User talk:DCGeist/Archive through February 2007

Film noir
Hi, I appreciate your civil and friendly tone on Wikipedia, and your "let's be constructive" attitude. I proposed some cuts to trim Film noir, removing adjectives (e.g. original and seminal...I proposed cutting "original"). The reason I did this is that many Wiki editors overuse adjectives, so usually it is helpful to cut flowery, POV adjectives to a "remarkably gifted solo pianist" or a "widely-acknowledged master of the guitar". In the case of "original and seminal," though, it wasn't just empty verbiage, there was a reason for both, so I agree with you putting them back................Another edit I proposed, which you changed back, was making long paragraphs shorter by dividing them. This is obviously a subjective judgment call in many cases, but I think there are some paragraphs which still could be split in 2. For example, the para:''Film noirs embrace a variety of genres, from the gangster film to the police procedural to the so-called social problem picture, and evidence a variety of visual approaches, from meat-and-potatoes Hollywood mainstream to outré. While many critics refer to film noir as a genre itself, others argue that it can be no such thing. Though noir is often associated with an urban setting, for example, many classic noirs take place largely in small towns, suburbia, rural areas, or on the open road, so setting can not be its genre determinant, as with the Western. Similarly, while the private eye and the femme fatale are character types conventionally identified with noir, the majority of film noirs feature neither, so there is no character basis for genre designation as with the gangster film. Nor does it rely on anything as evident as the monstrous or supernatural elements of the horror film, the speculative leaps of the sci-fi film, or the song-and-dance routines of the musical. A more analogous case is that of the screwball comedy, widely accepted by film historians as constituting a "genre"—the screwball is defined not by a fundamental attribute, but by a general disposition and a group of elements, some (but rarely and perhaps never all) of which are found in each of the genre's films. However, because of the diversity of noir (much greater than that of the screwball comedy), certain scholars in the field, such as film historian Thomas Schatz, treat it as not a genre but a "style." Alain Silver, the most widely published American critic specializing in film noir studies, refers to it as a "cycle" and a "phenomenon," even as he argues that it has—like certain genres—a consistent set of visual and thematic codes. Other critics treat film noir as a "mood," a "movement," or a "series," or simply address a chosen set of movies from the "period." There is no consensus on the matter.''Just an idea for discussion...P.S. added info on Future NoirNazamo 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Essay tag and aestheticization of violence
Hi Dan, this note is about the aestheticization of violence article, which I tagged with the Essay template. Regardless of whether or not the article should have an Essay tag, I believe that there are still problems with it. This article may be "A content fork"..("usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject"). Perhaps there is a broader article on aesthetics this could go into. Wiki guidelines state that "...content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." As well, the article doesn't lay out the different sources of the term "aesthetics of violence" (as in "Professor Jones, the author of six books on aesthetics of violence, defines the term as XXXX. In contrast, Smith defines it as YYYYY.")Nazamo 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

NPR
Sounds like a great project though I'm not clear why NPR would produce such a volume. Some great composers you list there. There's a good reference book called simply "Contemporary Composers" that has a lot of the Asians listed. I'm very interested in contemporary composers of China, Japan, Korea, etc. too. Good luck with the project. Oh, one more thing that's not well explained here...to sign your "discussion posts," put four tildes after your post and it will magically appear as your "signature." Hope you're on the West Coast, unlike me, where it's 2:30 a.m.! :) Badagnani 06:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Madras
I didn't think of that, because since Haydn (and Schubert) I don't think there are that many symphonies with nicknames given by others. There are a lot of gradations: "Sinfonia antartica" (Symphony no. 7) probably bears the title "Sinfonia antartica" and it just happens to the the 7th symphony. I'd say that probably "Sinfonia antartica" should be italicized because it really is the title of the work. Hovhaness' Concerto no. 1 (Arevakal) is another case like this. The Cowell seems to be similar to Symphony no. 9, "From the New World" as to my knowledge it is a numbered symphony and "Madras" is a subtitle giving the impression of the music. There is a way to find out exactly how Cowell titled it: check the Lichtenwanger work list. I think he gives the titles just as they appear (often with misspellings!) Badagnani 19:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

NYPL very well might also have the original MS of that symphony, or a microfilm thereof (unless it's at LoC). Badagnani 19:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't know Bacharach studied with Cowell (how did you find that out?) but coincidentally about 2 weeks ago I spoke with Ronald Gould, a percussionist who played in the Madras premiere of Cowell's symphony. He brought a bunch of South Indian drums back to New York with him and in 1959 and 1961, Halim El-Dabh wrote a series of percussion ensemble pieces for them ("Hindi-Yaat no. 1," "Tabla-Dance," and "Tabla-Tahmeel no. 1"). Small world. Badagnani 20:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Cowell
Nice work. How about mentioning that Bartok wrote to Cowell to ask his permission to use tone clusters in his piano works? I read that somewhere. Badagnani 05:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The citation was in there for the radio program. I don't think that is well known (I had never heard he had a radio show, or what station it was on), so that's why I added it, for confirmation of this little known fact. There is a way to do footnotes on Wikipedia but it's much easier to just add end notes (like you'll see, for example, throughout Cindy Sheehan. Badagnani 06:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, great stuff you're adding. The Cuban link explains a lot to me, as Cage's works from this period sound VERY Afro-Cuban-influenced, esp. the Constructions for percussion ensemble, Credo in US, and later Three Dances for Two Prepared Pianos. Badagnani 05:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say leave the notes as is; end notes are a pain (though appropriate in the case of the Thomson reference). Fantastic info in the article! I added what I knew, but you came up with way more! It's an enjoyable process, maybe a little addictive... :) Badagnani 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've got tapes of "Credo in US" (from Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival) and "Three Dances" (an excellent recording featuring Michael Tilson Thomas as one of the prepared pianists). The "Constructions" are widely available; I think there's a CD on Wergo. Anyone who insists that Cage's compositions aren't that interesting, or that his work is purely conceptual just doesn't know what they are talking about, as hearing these pieces will prove. They have humor, swing, and energy to burn. See if you can find the recordings at NYPL or some other similar library. Badagnani 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I would mention that your hard work is really turning this article into one worthy of the important figure Cowell was, in so many respects. I've seen a lot of Wikipedia editors but I don't recall seeing one as thorough or conscientious as you. Badagnani 06:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a pleasure to have an article on one's watchlist and whenever an edit is made, it checks out as a good one. You'll find, if you stay here long enough, that that often isn't the case. It's especially bad in articles like Math rock, where people think they know a lot and are very opinionated, but their editing skills aren't great; or in political articles. I'll see if I can find that tape of Credo in US. It's a great one. The "Three Dances" LP with Tilson Thomas shouldn't be hard to find, though I'm not sure it's been released on CD. The last of the three dances is jaw-droppingly virtuosic and AFRICAN in sound. Badagnani 07:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That German list of works has the spelling of "Antinomy" wrong too...someone should probably let them know that. I was just reading today that Cage found "New Musical Resources" and a book by Chavez to be his two most important influences. I had always suspected a Latin American influence in Cage's early works (from the 1930s and '40s) and this helps to confirm this, though the influence sounds more Afro-Cuban (or West African) than Mexican. Badagnani 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cowell.jpg
Hello, you have tagged this image with PD-ineligible. However, it is clear that this tag is not proper. It could be used for say, simple chemical structural formulas or geometrical figures, but not for photos! Please read Copyrights and Image copyright tags. If no proper license will be added in seven days, the image will be re-tagged with no source and deleted. Please ask on my talk page if you have any questions. Renata 18:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

