User talk:EraserGirl/Archive 1

Dorothy Hale
Gee thanks for your additions to the Dorothy Hale page that I made. You seem to have a lot of information on the subject and aren't afraid to let everyone else know how informative you are. I especially appreciate the internal links that go nowhere that you added. When did you join Wikipedia? Creamy3 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the links that I was in the process of writing, now I just have to put them all back. Yes, I am well educated and am well versed in the subjects I write about. If you take the advice that has been offered you previously on your user page, you may find there is a difference between being prolific and being proficient. EraserGirl (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome for my help with the blaring red links that made our page look awful. I must admit that you did make the page better but stop with the attitude and masking your arrogance with big words, nobody's buying it. All the best toots. Creamy3 (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have left a message for Creamy3. These posts are unacceptable in their tone. Furthermore, it is quite correct to wikilink words which merit an article, even if they don't yet have one. It is an encouragement for someone to fill the gap in coverage, for one thing. Don't forget to leave edit summaries. Tyrenius (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you I will do a better job with the summaries. EraserGirl (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's helpful for other editors. If you go to "preferences" at the top of the page, click "editing" and tick the bottom box "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary", you will get an automatic  reminder. Tyrenius (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again, I have gone through all the tutorials, but I guess I have a more shallow learning curve than other 'editors'. EraserGirl (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. There's a ton of stuff to learn, so expect to get things wrong, and if you do, just explain you're a new editor. It's not obligatory to leave edit summaries, but it is good practice. You may remove anything from your user page that you want, as long as it doesn't misrepresent other editor's messages. See WP:UP and WP:TPG. You can either delete it, or cut and paste into an archive. I've set up an archive for you at the top of the page. Click on the red link to open the archive page and store anything you want in it. If you don't want the archive page, just delete it. Tyrenius (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I hope we didn't get off on the wrong foot because of that little incident. Talk to me anytime. Creamy3 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
First of all EraserGirl, may I just apologize for everything that has happened. My younger brother, Adam sometimes gets onto Wikipedia using my username and password and sends nasty messages to other Wikipedians. I have had this problem in the past and as a result I will have to change my password. Please accept my apology. Creamy3 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised if you thought I was lying but I'm not. You give the orders to beat up my brother Adam, and I'll do it.  Happy trails. Creamy3 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:84 charing cross play.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:84 charing cross play.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dorothyhale.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Dorothyhale.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * but it IS in the template. EraserGirl (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. I just put it in. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Helen Gibson
I added an assessment from the Actors and Filmmakers project, plus a comment not included in assessment, just an opinion. It's turning into a very good article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * response: I think the problems are mostly style issues. Once an article goes beyond B level, issues of style are quite often the ones brought up. Obviously, as she wasn't a highly recognized/awarded actor of the time, there won't be copious amounts of information out there. I think you've done a good job of bringing in a lot of good viable information and that's tantamount to creating an A level, good, or featured article. I'd just hate to see it get caught up in the inevitable "welllllll, the references aren't formatted right," "where is the book citation?" etc. I usually start by searching Google books for the book information (publisher, ISBN, etc.). I think it's a good start for a good article. It needs polishing, not expansion. It compares well to other film biographies I've worked on, and in some cases, much better! Let me know if I can help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

re: metadata
Hello. You can find more info here. I've been adding it to all the actor/director bios I've created and to all articles I find without the data. Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaming
You can move (rename) an article easily enough by using the move button at the top of the page, but that moves (renames) the whole article. If you just want to take out some of the content into a new article, you can cut and paste it. However, be very clear in the edit summary and talk page of the article it's taken from and the article it's going to, that this is what you have done. That preserves the GFDL link. Does that solve the problem? If not, let me know which article and what you need doing. It might be an idea to post on the talk page first, in case there are any objections.Tyrenius (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back! No need. The main article is about the book, and there is a disambiguation link at the top of that to the film. I hope that makes sense. Tyrenius (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Is one of them the prime subject or are they all equal? Tyrenius (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a use of a term that most people would expect to find, then make that the main article as with Spectrum. One or two links can go at the top of that page to less common usages, or if there are several then create a disambiguation page, e.g. Spectrum (disambiguation). If there isn't one main usage of a term, then the main page is the disambigation page as with John Brown. Before you move an article, click "what links here" (bottom box on left of the page), as those links will still have the old page name. If the old page name is a redirect, that's fine, but if the old page name is turned into a disambiguation page, that's where people will end up&nmdash;then having to click another link to get where they want. In that case, it would be a good idea to update those links with the new name for the page. Tyrenius (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anita Loos
Don't be too hard on yourself EraserGirl, it's quite normal to be "blind" to our own unintentional lapses, and anyone who says that they don't make mistakes is being a bit frugal with the truth. My last edit was to apologise for an earlier omission of mine that another editor had spotted, so it's good to know that others are keeping a check to ensure that we don't accidentally misinform or confuse the reader. Keep up the good work! --Red Su ns et    21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Under construction
Snowman has commented on my talk page in response to your message and has answered your Q? regarding the "under construction" signpost. There's no reason to feel awkward; since the article is at such an early stage, and in the knowledge that you are about to do a major rewrite, it is perhaps a bit premature to do any style tweaking and understandably I expect that any of my work is likely to be undone in the article's evolution. Would you mind if I looked in again when it has become more comprehensive? --Red Su ns et    18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Seven Chances
Hi EraserGirl. If you would look at Category:American silent films, it includes Category:Silent films and Category:American films, and therefore everything else is redundant. And Category:1920s comedy films includes Category:Comedy films --Dblk (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It only includes it as a sub category, not in the general category. By that logic, all films would only exist in a sub category of a subcategory. EraserGirl (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * User Dblk is correct; a page should not be in both a cat and subcat. However, there is not an easy way to view all the pages in a cat and all its subcats (afaik), which perhaps there should be. You could suggest this as a software improvement for the wiki that enables viewing of all the cats and subcats recursively by pressing a button. Nevertheless, you could make separate pages called "List of silent films", List of American films" and so on. Lists are encylopaedic. Snowman (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Thanks for the question...there's information at WP:COPYRIGHT, but that's admittedly not easy to understand. If the content is an obvious copyright violation, Copyright violations suggests a couple of options, depending on the nature of the violation. A whole copied-and-pasted article can be tagged with db-copyvio or copyvio. If there was simply the addition of a copyrighted material to a page or a section, and it's salvagable via reversion, just do that. Be sure to contact the offending editor (Uw-copyright is often appropriate).

