User talk:Bzuk/Archive 4

Image tagging for Image:XF8B-I (Navy).jpg
corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&action=edit Edit this page

The Best Guidelines of Our Editing Lives
I've been asked to provide a third opinion about the presentation of cast sections. MOS:FILM gives "actor as character" as the preferred format, and WP:TABLE advises not using tables in these cases. While we're encouraged to ignore rules where appropriate, I don't see any burning need to be original with such cut-and-dried info. Just my two cents worth. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My two cents: There's no burning need to be "original", but there is always a burning need to present information in the best possible way, that is easy to assimilate for the reader. Believe it or not, there are situations where one method works better than another, even though they're both presenting essentially the same kind of information.  While consistency and uniformity has its virtues, there's no reason to be all dogmatic about it and insist every cast list must be done in precisely the same way.  Aren't there better things to spend time on, like upgrading articles?  I'd say so. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As to tables being used, it was my observation of other editors that used tables to quickly identify cast and characters in film articles that provided the impetus for a general pattern that I gradually adapted. In reading the instructions on tables, under the heading of "When tables are appropriate," the notation is made that it is useful for "Lists of information" and that is what actors and their roles represent. The MoS guide goes on to provide further guidelines: "A table may not be appropriate for very simple lists or extremely long lists." The normal listing of the major cast roles is what I have now condensed the cast list to document. The highly visual representation of the cast list in a graphic is not for decorative purposes but it does provide a means of establishing the principal cast in a highly readable form. Comparing the articles that I have recently written in the film group compared to other extant articles will indicate that the format I have adapted is not only practical but also one that makes the article easy to follow at least in the cast section; I have abandoned the production list as being too unworkable but I have resorted to the expedient of providing an identifying statement as to where a full production list can be found. As to other aspects of the film article format I have employed, much of it comes from the articles that I have written in the WP:Aviation Group. This group has through discussion and consenus, eventually tackled many of the issues of how to accurately provide citations and reference sources which I have also tried to adapt to the film article format. FWIW, my pithy remarks are probably only worth a cent and a half... Bzuk (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC).


 * We can split the extra half-cent, if you like. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Magnificent men.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Magnificent men.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) 06:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review feedback
Hi, I noticed you have a request in at peer review which has not yet received any response besides the semi-automated script. Have you tried requesting a peer review from the volunteers list? Another idea is to review someone else's request (particularly one from the list of requests without responses), then ask that they look at your request. Hope these are helpful suggestions and help to get some feedback for your request soon, APR t 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rocketeer in flight.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rocketeer in flight.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) 04:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rocketeer on top of Griffith Observatory.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rocketeer on top of Griffith Observatory.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) 04:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Husky again
I've just created a redirect from "Harrison Husky" to "Fairchild Husky"; Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation uses the former name for the F-11-2 Husky powered by the Alvis Leonides. But who was "Harrison" and how did he/they fit into the Husky story? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your vote of support. However, being an inmate of this looney bin is enough for me (especially since there are no dictatorial powers attached). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers
Thanks for the info, Bill. Manxruler (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Dates on Wiki:Project Aviation Articles
Bzuk, thanks for letting me know about the date formatting convention (although adding a   to my talk page 5 years and nearly 900 edits after I officially joined wikipedia was a little much). :) I figured that since the linking an ISO 8601 formated date triggered a macro that changed the date into Month Day, Year that it would be localized for non-western users, and was more appropriate.  But, since that's not consistent with the current style guide, I'll go back to the  DD Month, Year  format.  Thanks. — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 14:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise reports
Your call for consensus is foolish and short sighted. The idea of drawing conclusions from exercises is very much flawed for all the reasons given ad nauseum. Consensus cannot change facts. Wikipedia is not taken very seriously as it is. Why add ammunition?

Georgie cannot keep such a large block (virtually all of the east coast on Verizon's network blocked forever. Once the blocks are removed there will be a revision and edit war all over again. Signed You know who.--Zee897hello (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hope you're enjoying your time in Mazatlan! Just wanted to say hello, and that I liked what you had to say about references. I think that your input would be extremely beneficial to WikiProject Films, and I hope to see you around discussions. :) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection
I think you might need to get your talk page some protection for a while. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur. A semi-protect for several weeks ought to solve the immediate problems. - BillCJ (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

 * Reading the same post from at least 3 separate IPs, even after the user of talk page removes it is stirring up trouble on your own. Please stop. None of us want to hear from you. The IP user was banned by ARBCOM after he filed arbitration against BillZ and me, and was subsequently banned. He has no right to be here (as you well know, Stephano) so please stop harrassing BillZ with your inane comments. - BillCJ (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Hi Bill, thanks for your message. I've semi-protected your talk page against personal attacks and trolling, and your user page against vandalism. This is indefinite at present, let me know if you need anon IPs to talk to you. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong
Thanks for your message, BZuk, and I do apologize for overreacting a bit at the article. Take a look at my recent postings at the Anna May Wong talk page. I believe the citations to individual pages of two separate articles were incorrectly combined into one source. Apparently my replacement of the in-line citation with a full template citation was taken as an ideological move. I didn't mean it as such, and, since this is your area of expertise, I look forward to your help in fixing the citations-- which style is used really doesn't bother me. It was the loss of verifiability, accuracy and utility through the combination of the pages and two articles that bothered me. I should have spit it out plainly rather than going into a sarcastic rant. I look forward to seeing what you and the other editors have done with the article and making whatever contributions I can beginning next week. You too have a good vacation, and take care. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jacob DeShazer
Your recent edit left open ended coding in the article, and was unnecessary, I have reverted it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong (2)
Bill, I don't know how it's happened, but some of my edits have reverted to the original versions which you have then re-edited, and some info has gone missing (check the diffs), so I'll just sit back for the time being so that we won't trip over each other. Cheers. --Red Sunset   18:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to worry Bill, these things happen and we have to accept the fact. I noticed the repetition myself, and was considering joining one or two short paras together, but thought precisely the same as you and confined myself mainly to small adjustments as there is more to come. Good holiday? --Red Sunset   18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tuskegee Airmen
It is not my intention to get into an edit war, but I disagree with your reversion. The dates should be formatted in accordance with WP:MOSNUM: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should generally use the more common date format for that nation. The Tuskegee Airmen are American, and the mmddyyyy is most common in the U.S. I see nothing in the Aviation Project Style Guide that contradicts this. All my date edits were properly autoformatted so as to display properly according to browser preferences, so I really don't know what you mean by the browser preference comment.

In your reversion of my edit, you have also restored poor edits such as "the fall of 2006", which should be avoided for people in the Southern Hemisphere.

Likewise, "ironically" should be avoided in Wiki articles, which is why I rewrote that poorly constructed paragraph.  JGHowes talk  -  21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See comments on your talk page. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC).


 * Personally, I see no harm in using seasonal references when it's clearly about the place where it happened. This is especially true when it occurs within a chronological narrative, so that the time at which the even happened is bracketed by other references, which makes it clear when it occured. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Tempest-1.jpg == ==

Hi Bzuk, this one has me shaking my head in frustration. CheersMinorhistorian (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