New essay on Cowell
New essay on Cowell by Peter Garland. Looks like explosive stuff. http://otherminds.org/shtml/Garlandoncowell.shtml Badagnani 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone cluster entry reference style
Your tone towards me is entirely inappropriate, stop talking about me. I find your vague implication that I am a bad wikipedian insulting, rather than helpful, and that is clearly not the way to be a good one. See No personal attacks: "Comment on the content, not the contributor." Hyacinth 23:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please indicate the reference style which you have established on tone cluster. Hyacinth 20:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kid noir
You did a good rewrite of the definition of kid noir (Carol Reed's The Fallen Idol is another example of this and of British film noir), but you wrongly deleted its reference. It's of encyclopedic value to know where terms such as this are coined or explained, and by deleting the source cited, the article now has. --Jonathan F 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The citation was put in to source the usage of kid noir (the definition you've rewritten is theirs), not the specific characterizations of VM and Brick as such. This article (http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1786062,00.html) echoes the usage of the WP article, but this is sort of besides the point. Silver and Ward are not as literal in applying the term kid noir as you might think: Gleaming the Cube (!) and, if I remember correctly, Drugstore Cowboy are listed as examples (would then The Candy Snatchers be? :-D). However, the extent to which Silver and Ward's definition of kid noir has been paraphrased provides only sufficient background for the two examples already provided; you're right then that The Fallen Idol wouldn't warrant inclusion under the definition rendered in WP (not to mention that kid noir is discussed in the book's neo-noir section).--Jonathan F 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Film Noir
Many kudos to you for your re-write of Film Noir. I love the writing, the organization, the thoroughness of it. I would race to nominate it as a FAC, but I know that it would be criticized for not being written in a sufficiently lifeless, "encyclopediac" style. I would bet money that the phrase "rife with original research" would be voiced (meaning you dare to state things that could be construed as opinions without buffering them by saying "critic Joe Shmoe has said... ".) In fact, I'll be far from surprised if that phrase turns up on the discussion page eventually. But I hope you ignore it if it does. You've written a damn fine article. --KarlBunker 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I visited your talk page and I couldn't help commenting on this. I do think you're doing great work, and I know how it seems necessary sometimes to point out the meaning of something even though that meaning may be subjective, or to put two and two together and acknowledge that it makes four. But still...it's good to remember that the rule against OR is not there because all original thinking is crap, but because it's very difficult in a wiki format to separate wheat from chaff. There is a point sometimes to citing Joe Shmoe, even if he makes the writing less elegant than it otherwise would be.
 * I have come to believe that most of the best work that gets done at Wikipedia is done by people who sit down and write (or rewrite) whole chunks, not by the accretion of individual sentences added in over time. So I don't mean to discourage.  But I think there's wisdom in the WP rules--including the WP:IAR rule.  The trick is knowing when to apply that one. Nareek 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again; I recently took another look at Film Noir and saw you've done yet more good work on it. If I had been drinking something, I would have done a classic spit-take over your caption to the Basic Instinct image.  ;-)  I can see I'll have to read the whole article again some time soon. What I'm really here for is to talk about the Hollywood blacklist article. In its current form, there are a bunch of "please expand this section" tags. It looks like someone with some ambitious plans for the article set up a "scaffold" to outline those plans (including a section heading that's completely empty), but in my quick look at the article history, it didn't seem that anyone has done major work on the article for a while.
 * I'm wondering if you're the person who set up that scaffold, or if you have plans to do any major work on that article. If not, I may at some point try to clean up the article myself. My approach would be to scale back the plans for the article and pretty much leave the content as it is, but try to rearrange things so that the "please expand" tags could be removed and the article stands on its own with the current amount of content. But I wouldn't want to do that if you (or anyone else) has relatively near-future plans to do major work on the article. KarlBunker 10:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI
It may be useful for you to know that User:Minun has just been banned for one year by the ArbCom and he is currently blocked from editing anywhere but his user page. I suppose he might respond to you there. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Charles Willeford
Howdy DCGeist -- I ended up moving my response to: Talk:Charles Willeford ! --nathanbeach  15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Passed Tone cluster
Just thought you'd like to know. Congratulations on a really well-done article. MLilburne 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tone cluster
Looks OK to me - did you fix it? Rich Farmbrough 09:26 29 August 2006 (GMT).
 * Yep 26 notes, all in order, all link both ways (well half forward, and half back - i extrapolate that they all do). Have you tried Reload? Rich Farmbrough 09:46 29 August 2006 (GMT).
 * Hi, I'm seeing the same thing at (of all articles) ISBN. But if I swap to another browser and account, it's fine. Rich Farmbrough 20:53 29  August 2006 (GMT).
 * Yes I was working on references, so I thought it was a WP problem not SB related. I would just like to have more data before logging a bug (but perhaps it's already been logged). Off to the back burner with it. Rich Farmbrough 21:50 29 August 2006 (GMT).
 * Already logged at 7162 Rich Farmbrough 08:52 30 August 2006 (GMT).

RKO General
I made the changes to the station charts for several reasons:

First and foremost, look at other television and radio station charts such as Metromedia, Tribune Broadcasting, Hearst-Argyle, Gannett Company, and a few others. The style is consistent throughout. The changes I made keeps the charts in-line with the others.

Second, with regards to radio stations: AM stations do not use an -AM suffix after the call letters. Again, you will notice this in the Metromedia radio station chart. If you want to keep the suffix, though place it inside of parenthesis, then that may be fine. But AM stations should read (for example) "WOR-710" or "WOR (AM)-710" but NOT "WOR-AM-710". (FM stations, especially those birthed from AM stations, usually have the -FM suffix after the call signs.)

I attempted to make similar changes some time ago, but they were quickly reverted. I can say perhaps someone is trying to claim ownership of this article, which is a no-no. But I'll reserve opinion until I get a response from this comment. Rollosmokes 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Geist, I happened to have a look at the appeals court's opinion on the case, and it seems pretty reasonable to infer that the court would have upheld the FCC's decision to yank the WOR-TV and KHJ-TV licenses had the FCC not tied their renewals to the WNAC renewal. It appeared to agree with the FCC that lack of candor of this sort is inconsistent with being a broadcast licensee. Blueboy96 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

B movie
Hi, you removed a quote about C movies because it referred to the Japanese film industry. I agree that the Japanese film industry context should be added, but the quote (in reference to C movies) was hard to find. Yes, there are chat site references to C-movies and anonymous websurfers who toss the term around, but it is hard to find a legit film critic type using the term in print. The whole section on "C" movies in the Wikipedia article becomes "original research" without some sources. If you have better sources, please add them. In the meantime, I think the Japanese example is useful, because it shows readers that this isn't just Original Research...Nazamo 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sound film
The sound film article looks better and better every day. Keep up the good work! — Walloon 05:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I echo that sentiment, Dan. But I wonder if there's some way to make the aesthetics section less subjective.
 * For example, I'm not sure how widespread this opinion is: "The French surrealist L'Âge d'or (1930), directed by Luis Buñuel, is the first sound film widely regarded as being of great aesthetic import." After all, one could argue that L'Âge d'or does not experiment much with sound itself -- compared, say, to a mainstream comedy such as Clair's Le Million (1931). Further, Buñuel's film caused a furor, in France, in 1930, but had little impact on early sound film aesthetics because it was banned and unseen for almost 50 years.
 * Perhaps the aesthetics section could be reworked so that the "masterpieces" of the late silent cinema (as certified by lists like the National Registry) could be contrasted with more pedestrian works of the early sound era -- such as, What, No Beer? (a terrible film that Buster Keaton was forced into by MGM in 1933). What do you think? --Jeremy Butler 11:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Story template
Hi Dan,

Thanks for the message. Personally, I like Lost in Translation as a nice low-key movie about a friendship between two people. It probably isn't the best movie ever made, but it's on my top 10 for some reason. The top 10 is a little bit out of date, since then I've seen Touch of Evil...

Anyways, about the template. After seeing your revised version, I must say that I would much prefer it over the old version. It seems much better worded in comparasion. I still don't think it should be deleted because it deals with a very specific problem (tone problems, yes, but a particular kind of tone problem).

On another matter, as you're such an expert on film-noir, maybe you can tell me why Vertigo isn't considered film-noir? I know it's in colour, but does that disqualify it?

Hope my response helps. Green451 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum:
 * Also, see WP:BETTER. Many of the problems mentioned in that policy guideline are covered in the story template. So, instead of having to use multiple templates to get the point across, we just have to use one, succinctly stated problem that will make people quickly realize, "Oh, now I see."


