User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 3

 Hi.

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The November 2006 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. Cbrown1023 23:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You may wish to remove User:Mactabbed from you newsletter list, as this editor has been permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia - see here for details. Tabercil 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: James Bond
Thanks for your feedback and help regarding "All things Bond in Wikipedia". The links you provided are excellent. Some or all of the stuff I wrote on the "Discussion" page should perhaps have been placed here, at your talk page. WikiLen 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Films idea
I'd like to create a category within WP:F to highlight heist pictures, i.e., Heist, Inside Man, Thief, Loophole, etc. How do I do this? Ideally, I'd like to have a film added to the category page as soon as the category is added to a particular film's page.
 * Thanks for pointing out the category. I'll be sure to peruse it for films that should be added.Alan 03:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter
Great job on the newsletter. I'd like to get involved with the December Issue. Something I'm interested in is directing attention to important but lesser known films and topics. Could highlighting some of these be a feature of the newsletter? - AKeen 17:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. Remember that it is your newsletter, feel free to make any changes and do anything (constructive) to it.  That will definately be an interesting part of it.  It could go under "Project News" or under a new heading if you would like. Cbrown1023 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales
Heh, thanks. I don't get why he thinks my username is offensive, it's a lot better than my previous username... Khoikhoi 06:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

FA/GA Listing
Is this what you had in mind? Cbrown1023 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It looks good, and for the next monthly newsletter we can showcase our new FAs and GAs.--Supernumerary 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do you think is the best place to put this list? In Assessment (where it is), in Style, in some other Department (as seen in the sidebar), or in a new department, like Spotlight? Cbrown1023 01:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly does not belong under style, and it does not really fit on assessment or under any other department for that matter. So it would be best make a Spotlight department, and put it there. The only thing is that we need more than a couple tables for a new page, but the question is what else to spotlight (the collaboration already has a link on the project page, articles under review are in the announcements, maybe outstanding contributors?). It might be best to post this on the project's talkpage and get more opinions.--Supernumerary 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Flightplan
Will you help me make this a good article?? Thanks, --SunStar Net 02:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you asking for? Do you want me to give you pointers or to actually contribute to the article.  If the latter, please consider nominating it for the Cinema Collaboration of the Week.  If the former, you can nominate it for a peer review by the Films Project. Cbrown1023 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cinema Collaboration of the Week:
 * Flightplan has been nominated; see the above page. --SunStar Net 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My mistake for putting it in the wrong place, sorry! --SunStar Net 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Logs
Sorry. I was only trying to get rid of all the old links to the Angus page. Evan Reyes 04:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome and handy information Cbrown1023, I’m just learning how to use the editing side of Wiki so if I’m doing anything wrong I apologise to everyone in advance. It may take a while but I’ll get there eventually (pending that no one bans me for making mistakes) but it’s good to be a part of this place, the future should be fun. MJG13 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fair use rationale, I haven't uploaded a DVD cover in a long time, have only done movie posters for the last couple months. Thanks again for the help.--Nehrams2020 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to the editor
Hi, I have an issue which I find increasingly important to mention in the next newsletter. Check here for details (from this section all the way down). I just noticed that User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld (who hasn't received the current newsletter, by the way) is starting (from the early years on) a new series of articles for films in year, with lots of red links, which will become duplicate to the years in film lists. I've posted there too. But we could straighten it up if we inform in the newsletter this issues (ie. of better guidelines on the inclusion of red linked titles and about having only one comprehensive list of films classified by years. If we dissipate energy in several parallel ones, it will be a waste of time and potential. Ask me if I am not clear in any of the above. Can you think of a way in presenting these issues? Hoverfish 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way here is one of the new lists List of 1894 films. Also he has made a navigation template which he is adding in years in film (see bottom) which leads off the series to the newly starting series. I am sure all this will find some order, but now it's somewhat confusing. Hoverfish 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is definately an importance issue. We could put it in "Current proposals and discussions" or "Project news".  If you do a quick (or detailed) write-up and we post it in the newsletter, then you'll get a byline. Cbrown1023 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We better stop him quickly, before we get a repeat of the Criterion Collection incident. Cbrown1023 22:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate. No I think you have got me wrong the last thing I want to do is be rude. I think anybody who has worked on film so far has done a terrific job and I would never dream of wiping out someones work. What I mean is that e.g Cinema of Albania that the List of Albanian films running from this is completed. Of course I wouldn't start it again. In many places where work has already be done I will of course direct to these pages. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is any possibility that a duplicate list will be created I will always make sure only one list is created. and redirect to an existing page if appropriate. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No look at 1894 in film. There should always be a link running from the year guide to the full lists. I'll discuss further tomorrow. Trust me friend I mean well!!! All the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that on the years in film only the most notable films are listed ion the main page keeping it down to 10 or 20. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No the idea is so set out all of the films first and then start each film ridding of red links to turn wikipedia into a fantastic resource of information for film. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now almost setup the pages for the list of films by country. E.g see List of Asian films I started. On every Cinema of ... a link will be added to the appropriate pages for the films. See the navigation box. I personally think it is an excellent idea as it connects you to knowledge of films by country and region across the planet at the touch of the bottom. I'll take a breather now!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Other newsletter topic
First of all thanks for fixing the GA image on my page, it's my first one so I didn't know exactly how it should look (it does look better to the left!). Speaking of the good articles, is it possible to add information to the newsletter about each month's admissions of good articles featuring actors/directors/fictional characters and other film-related items? I wouldn't mind adding it myself by the deadline each month. That way I could start contributing something to the newsletter, while possibly adding more things later on. Thanks for alerting me to the edit count by the way, I haven't looked at in a while. Perhaps I should actually be devoting some time to school. I know for sure my edits will be slowed down the next two weeks due to papers I have to write and finals I need to do well on. But no matter, now I have to think on which article I should do my 10,000th edit! --Nehrams2020 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * About the 10,000th... be careful! You are cutting it close.  For the GA, I now you were thinking about it, I feel a little guilty, I was kinda "eavesdropping" on you by seeing the note you posted on Hoverfish's talk page (all your user talk's are on my watchlist...).  We have a listing of films and film characters (basically stuff in the project) already at WikiProject Films/Assessment (but it is gonna be moved soon, so that link won't be right forever...).  However, we don't have one for other film-related topics... if you want to keep one up, that would be great!!! (it's also great that you want to contribute to the newsletter!)  Just make sure you know, it is a lot of work!  It's so confusing, the GA nom page is huge and you've got a ton of stuff coming in.  You also don't know when they are added to WP:GA.  I'm just having trouble keeping up with the project ones!  All in all, congrats on your 1k and if you want to keep a listing up, great! Cbrown1023 23:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the edit counter again, and apparently it switched back to the other one, so right now, I'm currently at about 9986 edits! But no worries, since this edit right here is my 4,000th Talk Page Edit (from all of those assessing films, reqphoto, needs film infobox, and TelevisionWikiProject tags I added). I thought I would use it on your page since you helped me keep an eye on my edits. Of course this is dwarfed by your talk page edits (10074) for your significant contributions in assessing films. By the way, there is a discussion about some of the film lists created by Ernst Stavro Blofeld at AFD here, if you want to include your vote. So thanks again, and thanks for letting me use your talk page for the 4,000th talk page edit! --Nehrams2020 09:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Dispute
I recently redirected the song I Want You to Paris Hilton's main album page. I did this because the article was nominated for deletion, and the result of the discussion was to redirect it to the main album page, which is what i did. However, you reverted my redirection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.193.216.83 (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Sorry, you didn't have an edit summary, so it looked like vandalism. Cbrown1023 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the smiley :P
Thank you. It's good to know that here someone cares about you and isn't completely cruel and heartless like some idiots people that I know in real life :P ♥ Fr  ed  il  01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...
... for reverting my userpage. That was quick! Newyorkbrad 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for warning me and reverting the stupidity and non sense (and false personal info) made by that Anon IP in the Insane Clown Posse article. --JForget 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No byline yet
I think I will miss the honor of a byline this month. One related reason is the ongoing afd on Ernst's new lists. I have read opinions, posted some notes on the need for guidelines higher up and think it's better to wait first for some higher-up feedback and for the results of the afd. Maybe January then. Hoverfish 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