B for Bertie image
Hi. I was getting bugged by the B for Bertie picture on One of Our Aircraft is Missing because it was so dark - I had to have my monitor just right in order to see it at all. So I fiddled with its brightness and contrast and re-uploaded it as Image:B for Bertie croplight.jpg and changed the article to point to the new image. (I tried at first to upload it as a new version of your image, but the software seems hit and miss about that, it doesn't always take, so I reverted.) If you think my improvement is no improvement, feel free to change back to the original, my image will be orphaned and sooner or later some annoying robot will mark it for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tempest Image
My thanks for your input on this one; I will be contacting the RAF Museum to see if it will be possible to clear up the copyright status of the Charles Brown photos. I can't imagine there would be any problems using these images for non-profit, educational purposes in Wikipedia. CheersMinorhistorian (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:B for Bertie.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:B for Bertie.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) 12:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator election question
There is a proposal to extend the nomination period and your thoughts on the matter are requested. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks!
Thank you for your vote of confidence! I appreciate the support, and I look forward to collaborating with you. You have a lot to say, obviously, and I look forward to reading all of it! :) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name?
I'm looking at de Havilland/DHC. How'd they get moved/reset to LC "de"? I'd like to do the same on planespotting wiki, but it won't (apparently) let me. Or can you work some voodoo there? Trekphiler (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Trek, you have to have the Template:lowercase on PSW, plus all other other templates it might use. I'll see what I can do, but it might take a while to copy all the needed templates over, and de-bug them. - BillCJ (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like we need the Magic word "DISPLAYTITLE" enabled on PSW for it to work. You probably need to ask the tech guys at PSW for help on that, as I haven't got a clue - I just found out there were "majic words" yesterday! - BillCJ (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Citizen Kane
Hello, thank you for your comment about Citizen Kane! Actually, we have not done any direct work on the film article itself. (We being J.D., Alientraveller, and me.) We've been working in the userspace, as you can see at User:Erik/Citizen Kane/Draft. Both J.D. and Alientraveller have done excellent work so far. I'm sorry to say I haven't had a chance to add to the draft yet, but my goal is to implement academic studies based on the references I've listed at User:Erik/Citizen Kane. There are numerous books available, and I have access to quite a few journals. In addition Nehrams2020 was kind enough to provide a draft of the deleted Citizen Kane in popular culture so I could review any relevant details and find what can be backed by secondary sources for implementation. You are welcome to make comments at the draft's talk page -- I think the other two contributors should have the subpage watchlisted. I look forward to seeing what you have to say about the draft! — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fiskencat.jpg
Howdy! I'm not quite sure about the copyright tagging on this one; NZ Crown copyright tags seem to be missing from the Wikipedia page. Any thoughts?Minorhistorian (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong
Cheers. EraserGirl (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed: Fokker C.V or VL Tuisku?
Hi again, Bill. I'm just dropping by to ask you a favour. Could you help me out by evaluating an image for me? Over at Fokker C.V I've recently added an image from Backwoods Landing Strip that Backwoods says is a Fokker C.V. Since then a very insistent user has screamed at me that the image is actually of a VL Tuisku. He won't give any documentation as to why Backwoods is wrong and he's right, simply claiming that he "knows". What I need help with is to look at and consider whether it is a Fokker C.V or a VL Tuisku. As you seem to have an eye for aircraft I thought you might be able to help me out checking this. I'm not at all saying that Backwoods is necessarily right and the "knowing" user is necessarily wrong, I just would like a second opinion. For my own part the Tuisku and the C.V looks a lot alike, although I feel the image might be of a Fokker C.V-D. In advance, thank you. Manxruler (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They look incredibly alike from some angles, but based on the tail section I would say it is a VL Tuisku, as the C.VE had a more curved edge. However, I am not sure if some versions had a different tail section. I could look it up next time I go back to Finland (in about a week). --MoRsE (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CL41 Image
Just a question on the Image:CL41G.jpg you uploaded in February. You have tagged it as Public Domain Canadian Government but the source is given as a Malaysian website with no clear connection to the Canadian Government. I was going to question it on Media copyright questions but thought it better to ask you about it first. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, yes no problem, perhaps it just needs a note on the image page to avoid confusion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd!
So as you drove away I heard a plane, looked up, and saw a CF-18 flying eastward. CF-18's never fly over Toronto. What's the chance of that?! Maury (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference lists
I saw the discussion re: scrolling lists on the Anna Mae Wong talk page and just wanted to alert you that they aren't acceptable, per WP:REF which states ''Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers.'' Just wanted to pass that on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, it's always something, but they do have good points for why not. I have found that sometimes, one can use a and cut down quite a bit more on the lengthiness of the ref list.
 * On a completely unrelated subject, another editor and myself managed to get Gene Wilder cleared as a good article last night. It's my first (well, I've not much tried before), so I'm quite pleased. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, like pretty, shiny things. The problem is they are usually male, tall and have long hair... but that's an entirely different issue. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Secret of Treasure Island
Curious as to why you removed the WP:CIT formatting on the references in the "Further reading" section? Also, it is inappropriate to call this a "Bibliography" section - none of these sources are (yet) used in the article itself, and when they are they will be moved to citations. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, what pages in this new Weiss source that you added discuss The Secret of Treasure Island ? Cirt (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to call it a "Bibliography" - when none of those sources are used in any way, shape, or form, in the article text, at least, they aren't yet. Better to move them all to the talk page until they can be used in the article, or just leave it as a "Further reading" section. To call it "Bibliography" when the sources are simply not used at all in the article, is disingenuous. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you also please answer my other above questions? What pages from the Weiss source discuss this movie serial?  And also, curious why you removed the WP:CIT formatting I had used on the sources in the Further reading section?  Cirt (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but when none of these sources are used at all in the article itself, that is inappropriate. Please keep with the current formatting of the article and if you use a new source in the article, move it as a citation instead of including it in the Further reading section.  Cirt (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See Diff - If we do it this way, we know precisely which sources were used in the article, and which were not. FWIW, in the future formatting the article this way it will stand the test of time better - if we just slap a bunch of sources at the bottom that are not actually used in the article's text, over time no one will know who read which sources at the bottom to get a feel for the article - that is why I stick to this type of formatting with citations. Also, not sure why you added that particular cite to the Intro paragraph, because per WP:LEAD, the Lede is supposed to be a concise stand-alone of the article itself - thus the article should be heavily cited in the body, and traditionally the lead does not need cites, as it is a summary of the cited article itself. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, for an example of an article that uses the formatting I am talking about, see Battlefield Earth (film), a Featured Article. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what else there is to say at this point - unless you can add more to the article from the other sources in the "Further reading" section? I don't yet have access to them.  Cirt (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For me it's a personal preference and I've grown accustomed to working in this style of formatting, but I really like the formatting usage used in the Battlefield Earth (film). Cirt (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I appreciate your candor about your background and experience, but I think the article looks fine at the moment. I do respect your opinion and your comments, but I also like the model used at Battlefield Earth (film), lots of other Featured Articles use a similar model for References.  Cirt (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This dialogue is beginning to stray off on a tangent, and away from improving one specific article, but let me say a few things: Battlefield Earth (film) is a Featured Article on the English Wikipedia that I put a good deal of work on and that I am familiar with and that is why I used it as an example. I don't quite follow why one should cite a "classic film" as an example in this particular case - it was more the quality of the article itself that I wanted to use as an example. As for the style formats, they all conform to WP:CIT, and that's not really something that gets delved into in WP:FAC discussions, at least not that much, so long as WP:V is satisfied adequately - and if enough information is provided with WP:CIT formatting, other users/readers can follow-up, find the information in the cited sources, and check the citations. Cirt (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC) In that case I think the best solution (for now) is to remove the "Further reading" section altogether, since none of those sources listed are actually being used in the article as sources, and to add them back into the article at some later point when they are used as references to back up actual material in the article. I will go ahead and do that now. Cirt (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Especially because I was already using the WP:CIT convention on this particular article, I would appreciate it if it is not removed. It is fine to add new sources not formatted that way, I can always reformat later, but this keeps things uniform in the future, when potential new editors to the article might not be as familiar with citing formatting.  Cirt (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Your resume and accomplishments are impressive, as are the list of articles that you are working on and would like to focus on in the future, and maybe I could collaborate with you on some of them at some point, but I'd prefer to focus on one article at a time, for the most part. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) My understanding is that "Further reading" refers to recommendations on sources that the reader of the Wikipedia article can refer to for more information on the subject matter, yet that was not used at all in references for the article itself. "Bibliography" implies that all sources listed were used in some fashion in the article, and in this particular case, that would be false.  Cirt (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Layout
This explains it best: This section may also be titled "Bibliography", but that title is best reserved for material authored by the article subject, as it is ambiguous and may also refer to the references. Put under this header in a bulleted list that should usually be alphabetized, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers. This section follows the same formatting rules as the "References" section, but is generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article. Cirt (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From above, which was from Layout: "Bibliography" - that title is best reserved for material authored by the article subject, as it is ambiguous and may also refer to the references. - That is pretty much why I don't use that particular convention. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert
Check the edit summary: I didn't revert, Jim Dunning did. I asked you for your rationale on something that didn't make sense to me, but I left it as you had it, even though I thought it was incorrect. Please check your facts before making accusations. --Melty girl (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in haste, I did not check the edit history and have made comments on the Juno talk page. My apologies. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC).