If you link to the work in question, I'll be happy to check it out. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Response
It sounds like you're working away on things. It may be that not as many people are as excited about working on screenwriters because there isn't as much material so readily available for them. However, Anita Loos is one who has had bigraphies written and is a bit easier to research. Good luck. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter
The February 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) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

quote or POV
In the Allen article is the term "crazy old lady" a quote? What was the matter with the so called "Madwoman" she had played? Not much is said about that play. Snowman (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a quote from Allen herself, I will clarify it. One of the few items that doesn't have a wiki entry yet: Madwoman of Chaillot is a play about a Parisian woman who is wacky, and the movie was awful. I didn't go into depth as it wasn't a project Allen worked on.
 * Script development and script doctor are completely different jobs. Script doctor is the proper job descrption, production rewrites were what she was hired to do. Development is something busybody studio underlings do, which sucks all the originality out of a script - those are the people she left Hollywood to avoid. EraserGirl (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that you need to make it clear that it is a quote. Ok, I misunderstood what a "script doctor" is, and I still do not know what this job is. What is the difference between a script rewrite and script development. It seems more important to develop script. And, I do not know what exactly is meant by "wacky" either. Snowman (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did adjust the phrasing. It would seem that development would be more important, but it is actually a detractive exercise that occurs well before the production. Scripts can be in development for decades. The doctor is called in after everyone else has mucked around with the script and the script doctor puts it back into a cohesive whole.  You really didn't believe that Matt Damon and Ben Afleck REALLY wrote Good Will Hunting did you? That was purely the work of the king of the script doctors: William Goldman And as Allen said, the studios pay a LOT of money for that service.
 * as for 'wacky' that's a personal problem between you and your thesaurus.

wack·y (wăk'ē) also whack·y (hwăk'ē, wăk'ē) adj. Slang., -i·er also -i·er, -i·est also -i·est. Eccentric or irrational: a wacky person. Crazy; silly: a wacky outfit.
 * I think that could have answered that in a different way; because, "wacky" may be a word that is used differently in different parts of the world, and I do not know the American use of some words, especially slang words. Anyway, I guess that the play was about an eccentric woman. Your new edits with a quote works fine.  Snowman (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be annoying by wasn't the word 'Madwoman' self explanatory?
 * BTW I mastered the table formatting. I don't think the Helen Gibson filmography looks so unnaturally large. Eventually I will make sure there are pages for the films that aren't considered 'lost'. Thanks.    EraserGirl (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I find "Madwoman" self explanatory, I would not have asked about it. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. EraserGirl (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Claraberenger.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Claraberenger.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Snowman (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The above is what the automatic software generated, when I asked for the image with the typo to be deleted to tidy up. Anyone, can ask for images to be deleted, and you will be able to do this yourself. Please use a descriptive name for your images. Probably, "Clara Berenger - in the 1920s.jpg" would have been better, because people might want to search for it. You can use capitals and spaces in file names, although some metacharacters are not allowed. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I replaced it with the proper image and attached that one to the article, I figured if I did nothing the bad one would be automatically deleted eventually. If I remove the copyright tag, it will get deleted even faster.  I understand about the image names, I am just still not used to including spaces in my file names yet. EraserGirl (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

City Hall
You need to add a license tag somewhere on the image page, otherwise it will get deleted. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks I would have sworn I loaded it to wikicommons, i must have been asleep. EraserGirl (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have copied it to wiki commons. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Helen Gibson
We've had our differences in the past, but I have to say; that article you did about Helen Gibson kicks butt. Have a good one. Creamy3 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Token of appreciation
Thanks, EraserGirl, here's one for you to decorate your page!


 * Thank you though I hardly think I deserve it quite yet. So much still to do.EraserGirl (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be a lot still to do; but you are learning quickly, have enthusiastically added new articles, and been able to accept comments and criticisms in good humour. For these reasons I felt that a small gesture wouldn't go amiss, and should encourage you to keep up the good work.
 * In answer to your comments on my talk page:
 * I'm not sure what you mean by proper formatting for awards; I just copy them from one of the linked pages at Awards, however I do understand that there are a few different ways of presenting them on the page; if that is what you meant then I'm afraid I haven't looked into that one.
 * Your table looks fine apart from the ISBN numbers which have been broken into two lines, so I've taken the liberty of adjusting the width of the relevant column. Take a look in the edit window to see how I've done it. For more info on creating different styles of table, take a look here
 * --Red Su ns et    20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion
See Speedy. It qualifies as i1 (image 1). Templates at Speedy. You need db-i1 or. --  Ty  19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

an observation
I have noticed that you have been deleting some of the contents of your talk page, once without an edit summary. Sometimes the bots have been correct and even helpful in pointed out an error, but you have deleted these appropriate bot comments too. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Am I not allowed to delete things from my talk page? EraserGirl (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not know the wiki rules on this, but I guess that deletion from your talk page without an appropriate edit summary might be seen as deceptive. It is a wiki guideline to always write an edit summary. Perhaps, deleting comments about your errors and leaving good comments might also give the wrong impression. I think it is ok to delete vandalism or something that should not have been put there. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * well I did read all the introductory rules, and since there is NO actual deletion taking place. You can read the bot notices in the page history. This entire conversation is moot.  I wasn't deleting BAD warnings, I deleted an irrelevant one. The image with the typo is to be deleted, ergo bot comments telling me anything about it are irrelevant.  I just don't like very long pages and have been shunting things off to the archive, regardless of whether it makes me LOOK good. I appreciate everything you have tried to teach me, but I don't tell you what to do with your user page. EraserGirl (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a talk page. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Yakima Canutt Stagecoach.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Yakima Canutt Stagecoach.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Yakima Canutt Stagecoach underneath.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Yakima Canutt Stagecoach underneath.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Yakima Canutt Stagecoach as Wayne.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Yakima Canutt Stagecoach as Wayne.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
Both of the following will create a userbox.