added section of talk page
Hi, and sorry for editing your edit in a vote, but you gave my talk page without #section, and there may be a lot of searching to get there, so I added it. Maybe you should also add to yours #Other newsletter topic. And maybe also the section in Ernst's talk, so that all sides of the discussions are available. Hoverfish 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey I have an excellent idea. Why not just keep the navigation box never delete this it is brilliant but for the countries that have a great number of films and that already have agreat number of articles on wikipedia redirect to category. E.g List of American films there is no point in creating a new list when catwegory has listed most of them automativally anyway. I suggest placing the navigatin box in the categories of country films. However for the countries that as yet do not have entries aor many films yet on wikipedia I suggest kepping these lists. Then once the films develop and a fuller list is created then redirect to categories. Look beleive it or not I would rather not have to create lists unneccesaarily I have redircted both American and British films but i really do think the serve as a start for foreign films which are not on wikipedia. Even for Finnish films once the articles develop and becomes fuller then delete the lists and redirect to categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * hey man thanks for the smile. I beam back at you!! Smile is returned! With the redirects to categories I figured this would appease most of the wikipedians who think lists are total rubbish. But there are many thousands of new visitors to wikipedia every day and the most probale search for lists of films by year of country would be List of italian films or list of 1947 films or list of comedy films rather than Category:Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