Mulholland Drive
Hello, I was wondering if you could look at the referencing for Mulholland Drive (film)? The article is being expanded, and I've suggested revising the setup of the referencing similar to what you did for the draft of Citizen Kane. I've mentioned this possibility on the talk page here, and I invite you to explain the efficiency of the setup for those working on the article. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I was referring more to the section heading layout. Do you think that it would be good to have "Notes" and "Bibliography" subsections at that particular article?  Perhaps after the election, as I think that we are both set, we can discuss consistency in terms of referencing. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re- the referencing of online sources and articles: The way they are now is not the way I understand they should be per FAC suggestions. In fact, I've had another user (Maralia) go through my 2 recent FACs and make sure all the citations are correct (Birmingham campaign and To Kill a Mockingbird) and they were reformatted similar to the way I was formatting them. As usual, citations confuse me, but I think that's primarily because they're done so differently by different users. --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I should let this go or address this. If it makes things worse, then it's my poor judgment not to let it go. I understand you are trying to help at the request of Erik, and I need it. I saw your comments about gatekeepers and WP:OWN, and I can imagine you feel dismissed and pretty pissed off to have your work reverted. I'm sure you know there are editors all over Wikipedia who have fantastic gifts for reverting vandalism, copy-editing, stuffing articles with information, writing, and citing, among other things. I'll be the first to admit that citing isn't one of my gifts, although I hope content stuffing and writing is. Citing completely baffles me. I could have Strunk and White in front of me quoting from it directly, and still have other editors tell me my citations stink. What makes it so much worse is, at least in my perception, the rules change in a matter of weeks, and different editors believe certain styles are better than others. I've learned the path of least resistance is to do what the most recent batch of editors wants me to do in order to get an article featured.

There's a fine line between WP:OWN and being dedicated to an article to get it featured. I've worked on articles for months and months, and often helpful editors step in, like you did. But without a single force to push it, articles I've taken a break on languish untended until I'm ready to come back and pick it up. After feature, some may dissolve. I'm sure I'm telling you something you already know. I plan to tend the articles I work on to guard against weird additions, vandalism, and anything else that might decrease its quality. So I need to know how to keep the writing and formatting consistent throughout them. For what it's worth, the path of least resistance right now is continuing to do what I have been as long as it's acceptable and for the betterment of the article. I can't be assured that you will always be around to make sure the citations will be perfection, and I can't ask anyone else to do a job I am unable or unwilling to do, as in reformat every one of my citations. That's mean.

Again, I'm sorry. I don't like to create friction and have been pretty successful in staying away from it here. Please don't think I didn't value your efforts. I don't know what else to do. --Moni3 (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Aircraft Assessments
Thank-you for your question. I would need to see specific articles in order for me to recall what my reasoning was for the assessment. The difficulty with the "start" assessment is that there is such a huge gap between the dimensions of "start". You can have "start" articles that are just better than "stub", and then you can have "start"s that are nearly B-Class. I've always felt that "start" has far too great of a range and should be split into separate sub-categories. Anyways, I appreciate your concern. If you can provide me with specific articles, I will gladly provide you with more help on the assessment. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, those ones. That's actually fairly easy to determine the reasoning:  The Military History Project changed the scheme of how B-Class is assessed.  One of the key-points is "Inline Citation", added during our BCAD Drive this spring.  For B-Class in this project, a simple list of references isn't sufficient for B-Class.  You require In-line citations IN ADDITION to the list of references.  For the Bristol Beaufighter, Brewster Buffalo, and Bristol Blenheim, the inline citations were insufficient for the size & coverage of the article.  Size does not determine class.  For example, the Battle of Normandy is a huge article, approaching 30,000 bytes.  However, because there are not enough inline citations, it is considered Start-Class.  So although the articles assessed may have had a huge amount of content, the lack of inline citations means that they are not B-Class.  Essentially, major points need to be cited, or else it becomes difficult for verification purposes.  If the inline citations are added, I have absolutely no issue with a promotion to B-Class.  It isn't a lack of content, but a lack of verifiability.  Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm thinking we should have made the announcement of the criteria change slightly more public. The BCAD Team has had a lot of editors approach us individually in circumstances similar to yours, so I can hardly blame you for your request for further detail. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you(or somebody) help me?
User Equinox137 wont let certain films go onto the anti war film list. I tried getting him to put a reason why he did not want this (Flags of our Fathers) on, but he wont give anything only stating: "the film has no political opinion". Of course, this is only one mans opinion on what makes something anti war, so could you inform him he needs to give good sources or listen to others opinions, because he isn't going to listen to me. Yojimbo501 (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I no longer need help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anna May Wong- Picadilly.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anna May Wong- Picadilly.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gatekeepers
I don't mind having a discussion between user talk pages about your concern, although now is not the right time. I have a friend who is coming into town fairly soon for a weekend visit, so I am going to meet up with him soon. Feel free to share your thoughts on my user talk page, though you may not get an immediate response. I think I know what you want to say, though... the kind of mindset you're witnessing is the byproduct of making primary contributions. When editors are strong proponents of expanding and revising articles, they tend to perceive themselves as a better authority than others when it comes to the article content. I imagine that most editors who have had pet projects (like myself with Fight Club) have felt a certain sense of attachment, and I think that constructive criticism needs to be delivered delicately by others. (If you're going to say, "Who write this idiotic spiel for the Production section?" on the talk page, the primary contributor's definitely going to be antagonistic.) You have to present it in a fairly logical fashion and avoid any perceived bias. That's why I avoid defining personal characteristics on my user talk page. If I identify myself as a Democratic or a Republican, then that could affect how others see my edits at W. (2009 film). Stuff like that. If I'm off the mark about what you want to discuss, feel free to let me know. :) I might have a few spare minutes, if you're quick enough to respond to this. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you. That's why I want to revise the style guidelines to cover more bases.  We should make style less disputed among editors and move dialog toward the content.  In your case, that's one of the primary reasons why I supported you as a coordinator.  Among other qualities, I think that you can help revise WP:MOSFILM for structural purposes.  It's easier to point to the community-driven style guidelines rather than have a one-on-one debate about why this display or that display is preferable.  It absolves the independent editor of personal responsibility and compels the primary contributor to provide a pretty good reason why to go against the "generally accepted standard". — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 01:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anna_May_Wong_(Hurrell).jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anna_May_Wong_(Hurrell).jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. Mangostar (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:AE-medal.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:AE-medal.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:AE.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:AE.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:AE and Vega.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:AE and Vega.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Amelia 1936.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Amelia 1936.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Earhart in Southampton.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Earhart in Southampton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Films coordinator election
It's my pleasure to inform you that you have been elected to serve as a Coordinator of WikiProject Films for the next six months. Congratulations!

If you have not already done so, please visit the coordinators' talk page, where you'll be able to find some open tasks as well as reference material and discussions relevant to you. You might also be interested in a bit of advice that has been written about being a coordinator.