 * I've rambled on here long enough, so there you go. Maybe I'm just grasping in thin air here, you decide. Green451 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply and the Vertigo essay! Great read, and what ever happens with the story template, happens.  Keep up the good edits, Green451 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted my votes
Can you tell me why you deleted my votes at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 12? --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, it looks like my edit was the first mistake. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 14:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sound film, WikiProject Filmmaking
I just looked up "Sound film" before you started and compared it to today. WOW; I'm speechless! (No pun intended.) As you are the primary contributing editor to the article, I was wondered when you were thinking of bringing the article to WP:FAC? Also, I'd very much like to personally invite you to join WikiProject Filmmaking - we could always use more contributors like you! :) Congrats on the work so far, and may I say that I very much look forward to your future work. Girolamo Savonarola 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, you're right! I apologize for my absent-mindedness. There's not really too much to doing an FAC, other than putting it up there and trying to respond to any critiques as best as you feel you can. I always try to adopt all suggestions unless I really have a strong objection to it, in which case I try to explain that objection and work it out with the person critiquing. There's nothing better than seeing someone change a Comment or Object vote to a Support one! :) Really, just look at it as a more challenging peer review. It probably isn't bad for you to just go to WP:FAC and WP:FA? to get an idea of what the process is like, what they're looking for, and where you are most likely to find objections. The most common objection I find is the lack of citations, which you should have little to no problem with, so that will probably endear your article to many people from the start! I think that it's best if you start the FAC, because the nominating editor is expected to "manage" the candidacy as far as addressing objections, which I don't have the available knowledge or resources to do myself. If you have any other questions about the process or the like, please feel free to contact me. Best of luck! Girolamo Savonarola 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dickson Experimental Sound Film
You mis-understood me. I was talking about no new information that can be added in its current state. For example, an article is not really a stub if it cannot be expanded any further, so I meant that it is B-Class (the highest rating that can be given arbitrarily) because it cannot be expanded any more. The reason I rated it as B-Class is because I cannot rate it higher class (GA, A, or FA) as those are give through official Wikipedia channels (such as Good article candidates and Featured article candidates). Also, in the future, do not be alarmed or upset by a class, there are no failing grades and they are just constructive. (That is not meant to discourage you from asking for constructive critism, like WP:PR, or to ask for reasons on the rating.)

I do apologize for my rude edit summary. You see, I had been trying to class the articles and you kept just removing the class, making it appear as unassessed again and again. It was especially concering that you just removed the rating instead of, perhaps, taking it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films as to tell us that it should be re-classed or by doing it yourself.

I do hope I get a chance to work with you in the future. Cbrown1023 23:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussing revisions
Hello DCGeist:

I respectively disagree that I introduced factual errors or ungrammatical sentences. The following paragraph illustrates my point.

My text:

''One month later, it purchased a controlling interest in the First National production company (which was once more prominent than Warner Bros.). This acquisition included a 135-acre studio/back lot and a large number of movie theaters.''

vs.

Your text:

''One month later, it purchased a controlling interest in the First National production company (more prominent than Warners itself not long before), which had not only a 135-acre studio and back lot but its own large string of movie theaters. Warners had hit the big-time.''

What I did was break a long sentence (your first in the paragraph) into two, easier to read sentences. Does that not read better? By first stating what occured - the "purchase of controlling interest", followed by the result of said purchase - "a 135-acre studio...", I think it does.

I also removed some of the 'slang' or vernacular terms in the paragraph. I know what 'big-time' means, but does the word have a place in Wikipedia? I suggest stating that Warner Bros. (it is Warner BROS., isn't it?) became very successful and perhaps cite a source and/or provide data to support the position that after the subject purchase it "hit the big-time." I also disagree with your statement about the introduction of factual errors. I didn't change any of the facts. I didn't change names, dates, numbers, personalities, etc. So where are the factual errors?

This paragraph was most heavily revised by me:

''The ranking of the Big Five in terms of profitability (closely related to market share) was largely consistent during the the Golden Age. MGM was ranked first for eleven years between 1931–41, with the exception of 1932 (when all of the companies except MGM were unprofitable) while Fox was ranked second. Although it was the most profitable of the studios during the early sound era (1928-30), Paramount was ranked at third as it languished in decline during the 30s. By 1942, after a decade of steady recovery, it had become more profitable than MGM. Warner Bros. and RKO were regularly switching rankings at fourth and fifth throughout Hollywood's Golden Age. Of the remaining three nominal majors, Columbia and Universal were ranked sixth (and therefore sixth 'strongest') during the 1930s and 1940s, respectively. United Artists had the smallest profitability/market share so was generally ranked in eighth place.''

vs.

Your text:

''The ranking of the Big Five in terms of profitability (closely related to market share) was largely consistent during the the Golden Age: MGM was number one eleven years running, 1931–41. With the exception of 1932—when all the companies but MGM lost money, and RKO lost somewhat less than its competitors—RKO was next to last or (usually) last every year of the Golden Age, with Warners generally hanging alongside at the back of the pack. Paramount, the most profitable studio of the early sound era (1928–30), faded for the better part of the subsequent decade, and Fox was number two for most of MGM's reign. Paramount began a steady climb in 1940, finally edging past MGM two years later; from then till its reorganization in 1949 it was again the most financially sucesssful of the Big Five. Of the remaining three nominal majors, United Artists reliably held up the rear, with Columbia strongest in the 1930s and Universal in the lead for most of the 1940s.''

This paragraph was merely reorganized and reworded using the present, stated data. Do you consider my statement that Warner (Bros.) and RKO as being fourth and fifth (in ranking) erroneous? I figured that if MGM, Fox, and Paramount were first, second, and third, respectively, then Warner (Bros.) and RKO must be fourth and fifth. According to the text of the original before I altered it, there were only five Majors. My changes were logical. If Warners and RKO were not fourth and fifth (or fifth and fourth), then which studios were? If it were UA and some other studio, then that isn't clear in the original text.

The capitalization of the letter 'f' in federal is correct. In fact, we  are both correct. Within the context of the article, 'Federal', when attributed to various agencies without actually naming the agencies, is correct. Another example, unrelated to this article: North Korea. It is not unusual to refer to North Korea as the North.

In any event, I recognize you've made numerous contributions to this article. It's an interesting article, but I found it difficult to read.

Mikeetc 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mikeetc. I understand your edit was made with the best intentions, but I'm afraid you did introduce a number of factual errors.


 * According to your new wording, MGM was ranked first from 1931 through 1941, "with the exception of 1932." This is incorrect. "With the exception of 1932" refers to the discussion of RKO, as is grammatically clear in my original wording.
 * According to your new wording, Fox was ranked second from 1931 through 1941 (with the possible exception of 1932--it's not clear from your phrasing). This is incorrect. As I correctly stated, "Fox was number two for most of MGM's reign"; in 1941, for instance, MGM was #1, Paramount #2, and Fox #3.
 * According to your new wording, Paramount experienced "a decade of steady recovery" preceding 1942. This is blatantly incorrect. Not only is it incorrect, it stands in direct contradiction to your new (and, I'm afraid, infelicitously phrased) description of the studio "languish[ing] in decline during the 30s."
 * According to your new wording, "Warner Bros. and RKO were regularly switching rankings at fourth and fifth." This is incorrect. As I correctly stated, with the exception of 1932, RKO "was next to last or (usually) last every year," meaning fourth or (usually) fifth among the Big Five. This implies, correctly, that Warners was usually fourth.

Addressing a few other points:
 * I'm not sure exactly what you're asking in your parenthetical query "it is Warner BROS., isn't it?" Yes, the official name of the company is Warner Bros., not Warner Brothers. The standard shorter version is Warners, rather than Warner or Warner's. Please do a Google Book Search if you wish to confirm this with authoritative sources.
 * I'm afraid you're simply wrong about capitalizing "Federal government" in running text--that's just bad style according to current standards. Please do a Google Web search with "federal government" and "New York Times" and/or "Washington Post" and a Google Book Search on "federal government" if you wish to confirm this with authoritative sources.
 * The only thing unencyclopedic about "big time" is that, using it as a noun, I should not have hyphenated it. The online version of the standard Merriam-Webster's Dictionary gives as definition 2 of "big time": "the top rank of an activity or enterprise" (conduct search here). It does not flag the term as "slang" or "colloquial." Definition 1 indicates the term's roots in the entertainment field (vaudeville, specifically), underscoring its appropriateness.

Best, Dan—DCGeist 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kinetoscope article
I was wondering if the article could discuss the technical aspects of the system and how they evolved in more depth. Namely, that the Kinetoscope evolved from a cylinder to a horizontal reel to the vertical reel which became the "Edison standard". I believe that some of this can be found at Kino's PDF notes written for their Edison DVDs. I'd write it myself, but I don't have the contextual background on the subject which you are probably well-immersed in at the moment. If you need technical specs, we already have them on the list of film formats. Thanks and best luck! Girolamo Savonarola 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) PS - any more thoughts/updates re: Peer review/FAC of sound film?

Sound film
Do you remember we discussed an almost identical matter? Well if you don't, please visit User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 1 for an archive of the discussion. If, after you review that, you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page again. Cbrown1023 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. It is also sitting on your talk page. (see User talk:DCGeist). Cbrown1023 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying I did not agree with you that it was A-class, but by 's statement that "You should not assign any article GA, A, or FA grades arbitrarily. These grades must pass through official Wikipedia channels." I chose not to rate it as that. That statement, by being presented at the beginning, implies that it one of the statements to be followed.


 * I have a question of your statement that "the GA process is commonly not engaged in for such articles". What is it you mean by that statement?  WP:GA is supposed to rate all articles.