The first is the simplest; just replace "side-box colour" with your choice (say red), similarly "main-box colour", and the two "box contents" (say yellow, EG, EraserGirl):

Thus: will give: The second is more flexible if you want to be more creative, and can be modified in exactly the same way by referring to the table on Userbox for explanations of the symbols, and Web colors for colour codes. Have a play on your subpage and simply substitute your own words/values to see what happens. Hope this helps. --Red Su ns et    23:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What subpage? where do I put this code? how does this get implemented? I think this is what is escaping meEraserGirl (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Late now, will try to explain better tomorrow. --Red Su ns et    00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, whenever is fine, it isn't very important at all, something obvious to everyone else is escaping me. EraserGirl (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about your comments, and I'm not entirely certain but I think that maybe it's not essential to create a template for a userbox that you place on your own page; merely modify the basic userbox template. That may have answered your questions, but just in case here is an example of how to construct a userbox.
 * The basic template is where each of the parameters (border-c=, border-s=, id-s= etc. etc.) are described in a table in Userbox, and the codes for different colours are given in tables in Web colors. There are other parameters that can be included (like the spacing between lines of text in the info box) but lets keep it as simple as possible. In the following example, instead of placing text in the small id box on the left, I have added a 43px image which meant that the id-c=, id-s= and id-fc= sections (which would have described the id box background colour [c], font size [s] and colour [fc] respectively) were unecessary and so I simply removed them.

yields:
 * Thus

All I have done is insert numbers (for size), codes (for colour) or text after the "=" signs in the basic template. My idea was that you could paste the basic template onto your "mini-project" page (subpage), being your own page rather than your talk page which is public and can be busy, where you can then experiment at leisure changing the values of border size and colour, id and info box background colours, as well as text size and colour. Once you have "previewed" one that you like, paste it into your userbox box. See WP:Userbox as a guide to what is or isn't recommended for inclusion in the information box. I apologise if you already understood all of this, and I don't think that you need to do anything more for use on your own page, but I would be happy to be corrected on this; maybe Snowman could be of assistance here. --Red Su ns et    22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Having just re-read WP:Userbox, to create a template for a new userbox I think that you need to create a subpage to your userpage (like your mini project page) entitled with the name you would like to assign to your userbox; and then create/place your new design (alone) as in my example on that page. The template for the new box would then be:
 * in this case perhaps (note no space between Helen & Gibson to prevent confusion with her article). Give it a whirl and see what happens, you won't break anything; everything can be undone and you can always blame me for my suggestions! Is this of any further help? --Red  Su ns et    22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your extensive explanation...the part that was eluding me was that this code will exist on a subpage of my user page. I could have doped out the code, but not what to do with it afterwards. I am not looking to create a box just for myself. I was looking through the list of occupation/interest specific boxes and could not find one that would be appropriate for booksellers.  I was hoping to create one that could be used by other people as well. I just couldn't grasp WHERE the code was uploaded.  That just wasn't obvious at all. When I try to create one and mess it up, I will no doubt holler again.   Thank you for cleaning up Fay Kanin, I usually do these late at night and at 4AM things tend to become slap dash.  EraserGirl (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't tried to create a userbox template personally; my suggestions were based on what I've read on various pages and hopefully they will work. As you say it's not made very clear – now I'm as interested as you to see what happens! I haven't finished with Fay yet; the intrusion of "real life" often means editing late, and I tend to call it a day when I start making silly mistakes. I'll visit Dorothy and Clara in due course. --Red Su ns et    18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you can understand why I make so many mistakes! I usually reward myself after a long day with wikipedia work. And I stop when all the words start to run together. EraserGirl (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We did it!! With your help I made three Userboxes for other people to use!

Thank you so very much. EraserGirl (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I'm glad it all worked! --Red Su ns et    18:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Helen Gibson
I hope I didn't tread on your toes on this one in particular EraserGirl. It's a good piece of work, and now I see that you are her official biographer it makes me feel a bit awkward in making alterations to your work, so I'm glad you've been there to keep a check to ensure that I didn't make too many blunders along the way (like misreading "her" for "their" – oops!), and for putting me right on the correct format for the number of reels. This time it's you who has corrected me, and that's what the wiki is all about, gaining knowledge and experience. Cheers! --Red Su ns et    18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No toe treading at all. You are finding spots in my narrative that are unclear forcing me to be more specific in my wording. I am indifferent about giving a more formal sound to my naturally conversational English. I will only correct the correction when it is out of character with the tenor of the piece - such as calling Hoot Gibson Edmund, as unpleasant a person as he was he is never referred to as anything but Hoot. I will have another one in a few days, I am taking a break and cropping photos on wikicommons for relaxation.  EraserGirl (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi: In what capacity are you Helen Gibson's biographer? It is excellent that you are concentrating on women screenwriters. I hope you bring one of them to WP:FAC and put a woman screenwriter on the main page one day.-Dwindle dwindle (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi: How have you come across certain personal papers? Did you research Helen Gibson at one point, or do you have a close personal connection to her? I think that would be great if you wrote a biography of her. I always find it interesting when people try to illuminate a little known life, rather than rehashing the well-known, like Shakespeare, Hemingway, etc... -Dwindle dwindle (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about illuminating little known lives. Hence the work on the women screenwriters. Just when I think I have a working list MORE women appear on the landscape. As for Helen, I have been researching her for about 3 years.  I never met the woman and have no connection to her. One day I visited the Stunt union website and found a mention of her but no further information could be found anywhere. So, I started the research.  EraserGirl (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of disaster films
EraserGirl...Thank you for the offer, however, a list is just that, a list. The table format that is being used for adventure films is way to much for a simple list. In my opinion, putting disaster films in a table would be too much information. Another thing is that tables take longer to load on slow internet connections. (I am on a very slow internet connection.) The bigger these things get, the slower they load. You can ask this on Talk:List of disaster films to get a consensus of what should be done. I may be one of the more prominent contributors to the list, however, I don't think I could be a consensus of one. :)

Another problem with tables is that they are very hard to make in a text editor. I like a very simple list where a simple find and replace can fix a lot of formatting in a hurry. Tables with wikicode are not so easy to fix when there are major problems. It is not my call to make on my own. Let's put this up for a general discussion and see what happens, okay? - LA @ 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * they do take practice, but they aren't all that complicated. The trick is to start with a template and replicate portions. EraserGirl (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation
Hi, I saw the dialog on WT:FILM about WikiProject Screenwriters and noted your interest in women screenwriters. I was going through the Film Criticism database tonight and saw a review of a book that I wanted to mention to you. You might have already heard of it or read it, but I thought I'd let you know about it. :) My apologies if you're already familiar with the book, but I just wanted to pass on this title just in case. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks tons sweetie, but I already have it in my collection. User:EraserGirl/Women_Screenwriters Feel free to recommend more!EraserGirl (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Screenwriters project
As someone who has some familiarity with the Biography project, I think that the above project might be best re-formulated as a subproject of that project. I have proposed recently that the Biography project try to create a broader range of subprojects to take into account the greater degree of specialization of most of our editors, and this one would clearly qualify. If you think that it might work there, please propose the merger. I can't guarantee that I'll be able to adjust the banner immediately, and in fact it might take up to a week or so to do so, but it'll probably take that long for the merger discussion to be completed anyway. John Carter (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Your blog has no email address. You might be interested in putting some of your new projects in Requested_articles/Biographies. Also, Lisnews might be somewhere fun to check, when you're feeling like a little change. ~ender 2008-03-19 23:38:PM MST