Again, congratulations, and good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to you, too! Hopefully you were able to absorb the exchange between me and Ed, who does not always agree with me but still supports me as a coordinator. :)  You clearly have some worthwhile ideas, and I don't want you to be disillusioned about working with other editors.  I follow certain mantras when interacting with other editors, such as taking a breather in heated discussion or trying to realize that it's not the end of the world if one little article in cyberspace is not presented in the best possible way.  I think relationships among editors are pretty important on Wikipedia because it allows constructive criticism to be exchanged with greater ease.  For example, I've helped Moni3 along with Mulholland Drive in more ways than one, which is more beneficial than stop-by one-point criticism.  I suppose the issue is that it requires a little more devotion of time.  Ultimately, I think you and the rest and I will have amicable discussions as coordinators to see how we can improve WikiProject Films. :)  One of the best ways to make discussions work is to share some kind of compliment about the other editor -- "great idea", "nice work", etc.  There is an art to discussion on Wikipedia, I think... a certain conduct that appeals to others.  I could say more, but I don't know if my comments are of much interest.  I have other thoughts about editors and discussions, so let me know if you are absolutely curious to hear them! — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done Bill. Nimbus (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Looking forward to continued work with you, Bzuk! Dekkappai (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats from me too! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there is a level of discomfort in the exchange between you two. I don't think that it is much to fret about, though. At the end of the day, you're words on someone else's computer monitor, so it's best not to take anything personally. I've noticed that you're becoming more involved with discussion at WT:FILM, and while I think that is great, you are by no means required to keep up with every single topic. What I mean is, don't over-exert yourself. If a situation is giving you difficulty, then just walk away. I don't think that Wikipedia is worth that grief. It's ultimately just a website, and I try to avoid drama. One of my mantras is that editing should be fun. I've walked away from articles like 300 and Children of Men because of endless disputes between editors, and I don't regret it. My suggestion is to develop a tough skin, not for every single discussion, but for these periodic exchanges that are not so amicable. People express themselves in different ways, so you have to be prepared to deal with that (whether through giving compliments, asking for input, having current affairs dialog). Stick with us a while longer -- we just got elected, and I think that the group of coordinators should have a pretty amicable exchange about the topics of the day. :) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves
I noticed on Requested moves that you expressed an opinion on the moving of Biographical film. I find the requested move process a little complicated, and could myself be mistaken here, but I think that you may want to comment instead at Talk:Biographical film. ENeville (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A Life in Movies
That's just the paperback. The original had the title all in capitals on the cover. But it does give it as "A Life in Movies" inside so I'll change the rest -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor relations
Bzuk, thanks for the note explaining your perspective on the Juno edits. Please do not take umbrage at edits and comments made by other editors, especially experienced editors (unless they get downright mean). I suggest you should distance your edits from you personally, and not take disagreement with, or even criticism of, your contributions as criticism of you personally. Your comment on my Talk page seems to indicate that you feel that other editors (namely Melty girl and me) believe you are "hijacking" the Juno article, and you feel we jumped on you after you edited Juno after Melty girl solicited assistance. Speaking for myself (and I think Melty girl, given her reputation and history, although she will correct me if I'm wrong), nothing could be further from the truth. Your interest and talents are welcome (and encouraged). The only sense of ownership of any article we have is a desire to see its quality improve from collaboration. We just happened to have had concerns about some of your edits. I apologize if my edits and comments created the impression I did not want your participation in improving Juno. Not only not my intent, but about 180° from it.

How about if we move forward with a clean slate and produce some excellent articles? Jim Dunning | talk  18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Juno production info
Bzuk, it appears you added information about a continuity discrepancy to the Juno (film) article: "The Canada-as-America switch is common in cinema, but there were some noticeable lapses as West Coast mountain ranges appeared in the background of what is meant to be Midwestern Minnesota." You also went on to mention the set location of the Macguff's house. We currently don't have a cite to support these statements. Do you have the source(s) for this info? If so, please go ahead and cite it/them. By the way, for consistency, I've found using the citation templates helpful (and less work). I've unsuccessfully hunted high and low for sources for the info. If we can't provide a suitable ref, then it may be perceived as WP:OR and removed. Thanks. Jim Dunning | talk  19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some concerns here. First, combining content of an article that mentions Cody's Minnesota background with information from other articles about Canadian production locations is synthesis and therefore something we can't do. Fortunately, there are a number of reliable sources we can use to make the connection. As for Flickr and common, local knowledge about the MacGuff house, not only are "these ... not the best sources", they cannot be sources at all: they do not meet the requirements of Verifiability and WP:RS. I can see leaving the MacGuff house statement in for awhile (with a Fact tag) in hope that someone can locate a credible source, since it's not a crucial piece of information. However, on the statement that there's a production "lapse", that should be removed immediately since that's making a judgment on the quality of the production. For that to stay, we absolutely need a reliable, credible source to make that assessment. It sounds like you're telling me it's an observation you made while watching the film (based on your familiarity with the shooting locales, perhaps)? If that's the case, we, as WP editors, cannot do that per No Original Research.

Jim Dunning | talk  22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, mentioning minor continuity issues in a film article is rarely done, unless it affects the film watching experience. As to whether that effect exists, we look for a credible source to first make an observation about it before it goes into the article. Therefore, if it is your observation then it should be removed from the article immediately. If it is a professional movie reviewer's or critic's observation, then it can be placed in the proper context and cited. What do you think?

Jim Dunning | talk  23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I appeared to be giving a "Film Editor's 101" lecture; I'm not. I was trying to explain why I felt the copy you added to the article needed a cite from a reliable source or should be removed. Again, you seem to take any difference of opinion as a personal criticism, which is not my intent. I was doing an experienced, fellow editor the courtesy of asking for a source for a contribution he made instead of just modifying or deleting it, since that didn't work out so well last time. I am having difficulty "reading between the lines" as to your "niceties" vs "plumbing" reference flies right by me, and so I apologize for my obtuseness, but feel no need to respond. Thank you for the effort.

James Stewart
Hi Bill, I've protected the page for a week for consensus to be reached. The allegation was unsourced as far as I can see, & I've left advice on the talk page. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 20:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Period
Missing a period? Me? (The edit for Battle of Britian movie) And Rodhullandemu. Fancy meeting you here. And a book on the Avro Arrow? Nice! Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My colon, too?? Aieeee...--Phyllis1753 (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And pleased to make your acquaintance. We've passed each other editing the Doolittle Raid article. Well, we maybe doddering about but we still have our knowledge and I, for one, find Wiki a pleasant place to...ah...er...deposit some of it. :) I'm not such a film buff but I've been fascinated by aviation since I was two. Anyway, that line in the BoB movie always seems to crack me up. The ambassador stood up to some Nazi bullying and he's worried about losing his temper. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Star laden
Thank you. :-) (Centpacrr (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks...
...very much for the kind words on the election talk page. I greatly appreciate it. Oh, and since my mind's on it, I was wondering if you had any further comments regarding the appointment discussion? I thought I should also let you know that I only seconded one of your proposed names bc EF already seemed to indicate no interest from his talk page archives, and the third editor seemed to have little prior experience with the film articles or project (Anna May Wong aside). Just thought you'd like to understand my reasoning. Take care, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, don't you suspect that I really don't have the very best personality for the job? :) (Thanks though, Bill, for thinking of me.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Fairey_Flycatcher.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fairey_Flycatcher.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 02:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Catch-22
Argh, you have that problem, huh? The New York Times can be tricky in terms of linking. Sometimes there are ways to bypass this. Try Googling the keywords site:nytimes.com canby catch-22 and see if you can't access a review directly from the search results. If that does not work, you may want to go to BugMeNot.com to get a user/pass (NYT registration is free) and use it to access the website temporarily. Let me know what happens. Do you happen to have access to any databases of newspapers, journals, or magazines online? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you do not need a space between the punctuation and the reference tag. So ...end. [1] can be ...end.[1] — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A favor?
If you get a moment, would you do me a favor? Could you take a look at this conversation and give me a sanity check on it? I've been accused of trying to control the discussion and of being condescending, when it felt just the opposite to me. I don't want to do anything formal about it unless I'm sure that I haven't stepped over the line (and even if I haven't, I'm not sure I want to do anything about it anyway). I just need an outside opinion from someone. If you can't (or don't want to) just say so - it's really no problem. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, you can be honest. If I screwed up, I'll apologize. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This situation has escalated to an unpleasant degree. Can you check my talk page, please? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Eyes Without a Face
Thanks for going over the Eyes Without a Face article! I appreciate your help with it. How much more do you think is needed for it to get a shot as a GA? Again, thanks for the help! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Catch 22.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Catch 22.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. NotifyBot (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Notifybot has got you too? it is really off track today.  I am trying to have it turned off.  How do we get the tags automatically removed? EraserGirl (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I had made a note that the article was still being edited and the image was to be placed back in, but bots being what they are, I have placed the image back into the article for the time being to prevent a delete, even though the image may eventually be eliminated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

Perhaps yours was valid, but mine certainly was not and neither were some of the others it tagged. Chandu the Magician (radio) and the image are still reciprocally linked. So, it it now mistagged. ..i hate bad bots. EraserGirl (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The tags on Chandu image were fixed after i posted a notice about the bot, which got turned off eventually. But it did do some rather liberal tagging while it was about. EraserGirl (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Poster template
Hi, Bzuk. I noticed your and EraserGirl's image difficulty today. I don't know if this will help, but here's a template I've been using for film poster images. So far (knock on wood) I've had no (well, little) trouble with image-bots when using this template. To use it, copy it into notepad, then do the replaces: Replace "***FILM NAME***" with the film name, etc. It'll stick the correct info into the template. Then you remove the top four lines, and paste the text into the image description. Hope it helps. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

