User talk:EconomicsGuy/Archive Dec 2007

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

monobook.js edit
Hi, I just edited your monobook.js page and added some commented nowiki tags ( diff ). This removed the page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, where it shouldn't be unless you want it deleted. If the change causes you any problems, please let me know. Thanks, Nihiltres ( t .l ) 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I removed the broken script that caused all this trouble since it didn't work anyway but at least popups works now! EconomicsGuy  Return the fire!  09:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:, and
In response to your comment on my talk page, I am fairly certain that Laderov is also Sviatoslav86, but there is a backlog on the IP check page, and have not yet received confirmation. See Requests for checkuser/IP check. I agree that Anstatt's edits and comments are also very similar to the edits and comments of Laderov and his sock puppets. I will add that account to the IP check.Spylab 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am EconomicsGuy on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/EconomicsGuy. Thanks. --EconomicsGuy 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics
So I'm just curious if your comments were directed at me? (You can reply here as I'm watching your talk page.) –panda 07:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was directed at SlaineMacRoth whose sole purpose of participating in the debate seems to be that he wants to push the POV that the award has liberal bias. By doing so he is at the same time halting all progress on the naming dispute which actually came very close to being resolved. With regard to the comment you made on the talk page I don't as such oppose any criticism section but it needs to be based on substantial criticism such as the criticism of the peace prize rather than a "let's datamine Google" effort to dig up whatever quotes from reliable sources we can find and then put them together in obvious violation of WP:SYNTH. The protests when Friedmann was awarded the prize would be an excellent example of substantial criticism that could be properly sourced. Simply stating that one believes the award has liberal bias and then nitpick sources to back up that claim isn't going to work in an encyclopedia.


 * Since this is my talk page and not the article talk page I think it's okay for me to say this: I personally don't agree that the award has bias nor do I believe that everyone who got one deserved it. Mundell's award was certainly overdue a long time ago but there have been some really bad examples in the past. In hinsight I think the committee might have acted very differently today had it known what brief impact the vast majority of Friedman's research has had on contemporary mainstream economics. Gary Becker is another example. I'm still looking forward to seeing if or when they give Krugmann and/or Dornbush the award. Sorry for soapboxing, couldn't help myself! EconomicsGuy 08:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User:81.149.250.228
My tolerance level is somewhat lower than yours and I have blocked this user for 24 hours for WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Just wanted to give you a heads up as I noticed you recently issued a final warning. Ronnotel 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was gonna report him on AIV after having gone through the rest of his edits. He did create STIR Future which is an acceptable stub written by someone who at least appears to understand these things. I think you may be right that he may be someone who just can't tell the difference between work and Wikipedia. Either that or he uses Wikipedia to let off steam while at work. EconomicsGuy 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ogame Wiki
How would you suggest we provide these things to ogame players? alot of them look at the wiki for assistance. including things that are hard to find. these have been allowed for a long time and another person didnt seem to have a problem with it when he (she?) came to the area poking around...Anubis1055 21:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that we are not a game guide. I've been thinking about it and I think the easiest way to deal with this would be to do a non-spammy purely encyclopedic section about external tools and OGame. The most relevant tools could then be linked to as references for that section. As it is now, that tools section is nothing more than a placeholder for links that aren't referenced from within the article and only serve to promote those sites. Hence it violates WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If such a section was created and the sites used as proper references for encyclopedic purposes then I will not revert. EconomicsGuy 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I logged on wondering how to find your page the fastest. nice of you to put a comment on my talk ;) hmm.. that would be hard to do. you have seen the kind of edits the ogame page gets... i could make it.. but within 2 days the whole thing will probably get changed ;) Anubis1055 01:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true. However, if we take it to the talk page and give everyone a chance to comment then removing it would be against consensus so we could just revert if that happened. I can't see why anyone should be opposed to such a section as it would be factual and sourced according to policy. The use of tools is an important part of the game, a section like that would be a very valuable addition to the article. EconomicsGuy 07:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Most probably would like to leave it, however its common to find people posting links to cheats etc. and usually they remove everything except their cheat sites. Sadly enough they like to use copyrighted images and the moment i report it to my GF superiors the wheels start turning and they usually get shut down. Not sure if there is any life left on the talk page or not but we can find out ;)Anubis1055 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for dropping by our vero channel. If you have any more questions, I would be glad to answer them. Danny 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting ready to join you. I miss editing articles and I'm getting very sick of watching Jimbo go on personal vendettas rather than deal with the real problems (nationalism, pseudo-science, POV pushing for the sake of POV pushing). None of that is being dealt with. EconomicsGuy 06:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my incivility at deletion review
I do strongly believe in civility and strive to uphold it in all my roles, and I think I have done at least my share (online and off) to defuse lynch mobs. I'm a little taken aback that my comment was singled out for rebuke when no one else's was, including comments that look a lot less temperate than mine.