 * wikispam
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say to me. Please sign your messages. EraserGirl (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to me?
 * Because I *did* sign it.
 * 1) Your blog, whose address I could probably find in my history - but I don't recall off-hand, does not include your email address. And your blog doesn't accept anonymous comments - thus there is no way to write you on there, which is what I would've done.  Just FYI.
 * 2) You write biographies, as per your blog and user-history. You'd said you were going to start biographies, of which there is no information on Wikipedia yet. I was suggesting you toss them all up in the working/request pages, so that other people might start them, if you burn out, or take your sweet time to getting around to them.
 * 3) The things you talk about on your blog make me think that you might have overlap with some of the people I hang out with, and thus I was giving you a recommendation for a different, additional water-cooler to hang out at online.
 * ~ender 2008-03-22 22:20:PM MST

Dorothy Hale
Hi EraserGirl. I have nothing but the upmost respect for you, but I think that it is unfair for you not to mention that I helped with the Dororthy Hale page. You may have done a much more extensive job with it, but had I not started would you have finished it? I think not. Have a good one. P.S. vote for me for WikiProject Films Coordinator! Creamy3 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You contributed nothing to the Hale article save for the page title and information conscripted from the IMDB site, which is apparently how you start many pages. Please do not vandalize my user page again. EraserGirl (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay Presson Allen
I think the archiving is done automatically after a set amount of time. Not very many people have watchlisted the assessments, so unfortunately assessment requests sometimes get archived before they are addressed. More people watchlist the talk page. WP Texas doesn't have clear guidelines for an A status article. You might want to have a peer review or nominate the article for GA status - you should get more feedback that way. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Screenwriters
I removed the PROD tag because the main reason for the PROD was that it should be changed into a category rather than a list. This goes against WP:CLS which states that lists, categories, and navigational templates should coexist together. This should be taken to WP:AFD rather than being PRODed. As the reviewing admin, I determined this and left the same reason in my edit summary. If you still don't understand, feel free to ask. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is already such a category, and No I didn't understand your summary. I agree lists and categories coexist, but THIS list does not contain any parameters, it could potentially contain a hundred thousand names. We don't have a list containing the names of ALL films? or ALL television programs, or all writers, hence this list should be broken into many lists. I was told that PROD was the method to begin this process. Simply wiping it away doesn't actually solve the problem. EraserGirl (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought from the prod reason that you simply wanted the page to be a category only. Do you still wish for me to delete?  Malinaccier (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to explain. I asked veterans working on the project how to get this done and THAT was why I did the PROD. Finding out that someone else can just come along and undo whatever I am working on because they didn't agree it is very disheartening. I am the ONLY person trying to keep the Screenwriters project alive and waiting for someone to take even a remote interest but I am not going to continue flailing away if it can all get reversed because someone outside the project doesn't like what I am doing. EraserGirl (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely understand your question. Therefore I will explain what PROD is:
 * PROD stands for Proposed Deletion.
 * In WP:PROD, it is stated "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, list it on Articles for deletion."
 * Therefore, you can see that PROD is a request for an article to be uncontroversially deleted, but if a single person disagrees with the deletion then a discussion must be started at WP:AFD. Like I said, I don't entirely understand your question but I hope that explaining what a PROD is will help you to understand and phrase your question clearer.  Hope I'm helping and not muddling things up for you. =\ Malinaccier (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, I am willing to delete it for you if you still want it to be deleted. Malinaccier (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

✅ Malinaccier (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong
No problem EG, I'll poke my nose in and do what I can, but I see that Bill (Zuk), an accomplished editor who happens to be knowledgeable in this field, is in the process of tackling the article so I'll only make rudimentary changes so as not to trip over him. Bill is really good with citations and footnotes.--Red Su ns et    16:57, 21 March 2008
 * Perfect, I also deferred to him. All I could managed was the rough edit. I will pay attention to his results and remember the formatting. EraserGirl (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

