User talk:Dawgknot

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 17:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * babel
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi there. I'm Dawgknot. Don't hesitate to leave a message for me here.

Everything has been moved to a different article intact, nothing has been deleted. I should probably make that clear... pookster11 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Block
Thanks anyway. Requested protection and then arbitration a while ago. Not even sure what the other guy was complaining about; his story was included and everything was put someplace else so... I don't know. Got caught up in the moment maybe. Thanks again though Devil. pookster11 04:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Iraq Invasion
Welcome to Wikipedia! Concerning the article you mentioned on my talk page, I appologize for any inconvienience, but I saw a relatively large edit with no edit summary. If you are leading this effort, which you give the impression of, please help us in the RC Patrol by encouraging everyone to use edit summaries. Thank you. --Zsinj 06:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a plain fact that an overwhelming majority of legal experts say the war was illegal. There are sources present. I do try to write in the article that the war was illegal as no court has decided about the question. Some of pookster's edits were clearly not neutral, e.g. deleting the whole dispute from the intro while leaving the ten year old resolutions as if they were a justification. Ever thought about whether it is a good idea to have an article about a war that most people all over the world see as aggression dominated by soldiers of one of the conflicting parties? 84.59.88.9 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Being sick has its advantages in this case, I suppose. Semper Fi. pookster11 00:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The question of legitimacy is pivotal to the invasion and needs to be addressed appropriately in the article. I never asked for more and you cannot deny that enumerating 10 year old resolutions while deleting the information that the final one did not pass and that the invasion was therefore charged as illegal is not neutral. 84.59.88.9 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you think my statement that your edits are not neutral shows in any way that mine are not neutral. I stand to my opinion that it is sick to have an article about something most people in the world see as a crime dominated by those who participated in it. We would not want to have an article about Mao written by his followers either. 84.59.67.92 00:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not everyone, right now its just one guy, and its understandable; from the looks of it the page was, for a long time, unfortunately a place to debate the war, which is not what this should be about. Trying to streamline and get everything back on topic is going to be tough because so many people worked hard to get themselves heard about some stupid thing they thought was important. pookster11 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right in that there is currently only one guy showing you that the US military make break international law but cannot use wikipedia articles as easily for its propaganda. You are completely wrong if you deny that most people in the world, and also most legal experts, see the Iraq war as a war of aggression. There are sources for it, just read. 84.59.67.92 02:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your attempt on the bombing of journalists. As you had a link to the same source twice and as you had an unnecessary quote from an unimportant individual I am not ok with it, but I see your good faith. I am sorry that I reverted the whole thing, pookster11's thousands rewrites and deletions are just to tedious to follow. I advise both of you to first work it out on talk rather than make big changes so quickly that one can already guess about their quality. They get reverted anyway, so why steal us the time? 84.59.67.92 04:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but a soldier from one of the conflicting parties should not be allowed to rewrite the whole article unless he shows he can do so neutrally. pookster11 has shown he cannot by deleting the neutrality dispute tag as well as the discussion about it and the warning on his talk page. He breaks the three revert rule and makes false claims about moving material elsewhere he just deleted. I think he should just sleep over it and then discuss it at talk. If he wants to show us a better version he can do so in the sandbox. 84.59.67.92 04:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith mr. anonymous. And stop trying to lecture people on how to properly use wikipedia when you can't even do it yourself. Don't tell people to discuss things at talk if you won't let them do it without belittling them and insulting them. Swatjester 18:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what good a temp article would do. The "final" version is there for everyone to see, as has been noted on the talk page. As far as the reorganization of the entire Iraq war category, its something that needs to be done along the lines of the WWII article, a central article with summaries and links to in depth articles on particular topics, but as this has shown one user, wo isn't even registered, can hijack the entire process and cause a headache for everyone involved and frankly in the end its not worth it. If Wiki admins want to allow a craptacular series of articles about the current conflict, something that inevitably will be accessed regularly, and allow the process to be taken over by partisans, its their encyclopedia and its their choice. pookster11 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I accidentally deleted your comment while adding my own in. I readded it in (I'm referring to the one you asked on my talk page about). Sorry Swatjester 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Media coverage article
Another section to be organized later? Come on, no wiki article should ever have a heading like that. 84.59.67.92 02:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved the bombing to its relevant section within the invasion. I like the shortness. It shouldn't be its own heading though, and I'm not even sure its relevant to the topic, but ah well. pookster11 04:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan (radical?)
Can you please give me a specific link where people on Wikipedia decided it was okay to refer to someone as a "radical lawyer"? -- Cyde Weys 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Military and Iraq invasion
Hi there, just went over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq. What a mess this has become. I appreciate your work I just think that the anon user had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat. Get-back-world-respect 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't buy your argument about who or who should not edit an article about the Iraq war. It's the final fair and balanced result that matters far more than the pedigree of who is responsible for it. I have the same misgivings about the article being dominated by Euro-centric anit-war types who want to use the page as a debating platform for their anti-Americanism.  That notwithstanding, it is the final product that matters and I try always to assume good faith.  You should too.Dawgknot 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not my argument about who should edit the article, the anon brought that up. And I see that he can easily try to turn it against you. I also see that you have difficulties to accept that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a propaganda term. So I invited some others. By the way, as for as I noted, few of them were Europeans, some Americans who apparently do not belong to the military, and some from Australia and New Zealand. That way no one should worry, right? Get-back-world-respect 02:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends...are they all leftists? Are any of them right-wing? Just cause you spread geographical locations around doesn't mean that they're a fair group. Swatjester 11:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I do not think I am the one to find a balanced group here, I only saw someone complained about the article being dominated by three guys who all belong to the military of one side of the conflict. As I see why this may be a point of concern I asked others who had also edited on the page. Get-back-world-respect 13:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Heads up
Just a heads up, User:Get-back-world-respect is rounding up the lynch mob on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article.


 * Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

DTC 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just look above, I already told them. Get-back-world-respect 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Spirit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:The Spirit (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I recognize that I've exhausted my own 3RR limit as well, but I am informing you of your own limit. I reverted you because it has never been commonplace to list executive and/or associate producers in Wikipedia's film articles unless they have some direct bearing on the project, and I can think of no examples.  If you want to have discussion about this matter, please act civilly and respond on the article's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've worked on a good number of film articles, and I believe in establishing real-world context for players involved with a film. Basically, I would not name someone like the cinematographer or the set designer in the article unless it can be reflected by an independent, secondary source what they actually did.  In reviewing The Spirit, I think I would actually proceed to remove Gigi Pritzker and Deborah Del Pete from the body of the article, as their involvement is not as detailed as Uslan's involvement.  (You can see that Uslan is mentioned twice more in the article, where the other two producers' roles have not been defined with any real-world context.)  Let's see where the initiated discussion leads us first. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the trade papers' coverage necessarily reflect encyclopedic value. Just because it is covered does not necessarily warrant inclusion in the encyclopedic sense.  American Cinematographer reported a lot of filming and production detail about Road to Perdition like the kind of bulbs used, but that information does not make it into the article.  That's why I'm advocating the exclusion of the names besides Uslan, who has shown continued involvement in this project.  Instead of trying to determine who actually contributed to the project, we can let facts speak for themselves, like Uslan's acts.  Of course, for listing in Template:Infobox Film, it comes down to whether executive producers should be listed at all or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at The Spirit (film)]]. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. - Philippe &#124; Talk 22:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fifth revert
Can I just point out that due to your recent edit to The Spirit (film), you have, in fact, performed your fifth revert on the article within a 24 hour period. Wikipedia's three revert rule specifies that an editor may not perform more than three reverts within a 24 hour period (except in certain specified cirumstances relating to copyright abuse, vandalism etc).