I hesitated for a long time before saying anything at all, and originally prefaced my remarks with a parenthetical apology for piling on. And I deliberately refrained from calling for "admonishment", as a number of others before me had done. I wasn't interested in demonizing this specific admin, but I admit that once I had pruned the comment down to its essentials, it certainly looked that way.

I see the impressive collection of insults you've received. I can't say that I have been the target of that kind of invective within Wikipedia (elsewhere, sure). Still, there is a sneering edge to many comments posted in AFD/CFD discussions I have seen in recent months, especially by those advocating deletion in controversial cases and attempting to dismiss or devalue contrary views, and that these snide comments often provoke angry or resentful replies.

It's way too late for me to switch to editing under a pseudonym, as most Wikipedians do. I'd be unwilling to act out an artificial role, and my fields of interest are pretty obvious. I'm comfortable taking personal responsibility for everything I have done online, including the unfortunate comment you rebuked. But I will be more careful with my tone in the future. Kestenbaum 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

i dont really understand...

 * what about the page is it exactly thats wrong?

wb x

Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Hair, bad edits
Sorry if you felt I was deleting your valid criticism.What I really wanted to do was just delete the whining on the page which really had nothing to do with improving the article (and the annoying kissy things, too). My apologies if you felt I was silencing your valid criticism. Jeffpw (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the blunt edit summary - I know you wouldn't blank a talk page unless you had valid concerns. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean those photos werent taken by me?!!!! THEY WERE! What exactly am I supposed to do, oh my god, this is just getting worse and worse! how dare you!

Iamandrewrice (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(Same thing as I wrote on Discussion Page): Well Thank you for your appology. I respect that. However, I did in fact take the images myself... i did it this morning actually. And also, I'm sorry, tried to make the article as good as I could... I did not intend for it to read like an advertisement. I am not entirely sure how it does? Could you expand on that? Iamandrewrice (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wot do u think of it now? Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks
for your help on the GHD article... it has helped, and i hope that thing u left will continue to do so. Thank you Iamandrewrice (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for responding to my helpme tag about the Rachel Nickells murder so quickly :) Wadhamite (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And my thanks, too
Thank you very much for the barnstar. While I appreciate all Stars i receive, this meant more to me than most, as it seems an acknowledgment that I have fundamentally changed on Wikipedia. I didn't always used to be so kind or thoughtful. It was through being responded to kindly by people like you when I was being snarky myself that I came to see which path was actually better. Though it may sound silly to say this, being a Wikipedian has had a positive impact on my life as a whole, and I use the principles I learned here to improve my communication in my every day and professional life. Thanks once again for the star, and thanks for being a fellow Wikipedian. Jeffpw (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He he you earned it! I too learned the hard way that kindness is a two way thing. In fact I'm still learning that. Though I've never been blocked (probably more luck than anything else) I've certainly engaged myself in my share of steam rolling of users who were nothing more than confused and often misguided newbies. I try hard not to do that anymore and remind myself when to simply disengage and step away from the computer or sometimes do the job that I actually get paid to do rather than read and edit Wikipedia he he!! EconomicsGuy 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