New navigation in lists of films !!!
OK, I tried to help with the county thing but this now is is one step too far for my patience. Have you taken a look at the new navigation for Films in year in the Lists of films? Try clicking some links and tell me what you think of it have, please. Hoverfish 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: Nehrams2020 is bringing it in the Project Talk for some broader decision, so when you see this, please take it from there. Hoverfish 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No imagine you are a person who wants a list of films. The redirects are not for the navigation box but for general in the search if you are not aware of categories for new visitors to the site. I will remove the redirects if you think necceesary. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK but do you see how I can't win? I prpose drawing up lists directly and they get deleted. So I propose redirects to categories were the lists are and this is wrong too! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Novels 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes
Oh, it's you for a change! What a relief! Yes, it's time to move on. Back to the Future should be on. I almost forgot it. Will you do the change? Hoverfish 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sending the collab template to all film members or just the ones who voted. I didn't... Hoverfish 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK got it. Btw, The Mad Baron isn't with us lately... any idea? Hoverfish 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Film importance link
Yes, thanks for the support. It can be draining, but it's useful for me too, as I start getting a better idea on all these disputed issues. One thing I don't understand in what E.S.Blofel is saying, is a plan to make alphabetic lists into lists by dates. I've also heard some other members with similar intentions. What do you make out of it? I mean "day in films"... the way of the future... do you make anything out of it? I'm a bit slow to catch up. Also I think alphatical lists are more user friendly, unless ALL film articles have been assigned ALL possible categories AND categories have been put in a nice hierarchy, so we could simply look in categories for the full alphabetical. Is this a point?

And another thing that I meant to ask: the template we put in film article talk pages has an importance assessment. The link it offers goes to editorial team version so and so. I've tried to find any clues as how I can use this page to understand how a film is rated by importance, but I don't find a clue. Do I miss something, or is there a general absence of criteria? By the way on film notability I keep posting anywhere I might get some feedback. Hoverfish 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey it was me who added the section and layed out the starter pages to list of missing articles. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have started with WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Argentine Films. I have filtered the list so far to A-AN. About 65% of films are not notable or suitable for wikipedia. Of ocurse something useful will come out of this. Six months down the line beleive me you will realize the potential of this. I have also started several films from Argentina and Bulgaria todayErnst Stavro Blofeld 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Like How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (film)? We don't have to get it to FA, but it could get somewhat better... for a Jim Carrey comedy. But I'm open to more ideas. Hoverfish 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
The only problem I have with being called the king of knee-jerk responses is that I didn't get a crown.

Dammit. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A small piece of thanks
Thanks for pointing out my slip-up on CinColla. It might just be a small thing to point out, but I'm still a newbie to Wikipedia in some ways, so I appreciate any mistakes pointed out to me. Regards, Breed Zona 05:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also noticed you at the talk section of paranoid fiction. Good thing I was quick on the draw. :D

Request for adminship
 Majorly would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Majorly to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Note on AFD
You voted to delete on Articles for deletion/The Mischief Makers. I don't know the specifics of this page, but the nominator was indefinitely blocked; the account first edited yesterday and his only purpose was to nominate articles edited by WietsE for deletion. I speedy kept the other AFDs, but did not for this one because of delete "votes". I have no opinion, but because of the nominator, you may wish to look into this debate further. Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

scope of Novels project
Hi, I don't believe articles about novel genres are in scope of the Novels Wiki Project. Errabee 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, what are you talking about? Cbrown1023 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You marked Paranoid fiction as in scope of the Novels Wiki Project. The scope is however about specific novels, stories, not about genres. Errabee 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just marked it because it was asked to be created through the newsletter that is sitting on your talk page two posts up. Cbrown1023 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to read something more into that than I do. I only read that short stories and novelettes are now also in scope; I can't find anything on novel genres in there. Anyway, it's not that important, just wanted to prevent any unnecessary action taking place. Errabee 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean you are right. I was just saying I marked that article because it was asked to be created through the newsletter. Cbrown1023 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, silly me. Only now do I get what you mean. I'll ask Kevin if this should be in scope or not. Sorry to have troubled you. Errabee 03:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently I was mistaken, and novel genres *are* in scope. I'll restore your assessment. Errabee 09:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

plot summary
Not a problem. I noticed you were kicking this article into shape, so I thought I'd jump in. Bobanny 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. you haven't seen The Public Enemy? time for a trip to blockbuster! ;=) Bobanny 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks!
Regarding the mushroom article, my mistake! I'd just finished reverting obvious vandalism from the same IP and didn't bother checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zegoma beach (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 December 2006

RFA
I appreciate your concern about the equitable process. He is the only person I will be contacting. He was one of the editors who helped polish up my first wikipedia article. Good luck. P.S. I am in the middle of archiving my talk page and you mussed it up. TonyTheTiger 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

{film}
Hey! Thanks for the tip on using {Film} rather than {FilmsWikiProject}. I never noticed the latter was a redirect. I'm not a big fan of redirects anyway. Of course I don't actually type anything in...I just cut-and-paste since I am such a crappy typist. I got in the habit of putting the line in to separate the boxes from the rest of the noise on the talk page. MANY of the ones I hit are pretty ugly. I can leave the line out if you think it is unnecessary. Like I said, I don't actually type this stuff anyway.