 * If you disagree with our guidelines, please take them up with at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films as I would also like to see the outcome of this argument. It would greatly affect our rating process.  I'll change it to A because I do believe it as A, because you gave a good argument and it is currently nominated for FA. Cbrown1023 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We could also solve this right now. If you give me a verbal response (in this case I guess signed text post) that you want to nominate it for GA, then I will review it and add the GA automatically (or give suggestions). Cbrown1023 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the page to reflect our discussion on A-class also. If it is not liked when you suggest it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, then it will just be reverted. Cbrown1023 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User page
Your user page is getting kind of long. You may want to check out Template:Hidden or put some of the information on sub-pages with links on your main user page. This will probably make it easier for you to navigate. Cbrown1023 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:MonkeyshinesStrip.jpg
Maybe you'd be able to answer the question better than I could? I'd imagine it would make future work and FAC for the article easier by not even having to worry about fair use justification (as obvious as I believe it would be). Love your recent work on the Kinetoscope article! (You're a hardcore editor.) Girolamo Savonarola 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

kinetograph info
I finally was able to obtain my own copy of Salt's book, so I thought I'd pass this excerpt along directly to your user page instead of the article talk page - mainly to avoid raising any copyvio issues (you can always delete it later after you've distilled the info should you wish...). Here's it is:


 * In the first several years of the cinema one of the two most important classes of cameras descended from the Edison Kinetograph. In its initial form the Kinetograph was contained in a very large and heavy casing, and was driven by a variable-speed electrical motor. For the purpose of producing films for the Edison Kinetoscope peep-show machine it was run at 46 frames per second, but from 1898 onwards it was also used to produce films for projection at the usual speed of approximately 16 frames per second. Its intermittent mechanism, which depended on a Maltese-cross gear to drive the sprocket wheel that transported the film through the exposure gate, was not reversible. This last drawback did not hold for the camera that R.W. Paul based on the Edison design in 1896, for Paul's camera had synchronized sprockets driving the film both above and below the gate. Georges Melies based the first camera he had built for himself on this Paul design, and eventually, though not till 1898, took advantage of the facility it gave for controlled winding back to produce superimpositions in the camera. Although the Paul double Maltese-cross mechanism had the advantage of reversibility, it also had the disadvantage of poor registration, at least when compared to the Lumiere mechanism. This is evident in the Robert Paul trick films that involve superimpositions.
 * The other major type of camera mechanism was represented by that of the Lumiere camera of 1895. In this case the intermittent pull-down of the film was accomplished by a claw driven by two cams, one of which produced the vertical motion of the claw, and the other its insertion into the sprocket holes in the film before pull-down, and then its withdrawal afterwards. This mechanism could produce reversed film motion too, but all the remaining of camera intermittents - the Demeny beater or 'dog' movement, the Mutoscope (later Biograph) camera of Dickson, the Prestwich epicycloidal sprocket wheel, and others - could not be reversed.
 * In general, the cameras of the first several years had no separate view-finding systems that could be used to check what was in frame during the time that the shot was being taken. The shot had to be framed and focussed [sic] beforehand by opening the back of the camera, and then inspecting the image in the gate through a hole of the same dimensions as the frame that was cut in the back pressure plate. When actually taking the shot it was largely guesswork as to exactly what was in frame and what was not, unless the limits of the frame were marked on the set.
 * Salt, Barry. Film Style & Technology: History and Analysis. Chapter 7: Film Style and Technology: 1895-1900, page 32. Starword: London, 1992.

Also, it might be worth mentioning the development of the Latham loop and its central place in enabling the development of projection technology; otherwise, many readers who are not well-versed in the technology might wonder why projection wasn't so obvious and why it took so long to be invented. Girolamo Savonarola 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching the intermittent error - I probably meant to specify it for the 'graph, IIRC. On the other hand, though...the shutter probably wouldn't be enough to "stop" the motion, would it? And why would the 'scope have a Maltese cross mechanism if not for intermittent movement? Girolamo Savonarola 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Light and Movement: Incunabula of the Motion Picture, 1420-1896
- you should definitely look into checking this book out. The price is a bit hefty (I think it's about $150 in the US), but if you can find a library or university copy, it's completely worth spending an afternoon with it. It's a compilation of facsimiles of important documents relating to the development of what became the motion picture, alongside a page or two of text describing the context in excellent detail. And it is in three languages, side by side. Anyway, thought that you would be interested considering your recent topics! Girolamo Savonarola 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you can't find it, and I'll try to make notes for you. Girolamo Savonarola 09:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kinetoscope and FAC
Whaddya say? :) Girolamo Savonarola 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reclassed that other article as A-class (and it's probably worthy of an FAC as well). I can't tell you the exact contents of the Mannoni book at the moment, though I may be able to inspect a copy tomorrow. But I'm 99% certain that Edison/Dickson original document facsimiles are provided. The whole book is a treasure trove, really. Girolamo Savonarola 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the FA! Girolamo Savonarola 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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 23:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Film Noir
$$Insert formula here$$Hi Dan, I have started the Nino Frank and Alain Silver articles, as promised. Any help you can provide on Nino Frank would be good ... apart from the 100s of references to him as the coiner of film noir, there is almost no online info available on him. Perhaps his biography is available in paper books? I found Silver's bio very interesting, in that he has two personalities: a practical, business-oriented side (as a movie producer, project coster, etc), and as an intellectual/historian/writer. Both articles are just stubs and they'll need much additional content and formatting.Nazamo 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oneiric vs. Oneirism
Hi Dan, the reason I proposed the "daydream" link was based on this definition I found on the Princeton.edu page: ''Definitions of oneirism on the Web: reverie: absentminded dreaming while awake wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn'', at this site. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:oneirism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title.Nazamo 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, I wanted to propose giving a footnote definition of "oneirism" or linking "oneirism" to a page on dreams/dreaming in a film or literary critism content. The reason I began proposing other links for "oneiric" or an in-text gloss of the term was because the "Dreams" wiki-page is all about sleep science/REM sleep, whereas I believe that a dreams/dreaming article from a film or literary criticism article would be better. I'll see if there is such an article, and if it doesn't exist, I will develop one.....On the topic of Silver, do you find his two "sides" interesting (practical producer and product coster VS intellectual/ historian).Nazamo 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXT and...
Hi! This is regarding the wikilinks in Kinetoscope. Ok, U.S., Paris, New York City may not nead wikilinks per WP:CONTEXT. But, "inch" does. This is a length unit that many people in the world do not use and so may not understand. A person with no knowledge of science may wish to see what a microscope is. Also, often languages are wikilinked (Greek in this article), this is especially important because the name of the article has Greek routes. So please consider wikilinking units and names of other machienes/technical terms (even if it is so common an instrument as microscope). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sound film...[smacks head]
This is very very very belated and stupid of me to have not seen before, but reading over the article again today, it hit me: there's been a major oversight in the history. There's almost nothing post-1933! No discussion of which sound-on-film format initially won and then later won in the long term. The technology section doesn't really cover variable density vs. variable area formats, and we've totally ignored all multi-channel sound formats, to say nothing of the digital craze of the recent decades. I know that sound film to a certain degree regards the coming of the sound film, but surely it also covers all developments in the birth and continued evolution of the technology? Don't get me wrong, your work has been great, and I'm very proud that we got it to FA and front page, but having just realized how much is missing, I feel like an idiot! :) What do you think should be done? Girolamo Savonarola 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that I'm not avoiding you; simply very busy with work (film hours are a bitch...), hence my recent dabs of editing activity. Will have loads of time come Xmas, so I'll be able to analyze the quotes, do some fresh research, and clarify my thoughts regarding article organization. Best, Girolamo Savonarola 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've considered the matter a bit more, and I do think that the article needs to discuss sound film through to the present. If the article were titled Development of sound film, then it could stand on its own. However, I don't think that this is necessarily so difficult - perhaps the current article can be placed under a top-level Development heading or something to that effect. We can then create a separate top-level heading for Technology, where the purely technical aspects of the system can be discussed (I would imagine). It would probably also be useful to have a section discussing the aesthetics and techniques which were further developed up until the present. Everything from magnetic sound to multichannel to the creation of the sound designer credit (Walter Murch). If all of this ultimately brings the page to a excessive size, we can always split it off into separate articles as need be - I don't think that it would be difficult to retain FA-status in that event, especially if everything is maintained at a quality-level similar to where it currently stands. Anyway, have a think about all this and let me know what your thoughts are. Girolamo Savonarola 09:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tykociner

 * The sound film and Tykociner edits today were a fine demonstration of collaborative editing. I added refs to the stubby Tykociner article when I noted he got no credit in the sound film article, then you put the info in the sound film article. If I recall correctly, pre-Tykociner sound on film used a mechanical shutter, reed relay, or other electromechanical device to modulate the light going to the film introducing distortion and limited frequency response, while Tykociner used an all electronic  process to modulate a gas discharge lamp. One source says he lef the movie business when the University President wanted all patent rights, but anothr source says he applied for a patent but it wasn't awarded until 1926. Edison 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that his publications from 1925 on were under the name "Joseph T. Tykociner" rather than the name now on the article. I suggest a move to the name he used professionally. His 1922 sound film was shown at the U of I in the early 1970's. It would be great to out it on the web so it could be linked to or viewed from the Wikipedia article, since it is still in the U of Illinois archives. Regards. Edison 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I had always thought his name would be pronounced "tie-ko-sinner" but has an interview with someone who said he knew him and who said the name was pronounced "tick-o-shinner." If you could add a phonetic key to pronouncing his name that would help readers who are unfamiliar with pronunciation of such names. Thanks. Edison 23:40, 17 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 00:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

DuMont Network
Hi DCGeist!