semi-automation
Is this software tool any use for starting new biography pages? magnus' tools. I have not tried it yet. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will try it, but it looks like overkill just to fill an infobox. EraserGirl (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it does more than that. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Can't wait. Still researching, reading Vera Caspary book and Lenore Coffee book at the same time.EraserGirl (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Harry Froboess
A tag has been placed on Harry Froboess requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article didn't cite references or assert notability for experiments or test building you can use your namespace. If the article is under constuction you can place an under construction template. Both of these will help to avoid speedy deletion tags in the future.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is a very heavy offense and I frequently patrol for it. I don't appreciate you accusing me of it. I was within policy to tag it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you should know what it is when you see it. You didn't even wait 3 minutes between the time I created the article, I didn't even have time to paste in the data. THAT is a disruptive and provocative act. I am asking you remove that notice so i can continue my work unimpeded. EraserGirl (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin and I don't have authority to decide speedy deletions, just place the hangon tag on the page and continue your work. If an admin feels it doesn't meet speedy criteria they will remove it. Also, I never once said your page was vandalism. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I did wasn't vandalism, but I consider slapping a Afd on something WHILE it was being created AS a provocative act. I had the damn page open IN EDIT when you did it! How can anyone get any work done if some joker comes along and destroys it? and if you aren't an admin, why didn't you just freaking ask me if I was DONE?  doesn't it LOOK UNDONE? EraserGirl (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether it looks undone or not is irrelevant, there are numerous pages that look undone which are made for any number of reasons. As I said before the best way to be certain something doesn't get tagged in the future is to experiment in you namespace or place an underconstruction tag on your article. You can defend the article on its talk page.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed the page was deleted by an administrator who reviewed the speedy. You can follow the steps outlined above to have the article reinstated if you feel the admin was in error.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I recently read that you generated the page as part of a script experiment, I can only suggest that in the future you should experiment in the user space before generating an article. I am very sorry you lost your work, but you had plenty of time to place a hangon tag on the page before the admin decided to delete the article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't THAT kind of experiment, it was only to see if it speedy up the process of creating a page. Apparently it didn't speed it up enough for your tastes. EraserGirl (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi EG, and Happy Easter BTW! This is a very unfortunate situation which can arise from time to time when there are so many eager Wikipedians just trying to keep an eye on things. Perhaps Torchwood Who? was a bit too quick off the mark in this instance, but his suggestion of intially creating an article in your own user space (such as on your existing "Women screenwriters" subpage) is one practised by many many experienced editors before creating the actual mainspace page and pasting your completed work onto it. This gets around a lot of problems and interference while you are still figuring how the article is going to pan out, enabling you to leave it in any state and keep coming back to it without fear of tags being slapped on it, and eventually you can release it to the "World"...et voila! Hope this helps! Cheers. --Red Su ns et    11:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your feelings EG; anyone would be aggrieved, but I hope that this incident won't dissuade you from contributing in your usual enthusiastic manner. Don't concern yourself with the element that takes quantity over quality as their watchword (no reference to, or personal attacks on any particular editor intended here); the Wiki needs dedicated editors with a mature attitude who can rise above the occasional set-backs, and whose only goal is to create and improve articles in collaboration with others. --Red Su ns et    20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep plugging away, unlike others MY goal isn't to rack up notches on my keyboard. I just want to give the obscure dead their due. EraserGirl (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Put inuse at the top of the article, or, better still, work it up in a sub page: User talk:EraserGirl/Draft 1, User talk:EraserGirl/Draft 1 etc - click link to start page - (rename Draft 1 to your preferred title, if you wish). If a draft is on a sub page, then leave out the categories for the time being, or put a colon at the beginning, such as Category:Stunt performers . This makes sure your sub page does not show up in the category page. There's 3,000,000 contributors to wiki, so it takes all sorts. Please bear in mind that the speedy-delete nominators (NB not AfD in this case) are doing their best to keep the project up to a good standard: check out Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. 5,000 articles or so get deleted every day! There's no way to tell you have an edit box open and are still working on the article. If something is nominated for a speedy delete, pus hangon underneath the template and explain on the talk page. You have to be robust in dealing with the trials and tribulations of wiki!  Ty  15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU
for creating the BOOKMOOCH userbox. It looks great. Katie1971  (  Let's talk!!  ) 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * no sweat. EraserGirl (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotations
Just a note EG, I noticed your latest additions to Jay Presson Allen and wondered if you're aware of the WP:MoS guidelines on quotations. The use of italics for quotes is preferred by some, but WP:MoS recommends the use of quotation marks instead, saving italics to highlight/emphasise words if necessary within a quote. I was going to adjust them myself, then I thought it would be better to leave you a note first. If you still prefer the italicised method then other quotes within the article will need to be changed for consistency. Cheers. --Red Su ns et    18:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm indifferent, I use embedded quotes so rarely, I wanted to see how it looked. The quotes are too short to blockquote nicely. I guess I forgot to turn the ' ' back to ". I will fix it. I'm from a universe where quotes are always italicised and titles are bolded. Here in WP verse things are backwards. Thanks.  EraserGirl (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks to you too, EraserGirl. Still a lot of work to do on the article, and I regret that I don't have enough time on(or off-)line to put in the work I'd like to... But it will come bit by bit. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do any of us? my to do list never gets any smaller, and I keep going back and tweaking people I have already worked on. thanks for the slice, now i need some milk EraserGirl (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yakima Canutt filmography
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Yakima Canutt filmography, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Yakima Canutt filmography. — BradV 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the page is simply a chart with a references section below it, and not really a stand-alone article. I'm no expert in this field but perhaps if (as with other filmographies) there was an intro and an info box to make it more complete, and if possible break the chart into suitable sections, you would have a chance of saving your hard work EG. BTW, Anita Loos is quite a dancer now! --Red Su ns et    21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments all make sense to me EG. Ok; I know that some ridiculous excuses for an article crop up all the time which deserve to be speedily put out of their misery, but there's a little thing called "common-sense" that seems to be sadly lacking amongst many, which, when combined with a pinch of patience might prevent many bad feelings and the premature removal of a potentially worthwhile work in progress. Sometimes I wonder if it's because they are compensating for being incapable of creative thinking themselves. I wasn't actually criticizing the work you've already done, just suggesting that it could be padded out a bit so that it doesn't need to be "propped up" by the main article.


 * On the subject of over-long pages I'm in total agreement with you. I thought that the scrolling reflist that was temporarily applied to Anna May Wong was an elegant solution to a vast series of footnotes, but obviously an opinion not shared by everyone. I subsequently applied it to a similarly extensive reflist on an aircraft article only to have it reverted within minutes if not seconds. There was a valid reason put forward, but nevertheless it's still disappointing and tends to dull one's enthusiasm. BTW, I like the new Anita Loos pics; she was very attractive IMHO and I would certainly like to have been able to take to the dance-floor with her for real! Having now seen Emerson – it puzzles me – just what did she ever see in him? --Red Su ns et    11:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I also liked the scroll on the Anna May Wong, and think that if Yak's filmography was shorter that would be a way to embed it, however the page would still remain the overlarge. Not everyone who reads WP has the most up to date computers and keeping text pages down to a manageable level is often forgotten. From the first edit on the main article I had to think how to best represent the data, and the table seemed to be the cleanest method. I was hoping that in the future a field could be added denoting key STUNTS from each film, which would follow through your idea regarding the page's stand alone quality. But complex pages need to be developed online, they won't be full born all at once.

Anita Loos
I can come up with more Loos images, but the trick is finding ones that reflect the text properly. Would be a waste of space to slap in a bunch of images from her films. I think Emerson's appeal wasn't his looks, He was a patronizing philandering parasite like her father. But the men that really made her happy were ones who found her cerebrally stimulating. I left out an entire incident where she took up with a low class rogue which seemed to be a totally sexual relationship, but it was shortlived and had no impact on her life or work.

