courteous note. I think there's room for an exception, because the other redirect templates include a wikilinked term, which stands out in blue. This doesn't, and I thought the bold would make it more consistent, not less. More importantly, the bewildered reader wondering why he's arrived at British Standards instead of the Kitemark he searched for, is more likely to notice why he's been dumped in the article he finds himself reading... What do you think? --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * is exactly the same as except that R8 takes two parameters whereas R10 takes one parameter. See Fremantle Harbour for an example of text displayed using R8. The parameter being the search term, I totally agree that it's appropriate for it to be bolded within the body of the article as you've done at British Standards but I don't know if bold text should be included in a hatnote. Even WP:HAT only calls for hatnotes to be "italicized and indented" and defends the use of templates so as to allow "the form and structure to change uniformly over time." I think changing one of these templates and leaving the rest slightly different gets away from the prescribed uniformity.
 * As far as bold text being more noticeable than quotation marks, I think you're absolutely right. It might take a reader a few seconds of head-scratching and going "WTF?" to realize what's going on after they type in "Kitemark" and get redirected to British Standards. But I think that article is an exception because everyone typing in "Fremantle Ports" or "Fremantle Port Authority" is expecting to find Fremantle Harbour whereas not everyone typing in "Kitemark" may be looking for British Standards.
 * So you do bring up a valid point. I guess I agree that "Kitemark" is OK to be bold in the above article and I would agree that it's OK for all of the RedirectX templates to be changed so that they display the search parameter in bold text but I'm kind of hesitant to change the one template and leave the rest as they are. Let me know what you think :) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments
Re: Talk:Stroszek. KellenT 09:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Brexx
Yes, is ✅. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Žižek!
Alex, I am a bit confused as to why you changed the name of the Žižek! article. It was fine, and more accurate, the way it was before. I reverted the name change, and Zizek! now redirects to Žižek! What was your reasoning for moving the article? I apologize for undoing your modification, and will be happy to continue the discussion. --N-k, 20:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Petar Brzica - see also
I reverted your change to the article, though not because I necessarily disagree. The "see also" section is designed for articles not linked in the article. With an article as short as this one, linking to two articles already linked in the main body is unnecessary. Finally, "see also" sections aren't a requirement. If you feel that those two articles are the only ones appropriate, just remove the section altogether. AniMate talk  16:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note! I won't revert you, that's fine. The "See also" section on that article was introduced by the anonymous Verizon IP editor from the Washington D.C. area; this is the banned user to whom Rjecina refers when speaking of User:Velebit etc. He introduced the same "see also" section in many semi-related articles and edit warred with others over it. Partially because of this, Fut. Perf. indefinitely semi-protected about a dozen or so Ustashe-related articles. My edit was meant to remove the links to unrelated articles from the "see also" section without prejudice to articles that are related but already linked. If you believe the section is better off the way it is now rather than after my edit, I have no objection.
 * Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure the section is needed. If users aren't able to show a clear and demonstrative link between the subject and the items in the "see also" section, I see no reason to include the section. As it stands, it feels like they're being filled just so they can be there.  AniMate  talk  16:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and that's sort of the direction in which I was headed when I trimmed the section. I removed all but two items and those two remaining items, I thought, linked to articles that have a demonstrative link to Petar Brzica. Granted, they were redundant due to being linked earlier in the article but I didn't delete the whole section because I didn't want to appear as though I was against any kind of cross-referencing of this article to other possibly related topics. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of comment
Though it may not seem directly related to article approval, it could be seen as such as well. For example, it could be mentioned in the article as a similar example, since almost all factors are identical (seceding a part of country, made by a world power for its own use, without the country's agreement, without UN or similar organization approval, related to a war etc.). But never mind, if you think it can't stay, I won't argue about it. Thank you for your notification. Sincerely, --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your courteous reply!
 * What you just said above is soapboxing and original research and, yes, unrelated to the article. Yes, it may have a real-world connection to the subject of the article but it's not directly related to the Wikipedia article itself.
 * Thanks again for replying.
 * Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
Good to hear from you! What have you been up to? delldot  &nabla;.  03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Work. That's about it. How about you? What's your twenty these days? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter
The March 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

john malkovich
I wrote the little comment in the John Malkovich article about his missing tv credit of 'Santa Bear'. As I am new to wiki and the internet, I dont know how to edit the actual article or the the filmography table. I am hoping someone with experiance will do it. I included a link from the tv production company to prove it. I actually have a copy of the tv cartoon film on videotape. It was lousy (I thought) but important to fans of each actor. I am a big fan of Nikola Tesla. I see you are from his native country, so I salute you!!! (although I am American)

http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/SourceFiles/Credits/Santabear/Santabear.htmlBobroberts248 (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bosniak
I note you recently posted a report on WP:ANI concerning User:Bosniak which didn't garner any attention. You may be interested to know that another report concerning User:Bosniak has been posted at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

St Peter's
I reversed your edit, because the introduction is a summary of information contained within the article, and ought to reflect the important information contained elswhere in the article. Because the status of St Peter's is often misunderstood, it is stated in the intro and explained further later in the article. Amandajm (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Zeitgeist, the Movie, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  21:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter
The April 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