Thanks you so much for fixing this line. I think it is much improved. If there's anything else you think should be fixed (aside from the things we already discussed on the FAC), please don't hesitate to fix it, or contact me to have it fixed. Thank you again. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi DC,


 * I've cross-checked all of the info from the DuMont Network site with Ted Bergmann's book. There were a few changes, which I mentioned on the DuMont Network FAC. I'm sorry to bother you again, but if you have a chance, please do take another look. As I say, whatever you still object to, I will gladly fix. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester  23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe how helpful you've been. Thank you for your excellent suggestions. I'm so glad the article has met with your approval. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan,
 * Thanks for your comments on the DuMont Television Network FAC. You said what I should have said, and your points were really consise and clear. I agree with what you've written. I'm pretty sure that this FAC will fail (because from what I have seen, opposes from both Sandy and Tony usually doom a candidate article), but if any comments could possibly sway anyone's opinions at this point, it would be your words there. I want to thank you for all your helpful suggestions and ideas throughout this process, and most especially for your words tonight. If there is anything I can ever do for you, please let me know.
 * BTW, encouraging me to get the Bergmann book was more helpful than you know. Not only was I able to verify so much of the information in the article, the book also comes with a tiny little U.S. map showing locations of DuMont station affiliates at the end in 1955, which I will use to beef up the List of former DuMont Television Network affiliates.
 * Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  06:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan,
 * Thanks for your really encouraging note. I was really pretty upset, and I didn't want to mess with the article further. But you are exactly right: the article is what matters, and if it can reach FA status, that would be great both for the topic and for other TV-related articles. I had to look up "pettyfoggery" when you wrote it, having never encountered the word; I was glad you linked it! ;)
 * I really shouldn't have used the word "fuck" in my comment. It does make it look like I'm aggressive or escalating the situation. I don't want to do that. At the same time, several of the demands seemed unreasonable. But, as you say, it really won't hurt me to try to complete the references request. This article has come this far, thanks to your help and the help of all the other people who offered suggestions; a little further won't hurt.
 * BTW, yes of course I will take a look at the B movie FAC. Give me just a few minutes... Firsfron of Ronchester  00:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan! Congratulations on getting B movie featured! That is great! It's such a long, comprehensive article. I was really glad that my comments in the FAC were useful, even so late in the FA nomination. And I see from the history page that you are still refining the article!
 * As for the DuMont article, I guess you're right: there should be more images. I've seen a few lovely ones on-line, and am planning to write the owners for permission. I've also ordered Weinstein's book, to see if I can't squeeze out more info, or at least use it as a Reliable Source. After purchasing the Bergmann book, this will be the first Wikipedia project I've worked on to cost me over $60.00 bucks. My college library just received two older books which look like they may have useful information, too. So it will take me a few days to work this all into the article. I would really like to ask you to take a look at the article, because your suggestions and ideas were very helpful. BTW, did anyone ever mention you look a lot like David Schwimmer in your userpage image? :) Firsfron of Ronchester  18:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pulp
Pulp Fiction has been collaborating for the past week. All the easy sections are within 10% of "good enough" for GA except the production part with is the most difficult. I would greatly appreciate if you would give it a brief look over. And one more time then i'll quit - awesome work on midnight movie and B movie. Andman8 01:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sci-Fi - Film noir
Just wondering which literature your referrring to these films Alien3, Johnny Mneumonic & Terminator as neo Noir? I'm not an expert, only studied a few courses on it at uni, but if you'd point me in the right direction, I'd be appreciative.

Cheers Cameronmurtagh 10:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

M
I noticed the star hasn't appeared on the B movie article yet. I guess that takes time. If you're looking for really good early sound film you can't go wrong with M (film). Peter Lorre stars in it and after metropolis Fritz Lang can really do no wrong. The article has a source or two and some information but is light years away from GA/FA. I'm thinking about taking it up as a pet project. If you'd like to help that'd be great. Andman8 02:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

-That'd be wonderful. I have no library to hit as Katy has only existed for the past ten years so the conservative white middle class could have the allusion of security. My rant for the day - anyway -


 * If you could find info about the films production (script, pre/post production, shooting etc.) I think thats the most important part of any film article.
 * Specific dates would help like when principal photography began/ended and make sure the release date given is correct.
 * Breaking an influence section off from the reaction section and more info about the political effect and Nazi stuff.

One more thing, the b-movie article has more than enough info to make 3-4 featured articles. As it stands your work is a feat but a daunting one. I don't think a word should be deleted but rather put into a "B Movies in the Golden Age of Hollywood", Exploitation era, etc. and summarize the main article (quite the task). Just an idea but if you want to and need any help I'm here. Andman8 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

B-Movie
I am quite busy right now so I'll have to go into details some other time, but as the article stands now, it is clearly in violation of FA criteria 1) (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; 4) It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). It fact, not only is it overly large, it is now one of the longest articles in all of Wikipedia. At 127 kilobytes in length, it is almost as long as the article on World War II(!) and longer than the article on World War I. Additionally, the enormous amount of copyrighted pics is unacceptable. As soon as the 30-day waiting period has ended, I will be submitting this article to FA review. Regards, --Jayzel 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why on Earth would I apologize for saying I feel duped? I was. Stop changing the subject. One article was nominated for FAC and then two weeks later the article was completely rewritten into a mini-novel which never would have passed as it completely violates FA criteria. As for suggestions to improve the article, return it to a reasonable length. I'm on dial-up and it currently takes TWO minutes for the article to download! That's rediculous. FAs have standards here. Wikipedia has standards here. I am here to uphold those standards. If you don't want my opinion, don't nominate your articles for a community stamp of approval. My God, this article runs 127 Kilobytes! The previous largest FA Hurricane Katrina runs only 100 Kilobytes. WW I runs 94 kilobytes. There is no reason why an article on b-movies should be this large. As it stands, it is a joke and makes a mockery of the FA process. Lastly, my "busyiness" is none of your concern. Some people do have jobs and family. --Jayzel 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Mr. Geist, as they say, no good deed goes unpunished. In the humdrum, I do hope a few people will care about how good the article actually is. I put in my two bits in defense of this, coming from Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. – Outriggr § 06:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing personal DC. Overall, the writing is outstanding, but it's too much for an encyclopedic article. Please join in on the discussion at the page noted by Outriggr. --Jayzel 12:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are willing to listen, I have a couple ideas to trim down the size of the article without effecting it too much. Please let me know what you think of them. If possible, I would appreciate it if you implemented them yourself. The article is your baby and you know the subject matter better than myself.