hi..
thanks fo helping with the image... wot does GDFL mean? Iamandrewrice 13:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem whatsoever! GFDL is the license under which all edits and most uploads are licensed on Wikipedia. It basically means that others may alter those contributions - just like you changed that image. It also means that others may redistribute those contributions provided that they do so under the same license and give proper credit to the original creator. That's why I changed the license to GFDL and provided a link back to the original image.
 * Like Jeff told you images are hard and not a topic you should start to read up on until you are done with the core policies and guidelines. I'll keep an eye on your uploads until then and sort things out if I can. EconomicsGuy 17:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Full protection on User talk:Iamandrewrice
You're probably right. I'll AGF one more time. Tonywalton Talk 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Page now blanked and full-protected, following yet more attempted apologies and justifications.. What are the odds a user with a coincidentally-similar name pops up within the next couple of days and starts asking for adoption... Enough. I'm going to the pub &#9786; Tonywalton  Talk 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work! Apparently the odds were quite good per this which of course you have already seen ;). What on earth is going on? EconomicsGuy 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now had edits from Andrewsbaby and Andrewsclone. Has he really nothing better to do? Tonywalton Talk 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * hahaha... we'll see... I hope youre starting to understand a little more about me now... you see, its not iamandrewrice that was the first sockpuppet... well, maybe you still don't see... ;) WiArthurWho 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked, of course. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! To Tonywalton: It would seem that he hasn't. I think we have all been thoroughly fooled here. This is why good checkusers are so valuable. I mostly feel bad for Jeff though but he seems to take it with good humor. EconomicsGuy 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it became clear that Iamandrewrice was a sock I've been of the opinion that that was just one of a family and not necessarily the drawer from which all socks flow. I can't see that it makes any difference, TBH. Tonywalton Talk 17:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * EconomicsGuy... you dont understand... half those accounts made that people think are sockpuppets of Iamandrewrice are not even me! They are my friend, Joeseth1992 (which for some reason is classified as a sockpuppet of me anyway)! and most of the rest of them are people I have never even heard of that somehow got involved... and i dont understand why the CU said we were linked... anyway ive replied on the ANI... please go check it out (if you have studied anything about my behaviour, you will know im not the type to vandal... however, go take a look at Joeseth1992's behaviour, and the behaviour of the sockpuppets... you will realise whos behaviour they match more). And please dont block me on this account... you dont know how much effort I have gone to in order to try and set the records straight on this whole thing. If you block this account and ignore the valid information I am giving you, you will not be able to find out what is really going on... please... i am here to help wikipedia... and save not only the site from people like my "friend," but save my reputation... which is vastly diminishing due to vast untruths spread about me... Benniguy (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand you. Assuming that this is true why didn't you just create a new account and start over? The new accounts you created weren't created by you to start over - they were created by you to continue your disruptive behaviour. If you really want this with the best intentions of becoming a part of the community I suggest you create one last account and then disclose that account only to Jeff through e-mail. To the best of my knowledge there is no active checkuser against you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No economicsguy... please dont believe I was lying! Im not! I dont know why those accounts seem to be associated with me, but that Fettes account and all those others are nothing to do with me! I promise! However, I do know who they actually do belong to... Joeseth1992... if you have a problem, go invesigate him. And we are not the same person! despite what wikipedia says... ¬_¬

Economicsguy... you have been one of the most helpful people on here so far... please dont turn against me now, when I need help to stop this impersonator of me... in fact, a long long time ago (well actually not that long), he logged onto my Iamandrewrice account... and if you dont believe me... go ask Jeffpw if he remembers a time when I asked him if I could change my password because someone has logged onto my account...

please... you have to listen... Im not lying... if you protect my page again, I wont be able to help you get to the real root of the problem - Joeseth1992...

Maltesepuppy (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you decide to stay
I sincerely hope you decide to continue contributing here. Wikipedia needs kind, intelligent people such as yourself. On a related note, I went through your contribution history and restored all your votes to the arbcom election (even though we voted in completely opposite directions!). I was amazed that a BOT could do something like that, and didn't want to wait and see if the bot owner took the time to restore your votes himself. Take care, and I hope to see you around. Jeffpw (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jeff I truly do appreciate this!! I'm rethinking my involvement here because I do have a ton of things I want to get done. There are vast amounts of perfectly valid album covers and related fair use images that are at risk of getting deleted simply because they lack the right fair use rationale template (it isn't as easy to figure out from the instructions as it ought to be) and I have been working on several WW2 articles about the resistance on my tiny test wiki that I want to upload - stuff that really matters to me. It is just that the whole sockpuppet affair and now this reminds me of how this place has really changed during the last few months. The fact that there are still people like you around does encourage me greatly to return to article editing though. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have to echo Jeff's comment - you're a good editor, and I'd hate to see you leave, especially if this election ended up having any part of it. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Hello EconomicsGuy! I'd like to accept your offer of adoption, and I'm looking forward to the experience. I might not be very active and even go offline in January altogether due to moving across the country. I hope that's not a problem. Cheers :) --Dalric (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, questions... Most that I need to know is already out there, I just need to find and read it. But, and that's why I put myself up for adoption, a structured approach is almost certain to be more efficient. I already did some housekeeping. Overdid it at least once, even, judging on how others handled it afterwards. I have jot down a few things I would like to do for this message, and decided to save them to my TODO list instead. Please have a look at it and comment.
 * As far as actual questions go, how would you like to handle communication? Use our talk pages, install a subpage where it's all kept together, wikimail... ?
 * See you, Dalric (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
  You got a Christmas card! → → →