You have already received a 12 hour block for exceeding the three revert limit. Please reconsider your actions. Thank you. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 13:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:3RR, as your recent complaint seemed to reflect your misunderstanding of the rule. I reverted you only three times, and I stopped after that, leaving a message on the talk page to ask for help from any other editors that happen to be watching the article.  You continued past your limit of three reverts (even doing a fifth one within 24 hours after your 12-hour block; you could be blocked even now), so that is why you were blocked and I wasn't.  I've provided you a link to discussion about the listings of producers, so let's figure out the community's opinions on this matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 12:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:
Erik didn't ask me for support, he asked me to weigh my opinion. We don't always agree, we simply respect each other's work and happen to work on a lot of articles together because of it. I told you what I think on that page. Erik and I are not discussing the matter on my talk page, or his talk page. He simply asked for my opinion. Do not try and turn this into a CABAL, which it isn't. It wasn't like he was vote stacking. I believe my opinion is clear. If someone can show that a producer actually did something significant, beyond just giving some money, great. Simply having their name mentioned does not show what they did.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: Since you are interested in giving all the subsidiary producers recognition, are you telling me that you would support 300 having thirteen names listed under the producer attribute alone in the Infobox? Ideally, the information in the Infobox needs to be kept as concise as possible, so thirteen names under one attribute is not concise.  The only reasonable cap is to limit it to "classic" producers, and obviously consistency needs to be established.  You're right, the subsidiary producers do unheralded work, but to argue their importance over the other positions I've mentioned may be too subjective.  In addition, the names of the subsidiary producers are generally focused on the trade papers; the sources that you found reiterate that information.  It's impossible to share my experience working with film articles on Wikipedia, but I'm aware that reiterating producers' names in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter is the industry standard.  You've seen what others say, that there ought to be independent, significant coverage about what any subsidiary producer did for the project to warrant a mention.  Nothing that's been shared about the subsidiary producers' contributions to The Spirit besides their names.  We've established that there are a lot of people involved with such a project, and you've argued that these subsidiary producers have more weight than anyone else, which seems opinionated.  There needs to be more varied opinions weighing in on this matter, and these WikiProject communities are not always so quick.  I tried to initiate wider discussion, but it's been limited to four of us.  So can you please do me a favor and stop throwing WP:OWN around?  I initially didn't want to contact Bignole because I had the feeling he'd agree with me, and I didn't want to canvass anyone.  Maybe if we had the whole discussion placed on the project mainspace instead of a link off the mainspace, we'd get more feedback. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the burden of the editor is not to disprove anything, but to prove (see WP:V). You have to prove that they did more than just give money. Your own definition, supplied in that discussion says clearly that all they have to do is give at least 25% of the costs. Great. I'm sure the film needed the money, but it has nothing to do with actually making the film. We need verifiable evidence that shows they had an actual hand in the making of this film, whether that be helping in post-production, pre-production (i.e. writing, casting, hiring of personel), or plain ol' production production. Someone getting their name mentioned as a sidebar doesn't show a single thing, other than their name. What you are saying is that if someone mentions that a television episode will air on a certain date, and that information is recited by a dozen different news organizations, then we should have an article devoted to that episode, because obviously that proves that episode is notable enough to have its own article. It doesn't. It proves the episode aired, just like a dozen magazines merely mentioning a person as producer only serves to show that they are a producer, and not what they actually do for the film itself. What if the Best Boy actually did more work than they did? You don't know that because those sources don't say anything about what they actually did. You can have producer credit and not step foot in the production arena, or even have a phone call beyond the "you get producer credit because you gave us a lot of money".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Returned the act. I'm still in disagreement with your stance, but we'll see if the community has any fresh perspectives to offer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the trade press doesn't say what they do, then it also doesn't say why they are mentioning them. If the trade press mentioned a Best Boy, would you want him included as well? I agree, it's confusing to say "we can have him, but not him". Personally, as I said there, I'd rather see all producers go. They are usually the money handlers, and, unless they have no faith in the director whatsoever, are not generally up in the nitty gritty like a director. I'd prefer just a mention of the basic key players, which would be the writer and the director.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It clearly says on there "at least one of these two". Well, one of those two says:  Having secured an essential and proportionally significant part (no less than 25%) of the financing for the motion picture; -- that means all they have to do is provide at least 25% of the money. That means, there is easily the possibility that all they did was give money. That definition doesn't say you have to fit both criteria, just one. Making a "significant contribution" does not mean that the contribution isn't a "significant" monetary contribution. That is what you missing. The definition is vague for a reason, because sometimes people get credit for not doing a single thing on the film itself.