Since I already have your attention, I ran into some ugliness and I don't know how to remedy it. If you take a look at, say [Category:1953 films] there is a "List of 1953 films" which would be fine, but someone redirected the list to [Category:1953 films] and that make it kinda self-referencing. Any idea how to fix this? I was thinking about usiing a redirect to [:Category:1953 films] but I wasn't sure of the rubbercushions (repercussions). This is not an isolated problem, it is in almost all of the {year}-films categories. Any ideas? Schmiteye 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah! I guess I listed myself as "interested" in films, but didn't actually join the WP:FILMS project.  Thanks for letting me know. Schmiteye 05:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I need HELP!
I just received your Wiki-film invitation. I am glad to be a part of it, though my time is limited. I am Roger, and a film historian. I wanted to ask your assistance on an article that has been bothering me since I first joined Wikipedia American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. I was starting my volunteer editing for enjoyment and contributions. starting in the silent era. I ran across this article on this company that had been completely over "Cited" with conflicting information. I did my research and found out that even in the discussion of the article there were heated arguments that were utterly ridiculous. This company was an old film company that seemingly went out of business in 1928. In the 80's it was said to have been revived by a man who was in the Little Rascals and his son. As I perused the discussion page I was astonished. The people from new company were defensive, but the volunteer editors were to the point of verbally abusive. One of the statements was that they wanted to destroy the creditability of the company. I tried in vain to edit and correct, but my corrections were reverted and I was no less than harassed. I was even verbally attacked accusing me of being part of said company. I then went to other silent film articles, and discovered that "None" were scrutinized, and over cited as excessively as this article. Since the administrators did not assist at all I reluctantly gave up on much of my Wikipedia involvement, and now have a "Bad Taste" in my mouth for Wikipedia period. I am a suido film historian, and do the lecture circuit quite often. I am very busy and have alot of associates that are in my field as well as financers. After hearing of this plight, the word has gone out not to donate nor support Wikipedia. They have also reviewed this article. Hopefully if this and other discrepancies are corrected with this and other articles, then things may be different. I bring this to your attention because Wikipedia is a wonderful idea handled in the proper manner, and not used as a "Battlefield". Please let me know if you or the our asssociates at Wiki-film can help.

--Roger the red 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Copied to WT:FILMS Cbrown1023 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA and GA
I was glad to support your RFA, I believe you will do an excellent job as administrator. I usually don't vote for these that often, but I stumbled across your name on there and knew I should support you for all of you hard work with Wikipedia. I found that interesting how the first guy to oppose used a poor rationale, while he himself is surrounded in 3RR problems himself (which he recently archived his talk page possibly in an attempt to hide it), and your category vote was alongside multiple other editors as well, which was no reason to single you out. But I have no doubt you will pass your RFA. Right now I am finishing up my finals this week, so I'm attempting to not get too involved with any major projects right now. I've devoted this time this week mainly to working on disambiguation link repair. But next week, I'm going to start work on GA for Snakes on a Plane and some of my other favorite actors on my user page. Getting articles to GA status feels really good afterwards after spending so many hours scourging the internet looking for sources and additional information. I get a month off for Christmas break, so there is a potential template that I'd like to propose over at WP:Films next week, so we'll see how that goes. Anyway, good luck on your RFA, I'm watching it to see how it goes. --Nehrams2020 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Where did you see them? I thought it was blocked - actually I know it was blocked, but maybe it got unblocked. NinaEliza 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha...confusion abounds - Mercury's probably in retrograde:).NinaEliza 02:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait, you did answer my question - didn't you? Who did what on first?NinaEliza 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I love the help desk - I get all my questinos answered. Alright Alright I'm going away now (thanks for your help and your concern - my first vandalism and impersonator!):).NinaEliza 02:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:WPTIS
Thanks for your work on this template. The category list now looks much better. Stewart 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

playing around with EMD AEM-7
Sorry, I did it BY ACCIDENT, I guess you corrected before I decided to do it. THanks for telling me about sandbox 70.23.128.169 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting
I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Class needed
Hi, I'm glad you are receiving such wide support. I added a gnoming round for you with unassessed articles on European cinema. I noticed you had placed some "class needed" in unexisting articles there. Good point: what do we have this class for, if we don't use it? All best. Hoverfish 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No question, I just remembered you had given this argument* in a relevant discussion in Film Project. Hoverfish 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC) - * Reference:

Abot your comments about my spelling
sorry for my bad spanish my comp es mierda quando you want to type spanish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foo12 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC). --&quot;P-Machine&quot; 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Normal (film)
Please explain why you deleted what was on Normal's talk page. I reinstated it as you did not explain yourself in the edit summary and there was no logical, apparent reason I could see to delete it. If it, in fact, should be deleted, please explain why so that I will be aware in the future. -FateSmiled&amp;DestinyLaughed 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why I did that because, as you may have noticed, it was done three months ago. :) It was probably because at the time, Made-for-TV movies had not been in WP:FILMS's scope.  However, now they are, so I have rated that article on its quality.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Cbrown1023 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE
Heh, yeah, I know that only applies to articles, but thought I'd battle whimsy with whimsy. JDoorj a m    Talk 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter for December
I wanted to contribute the list of film-related articles that reached both Good Article status and Featured Article status in December. Should I include film-related articles that reach GA/FA such as actors and film characters, or just films? So far, I counted one film reaching FA this month, three films reaching GA, and the two actors reaching GA that I added these last few weeks. If desired, I could continue to add GAs/FAs that are added each month to each newsletter. When is the due date for all of the information that goes in the newsletter? Finally, is there a list (besides the class-rated FA/GA categories) that lists all of the FA/GA articles? I think we should have one that lists them all and the date that they reached their new status. If there isn't, I would be wiling to go through both WP:FA and WP:GA to find the dates. What do you think? --Nehrams2020 03:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we have a listing. I keep it up at WikiProject Films/Spotlight... However, I don't have the actors ones on there...  I just have the films and film characters.  I would be more than happy to have you add your information on other film-related items to the newsletter. :)  We should probably get the newsletter out this week (like before the 22nd) because of all the Holiday's coming up. Cbrown1023 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's four GA so far this month, "She Shoulda Said 'No'!" was just added. :) Cbrown1023 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was counting "She Shoulda Said 'No'!", but I didn't know about The Lord of the Rings (1978 film). Anyway, Since the newsletter is coming out on the 22nd, and the November one arrived on the 30th, should we include all of the films reaching FA/GA in both November and December since it wasn't mentioned in November or just go ahead and show the December ones? Is adding actors/directors/film characters going to ok to add, or just solely films? After I get a response from you, I'll go and put a beginning adjustment to the newsletter for you to take a look at. Also, I think I'll mention the two new templates created this month for the project: needs film infobox and film needs synopsis. --Nehrams2020 03:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we just mention December's articles but add a link to the full listing. In the newsletter, feel free to talk about the other film-related (actors/directors...) in the newsletter.  For your listing of actors, directors... I had added the Other film-related section.  Feel free to fill it all up as you see fit.  Also note that the Main Author(s) doesn't need to be filled, I don't really like it since this is a collaborative project but kept it anyway.  It can also be tough to figure out who the main author is sometimes.  A definite yes to your new templates. Cbrown1023 03:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing, films and film characters go in the regular ones because they are both within our scope as opposed to actors and directors which just relate to our scope (so they go in the other section...) I feel like I sound confusing, contact me if anything is unclear (well, all of it is probably unclear... contact me if there is anything you do not understand...) Cbrown1023 03:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I understood just fine. I just had to ask since the WP:Films main page said that the project "does not include articles about actors, directors, and filmmakers (those are in the scope of WikiProject Biography and some possible future projects)." I'll work to develop the spotlight page with these (there aren't too many), and go do the newsletter right now. --Nehrams2020 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What should the main story be? Or do you just include as much news as possible and remove the suggested sections if not needed? Also, do you think that we should post a deadline on the newsletter for the last submission of information or the date that it is sent out so people know when to contribute to it? --Nehrams2020 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We should mention it on the WP:Films talk page to maybe get more contributions and more feedback about the due date. Personally, I would prefer the end of the month, so we could include all that happened during the month. But that's just me, so let's list it at WP:Films talk page. --Nehrams2020 04:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll mention it on the talk page. Also, how about including a list of some of the film's releasing this month (maybe it'll send some people to the theaters to watch movies and work on the articles)? --Nehrams2020 04:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I listed a vote request on WP:Films talk, so hopefully we get some feedback. That's really funny that you also thought of that. I'll list some films and you add some that I miss that you think will be notable for this month. --Nehrams2020 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job, I get that same newsletter. I went to see Pursuit of Happyness with a friend today, and the theater projector broke (how does that happen in this day and age?!), so I got two free passes which I'm using next semester (I only live in San Diego for the school year and live in Atwater, CA (what a difference!) during my school break). I'm hoping to see Night at the Museum soon and contribute to that. I'll check the 2006 in film to see if there are also any other notable films.
 * I think the ratings are fine. Plus, anybody can also just click on the link and then look up other ratings on the imdb page. What else do you think should be added to the newsletter? --Nehrams2020 05:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, until then, do you think that actors/direcotrs in GA/FA should be added to the Spotlight page since there is a possibility that the WP:Films might absorb them (or a new project created) in the future? However, there is already about 32 or so actors in GA plus a couple in FA, so it could make the page long. Or should only film characters (ex: Darth Vader) be in the film-related section? --Nehrams2020 05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)--Nehrams2020 05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Hi editors! I had dropped you a note but it got archived. Cool archive formatting, by the way! No, with all the recent changes and some more things I'm picking up on film notability/importance, I'd rather wait and express it all in a better way next month. Thanks for remembering. Hoverfish 07:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for that extremely quick vandalism revert on my userpage. I was online, I got an IRC notice and I wasn't fast enough to catch him! Thanks again, Flash Gordon ;) -- lucasbfr talk 06:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest I considered it for a while some time ago. But if the vandalism didn't take place on my user page, it would take place on my talk page. So I prefer to have it on a page I don't really care about and even if I don't revert it in the minute it won't disturb anything else :) -- lucasbfr talk 00:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Good luck for your RfA! :)