Another Adoption
Hey Economics Guy. are you still looking to adopt (another). i'm still very interested (jeremyhutton). I'd first like to know what the best way to start understanding wikipedia and how to edit and 'get round' - oh yeah, and the whole user name thing would be terrific. Hope this works out. User:jeremyhutton

Your minor edit on AN/I
The weird thing is that before you corrected that typo, I didn't even notice it! Tonywalton Talk 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He he to be honest I hadn't noticed it myself. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your censoring commentary on a DRV
I think it is in extremely poor taste for you to censor the discussion the way you did here on a DRV. Nothing that was said in what you deleted was particularly "trollish", if one assumes good faith that the editor simply can't fathom how someone who has been written about in over 130 large newspapers and television station websites is "non-notable". Please restore the edit, or I may consider doing it myself. --Lord on Canary (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do that but keep in mind that IP's are ignored by the closer anyway and the comment I removed had for the most part very little to do with finding a solution. If you can't imagine who would leave such a message without logging in then by all means revert me. I'¨m done with that DRV anyway. I'm trying to get the deleted revisions of the article talk page undeleted so that people can see what was happening and why there was no cover up. Just a bunch of people who didn't know what to do with the damn thing. Those who weren't there at the time may not quite understand that but at least they should be able to see what was going on. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've undone my revert myself. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