Without a doubt, the info on C, Z, and psychotronic has to go. They each should be given their own articles and you can put links for them in the See also section. Second, the "Decline of the B" and "Digital age" sections should be combined and reduced down to no more than 5 paragraphs. Reading them, I feel this move would in no way effect the quality of the article. Lastly, while the issue of the number of pictures needs to be resolved at some point, the pictures need to be reduced in size in order to help speed up the overall downloading time of the article. If these suggestions of mine are implemented, I will withdraw my request for review. However, after these suggestions are implemented I will personally still try to find ways to streamline the other sections if it's possible without harming the integrity and quality of the article. Regards, --Jayzel 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the pic captions need to be trimmed. A lot of it is POV anyhow. --Jayzel 02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Punk rock
Great editing. Thank you, very much. I'm struggling to meet the FAR deadline to be honest, but with copy editors like you on board, and having left a note at WP:LoCE, might just scrape it yet! + Ceoil 23:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

B Movie Talk
Considering your large input on the article I put a maintaining tag on the article's talk page notifying users to contact you with questions or input. Hope that's ok. If you no longer actively keep track of the article or don't want it there just remove it. Quadzilla99 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the importance rating is not showing on the talk page when you click to edit the article it shows the rating of high however it says unassessed on the talk page. Somehow it's entered wrong. Quadzilla99 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you need assistance
Just wanted to let you know how much I admire the B movie article. I lurk/work at both FA/FAR, so I am aware of the difficulties you face with it at the present. If you need any help making changes, please feel free to call on me. Also, you may count on my support for keeping this article (or possible topic)at FA status. Jeffpw 10:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have to go back and read the entire article from start to finish tomorrow morning before I can offer any really constructive criticism, but as to the last sections, I think the material in C movies could be incorporated into the main article, or deleted in its entirety, Its emphasis seems to be more on crap made for tv, rather than authentic grindhouse fare. The Z movie portion, on the other hand, does add to the article, and there is some valuable material there. That's the only area where you really address Plan 9 From Outer Space, and you discuss Ed Wood the most in that section. If you want to delete that section, you'd need to include at least that material in another section.

It's almost midnight here and I have to get some sleep. I'll give you some more suggestions tomorrow. You've got ther luxury of time, since they won't send it to FAR for another couple of weeks, if at all. By the way, have you ever seen Wild in the Streets? My favorite B movie of all time! Jeffpw 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Punk infobox
My concern here is that grunge is generally accepted as an alternative rock subgenre, to the point that many of its artists (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc.) are synonymous with the genre as a whole. Another thing to note is that like many alternative sugenres of the 80s, of course it's going to have its roots in a punk subgenre like hardcore, because that's where alternative as a whole emerged from: punk rock. Additionally, this does not take into consideration that gothic rock developed along the same lines (except replace "hardcore" with "post-punk") even to the point of embracing heavy metal influences in the late 80s (oh, those Sisters of Mercy albums . . .) Basically, those are both covered by the alternative rock template, and that can be accessed anyway by clicking on alternative rock. It's just cutting down on the clutter and redundancy. WesleyDodds 11:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Commentary on the points you brought up:


 * A)While that may be your personal belief, (and something I agree with to a certain extent, given my research on the orgins of the term), it is still a valid genre classification used extensively in print and online.


 * B)Grunge's historical deviation is more specifically covered in the hardcore punk infobox.


 * C)More accurately, the punk rock revolution created the environment that allowed alternative to develop in the first place. After all, R.E.M. and Smiths don't direclty draw from punk or its subgenres much, but both groups were strongly influenced by punk and what it represented. And both those bands you listed were actually influenced by punk rock to an extent, and definitley by earlier alternative bands.


 * D)I agree with you to a point here, but just listing alternative rock also allows for the other hardcore derived non-grunge bands, ie. Husker Du, Replacements, Meat Puppets, Minutemen, Dinosaur Jr, etc. to be covered in the scope.


 * E)This is just flat-out wrong. When goth started, it in essence was just the darker post-punk bands (Bauhaus, the Banshees, the Cure, Birthday Party, etc.); this was before the goth subculture really got under way.  Even then the Batcave-era goth bands (Southern Death Cult and the like) were still classifiable as post-punk; the first feature on the scene by the NME even gave it the tentative name "positive punk".  And there was The Damned, the first British punk band to put out a single and album, who became a goth band. Depending on what reference you are looking at, bands like Killing Joke and Echo & the Bunnymen are also considered goth, and some even consider Joy Division the first goth band, given their massive influence on the genre. In contrast, grunge's origins are more complex then being derived directly from hardcore.  Mark Arm and others recall in Our Band Could Be Your Life that a lot of them at the time were rejecting hardcore orthodoxy, and grunge was created basically when those bands started listening to old garage rock, protopunk, and heavy metal.  The Melvins brought in a Black Sabbath influence pretty early, Mudhoney was influenced predominantly by the Stooges, Alice Cooper, and the Nuggets comp, and Soundgarden combined elements of Butthole Surfers, Bauhaus, and Led Zeppelin (although they would only admit to the first two in their early days). Grunge bands also listened to a lot of post-punk and noise rock; Kurt Cobain has described early Nirvana as a Scratch Acid and Gang of Four rip-off, and neither of those groups are hardcore.  WesleyDodds 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, when I said "flat-out wrong" I was refering to merely your interpretation of goth. Sorry about the confusion, it's just one of the things I've studied extensively (and I hope to shape up the gothic rock page in the immediate future) so i got kind of caught in a tangent.

I think we're getting sidetracked (though I do enjoy this discussion too). What I'm trying to convey is not simply "here's how these examples prove my point," it's more "this is what general references say and what is accepted, here's some example to clarify why this is so". Saying alternative rock isn't a sufficient genre term doesn't change the fact that it's been used as one for nearly 20 years. And while the exact boundaries of the genre are hard to pin down, it's generally agreed that grunge, goth, Britpop, indie rock, and shoegaze are alt-rock genres. Now, I can give you detailed examples of how these genres relate and so forth (it's a hobby of mine, it makes conversation working at a college radio station interesting), but that doesn't matter as much as he fat that I can open a book of rock music and find a chapter about alternative rock. And in those books, grunge is listed as a form, derivative of certain styles of punk, but alternative nonetheless. Simply put, music genres refer not merely to musical traits, but movements. Examples of rock movements where the bands might have relatively little in common stylistically are the British Invasion, the canterbury sound, Krautrock, New Wave, Britpop, and even grunge. As a movement, grunge was a post-hardcore alternative rock movement; that's why when grunge became big, alternative rock became widely popular as a whole. I understand your concerns about the meaning of the term "alternative" overall (God knows lots of people do; hell, Mike Watt complained about it on his talk page) and its use as a genre, but it's hard ot argue in the face of history. You know that Rolling Stone article from 1985 I cited in the alternative rock section of the punk rock page? It actually has the earliest appearance in print of the phrase "alternative rock" I have yet found (even then, it's citing a line from the Los Angeles Times).

I can go on about grunge (about how Nirvana's influences shifted from Black Flag/Scratch Acid to Aerosmith/Zeppelin to Pixies/R.E.M./Smithereens, or how Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains pretty much have no hardcore influence, or how by 1990 Sub Pop was one of the hottest labels in the alt-rock scene, without any connection to the burnt-out hardcore scene at the time) but what you should primarily consider is this is how it's been accepted for nearly two decades, and it's really not up to us to say "no, it should be classified this way", at least on Wikipedia. Personally I don't always agree with the intricacies of musical criticism and discourse (Why is the mod revival lumped in with New Wave? What makes the Strokes indie rock when they sound like a retarded garage rawk Television wannabe? Why is Depeche Mode considered an alternative band in some circles when they more or less existed outside of the indie scene, have no real stylistic connection with any of the alt-rock subgenres, and were considered a synthpop boy band in their home country for the whole of the 1980s?) but I'm not here to write down my own musical thesis.

That's the long reply. The short, less music nerd reply is "Grunge is one of the core genres of alt-rock and is discussed at length in the alt-rock article (which will also direct people to the main grunge article), so it's kinda pointless to list them both". That's my nerdy Wiki-navigation reply. WesleyDodds 09:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the Damned's goth phase covers the albums Phantasmagoria and Anything. Around that time they did a pretty nifty cover of Love's "Alone Again Or" too. Personally I prefer it to the original, but if I said that aloud I might lose my cred points. WesleyDodds 09:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

2-Tone defintely stays, unless we just want to lump it under New Wave, which it's a subgenre of anyway. I guess ska punk could cover it and the later ska-influenced waves for people interested in that sort of thing. The big names I always hear associated with anti-folk are Billy Bragg and Ani diFranco, and those two are alternative artists; other than that I don't know enough about the genre to make a judgement call. And deathcountry. . . oy vey -Gentile version-, that's one of those genres I think someone made a page for when they were bored one day. Unless clear, reliable references are discovered, we should AFD that thing. WesleyDodds 10:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I shouldn't have looked at the anti-folk page (cries). WesleyDodds 10:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Emo
You're right, my edit wasn't exactly accurate (I reverted it). I'm out of my depth here unfortunately. --P4k 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion on how to split (B movies)
i have an idea on how to reduce the article size, please see the article's talk page. cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.237.186 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Female punk vocalists
I'm short an adjective for sure, maybe 'aggressive'? I'm thinking of Horses, Siouxsie Sou's braless, dominatrix image, as well as Ari Up's clitorial tendancies. I'm travelling at the moment, don't have the books with me; can you can develop, or I can expand the point over the weekend. I'm impressed by what you've done with the article so far, but the UK first wave needs some work still, which I can do; really don't think it deserves to be section split with Australia. Either the Saints were a proto punk band, or a first wave band deserving equal billing with Sex Pistols, Clash, Buzzcocks etc, but not both. + Ceoil 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BTY, your 'despite' comment lists four examples, and there are more. + Ceoil 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the Pistols didn't innovate a whole lot musically (say, compared to Ramones, or the Heartbreakers); it was all attitude and hype. However, I can definitely work on the UK section, (though my sympathy is with N.I.'s SLF, and R.O.I.'s Virgin Prunes, rather than thoes London bands). But to avoid ip wars on talk, would like to restore the UK to its own dedicated section. It should, however mention that early punk was fashion and aestheticly driven. I got caught up with something else over the week, but I need to work on an expanded UK perspective in the coming days. + Ceoil 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Punk rock FAR