Note on Who's Quentin?
I've also posted about it in film project:. Who's Quentin? is 99% copied text from the official website. Unless someone rephrases it, it should be tagged for deletion, I think (but you know better on such issues). Hoverfish 20:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Hover, I put two ugly templates on that page (cleanup-rewrite and copypaste) and wrote a little more than I should have to explain what to do. The templates have instructions for a user to delete the section if they are not rewritten by Friday.  I'll be wacthing the page to see if there are any rewrites and will delete the sections myself on Friday if they are not rewritten. Cbrown1023 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and Congratulations
Hey, thanks for the peer review of Ginger Snaps, which helped smooth the GA process. Also congratulations yourself on getting The Public Enemy moved up to GA as well!--Supernumerary 18:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jurassic Park (film)
I haven't paid too much attention to that section considering some one bought it over from the book article. Marketing? Wiki-newbie 19:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Film external links
I would only give priority to official sites, which of course film does not have. Afterwards, all sites should be ordered alphabetically. Who are you (or me) to say that IMDb is the best site? It certainly has a lot of breadth, but little depth; whereas Film Site is the opposite, and only covers "great" films, in great depth. I would be very wary of giving IMDb priority on this article (or any others, such as films or people), because it gives the impression that the IMDb is somehow connected to Wikipedia. Does AMG leading the list really bother you that much that you won't allow it that position, even if it is clearly obvious that it only holds it by virtue of its spelling? Girolamo Savonarola 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Well done on getting a 98% support vote on your RfA! You must be really pleased with that result! I'm saying congratulations slightly early but I am sure that a Bureaucrat will be along in an hour-or-so in order to issue you with a shiny new admin toolkit. If you have any questions about using the tools then please don't hesitate to ask - I will do my best to find the answers for you. Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from  s d 3 1 4 1 5   final  exams! ! 01:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:
 * Administrators' reading list
 * Administrators' how-to guide
 * Administrators' Noticeboard
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, that was a very successful election! (which should have been 100% support; that oppose rationale was really shoddy. Again, good job moving up a step on the Wikipedia ladder, and I'll try to come to you first with film-related (or anything) admin assistance. By the way, do you want to hold on for the newsletter until the current films either pass/fail for GA, or did we decide on a set date yet? --Nehrams2020 02:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me, too. And best wishes with your adminship. :) Sarah Ewart 09:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA and the new tools. You might wanna remove the "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday." now. ;) All the best. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 11:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done, I knew you would pass =) Have fun with your new buttons, and leave me a message if you need any help. Thanks. -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Late for tea again. Congratulations, I wish you all the best in your adminship and hope your duties don't ever spoil your fun in Wikipedia, Sir. Hoverfish 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter
I know you're going to be busy over the next few hours trying out the tools and learning everything so I won't try to bother you tonight. I just have a quick question. Do you just go to the WP:Films Participants page and then send a link to the newsletter? If so I'll follow the same format as you did as the last one. I also saw a page that shows how some members who want the newsletter sent in an optional way or not at all, so I'll follow that as well. Also before we send it out (if anybody wants to help), I'll let you know the date we send it. Good job on the all of the work you did on it and reformating my additions. Have fun with the tools. --Nehrams2020 03:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the tool that you recommended to use, and it appears that there is a waiting period for me to be able to use it. If you want, you can deliver the newsletter this month and I can assist with next month's newsletter. The newsletter looks like it is stocked full of information and could be sent whenever you want. For the vote on WP:Films talk page, there was only four votes for when it was desired to be delivered, and it looks like this month could have it delivered whenever it is desired by the editors. Afterwards, we could stick to the end of the month. If we release it now, should we say for upcoming films to be films in the rest of December and also January films as a heads-up warning? Again, whatever you want to do is always fine with me, I seem to agree with the majority of things you do. --Nehrams2020 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * May I take a look in the coming newsletter too? (where?) Hoverfish 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could "The World cinema pages ...its many templates" become "...its new navigation template" (linked)? I hope Stavros understands the individual country template is not going to pass. Hoverfish 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say, go ahead, ten minutes sounds great, (probably 7 now). I will help you next time with the next newsletter, I just have to be approved for AWB. It looks really good compared to the last one, and I think we can continue to improve it by attempting to get more input from the other participants. Have fun. --Nehrams2020 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any delivering tool. Could I help manually (give me a letter to start and I will run down category film project members). Hoverfish 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)---Oh and give me the line to deliver. Hoverfish 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

about my bot
how do you go through the steps?--&quot;P-Machine&quot; 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congratulations on adminship. I have a strong desire to become an administrator myself. Good luck with the new tools! King Toadsworth The Princess is in another Castle! 20:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Congradulations (a slow congratulations:) on your new status! The vandals are fleeing! Good luck with the mop. :-) | A ndonic O Talk 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross-WikiProject CotW?
I noticed that you've listed Film for a peer review with an eye towards a future FAC. I was wondering if, after the PR is finished, WP Films might be interested in doing an inter-WikiProject CotW with WikiProject Filmmaking? After all, it is a flagship article for both projects, and thus both projects have a vested interest in bringing the article to top form, right? :)