JW Talk Page
In re this, you are the one carrying the cogent argument, I would be happy to see you refactor to place your latest post above mine where the thread would be more coherent. Leave me down at the babbling trailers, no doubt there will be more. Cheers :) Franamax (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got caught in an edit conflict with you. I'll do so now. Thanks for the heads up! Cheers, EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While briefly looking at your activity, I notice that someone, possibly not yourself, is positing along the lines of Wikipedia is the 8th most popular website, and I have seen that statement elsewhere. I am curious where you (or whomever) might get this statistic - I have in hand a chart from The Economist - "Worldwide top ten websites, September 2007" and under "Unique visitors" at Rank 6 is Wikipedia. This would of course be all Wikipedia, not just en:wp, but I'm wondering if the numbers have changed lately. Franamax (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest I forgot. I know there is a page here somewhere that keeps track of these things based on Alexa rankings. That's where I got that information from. I agree with you that it must be all of Wikipedia and not just enwiki. Hmmm... now you made me curious... I'll look into this later today. I would imagine that the numbers would have changed since I found that information though. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Curious. The Economist chart references comScore as the source. I have a subscription and could email you the article from their site button, but you don't have email enabled, I don't know how widely it can be distributed, blah-blah. I suppose we were both just posting on the page of the user who should have the question posed directly? Maybe I should try that email instead :) Regards, Franamax (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it helps, relevant info is here. JW called WP something like the 8th most popular site in the world, according to Alexa in his keynote speech at Online Information 2007. Avb 14:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki frustrations
I know how you feel. The situation is extremely annoying. That said, I do think more than one person is sending messages, and not that there is one user with a split personality. I do correspond with Ben through Gmail and MySpace, and he is remarkably consistent in his story. Just my two cents. No reply is necessary and feel free to delete this. And Merry Christmas. I am wallowing in good cheer right now, and hope everyone is feeling as peaceful as I am. Jeffpw (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you said no reply necessary but you may very well be right about this. I also saw this on ANI today. If someone really is doing this to him we should look into it when the new year begins. Right now I think everyone have just had enough of the situation. MySpace makes my eyes hurt ;) Merry Christmas also, my mood improved dramatically now that the last Christmas shopping is over. Like the ever gorgeous Loretta Young said I think making mistakes is as inevitable as receiving disappointments. We'll deal with this in the new year, right now he just needs to enjoy Christmas rather than fight a one-man war on Wikipedia!. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a thought - I'm writing it here so you aren't forced to see it if you don't want to deal with this right now. If someone really is messing with him then the first step ought to be that he identifies what accounts are in fact his. If this looks like sockpuppetry simply because they share the same ISP and live in the same neighborhood then checkuser ought to be able to spot any sudden changes in the IP. It's not solid proof in anyway but it does appear strange that he in fact aren't using sockpuppets when posting sane and coherent apologies and explanations. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in here but I've been doing a quick bit of looking and it would seem there is more than one person behind the accounts - although there does seem to be some level of cooperation between them. I've made a few comments (albeit rather rambling, I'm afraid!) on the RCFU case. Thanks Whitstable (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Though my patience is about at an end, if you did email that account which asked you to, could you email me with any relevant info? My email is activated. At this point, even if Ben is only one of several, I am so sick of the situation that I wish they'd all just go away, even if we have to range block all of the U.K. And thanks, Whitstable, for trying to sort this whole mess out. It is completely distracting from our real work here, but if we can rid ourselves of them, it will be productive for all of Wikipedia. Jeffpw (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have e-mailed the account given to me here and I'm waiting for a reply. I have also enabled e-mail so he can e-mail me from this site if he logs on with the Iamandrewrice account as e-mail hasn't been disabled on that account. I've been reluctant to do that due top past abuse but I created a throw-away e-mail account just for this occasion. I understand you completely and given what happened yesterday and the messages on your talk page as well I'm leaning towards expanding the ban to the whole group of people regardless of how many there are of them because they are clearly messing with us. Ben knows what to do, if he hasn't figured it out yet then I doubt that he will. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now come full circle, and think that Ben is part of this moronic gameplaying. He emailed me today to say his account on MySpace was hacked, and there was a message on the Iamandrewrice saying it was a fake account anyway. All I want now is for the whole school to be hardblocked until they cooperate with us in punishing these asshats. Jeffpw (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have requested help with filing an ISP abuse report. Enough is enough, this is clearly some group of teenagers who have been messing with us from the beginning. So much for this overrated assume good faith thing. Let's just consider the whole bunch community banned and revert, block, ignore. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And on my end, I have just contacted both schools, alerting them of the problem and asking them for help. I'll add this fact to the checkuser report on Iamandrewrice. Thanks, EconomicsGuy. Jeffpw (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've e-mailed you the response I got. This is why I don't enable e-mail. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just forwarded some correspondence to you that you may find amusing. I think we're making some progress now. -) Jeffpw (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've replied to both of you. This is indeed the very last chance, I have the ISP abuse report ready in notepad to cut and paste. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. I am now waiting for the formal apology and promise never to edit here again, or I go through with my discussion with the school. I have all the names now and won't hesitate to see them severely punished for their actions. Jeffpw (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Happy Holidays Shamelessly ripped off from Thedjatclubrock :) ''' (T/C)


 * Thanks Dalric! I hope you're having a fantastic Christmas!! EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've order the elves to work on more wikilove, but we seem to be out of the necessary Taramosalata to fulfil all the demand this year.--Santa (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! 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 November has been published.  December'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 Announcements 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 (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Adoption of Jeremyhutton?
Hello, from discussion at User talk:Jeremyhutton it appears that you have adopted the user. If User:Jeremyhutton has been adopted or has changed to a different username or is no longer actively seeking an adopter, would you please remove the adoptme template from the page User:Jeremyhutton so that the user no longer appears in Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user? Thank you. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider it done ;) EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Err...
Unless you meant it the way it sounds, could you reword that opening greeting so it doesn't sound like you can't stop me from making any more stupid decisions? I mean, I understand what you meant (I think), but as my 7th grade teacher wrote on the blackboard where it stayed for the entire school year: Write not so that you are understand, but so that you are not possibly misunderstood. Jeffpw (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh... bad day to be me! Of course and sorry for that! EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)