 * "Let me know if you ever have any other projects I might help out on" - You just might live to regret that offer! Editors with your ability are in short supply. + Ceoil 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Drake
Bloody told ya. Would appreciate a quick copy check over this, soon an FAC. + Ceoil 03:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mutual Broadcasting System
Holy cow, DC! Why didn't you tell me you were nominating Mutual for FA? Defunct broadcasting companies are, heh, one of my interests on Wikipedia. The adjustments you've made have been excellent, in my opinion. I'll try to give the article a good looking-over today and weigh in. This is awesome! Firsfron of Ronchester 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've weighed in. I think the article looks great, and I hope other supporters will chime in; you've really made this into a great article. BTW, I am the original author of Wikipedia's articles on the Progressive Broadcasting System (defunct radio network), Paramount Television Network (defunct television network), possibly some others. I notice when you work on an article, you really expand it. When/if you have a chance, could you give these a look? You don't have to, of course, but you seem to have a knack (or talent) for writing thorough articles, and these two could certainly use some work. It's just a thought, of course, and I don't want to impose, but you do seem to be interested in the subject. Anyway, just an idea. Take care and good luck on the FAC! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw your comments here. Hang in there and don't give up! I'm not sure how to help, but I'd love to see this article become Featured. Firsfron of Ronchester  07:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, Dan. Regarding your comments on the Mutual FAC page, I also think Sandy confused notes for citations, and there are other issues with this objection. For example, on note [3] ^ Robinson (1979), 28; Cox (2002), 177; Some History of the Mutual Broadcasting System, if the note portion is mistaken for a citation, it still doesn't violate WP:RS since there are multiple other citations there to back up the statement. On other sources, once again, I think Sandy believes sites like this are just self-published "hobby" web sites without fact-checking or error correction. It's clear that's not the case, but I'm not sure how you can show otherwise. If there's some way I can help, I would be glad to.
 * When Mutual is finally a Featured Article, I would be very glad for your input and/or assistance on these other articles. I have not forgotten about DuMont, and am slowly obtaining photos, as you (wisely) indicated more images might help. The nice folks on allowed use of an image of a DuMont Telecruiser in 1953, which I've added to the article, and I'm working on others. I realize the references will still need work, and am planning on using Weinstein's book for some of the sources which were deemed "unreliable".
 * Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Radio portal
Would you be interested in writing a couple paragraph introduction for the radio portal? From your work to date, it seems you would be one of the more qualified people to work on it. By the way, I added the MBS article to the selected article rotation. --PhantomS 04:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very top of the radio portal, in the intro box, if you could write a concise history of radio and its uses today, similar to Portal:Photography with a bit of Portal:Food. Typically the beginning of the radio article would be used for this section; however, that article needs major work and can't readily be used. (It's already been placed in the collaboration section on the project page.) Essentially, you are writing an intro for the radio article simultaneously. --PhantomS 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

From A through B
For reference, in the UK-idiom "From A through B to C" means "Starting at A, passing via B, and ending at C". To someone used to this idiom, "through " looks particularly awkward, which is why most internet sites seem to have compromised on "through to ", which is grammatically correct in neither the U.S. nor the UK, but is readable by both. Bluap 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Film Noir (2)
The Devil Is a Woman

"'Is', as a conjugated verb, is always capped in title style--despite being but two letters long; great works on the dabs!!)" - so do you want to change it in the article it links to as well? :) -- SteveCrook 10:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

B-movies
Hi Dan, I wanted to let you know that you are doing excellent research and writing in the B-movies article. And here I thought your main interest in films was film noir (from your extensive rewriting and research for the film noir article)! You have an extensive knowledge of the history of B-movies......I wanted to let you know that there is another film article in need of your help: art film. I have tried to do a rough first draft of improving it, adding in definitions, laying out some of the challenges of defining art film (the term is often conflated with independent film, auteur films, experimental film, etc.), listing some of the formal features associated with art film, etc. But it is just a start, done by doing some quick Internet research. The art film article needs contributions from experienced film history/film theory writers like you!Nazamo 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rip it Up and Start Again
Just for fun. ..

I found out originally about the differences between the British and American versions of the book when I visited the website. I'm not entirely sure why the US version is shorter, be it due to publisher's concerns about length or because Reynolds re-evaluated portions of the book in the interim. The latter seems likely to me, because the key missing chapters I noticed were the Buzzcocks/Magazine chapter and the chapter on American hardcore and underground rock (Husker Du, Minutemen, Mission of Burma). The former focuses partly on a first wave punk band (although I would have liked to have read about Magazine) and the latter pretty much covers early alternative rock. In the US version Mission of Burma is moved to a chapter that also covers Wire and Talking Heads (It's called "Art Attacks". Because they all had arty tendencies, see?), while the other bands are skimmed over in the Afterword (which I believe is also missing from the Uk version) which juxtaposes alternative rock and New Wave/post-punk to support his thesis that the rise of alternative/indie rock was symbolic of an embrace of music of the past after it had been largely rejected by the modernism and futurism of New Wave and post-punk. He has some interesting points (my favorite, which I've been trying to find a way to work into the alternative rock article is, "And while not explicitly retro, the Smiths and R.E.M.--the two most important alt-rock bands of the day--did seem sixties-redolent because of their plangent guitar chimes and folk-styled vocals. R.E.M. and the Smiths were eighties band only in the sense that they were against the Eighties.") but what I find really funny about the Afterword is that when he's describing the retro tendencies of many alternative bands, he seems to really not like the Jesus and Mary Chain. Like, violently. WesleyDodds 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I love the Mary Chain too, and he does seem to like Psychocandy for what it is: "the two elements of their sound--the noise and the pop--not really integrated at all". His main objection is "But when JAMC stripped away the torrential head rush to leave their songs exposed, what remain was pure blank homage."


 * Nevertheless, my favorite Mary Chain song happens to be "Head On". Yes, even with the shitty synthesized bassline.  Get a real bass player, fuckers. WesleyDodds 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Film noir article in the Simple English Wikipedia
Hi Dan, I wanted to let you know that I have posted a very simplified, abbreviated version of the Film Noir article on the Simple English Wikipedia. This wiki site is for children, adults with learning disabilities, and people learning English, so everything has to be simplified. It is at:Nazamo 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit help
Mind giving The Smashing Pumpkins a look? I've been working on it for a long time and I'd like to nominate it for FAC sometime in the near future. WesleyDodds 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. Do you think I should bring it up to FAC yet?


 * I'm beginning to wonder how long it will be until I see you working on the DuMont Network. WesleyDodds 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the ISBN numbers now; I'm usually good about covering that, so I'm surprised I missed it. If you can make the footnotes uniform that would be a great help. Another editor and I are primarily responsible for the citations, but a consistency problems has arisen because I tend use full dates (January 31, 2007) while he uses numbers (01-31-07). WesleyDodds 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally (and I'm not sure I've picked this up as a result of skimming through Wiki essays and guidelines before) I think it's best to only list the sources in the "Sources" section that the construction of the article heavily relies on. Most everything else is a magazine article where I've only referenced a line or two. Plus that would lead to the sources section being insanely large. I think a comparable example is another alt-rock FA, Pixies, where there's plenty of notes, but only the major secondary sources are listed since they form the basis of the article, while everything else is there to verify particular facts. Am I making sense? Because I think I just confused myself.