Still working on her text. I didn't want to rely too heavily on the Carey book but her memoirs are notoriously flexible. I envy cult figures like Anna May wong who have much material to draw from, and someone like Loos is considered too Mundane to write about. But as I said before I have time. The dead are very patient. EraserGirl (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Vera Caspary
The lead of a B class article should probably be at least 2 paragraphs long, and serve as an effective summary of the article, as per WP:LEAD. An example, pulled up purely at random, is Ben Abell, or, for writers, Graham Greene. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.EraserGirl (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Steve Bedrosian
I've watchlisted the page, so I'll catch them if they come back. It can always be protected if they persist long enough. Hut 8.5 18:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * hopefully they will get bored and find something else to do. EraserGirl (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessments
Hi. I'm not sure where you submitted the articles for assessment, but there are none pending on the WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Assessment page. I'll look back over Helen Gibson, but once an article goes to a GA review, we don't do them within the project. You'll have to check at WP:GAN for instructions on how to proceed from GA on. They can be fairly brutal at times. Another editor and myself were lucky enough to get Gene Wilder passed for GA just last night. Let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's no need to double submit them. I guess I thought that the screenwriters project was under our filmmakers work group, according to the discussion on the talk page. That's where the Gibson article fell when I first assessed it. If your project is under the larger umbrella, then it has implications for removing it from the other, I would think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * don't be silly there is no screenwriter's project, there is only me. I have been trying to find ANYONE anywhere who gives a damn abour screenwriters.  no one does. don't even go there with me. EraserGirl (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference lists
I saw the discussion re: scrolling lists on the Anna May Wong talk page and just wanted to alert you that they aren't acceptable, per WP:REF which states ''Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers.'' Just wanted to pass that on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks, i still think they are pretty. EraserGirl (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Screenwriters
Hi. I would advise creating an A-Z list (by surname) or by country e.g List of German screenwriters etc rather than decade and adding a few columns for birth death dates and decades of cinema worked in. Other than this I would possibly suggest creating a list by birth date but an A-Z sounds better to me. Good luck with the screenwriters -if it is referenced with an imdb link you shouldn't be getting them deleted. If you have any afd's or speedy trouble feel free to give me a bell and I'll see what I can do  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree further breakdowns by alphabet and country would be helpful in future, but you can get that information using the Category feature, Category:American_screenwriters yields screenwriters alphabetically and Category:German screenwriters will yield a list of German ones, I see no reason to start the task by duplicating these efforts.  The lists I would be creating are subjective, similar to the films lists such as Adventure films of the 1930s.  EraserGirl (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Screenwriters
Personally, at this point, I'd maybe start by century, 20th and 21st. Regarding the articles you've been proposing, it might help a lot if you could find a reliable secondary source to include as a specific reference citation. I know there are several encyclopedia of film people, and if you could get one of them, and use it as a reference, or any other source which describes the subject in depth, I think that any articles would be a lot less likely to be challenged. Also, I would think anyone who won any of the major film awards would be regarded as notable as well. Regarding the general list, though, and this is just a personal opinion, I'd probably opt for a straight alphabetical list for the 20th century, maybe for the entire run of the screen, given that however rare the exceptions are, there will be exceptions and listing people in multiple locations might not be the best answer. List of comic strips is an example of how such a list can even run to multiple pages, if required by length. I honestly think that, at least initially, that might be the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I do take pride in my citations, but it seems that even having 8 or 9 references on a page, means nothing to some people. I think they just challenge things to see if anyone cares. Reference books aren't my problem. Anything I need I can get.

I do understand your point regarding alphabetical lists, but seriously do you know realize how many thousands of people could be ON these lists? It's not hundreds, it's thousands. I have been researching Women screenwriters for the last 3 months and there are even hundreds of those. restricting it to 'notables' is all well and good, but notability is much more subjective. I think the decade lists would be actually useful for doing research, it gives you a snapshot of who is working on what when, creating lists for the sake of creating lists, is a wasted effort. Lists should be useful. I think BOTH My ideas and the ideas of you and Bloefeld are valid, so I propose BOTH. Alphabetical notables and chronological. EraserGirl (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know more about it than I do. The only reason I'm not going ahead with changing the biography banner right away is that, because of the huge number of pages it's includdd in, any changes to that banner will be recorded on all the pages it's included one, causing some fairly serious problems to the system. That's why I'm hoping to get them all done at once. If you wanted to start the articles anyway in the interim though, just add a screenwriter category to them and we can get a bot to add the screenwriter project tag to all such articles later. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You know of course that I don't understand what you are talking about right? banners? bots?EraserGirl (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. The WP Biography is the project banner, which would have to be altered to accomodate your group. Unfortunately, that template is transcluded in about half a million articles, and changing that template would involve, basically, freezing the servers for several minutes while it checks to see if it changes the "display" on any of the pages it's included on. However, if, after say a week or so, I can get some agreement to any of the other potential changes, thus making them all at once, it won't reduce the amount of time it freezes the system, but at least it will all be at the same time. Also, if you do place the articles in Category:Screenwriters or one of its subcategories, I can get one of our automated programs to adjust the WP Biography template automatically for all articles in that category later. Sorry about that. I'm a guy, OK? Using jingo uncontrollably goes with the territory. :) John Carter (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am guilty of flinging my own jargon around, but I am still blind as to how altering the banner does anything towards furthering the Screenwriter's project. EraserGirl (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it (1) advertises the presence of the project a bit better, (2) gives that project and the Biography project a better idea of the articles it already has, and (3) makes it a bit more likely others will contribute, and possibly join. There are additional things that can be done as well, but basically letting the people who look at those articles know that a dedicated project exists, which the banner does, is generally the best advertisement out there. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for any efforts,I hope it works, it doesn't inspire me though. So, far I have found a great apathy towards any screenwriter who wasn't a stripper or didn't write for HBO. WP should be a great vehicle for preserving and sharing knowledge. EraserGirl (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a reason we've generally allowed four months to get 10 intereted parties for a project. Personally, I think the best possible option would be to place a proposal on the WikiProject Council/Proposals page, link to it from a few others, and see what happens. Also, please remember that just about every editor who actually sees it will probably already be working elsewhere as well, so expressions of interest are what should be counted. Many of the religion projects are really one-man shows in terms of actual project management, and there's not a lot of reason to think that wouldn't be the case here as well. However, given some months of the project's activity, then people tend to be a bit more active. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Objections?
Hi. I have no objections to your work at all. I have rated it as I see it (as I always do). It is an uprating; if you wish to take it to another assessor, please re-submit to Assessment and I will not touch it. I will obviously let someone else give it the once over. For the time being, it has a rating better than the one before.