St Peter's
Are you telling me that it is all beautifully sorted out and I don't need to bother to even look.... Good! it's been a tiring week....haven't had much time for wiki-ing! Amandajm (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter
The May 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't you an admin yet?
With over 12,000 edits and eloquence like this, why haven't you gone for WP:RFA?--Aervanath (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words and your vote of confidence. In all honesty, I've never really given RFA much thought even though I've already been asked about it. I'm also not quite certain that I've accomplished enough on this project to be given the ability to overrule and block those people that are more accomplished and more eloquent than myself. I've always done the vast majority of my editing from work during down time but I work for an insurance company and the last few months have been just about the busiest few months that the insurance industry has ever experienced so down time does not exist for me currently. This is evident in my contributions which have slowed down noticeably during the same time period. Once things get back to normal in the industry and I'm able to devote more time to the project, I'll give adminship some thought but I still don't want to make any promises.


 * Thanks again!
 * Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter
The June 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

my WP:AN/I edit mistake
Thanks for sweeping up my edit error on WP:AN/I Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anytime! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson edit
Not sure what you meant here -- the opening ceremony of? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 13:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, completely my fault. I meant to erase the part of the statement containing "opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics" because I wasn't able to find any mention of that in the two references provided. I must have just deleted the 2008 Summer Olympics part and not the opening ceremony part. Thanks for the heads up! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting. I have absolutely no idea what happened, perhaps I mistakenly edited an old version although I thought I checked for it. In any case, thanks for restoring the page, I will post my reply once again and see to it that the page looks correct this time. CheersJdeJ (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I mistakenly edited an old version. No need to add my reply as the situation has since been solved. Thanks for reverting my mistake and for notifying me about it.JdeJ (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of figured that might have happend but I wasn't completely sure. No big deal either way but thanks for responding so well.
 * Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Big Bird,

Thank you for letting me know about the sock-puppet accusation made by cobaltblue. I will address it. My friend has helped me in writing this article and I think that may be where this is coming from.

Thank you,

Mfetzer3 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's my pleasure if I can be of any assistance. Good luck with everything!
 * Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Brexx
What do you think about ? I'm a little suspicious because right after Brexx's latest sock, got blocked he appeared out of nowhere and started to make edits to Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel. I'm asking you because you seem to know more about Brexx than I do. MS  (Talk | Contributions)  14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good eye. ✅ as Brexx. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I lose
Looks like I owe you 1 month's Checkuser salary. PayPal OK? I assume they'll handle amounts of $0.00 (or, if you prefer, €0.00. Or £0.00.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are Mickey Mouse currencies. I only accept Flooz, thank you very much :) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm out of Flooz. But I can also transfer the sum in the One True Universal Currency. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If no Flooz, I demand 1 billion, gagillion, fafillion, shabolubalu million illion yillion...yen. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Election 5
Hi, you may have already noticed but WikiProject Films are currently in the process of electing a number of project coordinators to serve over the next six months. Basically, the role of a coordinator is to help keep the project active and up to date, participate in relevant project discussions and wherever possible offer guidance and help to our other members. You already seem to be fairly active within the project and your mainspace contributions look fairly solid, so I think you would make a good candidate. You can find more info at the linked page above. I hope you consider putting your name forward! :) PC78 (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note and the vote of confidence! I may take you up on that. Give me a couple of hours to mull it over. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Errand of Angels
Thanks for the heads-up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Proofreading
Hi there. Would you have time to please proofread this croatian article? The article is short and thus it won't take much time. Thanks very much. Amsaim (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Some corrections have been made with regards to grammar and spelling but I am not very familiar with Croatian wiki MOS guidelines so those may be better discussed with a Croatian wiki editor. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the corrections. Amsaim (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All quiet?
I'm surprised ... it's been nearly four days without any signs of Brexx. Should I just be enjoying the break, or is there something I'm missing?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure he's lurking somewhere as an anonymous IP waiting for his favourite articles to be unprotected which, ironically enough, were protected partially because of him anyways. I hope that his home country one day abolishes internet censorship so that his stable IP gets indeffed. It's tiring, really, chasing around after someone who really enjoys operating in an environment where they're not welcome anymore at all. I think it's possible that he just doesn't get how unwated he is on this project. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS November Newsletter
The November 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: SPI/Brexx
I'd rather not do so myself, as I'm not entirely certain of the connection based on the checkuser data, and I haven't looked at the behavioral evidence, which is going to have to be the deciding factor here. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Tony Di Carlo AfD
Hi Big Bird. Thanks for your comment on the AfD. There may be some further trouble brewing on that page. First the author blanked your comment, then, after I had reverted him and issued a warning, he added his two bits' worth and just to make a point introduced a spelling error in your comment. A tad too ridiculous to merit a full warning, but the editor needs watching. Happy New Year! Favonian (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up on that one. I corrected the spelling mistake and I may take a minute or two to explain to the editor why what he's doing is not helpful. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)