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My issue with the reiteration of names in the trade papers is that there is almost never elaboration beyond these names. I don't think that anyone disputes that the "classic" producer shouldn't be listed, but in my work with film articles, there is not an enormous amount of coverage about the specific collaborations of subsidiary producers. Transformers was one example, and before I removed Kathleen Kennedy from Schindler's List yesterday, I researched briefly to see if there were any notable connections between her in the film. I didn't find any, even though I'm aware that Kathleen Kennedy has a big resume, so I removed it. I looked at her producer credits and Spielberg's credits, and they've been involved with a few projects as executive producers, but not many of them seemed compelling. (This is just my opinion here, of course.) I suppose my view of writing these film articles is to provide detailed information about how a film resulted. Listing subsidiary producers' names in the body of the article or the Infobox doesn't provide any insight about what they did. I didn't choose the attributes for the Infobox Film template, and I think that anyone can argue a case for inclusion. (They have Academy Awards for Costume Design, there should be a costume designer attribute!) I just believe that there needs to be more than just a name to warrant inclusion in the article. I've come across coverage that mention the names of set designers and costume designers in passing, not to mention special effects houses, but I don't incorporate that information unless it can be reflected specifically what they've significantly done for this project. I've just edited Fight Club (film) to mention Arnon Milchan (as I was not aware he was an executive producer for the film, but he was part of the film's financial issues). Ideally, it would be nice to have a full-fledged film article, then to incorporate what seems to have been the most covered players in a project (everyone noticed that this cinematographer did a great job, or this editor got an Oscar for his work, etc), but the Infobox tends to be a concise plug-and-chug spot. Ultimately, I'm probably opposing you because your suggestion seems contrary to what I've seen makes good film articles (not just my contributions, but others') with its indiscriminate nature. I'd just like it to be more than names -- we're not record keepers of everything that took place in production, but of what factors shaped the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me explain this clearly, and then it's the last I will say on the matter as I've given you my opinion and I don't particular want to be hounded about it any futher. If you don't like it, or agree with it, I don't really care. I have much more important things to do right now. The very first part of that definition: who has made a significant contribution to the motion picture IS VAGUE, and done so for a reason. Does it say what qualifies as significant? Does the trade paper say what these people are doing, or is the trade paper simply identifying them as executive producers? A significant contribution can be anything the, now this is where you need to pay attention, studio deems as signficant. The PGA (haha, that's a funny acronym) The PGA is a union, like the SAG, and the one for directors. If you are not a part of it, it doesn't matter. You can still be a producer, you just will not have the support of the PGA. If someone is a member, and they work on a film but do not get rightful credit, then the PGA goes to bat for them and gets it. If Bill Gates decided to produce a film, he wouldn't have to register with the PGA. It's a privilege, not a mandate. That being said, back to my point, because of this, anyone can be deemed an "executive" if someone simply says "it was significant". Something "significant" is not defined, and can be as minor as a idea for a scene that makes the movie. Someone may say, "hey, we cannot give you writing credit, but we can make you a producer". Notice the difference betwen an Associate producer and an Executive. Both have to deal with something "significant" in the production, but the Executive has the added bit about monetary gifts. Make no mistake, money plays a role in landing this title. That isn't to say that there are not Executive Producers who truly should be recognized, I'm not downplaying the role. I'm simply pointing out the intentional vagueness of the definition. Anything can be deemed significant, unless you have some scale you are measuring the contributions on. Now, you keep talking about how I have to have verifiable evidence for something. No, I told you, the burden is on the adder, not the subtractor. You have trade papers, great, they are very reliable. But the kicker relies in the information they report. They can report whatever they want, and I wouldn't begin to try and understand their logic for a decision they make, and neither should you. You are saying, "well they thought they were important". Ok, I get that, but "they" are not "Wikipedia", and we have to have substance, otherwise it is just indiscriminate information. Does the trade paper explain what it is these guys did for the films in question? If so, that's a start to showing their significance to the film. If the trade paper just mentions them by name, then it doesn't prove a single thing about what "their" significant contribution was. Since you can get away with simply providing monetary suppliment, and receive executive status for it, then you have to provide verifiable evidence that they actually did something beyond providing money to the film. I, and no other editor, has to prove they didn't. The burden of evidence lies with you, because you are claiming something that may not be supported by your sources. I haven't viewed the trade papers, and I have no intention on doing so. I've got too much stuff to do right now (i've already wasted enough time with this trivial debate). If you want the executives added, then they have to show that they did something other than give money. Otherwise, we'll have a list half the page long for some movies, who have tons of monetary contributors that received that title. Maybe you'll find more support on the new page the discussion has moved to. If so, great. It doesn't bother me if it changes. It's minor compared to the real problems most articles have. I'm sorry if this came off as jerkish, I'm just tired. Happy editing, and I hope you, Erik, Girolamo, and anyone else that joins the discussion can work out a reasonable solution to this. I do agree with you that there should be consistency among the articles though. I find that most of these articles are just going to IMDb and grabbing who names are listed there.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your most recent message regarding The Spirit
I'm sorry you feel I've not paid sufficient note to your communications,* but I can assure you I've been monitoring the relevant discussions to see whether there was something to shift my current thinking. At present I still feel that the lack of a source to the effect that those names have made a notable contribution to the production means there is no mandate to include them. As such, with a lack of project consensus, I'm not inclined to revert myself.

*Just to put this in perspective for you, I've presently had more direct exchanges with you than with anyone else working on the cinema articles on my watchlist. I currently tend to take a back seat on film discussions unless I feel my opinion definitely needs stating or re-stating. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've told you I'm monitoring the discussions and I've mentioned the conditions under which I'm likely to join in (ie. when I feel it's necessary). Those are my rules of engagement: refusing to understand them is not helpful to your case. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for July has been published.  August's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

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


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!
 * Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

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! Nehrams2020 00:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The August 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. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call
Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add   to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing! An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
The September 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 22:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!