(Oh, and right now my digital cable "retro-active" station is playing that Peter Gabriel song from Say Anything, which makes the typing of this strangely epic for me) WesleyDodds 08:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do need the detail provided in the footnotes, at least for the first mention of a particular referenced work. In the case of the Greg Kot article, where it's referenced a number of times and listed as a primary source, we still have to list the full authorship details twice (once in the "Sources" section, and also in the Footnotes). Citation guidelines and all that. I figure it's for those people who want to click on the individual footnotes and not bother checking out the sources section. WesleyDodds 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to watch the DVD again, but the point I was trying to get across was around Gish they played heavy rock with psychedelic touches just because it was so unhip to do so at the time. Although no one's said anything explicitly, I can image it was an especially unhip approach in Chicago at the time, when dudes like Steve Albini and Al Jourgensen defined the local music scene. WesleyDodds 19:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, in the video commentary Corgan says "we were pretty much in the psychedelic mindset at that point because we were taking loads of LSD." Chamberlin says "Being psychedelic was really cool back then, so we were, of course, wearing lots of paisley." Corgan then says "In typical Pumpkins fashion, no one at that point really liked loud guitars or psychedelic music so of course that's exactly what we had to do." WesleyDodds 04:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I recall reading elsewhere that Corgan did indeed take a lot of acid around 1990-1991. WesleyDodds 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mutual Broadcasting System grammar
The following are some suggested grammar corrections. By the way, ', with' seems to be used more than it probably should; you might want to look into if the comma is appropriate in all the uses.

Of the four national networks of American radio's classic era, Mutual for decades had the largest number of affiliates but the least certain financial position. - It sounds like 'for decades' should be moved after 'had'.

In January 1937, ownership of WAAB was consolidated with that of Shepard's other Boston station, WNAC, flagship of the Yankee Network, a different, but overlapping circuit of New England radio stations. - This seems like comma splicing.

rivaling in quality if not budget the industry leaders - It sounds like 'the industry leaders' should be moved to after 'rivaling'.

Nick Carter, Master Detective, it would be a net - A semicolon is missing after 'Master Detective'.

That year as well, - '''It sounds like it should be 'in that year'. Possible phrasing: 'In addition, in that year' '''

Mutual was at this point by far the largest U.S. radio network in affiliate numbers - The phrase 'by far' should be separated by commas.

Commercial rates had been cut; limited sponsorship packages had been introduced, in which an advertiser could back a show for an abbreviated period rather than an entire season—but there was no reversing the trend. - You might want to look at rephrasing this sentence a bit.

in 1979, as well, Mutual reached its greatest number of affiliates—950. - '''The phrase 'as well' doesn't sound right here. You might want to use something else.'''

King continued his MBS call-in show for years even as he also began appearing on television in the mid-1980s. - '''There should be a comma between years and even. In addition, 'also' should be cut.'''

--PhantomS 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter
The January 2007 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. Nehrams2020 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WildMen'sDanceExcerpt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WildMen'sDanceExcerpt.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mutual Broadcasting System

 * Congratulations on MBS being promoted to featured article status. --PhantomS 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Add mine to the pile of congratulations for your hard work on this excellent article. Well done! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Future work
I appreciate all your assistance on The Smashing Pumpkins. While your primary Wiki interest is obviously film (and old cinema at that) you do seem pretty knowledgable about rock music. If there's a rock music article you want to work on together in the future, let me know. I'm aiming to type up a list of books I own to put up on a user subpage in order to give other editors an idea of what I can lend a hand on. Yes, I can also always go to my university library and check stuff out, but it's good for people to know I always keep stuff like Rip it Up and Start Again, some R.E.M. books, collections of alternative rock articles, some back issues of SPIN and Guitar World, and John Harris' Britpop book less then ten feet away from me whenever I'm on the computer. WesleyDodds 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a preliminary list of source material here. WesleyDodds 05:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Panavision ce
Great work! Response to you on my talk page. LACameraman 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

SP FAC
I might ask for help addressing whatever comments I get here in the next few days: Featured article candidates/The Smashing Pumpkins WesleyDodds 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, a lot of random crap is being added now. I'll try to keep on top of it.  Also, someone objected on the FAC due to fair use rationales, so I looked through the pictures and found two without any: the infobox picture and the screencap from the live performance.  I don't know how to handle adding fair use rationales because I'm always afraid of phrasing things wrong or forgetting an important point. WesleyDodds 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * . . . and we need them for the soundclips, a la recent FA unsigned comment was added by WesleyDodds (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I had an idea for a music videos section, which I've now posted on the talk page. I've sandboxed a structure here. Feel free to edit it. WesleyDodds 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this new licensing decree is one huge clusterfuck. I've browsed through the discussion on the talk page of WP:Fair use. As someone who's always focused on the prose aspects of articles, I've never had a problem wiht my writing being essentially "free". However, I have to strongly agree with you that the new Wikipedia Foundation approach to licensing and fair use is highly inmpractical. How else do you comprehensively cover copyrighted material? I mean, it's not just this article (even though we've all put a lot of work into it). Imagine if we ever tried to get My Bloody Valentine featured but couldn't because the band was still technically "active" and thus we "should" be able to get free images (Ignorning the fact that they haven't been in the the same room since 1993 or so), or the soundclips weren't considered essential enough (despte us being able to find many citations on their musical innovations). I'm imagining the repercussions now on everything from Coca-Cola to Harry Potter to Star Wars to Batman to Pokemon. WesleyDodds 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

B movies
Just thought I would send a note to you thanking you for making all the b-movie fork articles. They're really great. Keep it up.--Tainter 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Panavision
Same here. It was great having another user (along with LACameraman) skilled in the field of motion pictures/filming on the case; I know litle about the subject. Good luck with your future featured article pushes! &mdash; Deckiller 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A user just made some fairly significant edits to the article's prose. They generally look solid, but I disagree with a couple of them. What do you think? &mdash; Deckiller 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks
I truly thought I'd added a rationale when I uploaded that live performance image in the smashing pumpkins article. Thank you so much for adding such a well-worded rationale in my forgetfulness! You rock. - Phorque 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

B movie FAR
B movie has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan; I love the article, it's been an inspiration for me to go back to writing featured articles. I'd love to help out where or when I can. &mdash; Deckiller 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Network
Hi Dan,

I must apologise for the spectacular lateness of this reply - I've been really busy with university work and things and I'm not entirely sure how I managed to miss your message in its first instance. Is this still an issue you require some help with, or am arriving somewhat too late? Let me know, and sorry again. -  DJR  ( T ) 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Farewell
I had a fun two years with wikipedia but am leaving to find greener (literally) pastures. Centiare.com is the future of wiki and the internet as a whole. You are the most intelligent person I've met on wikipedia by far. It's a very select group that actually enjoy black and white movies in another language. I emplore you to join me or at least check out centiare. It uses the exact same software as wikipedia plus several new features like semantic tagging which puts your pages at the top of search results. My name is now the first hit out of 24,000! You can create and promote yourself or your company. Made my own article Garrett Minks and dozens of others. My france article is the featured article today and has given me over 1,000 google adsense hits! Also I've created pages with public domain google movies embedded in them as well as posters and info. See Night of the living dead as an example. Just imagine the possibilites. Whatever you choose I wish you the best. Andman8 22:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues with User:Deathrocker
I don't have the time (nor am I in the mood) to jump too much into this issue by issuing 3RR blocks and whatnot, but what is going on between you and User:Deathrocker? He stated that he is placing these warnings in good faith and that you are doing personal attacks, yet he just changed your userpage with the talkpage. However, he does have a point that you were possibly too harsh in your edit summaries, and you could be called out for that. Please stay cool and don't escalate the situation from your end; I'm going to talk to him and make sure he drops the issue so that everyone can go on to more important, mature things. &mdash; Deckiller 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've told him that the images would be taken care of by other users. Now, on to the images; they do need links to the webpages where you obtained them. Please provide the links so this can be resolved. &mdash; Deckiller 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; I called him out on his talkpage for more or less trolling, and told him to drop the issue. I made it clear that I cannot AGF on his end, and that I can understand your frustration. I'm forced to remain neutral though, because of a group of rather conservative people who will call admins out on any questionable action. &mdash; Deckiller 11:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Deathrocker record
Preceding the trolling assault of february 25, 2007: To verify the nature of Deathrocker's reverts to B movie, The Jazz Singer, and Hollywood blacklist, you may note his utter lack of interest in those articles outside of reverting me and compare the timing of his actions there to activity on Template:Punkbox, whose edit war is the sole source of the situation.
 * spiteful revert to B movie
 * additional spiteful revert to B movie
 * spiteful revert to The Jazz Singer (1927 film)
 * spiteful revert to Hollywood blacklist
 * comments on the Punk rock talk page

Deathrocker clearly took his recent extreme measures when Ceoil for the first time reverted him on the template and Deathrocker realized his cause there was in deep trouble. It is also easy to determine from the history on February 25/26 that Deathrocker undoubtedly put my Talk page on his watchlist, which we might say is a very, very odd thing to do.—DCGeist 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)