F-107A
Hi. The North American YF-107 page should be retitled to read "F-107A". I've tried to move it but it won't go for me. I get a red letter error message and I don't know how to get around it. It tells me that the new name is invalid or already used. OK, I'm stumped. I've tried disarming the redirect for F-107A but that doesn't work. As far as I've ever read, the a/c was never given a "YF" designation. It came in and went out as "F-107A". This is, of course, no big thing but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention. You seem to know these admin things better than I. Cheers! --Phyllis1753 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, well someone else got to it first. Probably while I was writing to you. It's still not "quite" right as the aircraft is now referred to as F-107. Sheesh, too much for a small matter. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again. What started out to be a good faith edit turned out to be some sort of minor war over the weekend. I have no idea who BillCJ is or what he is about but he seemed intent to turn a molehill into the mountain. I know these things can happen, first time with me; but I'm mature and wise enough (in time) not to get sucked into some sort of ego games which he seems to want to play. The 107 is far too trivial a subject for too much expenditure of energy. I don't want to bother you with it but I thought you'd care to hear my side in brief seeing as how you've also added to the article. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate flogging old cliches but Simone's research does seem closest to primary sources (and not just hearsay) so if you ever get the chance... I agree about Bill's anal-retentiveness and his user page clearly indicates some sort of chronic illness. That would do it to you, if nothing else. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Franking"
The special mail carried between Santo Domingo, Port-au-Prince, and Havana was postally franked. The wikilink you found appears to refer to free franking and other franking not accomplished with postage stamps.

franked, frank·ing, franks To put an official mark on (a piece of mail) so that it can be sent free of charge.

To send (mail) free of charge.

To place a stamp or mark on (a piece of mail) to show the payment of postage.

(Centpacrr (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

"Date Inconsistencies"
I don't understand your point here. A format for multiple dates of "(20 and February 21, 1928)" makes no sense to me. It should be either (February 20-21, 1928), (February 20 & 21, 1928), or (February 20 and 21, 1925). Please explain. Thanks (Centpacrr (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Sticking my nose in to remind you that users can set date preferences in "Preferences" and this will automaticall convert wikilinked dates into the preferred format. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, Voyager
I am curious to know why you opted to change the cast list from the usual format to that ugly box. I don't see anything in the style guidelines that suggests this is the way a cast list should be presented. Not only is it unattractive, but it's not encyclopedic in style. Thank you for your input. MovieMadness (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I extensively expanded the article on April 2, but when you state "it was the target of some vandalism and I wanted to restore some of the original edits" I don't believe you're referring to the work I did. On April 12 you made a couple of edits, summarizing them as "needs some work, I'll get back to this another time" and "More to come, the beginning of a major rewrite," which I admit threw me a bit, considering all the work I had just put into it. :) I did make a minor change to one statement you added, since This 'N That - the reference you cited - didn't support it, but otherwise I think it's pretty much unchanged except for the box replacing the simple bulleted list. Based on a recent discussion at Talk:Homerun, it appears the simple bulleted list is preferred, at least by all of those who offered an opinion there. As for table coding being easy to implement because it's just another "copy-and-paste" effort, as I previously mentioned, I prefer the look of the simple bulleted list - I think the infobox is more than enough box for one article - so it's more a question of aesthetics than ease for me. I wondered why you had opted to change an acceptable format to one I see much less frequently, and I appreciate your explaining your motives.
 * I also wondered why you opted to change the headings I had added (and use in all the film articles I create). I prefer "Plot synopsis" to "Plot" since "synopsis" makes it clear it's a summary rather than a detailed description of each scene. I use "Production notes" instead of "Production" because it allows the addition of info related to the cast (such as Davis considering Rains her favorite co-star) that might not pertain strictly to the film while it was "in production," which is what "Production" suggests to me. (For example, I would include the data you added about Now, Voyager being selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry in "Production notes" rather than under "Critical reception," which I reserve strictly for what the critics had to say, and which is why I label it as such.) "Principal cast" instead of "Cast" makes sense to me since the list generally excludes the minor players (as it should. Seeing Mary Jones listed as "Woman in Yellow Dress" drives me slightly crazy!) I use "Awards and nominations" rather than just "Awards" for obvious reasons - the section lists both. Since the use of specific headings doesn't appear to be mandatory, I opt to use mine for the reasons stated. Thanks for allowing me to explain.
 * In closing, I'd like to add I do have an abiding interest in the filmography of Bette Davis - one of the first projects I tackled when I first joined Wikipedia was creating articles for all her films that needed them, and trying to expand those that were little more than stubs. I look forward to working harmoniously with you on any of those to which we find ourselves making joint contributions! MovieMadness (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Fraught
Thanks for your comment on the deletion debate for Fraught. I responded to your concern on the AfD discussion page. Would you mind having a look at it to see if it changes your position on the deletion? Thanks. Dgf32 (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AMW
Thanks, BZuk! Dekkappai (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Help requested
Bill, have you seen the Great Debate I've been having with two recent users at Talk:North American YF-107? I've been accused of being "lazy", so I'm not talking to User:Phyllis or her compatriot right now. ;) (Sick and broke in actuality, but I hate airing my laundry to strangers!) Do you have access to the book that is being mentioned, North American F-107A by William J. Simone? If you can, can you check out his information on the use of the "YF-107A" designation as being a myth? I have a number of reputable published sources (over 5) that use the "YF" in the designation. I'd like to know if he bases this on actual USAF documents or not, and if the documents are printed in the book. I'd love to be able to purchase every book some user mentions to check out their claims, but unfourtunately I cna't afford to right now. My biggest priority is upgrading my computer so I can use a newer browser and the Wiki pop-up features, so books are on hold for now. Thanks for whatever you can do, and you don't have to rush this - I wouldn't want them to think we're not lazy here in WP:AIR! - BillCJ (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I found the answer. See the above link to the discussions. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on me
Hi. Just wanted to point out that an RfC has been filed on me, and invite you to participate (one way or the other) if you're interested. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting
I've seen some of the discussion about date formatting, though I am not completely clear what is the issue. I've used cite news and cite web frequently, and under the  attribute, I write it like 2008-04-22. My impression has been that based on an editor's preferences, this entry will format itself to your preference. For example, it could appear as April 22, 2008 or as 22 April 2008. Anonymous IPs cannot set preferences, so they only see 2008-04-22. Is this where the dispute lies? I've only used the aforementioned templates in film articles, so I'm afraid I'm not fully understanding the issue. Could you outline the differences side by side? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean now. I was under the impression that 2008-04-23 had to be written in order to re-format into another format.  However, I changed the   attribute to the April 23, 2008 setup, changed my preferences, and both times, the attribute re-formatted accordingly.  How about the   attribute, though?  It does not involve wiki-linking, so it does not seem modifiable.  Also, I am looking at Template:Cite news and wonder why it says, "The ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format is recommended, and will be automatically wikilinked to enable date user preferences if used."  You make an interesting point about the inconvenience anonymous IPs would experience in differentiating 2008-04-12 and 2008-12-04.  Maybe the assumption is that there is no YYYY-DD-MM out there? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Book citation
Thanks for adding those to the Eyes Without a Face article to fix it up! Have you gotten into finding if there was any more interesting information in that book you have? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