Additionally, I wanted to moot some consideration from you and others regarding the editing status of the page. It's a very consistent high target for vandalism due to the popularity of the subject and its broad topic. I was able to get it semi-protected for a few weeks, during which virtually all edits were productive and there was no vandalism or linkspam. It seemed to be arbitrarily unprotected later by an admin only on the pretext that it had "already been semi-protected for a while". Naturally, the vandalism and linkspam returned almost immediately and constantly. There's been dicussion by Jimmy Wales and others recently in support of permanent semi-protection of articles which appear to be targets for this sort of behavior, and I was wondering how you and others would feel about supporting a permanent semi-protect on the page. It would only prevent anonymous IPs and very new users from editing the page, which is not a big deal as far as I can tell, since there have been very few substantive edits to the actual article text in a long time (excluding anticipated cleanup and improvement work discussed above).

Anyway, please think about these things and do let me know your opinions. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like a great idea! We should definately do that, if I get a confirmation from you, I'll put it in the newsletter and post a message on the Films talk page.  For right now, I've semi-protected the Film page. Cbrown1023 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

More on the socks/trolls/single purpose accounts
As per this, please also take a look at these single purpose accounts devoted to exclusively the same article:



TIA, --Irpen 02:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First blocked. Seconds seems more contributive, so not blocked.  (if you have any reasons to think otherwise please bring them to me with diffs).  Thanks, Cbrown1023 02:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to say pther than the contributions of these users is suspicious. They are both single purpose accounts and both were involved in sterile revert warring in one article. Their most frequent edit was to add the cat:Genocide to the footer despite the comprehensive discussion of the issue in the article and its talk and the repeated invitation to switch from sterile revert warring to discussing things. Item #8 from WP:CAT has been also repeatedly brought up to the attention of both.


 * I will not argue for the block of the other account. In fact I care very little since trollish crusades and revert warring against the consensus never result in anything. I simply brought to your attention other single purpose accounts devoted to this article. I do not have any checkuser evidence and concluding from the circumstantial evidence is very much a case by case and judge by judge thing. --Irpen 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the extra information you provided, I have indef blocked the second one as well. Cbrown1023 03:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with the actions of User:Tenwiki. I am often uncertain exactly how to phrase an AIV request for a spammer, because the instructions on the AIV page are more in terms of destructive vandalism. EdJohnston 03:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If he is truly upset with the vandalism warning on his Talk page, I could remove it. However the spam warning and my other remark should stay, in my opinion. It is always possible that the account might be reactivated later. EdJohnston 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've notified him futher on his talk page. Cbrown1023 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Twelve Monkeys
Hi, there's a copyvio in Twelve Monkeys. That's a HUGE overkill template they got there! I checked the link given in a hurry but didn't find any obvious copied sections. I promised to send in an admin today. Can you please check? Hoverfish 09:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Further note: I found the copied parts in edit history. They've already been deleted and the template placed where they had been. Hoverfish 09:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Cbrown1023 20:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Put the Rifle Down
Hi, why did you delete this page? The band clearly meets wikipedia's standards for notability! If you feel something is lacking, please repost the article and I'll be happy to bring it up to code.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.166.188 (talk • contribs)


 * The article was deleted because consensus was reached at its AfD. Cbrown1023 20:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Master Exploder on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Master Exploder. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hi
Would appreciate some assistnce. Please can you have a look at Template:Messageme, please you fill in the code so that the email me link will be autmoatic if you for eg were to put on your talk page. It works for me, but only because im in the code. Thanks. frummer 06:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * done, check it out. Now you don't even need your username. Cbrown1023 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, here's another prob that occures often, check out Template:OphthoWikiProject, the image is not showing, I have this problem OFTEN, why does the image show up as a redlink, is wickipedia's server so olf fashioned that it takes the slave server more then 30sec to catch up with the master?!?!? frummer 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The image does not exist, I have replaced it with the prevously used image. Cbrown1023 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Old Samuel Adams
You closed this AFD as "Delete/Merge". So which one is it? They're incompatible requirements—if the content is merged, then the page must be kept as a redirect and not deleted for GFDL concerns. Similarly, if the page is deleted, how can a merge be carried out? Philwelch 14:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed, the result was delete because there was not enough notable info to merge. Cbrown1023 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, a Delete/Merge can still occur (see History merge), but that is not what happened here.

Hi, thanks for the tip!
Here's one for you.