Whenever I assess articles, there is no malice meant towards the editor or their contributions. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought you had realised I uprated from stub to start. It is not far off B in truth, so keep at it if you can. Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do) 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anita Loos lead
Just a suggestion for expanding the lead section in preparation for a GA revue. You'll probably need to change/cut out a few things, including my British-English spelling; see what you think:


 * Anita Loos (April 26, 1888 – August 18, 1981), was an acclaimed American screenwriter, playwright and author. On pronouncing her name, "The family has always used the correct French pronunciation which is lohse. However, I myself pronounce my name as if it were spelled luce, since most people pronounce it that way and it was too much trouble to correct them."


 * Following her early appearances on the stage, Loos drew on her life experiences for subject matter to fulfil her ambition to write screenplays and scripts. After a short-lived marriage and fuelled by her initial writing success, she joined the Hollywood film community in 1915 where she was put on the Triangle Film Corporation payroll, her first position with a major film company. While there she was teamed with John Emerson who she would marry in 1921, and it was during the following years that she would write possibly her best-known work Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1925) and the sequel But Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (1927). The marriage to the hypochondriac philandering Emerson deteriorated while Loos did most of the work, and when the team was offered a contract to write pictures for MGM she took the job to write alone.


 * Over the next few years, a now happy and successful Loos worked alone, socialised, and saw whoever she wanted while giving the impression that she and Emerson were still a "team". The couple lived apart until Emerson's death in 1956, during and after which time Loos continued to write for MGM (after a brief spell with United Artists), and then as a free agent; writing or adapting plays, screenplays and novels.


 * During her later years Loos was a constant contributor to magazines, and wrote a number of memoirs. She continued to attend shows, balls and other social events, and remained a virtual institution on the New York scene until dying at the age of 93 in 1981.

--Red Su ns et    21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You needn't be shy, you wrote the intro slap it up there. Since I started writing this particular kind of article I haven't actually seen many with a lead-in. I am extremely good at emulation, if you show me a format I can conform to match. Now that I know they NEED introductions that distill the complete article, I can certainly do them. But I like that you have provided me with a good example. I am still hoping to find more sources for Loos. EraserGirl (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You've done the donkey-work EG and I didn't want to steal your thunder; however, before "slapping it up there" I think it might need generalising a bit more. Not being my usual area I'm not familiar with other articles of this type, or how many are GA and FA; but Lead section states there should be a lead of up to four paragraphs (number dependant on the article's size) to provide an overall picture of the subject and all important points without going into too much detail. Stubs tend not to have a proper lead since the material is likely to be short and lacking in depth, and up to B you can get away with just one short(ish) paragraph, but GA and above must get the full treatment.


 * Regarding reference sources: where a paragraph contains no contentious material or quotes, some reviewers regard a single ref point at its end as being acceptable, but there should be no completely unsourced paragraphs. Reviewers want inline citations where necessary for GA and throughout for FA, but I've seen some FAs with just the paragraphs referenced. Unfortunately reviewers display little consistency; some dislike web-based reference sources as being unstable while others prefer them as they are more easily verifiable, and I've seen the fate of GAs and FAs hinge on this aspect alone – it can be a bit of a lottery!


 * Yes, you can come across some interesting stuff by accident; luckily in your case it's Category:Filmographies, and simply by their existence you would have had an argument against the proposed (now withdrawn?) AfD. I still think a small lead is in order though. --Red Su ns et    18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, a lead summarizing the entire piece is warranted. I will get around to putting them on the 10 articles I have in play sometime soon. I think it is harder for me to summarize my own work, than it would be for someone who isn't as involved in the text.  You write three or four thousand words it's hard to cull them down to just a few dozen.  Right now i have to spend time on WORK work. As I research the ones I have already worked, I keep accumulating data for others, hence my on deck circle keeps getting longer. I understand the inline citations, and will try to make sure I get them in the proper places.   I can understand FA but I hadn't realized getting to GA was such a hardship. Thanks as always. EraserGirl (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * GA's not so bad, but try to think in terms of FA then you won't fall short. Modified lead now in the article; just needs referencing. Over to you when you have the opportunity EG! --Red Su ns et    20:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So far so, good, I slapped a couple of citations in the lead, but I have a bunch of material to add from a new book I just got. I will work on it later tonight when I can relax. THIS is what I do for fun. Ever wonder WHY I keep this bibliography handy? User:EraserGirl/Women Screenwriters, so that times like this, I can just cut and paste the references are already preformatted.! 8) EraserGirl (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, Mass.
Thanks for your help editing the Lawrence page. Something got messed up, the paragraph on Syrian immigrants does not show anymore, and the last sentence of that paragraph shows at the end of the paragraph on German immigrants. However, in the underlying text, it all apears to be there. Can you please fix it? Now I just looked at it again, Syria is ok, but everything I wrote about the German immigrants (coming from Saxony, their clubs, etc) is missing. Can you please fix it? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmccarthy (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text that used to be there (Germans got moved up, because they now have more lines) Thanks!

The first sizeable German community arrived following the revolutions of 1848. However, a larger German community was formed after 1871, when industrial workers from Saxony were displaced by economic competition from new industrial areas like the Ruhr. The German community was characterized by numerous school clubs, shooting clubs, national and regional clubs, as well as men’s choirs and mutual aid societies, many of which were clustered around the Turn Verein, a major social club on Park Street.

Cbmccarthy (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, it must have been missing before I fixed that citation link. EraserGirl (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and refs
Nice work with the extra cites on Anita Loos and Vera Caspary EG; however, please don't be offended when I say that you should maintain consistency re their positioning relative to punctuation. Wikipedia:Footnotes, Ref tags and punctuation states:
 * Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are normally placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. Some editors prefer the style of journals such as "Nature", which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it.