THANKS
Hey Bill, thanks for your assistance with the Boeing Dash 80 entry. I will (someday) get these cites right. Raymondwinn (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Carter sock
Have looked into this and it is a sockpuppet. Since the IP address is personally assigned, I've reblocked him indefinitely. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WT:FILMC discussion
Your thoughts are requested! (Please bookmark the coordinator talk page if you haven't already, so as to save time messaging.) Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Coordinators
Please read this, and then leave your thoughts here. Thanks! Limetolime  talk to me • look what I did! 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Muppets Wizard of Oz FAR
I know that you may still be editing this, but I'm confused as to why you're opening an FAR on an article which has not yet even passed an FAC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Still confused - you plan to immediately nom it for FAR if it passes FAC? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, but if you want to play with templates, you might want to try the template sandbox. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
Hey, I've fixed all of the problems you have addressed at the nomination, could you please leave a Support if I've met your concerns? <font color="#008000">Limetolime  <font color="#9ACD32">talk to me • <font color="#9ACD32">look what I did! 01:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, could you explain? <font color="#008000">Limetolime  <font color="#9ACD32">talk to me • <font color="#9ACD32">look what I did! 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New article
AWESOME!!!!!! The best EVER!!!!!! I am going to replace the article right away! <font color="#008000">Limetolime  <font color="#9ACD32">talk to me • <font color="#9ACD32">look what I did! 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tri-floats
Bill, could you double-check this diff for me? The user added info (unsourced, of cource!) on "tri-floats" now being used on float planes, but it seemed dubious to me. Any insights on this? - BillCJ (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought perhaps he was misconstruing to the CL-215/415 flying boats as 3-float floatplanes. Considering he appears to spend too much time at Tim Hortons, he must not realize that that type of flying boat config is about as old as flying boats! (The PBY being a readily-known example.) - BillCJ (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, on the off-chance you Canadians had come up with some new type of floatplane, I thought I'd run it by you. My "dubious-meter" is usually pretty accurate, though I do miss a few every so often. Always grateful for a check-six from a fellow editor! - BillCJ (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Per your "legal" warning on my page, I have switched to "tweaketh", from the PD works of Shakespeare. Hope this satisfies your's snake's lawyer's requiremnts. Thanks. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Children of Men
After looking over most of the information in the sections (I didn't read all of it, it was getting a little too heated for me!), I'm surprised that the talk page has grown to its current size. I've seen the movie before, but don't really remember the significance of the children's laughter. My interpretation of the situation is that it seems innocent enough to at least just mention the fact the children are laughing, and if it is desired to use a citation template, it doesn't hurt the article (unless it moves on to FAC, and if there are arguments against it). I think it would be fine to mention it as is in the "All details" section detailed on the talk page. Now, whether the editors will eventually agree, will be interesting to see. That's my thought on the situation, and let me know if you wanted something more or need something explained further. By the way, I enjoy the picture on your user page of the view from the airplane. It's for pictures like those that I always request window seats. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use of film posters
Bill, it's my understanding of fair use rules that there should only be one image of the same basic item in an article. I removed a French-language poster from the Déjà Vu (film) article yesterday, and removed it again here today. Since the article already has an Enlish-language poster of the film, I can't see how the French version can legally be used too. The image's Fair-use rationale doesn't explain why the image needs to be in the article when there already is another F-U image there. Could you check into this with the Film project, and make sure I'm interpreting this right? Also, the French article does not have any images at all, so perhaps the French language poster can be moved to the French wiki, and placed in Déjà Vu. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A contentious issue
You reverted the addition of the German operational name in place of "effort". Do you think it contentious that the name was given to the operation?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hindenberg undo of Nick916 change
Hi. Nick916 changed two locations from 36 to 37 and you undid one of them. I assume you really wanted to get both? Loren.wilton (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello Bzuk, I was wondering, would you like rollback rights granted to your account? You do quite a bit of vandal-reverting, and rollback would make that easier for you. Just remember that rollback should only be used to revert obvious vandalism, and should not be used to revert good-faith edits or to revert-war. Acalamari 18:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've granted your account rollback, as administrators have the ability to grant rollback. The other way of obtaining rollback would be to file a request at Requests for rollback, or just ask any admin for it. You may wish to see New admin school/Rollback for practice. Good luck. Acalamari 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; it's very useful with reverting vandalism, and if you're careful with the tool, you'll have no problems. Best wishes. Acalamari 19:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Richthofen and statistics
I am having a (very stimulating and entirely friendly) ding dong with another user on this topic - I'd love to see your input, if you think it worth the effort! Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I-180
I agree, that (sadly) we don't know, which books were actually used by a person, who re-wrote this article (first written by me, basing on sole two Russian sources), but it is unlikely, that Western books from the 1970s or 80s provide any valauble knowledge on this subject. Anyway, according to guidelines, such books should eventually go to "Further reading" section, not "Bibliography", which should consist only books actually used, not all, that was written on the subject. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Bzuk, I see that you're having this same argument about Wikipedia bibliographies with someone else now. Why do you continue to spend your time and others' time arguing that the "Wickywacky world" does things wrong, yet continually push your own bibliography agenda in places not meant for resolving the issue? Your failure to follow multiple suggestions that you bring your voice and experience to bear at WP:CITE, while repeatedly arguing this out at individual articles after pushing your personally favored format, seems disruptive to me. I know that your intentions are good, but you seriously need to reconsider your strategy in the light of consistent feedback that you are not following WP guidelines. WP guidelines should be shown respect because they were created by the community -- if you feel they are so "Wickywacky", as you consistently remark, then you should jump in and try to help fix them, instead of ignoring them and trying to argue down other editors and pointing to your professional credentials. Please consider trying to amend the guidelines instead of continuing to make edits that meet with confusion and rejection. --<b style="color:#7E2217;">Melty</b> <b style="color:#C35817;">girl</b> 03:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  04:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since you appear to see this as a general goal for all articles rather than specific to one or two articles, then please take the proposal to Guidelines discussion and attempt to gain consensus there.

I agree, that it is supposed to work this way, that the author quotes only books, that he used. I myself, writing an article basing on one or two complementary main sources, usually don't make inline references though maybe I should). But I'm afraid, in reality, that many peple do not understand this idea right and most of "bibliography" positions in articles are added later by persons, who did not contribute a word. Check I-180 history: I quoted two Russian books, and Emt, who rewrote it, added only Kopenhagen. The rest suddenly appeared at that moment (I haven't checked it before). Therefore, I believe, that all but these three should be removed. By the way, while reverting, you lost some additional info on these books, that I've added. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 12:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you believe, that the person, who added several books more, really verified facts in article by "double checking"?... I don't. Especially, that Western sources of the 1970s or 80s, or even Russian sources of that period, are rather useless to describe Russian equipment, especially one cancelled of political reasons. Moreover, adding new books introduces confusion, and one canot tell, which books were actually article sources. So, if you don't mind, I'll revert to original version of artile authors. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 12:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which new reference sources you mean - I quoted only Maslov and Guglya, which is Aerohobbi 1/94 Ukrainian magazine. Its cover and OCR text can be found here Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that the contributor is solid, but these books were not references for this article (see: "Further reading" guidelines). In my opinion, reader should be able to tell, which sources were general references for the article, without confusion made by dozen other books, which might contain something connected with this subject - or might not. If there are statements, that can't be found in exiting sources, or which confirm dubious issues - let's make inline references in appropriate places, if not - they should not be listed as references, possibly as further reading. But I believe, that we have enough of reliable sources, which are not contradictory, so we don't need to multiply them, especially, that they are general sources, which deal with hundreds of other aircraft as well. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 12:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no requirement whatsoever either that (a) works contained in the References section must have been cited in inline citations (see MilborneOne's note below), or that (b) that the person adding references must have been a contributor to the article. In particular, if (b) were true, then the many templates that we have such as unreferenced, refimprove, and others that ask editors to add more references would make no sense - these templates specifically ask editors to add references without asking them to contribute anything to the article text. In this particular case, there's a very clear advantage to adding these particular works: While no-one would deny that pre-Glastnost Western sources on Russian military aircraft are very lacking in detail, these works are easily accessible to non-specialist English-speaking readers. There's simply no justification for removing them. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation formats
In light of your concerns about citation template inadequacies and citation standardization, you may wish to contribute to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Jim Dunning | talk  04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of matters
After doing a bit more investigating, I find that The Best Years of Our Lives is indeed considered an aviation film. I would however have appreciated it if you had discussed your disagreement with my edit before reverting it, especially since I was still lurking about at the time.