Georgebd
I can see that you did block him, but then you unblocked and did not reblock (I was the one who reported him to AIV after I found that each and every one of his contributions was to post that link to his blog). So, is he going to be reblocked?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless he repeats his offense without discussion, no. You and  I were a little too fast for policy. :)  I misread the dates and realized that both of your warnings were issued after he stopped.  He was not notified of his actions and could, therefore, not know that it was wrong or to stop.  He will not be reblocked unless he repeats without discussion. Cbrown1023 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Spy vs. Spy
Yes, I have this with watching and hounding too. Heh-heh. So while you keep a watch on me, I keep a watch on you and we all keep a watch on each other. One for all and all for one. Or, I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice-cream (Down by Law). Hoverfish 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of R G C Levens
It would be helpful if you could give your deletion rationale on Articles for deletion/R G C Levens as I suspect this one may wind up being reviewed. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, there was an 8-4 vote for deletion even after the first three keeps, this means that those who voted after she had read your reasons and voted based on them. If you think it should be overturned, reply back to me and I will undelete it so that you can start a new AfD to try to get a better consensus. Cbrown1023 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. My view is that this was an odd situation where there was a showing in the AfD discussion but not in the article as written, which gave comfort to my original thought to keep for a reasonable amount of time to allow for article improvement; it wasn't a vanity or attack piece that really needed to be gotten rid of right away. I would ordinarily have dealt with that by doing the expansion myself but this was way out of my fields, and I guess none of the other commenters got to it either. Not sure what the best way forward is at this point, though. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/The_Adventures_of_Fatman
Errr, you deleted this when there was hardly a consensus... please can you give some more explanation? --Amaccormack 07:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask the same. The issue was mainly about the sources. While I agree that the article had some unsuitable sources per WP:EL, several of them were neutral reviews (e.g. HOTU and JustAdventure). Could you please elaborate on your closing? Thanks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed the result from Delete to No consensus because of the addition of multiple references. Thanks, :). Cbrown1023 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on becoming an administrator! You have been enormously helpful to the WikiProject Films—you overhauled the project page, helped me assess the thousands of articles, have done many peer reviews, including mine where you were the only responder, and have brought forth your technical expertise many times. I'm unaware of your involvement outside of the project, but from my interactions with you, in which you have always been helpful and patient, I am certain that you have done much to help Wikipedia in its quest to become a true encyclopedia. I wish you luck in your administering!--Supernumerary 08:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Harvard_Opportunes
Just came across this as I've been busy with other things. I'm wondering if a re-listing might not be a good idea? Several similar college a cappella groups have been nominated recently and have reached consensus to delete. I'm not saying this article should be deleted because the others were, I'm just saying that there may be reason to believe consensus could be reached on this one because consensus was reached on the others, and there were only 3 voters on this one. So maybe it's not too late to re-list? Thanks for considering this, Pan Dan 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a re-nomination would be better. Cbrown1023 22:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

class needed articles
If it's true that you follow automatically Stavro with class "needed", I think it should be "stub", even if it's just one line and then lists that in more developed articles are in separate pages. Or does "class needed" make the bells toll louder? Hoverfish|Talk 23:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Barabus TKR
Remember to delete the talk pages of articles you delete. Philwelch 07:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I normally do, it's just I must've forgot that one (I've only become an admin recently and have deleted more than a hundred pages. :)) Cbrown1023 22:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Film
I think this is a bad idea. As long as it is locked, I, for I am not an admin, but contributed heavily to it's creation, unable to edit in-case anything comes up. I know your around more than me, but locking it (sysop only) is not a good idea. Shane (talk/contrib) 04:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

CASEY
hey casey. this is great-- you know, i'm totally going to go add everything i learned in uster's class to these pages. he he he-- watch it all be wrong.

Crimes of the Heart (film)
Hello! I'm curious as to why you felt this warranted an article separate from Crimes of the Heart, especially since the end result is nothing more than a stub. I feel Crimes of the Heart includes everything that needs to be said about both the play and subsequent film version. Sometimes there simply isn't enough info to justify two articles, and I believe this is one of those cases. Happy Holidays! SFTVLGUY2 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It will of course expand it to be one of our featured articles. There is but one sentance about the film.  It is common to make two article for a film.  Plus, you removed the tag on the talk page, that means that you think that the article pretains only to the play, making another article necessary.  Thanks, Cbrown1023 01:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re:
Greetings your helping hand here is much appreciated. Feel free to revert or otherwise archive this message if you'd prefer your page to remain blank. :-) 02:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD closings
Thanks for the pointer. I've been an admin for a long time, but I just recently decided to start AfDs. Normally, I work at TfD, where the comes after the subsection header for each listing. Oh well. Have a meery Christmas! RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 04:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas -- UKPhoenix79, 25 December 2006

Crimes of the Heart
A separate article about the film version of a play is appropriate only if the film was significant or a major release. The original article barely mentioned the play, which not only has an interesting history, but also won the Pulitzer Prize. You claim my revised version has only one sentence about the film, but in that one sentence I included everything that's in the stub article you created for the film, rendering it unnecessary. Thanks. SFTVLGUY2 13:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

16 whole hours!
I hope you had a nice wikibreak. Hoverfish Talk 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, then Happy New Year too and Satelite Greetings! Hoverfish Talk 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this a special cruise just for administrators? I knew there was a reason I had to sign up. :) Newyorkbrad 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * no... :) just a family one. Happy Holidays to you too, Brad! Cbrown1023 01:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice
This is to inform you that WikiProject Films/Categorization has started. Any contributions in further developing it are warmly welcome. Hoverfish Talk 15:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)