As far as I can make out, all WP:MoS-related and guidance pages place their ref tags immediately after punctuation, so I think sticking to this format is the best bet unless adding to an already well-referenced article where the alternative style has already been established. Another good reason is that since most editors use it, reviewers are more likely to look favourably (sorry, favorably) on it. There's nothing written anywhere that stipulates that you can't place ref tags before punctuation marks if that's the way you want to go with a new article, but remember that consistency is the name of the game (as always). --Red Su ns et    17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you believe me if i told you it was NOT a conscious decision where the punctuation lands? it is merely because I don't read very well on the screen - and I haven't as yet thought to go back and check. The back lighting makes periods almost invisible to me. Thanks for fixing them. EraserGirl (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No sweat; I often see what I want or expect to see rather than what is actually there, especially if I'm the one who's written it! That's the great thing about other editors being there to spot our slip-ups. Next time I'll simply leave a "tweaks"-type summary.--Red Su ns et    17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry EG, but I've just undone your last revision to Clara Beranger. The article originally used the MoS recommended format which should then be adhered to – perhaps I didn't explain it very well. At the end of the day it's just a style thing, but it can be useful to stick to recommended practises if at sometime we're looking for a rating promotion. --Red Su ns et    19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, it wasn't my intention to confuse or upset you; you're doing a great job! --Red Su ns et    19:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I do better if you tell me specific things I did wrong, as far as i know i was putting the citation outside the punctuation mark and i thought you wanted them inside, like a quotation. now i don't care. maybe it's me, but it think the words are more important than that. EraserGirl (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes of course you're right, the content is the most important part which is what you do well, so I won't interfere any more. --Red Su ns et    19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vera caspary.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vera caspary.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ChanduTheMagician.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:ChanduTheMagician.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I must be missing something because the image description and tags seem appropriate. Conversing with bots is problematic, so just change the description to an apt tag and that should solve things (for now). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

It was fixed after I posted about the problem. That bot was making a nuisance of itself. EraserGirl (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:72.15.76.157
I must confess I find your comment on my talk page a little surprising! Any user can warn another about inappropriate edits. You made a comment to the user yourself, then reported to WP:AIV. I'm afraid I declined to block, due to the reasons stated as well as the guidelines at WP:BLOCK. I'm not sure what value me giving the IP address a further warning would have. Admins have the technical ability to block, but warnings by admins carry no more weight than those by others. A block was clearlyvout of process here. I genuinely thank you for your efforts, but suggest you read the BLOCK guidelines and also WP:VAND to get some more information on what is or isn't vandalism and when to report to WP:AIV. Again, sorry I couldn't help in this instance. Pedro : Chat  20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, however I am still confused at how merely removing my comment actually did anything but negate my involvement. I didn't expect you to block anyone at that stage, but leaving another warning would have at least acknowledged the infraction. EraserGirl (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi EraserGirl. I think you misunderstand AIV given your comments. AIV is for reporting active and clear cut vandals, active at the current time, with the understanding being that the vandal needs to be blocked to prevent further harm to Wikipedia. The basic criteria are on the AIV page;

Here, the IP failed to meet both 1 and 2 if the criteria. AIV is not the place to seek admonishment of an editor. You can do that yourself. If you are unsure make a report to WP:ANI. If a report to AIV does not meet guidelines it is removed (normally but not certainly by an administrator), with a comment in the edit summary as to why it was removed. Does that help? Please ask if you'd like more information, I'm here to help. Pedro : Chat  20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.
 * The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop.
 * IP addresses cannot be blocked indefinitely; The person behind a single IP address may frequently change and this needs to be allowed for.
 * Have a look at VAND. Simply put, you can do 99% of fixing vandalism yourself (i.e. everything but an actual block). Undo (or rollback - I assume you have rollback) the edits. Warn using the templates. If they are persistent report to WP:AIV. Make sure the vandal is active at the time you report (or 5-10 minutes before) and they have been warned to desist. WP:AIV is not the place to get other editors to warn vandals. Just go ahead an do it yourself! AIV is purely for an admin to make a decision as to wether or not to block. However it is important for you to be reasonably confident that an editor should be stopped from editing before reporting them. Pedro : Chat  21:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello EraserGirl, I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to help you revert vandalism more easily? Acalamari 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that would be helpful, though usually I only concern myself with blatant vandalism or article within my purview, like inserting inappropriate comments etc..I don't actually go looking for vandals to trounce. I am confused, wouldn't it be the same as the 'undo' function? EraserGirl (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in! It's basically quicker than undo, but you have no option to add an edit summary. You can learn about it at Rollback feature. Remember it must be used only for clear cut vandalism. Pedro : Chat  21:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added it to your account BTW. Pedro : Chat  21:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedro granted rollback to you before I had the chance. You may wish to review New admin school/Rollback for additional information and practice. Good luck. Acalamari 21:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, this allows multiple undos. Are you sure you should be giving me such power? Oddly I can't think of an occasion I have had to do more than revert 1 vandalicious edit. I don't usually revert other editor's contextual edits - I try to convince them to do it themselves. But I thank you anyway. I will try to use it wisely. EraserGirl (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are sure that we can give you the tool: rollback can be taken away as easily as it's given. It's only to be used to revert vandalism, and since you've reverted vandalism in the past, I (and Pedro!) reckoned you'd find it useful. It's only a simple tool, nothing more. In the mean time, good luck, and you're welcome. :) Acalamari 23:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: chandu v. the bad bot
The "File links" section of image description pages is updated automatically, and lists every page that an image is used on. Since the image wasn't formatted properly on the article, the image wasn't shown in the article, so it wasn't used, thus, not listed on the "File links" section. You can see it was fixed here, and now the article is listed on the image page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And also, the image actually has to be used on the page (you must be able to see the image), not just a link to it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then you are in error, the image has been displayed ON the page since it was added, not just linked but actually appeared in the infobox. I can see if the image size was incorrect there might be a problem but it didn't prevent the image from actually being seen and yes the file link was actually THERE when I checked all the info on the image page after the bot tagged it. Perhaps you are confused. No matter it is all fixed now.  Thanks again for fixing the tag. EraserGirl (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I looked at the page myself, and it was not there. Okay then. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is sooo weird. ghosts in the machine eh? EraserGirl (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD comments
Can you desist from your comments belittling real people who are the subject of articles, notable or not? I'm sure you can make your points while not making personalized slights against people who have come to your attention via an article here. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thoreau notwithstanding. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't take reprimands from anonymous users, and THOSE were not belittling comments. It is far more belittling to slap a label of 'not notable enough for wikipedia' on someone than to merely say they are ordinary like the rest of us. Don't post here again unless you sign in. EraserGirl (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

comments on my talk page
Holy crap. It is accepted on wikipedia that stalking edits in order to annoy is quite serious, a form of harassment, in fact. If you believe that is the case here, you can and should report it on the administrators noticeboard for such incidents. If you don't, withdraw your comments. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)