As for The Blue Max, the whole article needs to be overhauled. I'll be giving it my attention off and on in the next few days. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You go to bed? You slacker! What kind of editcountitis score are you going to rack up if you do that? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of references
According to Footnotes ''An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links".'' so they do not have to be used as sources in the writing to be added to Bibliography just that the might be of interest to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

B29
Well done - well said. Cheers & thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

P-40
Hi Bill, I appreciate the attempt at peace-making, but what do you think about the actual dispute? I simply don't think Markus's position is logical. Grant |  Talk  04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spruce Goose model.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spruce Goose model.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) 12:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films/Assessment/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
A failure, huh? Well, that feels GREAT since I've spent 5 months working on it. I will give HIGH regard to your comments in the future. <font color="#008000">Limetolime  <font color="#9ACD32">talk to me • <font color="#9ACD32">look what I did! 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See comment on your talk page, the telefilm was the failure, not your article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

<Image:Ashanti.jpg>
Hi, if you look at the bottom of the page for this image, you'll see that it is not currently used on any article page in the English Wikipedia. This means that under fair-use it's fair game for bots, and for admins to remove it, no matter how good the rationale for its use may be (the main stipulation is to actually use it in an article). To ensure it's kept, you need to go to the root cause of the notice: its removal from the Muppets' Wizard of Oz page. You should either be bold and reinsert it, or take it up at Talk:The Muppets' Wizard of Oz with the editor who removed the image. Hope this helps, Steve  T • C 13:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, which is why you should probably take it up with the editor in question, or for a wider audience, on the article's talk page. He/she may be willing to outline exactly what was thought wrong with the image. If the editor is unavailable, or reluctant to discuss it with you, I've found Jim Dunning (who appeared to agree with the image's removal) to be swift to respond clearly to questions. Steve  T • C 13:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to discourage non-free images, being a free encyclopedia. There are pretty stringent standards for including a non-free image in an article nowadays. Obviously, not every single film article has been reviewed to determine if an image is appropriate. I suppose The Muppets' Wizard of Oz finally fell under serious scrutiny since the article recently underwent the FAC process and is more in the spotlight than before. There are probably some older Featured Articles of films whose non-free images would not stand up to today's standards. My personal approach is to develop the context of the article first, then to seek non-free images that could enhance the understanding of any aspect of the context. I think there are two ways this can be applied -- the specific way a film is shot, or something within the shot that has been independently and directly commented upon (set, costume, etc). Without that cited commentary, it's a subjective argument to select non-free images to "enhance" an article. If we choose one image that we think represents the film, why not go with five of them? I think the best threshold is to point to independent sources so there is an objective basis for including the images. I think I did this fairly well with Fight Club. Cheers. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was pretty much going to state something similar to what Erik said here. Non-free images have been watched very closely, especially after the vote to remove non-free images from the main page for the FA of the day. Also, a lot of new bots have been activated that make sure images have FURs, and more editors are aware of the policies concerning what a non-free image needs to be used in an article. I used to upload a lot of non-free image movie posters and screenshots for a variety of films that never had them, but if a vandal blanks the entire article, I'll get a message on my talk page stating that the image is no longer being used in any articles. Also, when I've uploaded smaller non-free images to comply with FU requirements, I constantly get messages if anyone removes the image from the article. I guess it's good to make sure the non-free images are all used in their respective articles, but if you look at my talk page and archives, you can see the majority of my messages are for dealing with these image issues. That's cool that you were able to visit the Alerus Center, I only went there once I think before moving. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Review Fires on the Plain
Could you review Fires on the Plain (film)? This is not a review for B class, I'd just like an opinion about it. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit. It would be appreciated if you could get to this quickly. Oh, and if you could give me an opinion on my new section in WP:film talk page "Saving Private Ryan - Sniper issue" that would be appreciated as well. I will ask other editors about this as well. Happy editing! Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A couple of questions come to mind quickly: How do you get a fair use rational image? I don't know how to. Do you think the "Awards" section should be a subsection of the "Reception" section? Should I get more images for the article (again I don't know how)? Well, thanks. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit and it's always nice to hear that your work is good. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant information
Thanks for removing the rendundant information per this diff. I sometimes wonder what (or if!) people are thinking when they add rendundant information as they did in this diff. Hopefully we'll catch anymore rendundant information such as this diff in the furture. Keep up the good work removing rendundant information like in this diff. :) (Just being silly!) - BillCJ (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Zats Leutnant Clarityfiend to you
Eine few more confirmed editen und I vill haff mein Bleu Barnstahr. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Swing Vote (2008 film) details
Hi Bzuk, saw you replied to my comment at WikiProject Films and added a new section on the page. But the issues I raised on the film's talk page are still outstanding, so I hope you might be willing to take care of them. The film has an official site and is rated PG-13, both of which should be added, and the producer Robin Jonas should be removed from the infobox. I also provided the studio's version of the synopsis in case you or someone else wants to use it to expand the one-sentence version on the page now. Again, these are things I would do but for WP:COI. NMS Bill (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tuskegee Airmen racial identifier
I believe the term used historically by the Airmen themselves to denote their race was primarily "Negro"... "African-American" had not yet come to the fore and "black" was considered poor taste back then. The second most likely candidate as racial identifying term was "colored", used by some whites and blacks in the USA in the early '40s. More than today, the region you were from would have an effect on which term you were more comfortable with. "Colored" was beginning to lose favor in the urban northeast by the '30s but hung on in the rural South through the '50s. I have known rural-born Midwesterners who used "colored" as the most positive identifier all their lives, substituting no other term.

I don't know when the term "African-American" was first coined but by the '60s it had become the preferred usage. Also, "black" was rescued and revived at that time.
 * African American
 * Negro

There was one time I tried using the historically correct term "negro" in a Wikipedia article about the Tuskegee Airmen (diff) but was shot down fairly quickly. Editors apparently need to see the past through a familiar present-day filter. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the terms in use are highly dependent on the times. African-American appears to be still current although "Black Americans" is certainly acceptable, I am not sure of "Blacks" however being as closely related to the racial group of the United States. FWiW, what's the P-40 "flap" about? Bzuk (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC).


 * No flap, just an unremarked editor's removal of the word "negro" a short time after I put it in. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

de H Hornet photos; Non-free / fair use media rationale
I've just started using the Non-free / fair use media rationale template for a whole skew of photos for the de Havilland Hornet; would what I've so far written for Image:Hornet1.jpg pass muster? ie:

Fair-use
Any thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Daughter of shanghai.jpg Non-free / fair use media rationale
Bill, a bot has queried the rationale of this image. As far as I can tell, it just needs linking to Anna May Wong filmography as well as the main article, but I'm not clued up on these things. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

media of the day on commons
Bombing_of_Hamburg. Can it be used on the en wiki. Can you identify the aircraft? Snowman (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you help with Greek (TV show)?
An editor Thelegendofvix keeps adding a "Name of show" section in, though many editors, myself included, belive it is unnecesary. Since there are (not that I can tell, anyways) coordinators for Wikiproject TV, and though you are a Wikiproject film editor, could you help in determining weather or not it is due weight? I'm going to ask other editors to. I'm sorry I ask so many questions, hopefully, one day I will no longer be dependant on editors like you. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Laurel and Hardy
I think the notion that this book is in any way relevant to L&H in the larger picture is very dubious. There are literally millions of references to the duo in print/tv and other media and i cant see why this one is notable. The section is now properly referenced and i am unable to check those so i will assume good faith and leave it. Operating (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Wallace McLeod
Could you help me on this page? As a Canadian, I am sure you would agree the general standard of British and Commonwealth Aces on this website is pretty poor. I am trying to put together an article on this pilot, which has been woefully neglected. I notice it is the German and American aces that get the most attention. This trend is insulting to those Allied aces, who unlike the over over-publicised American Aces who shot down kids with a few hours flying time, did their scoring on equal terms (re: numbers) and fought against a Luftwaffe which was well trained.

The problem is, I am thin on sources! Dapi89 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter
The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Saved one!
Hey Bzuk, I saved one! Cheers :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine S6B - only fair to warn you both!
From Cite_your_sources "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." Both the original citation style and the cite|book template are permissable ways of citing references. Please take this to the talk page and try to establish consensus before edit warring - and please stay Civil.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WW II Naval aircraft designations
Hi Bill. I'm busy reading through backissues of Naval Aviation News. Not suprisingly, the aircraft tend to be described in terms of the generally-three-characters naval identifiers rather than the somewhat better known Army Air Forces designations.

After just spending a good deal of time trying to track down what the heck an FG-1D might be, only to find that it is an F4U made by Goodyear, I started to wonder why we don't have a page on naval aircraft designations. It seems that it would be perfectly reasonable to have a redirection list of the known designations that lists some of the alternate designations and names, and then points to the relevent articles. It might also have sections describing how the names were assigned, since there was a pattern to the name, if you knew it.

Do you know of any reason that such an article doesn't exist? Did someone make one and it get removed as 'list cruft', or has nobody ever tried to make one? Loren.wilton (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may interject, the Navy system is explained briefly at 1922 United States Navy aircraft designation system. Nost of the page is a list of the company code letters. Given the lenght of the page already, it's probably not suitable for expansin to list aircraft, however. WikiProject Aircraft/Templates lists most of the USN designations used in the period, and each template has all the assigned designations, some of which do not have articles yet. Template:USN fighters lists all the US Navy fighter designations, including the "FG", though the link goes directly to the F4U article. All these should be of help if someone decides to put together an article to cross-reference all the designations. - BillCJ (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If it helps the List of military aircraft of the United States (naval) has all the aircraft listed before unification of the USAF/USN system. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I wonder why I can't find any of the more exotic designations by either Go or searching. Maybe what is needed is a bunch of redirects so there are actual article (redirect) titles to go from the designations to the articles with other names on the planes? Loren.wilton (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A belated thank you
Because I rarely look at my user page, I just noticed the "glass of milk" you left there for me last month. Thanks for taking the time to send it. . . I appreciate your thoughtfulness. MovieMadness (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A-class review has moved
Hello. I have moved the A-class review to a much beter page at A-class film nominations. Please tell me what you think at my talk page. Thank you. <font color="#008000">Limetolime  <font color="#9ACD32">Talk to me • <font color="#9ACD32">look what I did! 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could please join our discussion regarding the matter at WT:FILMC, I'd be very appreciative - we need some more coordinator discussion in order to resolve the issue of the proposed A-class review changes. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong
Hi, Bzuk. I thought you'd like to know Anna May Wong just passed FA review. Thanks for putting up with my testiness, and contributing your valuable insight into formatting. Happy editing, and cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rocketeer Images

Colour photographs
I found some free images on flickr that you might want to upload; here Snowman (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Got a few moments?
I just did a marathon on New Fighter Aircraft program. I was wondering if you might give it a once over? Maury (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FU overuse in Battle of Britain (film)
Sorry but you don't know what WP:NFCC is, particularly criterion #8. Please do not misuse rollback. Ultra! 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Linda Finch
Thanks for improvements on the article. Yesterday wrote an article on Archie J. Old Jr. which also has to do with aviation. Hoping to get an accolade on that also from DYK. Hook: ... that Archie J. Old Jr. completed the first round-the-world nonstop flight (route shown) by a jet-powered aircraft? --Doug talk 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They suggested a different DYK hook for Finch, which I agreed is better wording: *... that Linda Finch is the first person to complete Amelia Earhart's unfinished final flight using the same aircraft type, a Lockheed L-10 Electra? I believe they will give me an accolade for this article. I already received an accolade for the article I wrote on Accolade. --Doug talk 12:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm learning a lot from your great improvements you made to Linda Finch. I tried to incorporate some of them into my latest article on Odo J. Struger I wrote today. The hook for DYK is *...that Odo J. Struger was involved with the invention of the programmable logic controller, an electronic device used in nearly every automated factory worldwide today. --Doug talk 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See reply concerning Linda Finch on my talk page. Thanks! --Doug talk 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this article has just been selected as a DYK and received an accolade. It was selected much faster than normal, since they could see it was a very professional article - thanks to your editing since you took a "fancy" to it. Grateful for your help. --Doug talk 12:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Howland Island.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Howland Island.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Linda Finch (6).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Linda Finch (6).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

CW-21
Hello, can something be done to clean up the "See Also" section of the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 article? You made some changes to it and it looks a bit messy now, lots of odd lines and such. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the smashing clean-up job on the CW-21. Sorry I've never learned how to write all this code, or I'd have done it myself. Again, much obliged. Ken keisel (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mis-tagged image
Hi, Bzuk. I see that a certain editor has mis-tagged an image of yours. My recent encounters with this editor indicate that if you point out his error, he will lay the blame on your shoulders and continue to mass- mis-tag images as unsourced when they are clearly sourced. Oh, by the way, you might be interested to know that he is up for Adminship. :Requests for adminship/Carnildo. You might want to leave a comment there. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bzuk-- I see that is an old RfA that was not properly closed... and worse, I see the guy is actually an Admin here. This confirms all the absolute worst suspicions I've had about Wikipedia. Delete all you want, properly or improperly, and you'll be promoted. Contribute, and you're just putting up targets for deletion... I really don't think I can stay at a project where the atmosphere has turned as destructive as this one... Dekkappai (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Dryburgh
I was interested to see your "pithy comment" about the Margaret Dryburgh talk page on the Administrators Noticeboard. []

This disagreement arose because I used the phrase, and I am paraphrasing here: "Margaret Dryburgh and her fellow inmates helped inspire Tenko." The other editor, obviously knowledgable about the TV show, disagreed and removed the phrase. I then sought out more references for the remark, which the other editor did not accept.

I would just like to ask, given that you have already made strong comments about this, if you actually checked the refs given? Just in case you feel moved to check up on the work, the refs are:   and the final notes on  There is also a book, written by Rev John Durrell, which mentions the same thing. There are other refs, too, which I have found but not mentioned, as I do not wish to prolong the article talk page "chat."

I always believed that church websites and books written by vicars would be classed as verifiable by Wikipedia in most cases. I would also like to point out that the current Margaret Dryburn page bears little resemblance to the original I created: -- seahamlass  14:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wondered if I could expect a reply?-- seahamlass  22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fred Noonan
Oh cool, we have a disagreement! I don't mind doing this with you at all. I'm hoping you can find some sourced disagreement about the Nikumaroro hypothesis, because it will only stabilze things. Oh and by the bye, cheers for the kind message the other day :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A-26 Invader
Jeez, this page takes ages on a dialup connection. Not checked all your amendments while online, but some look good, some not. Specifically, you've reverted to literal "solid nose", which is impossible as it's hollow with guns and stuff inside. Also, I can't see my notes referring to the names eg All-Purpose nose, Bombardier nose, 6-gun nose, etc. They are important because those are common terms that people and documents refer to, so surely the wiki needs to define them? Arguably, A-26s were not only A-26B or A-26C, so surely my "largely" was justified? PeterWD (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting the nose descriptions back, at least the non-techies now have a basis for understanding the nose configs, even if our grammar looks convoluted. :) PeterWD (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale
Regarding your suggestion as to how the "Disappearance" topic should go, the statement you provided should be listed under a heading "Theories" and not "Disappearance". The editor for this page needs to be removed. She has forcefuly edited out sourced documentation to promote the TIGHAR theory only. The TIGHAR organization has dubed innocent amercians out of 15 million dollars to investigate a theory which so far has revealed no evidence at all. Any evidence they promote could be found on any deserted island, anywhere. However they choose to try and promote it as "POSSIBLE" evidence as to the disposition of Earhart and Noonan. It's terrible how our society as a people allow such conduct to be promoted as science. Ric Gillespie needs to get a job and stop scamming people. Regarding Gwen Gale, myself having changed the Disappearance to a more reasonable quote, she flat out said it was vandalism and had me banned. It happened very quickly without any conversation bewteen the two of us. She is nothing more than a Nazi and a Communist. Some writers, historians, and scholars who frequent certain groups pertaining to the subject have had their run ins with her as well. How can someone like this gain control of this Wiki page and how can she be removed. I can suggest more reputable and honest people who would make a good editor on the Fred Noonan subject but she needs to go. Who do I contact to voice my opinion on how to have her removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerndata (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Flight of the Phoenix
Bill, do you have any interest in helping to split up the The Flight of the Phoenix article to cover the novel and 1965 film separately? The film should probably go to The Flight of the Phoenix (1965 film), but should the novel stay at the current page? ALternately, we move the current page to The Flight of the Phoenix (novel), and move Flight of the Phoenix (disambiguation) to Flight of the Phoenix (currently redirects to The Flight of the Phoenix). - BillCJ (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)