User talk:Filmmaker2011

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Filmmaker2011, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Welcome
Welcome. I placed the welcome message above on your talk page because I saw you edited a page that is in my watchlist and you had redlinks for both your user and user talk pages (and indicator that you are probably a new editor.)

You requested an article move. According to the WP:MOS the name would have each word capitalized only if it would be written that way in a normal sentence. I looked through some of the references but couldn't find a use of it to see if it is a proper noun. Actually, none of the references seem to refer to it making it's notability unverified at this time. RJFJR (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I made the move. RJFJR (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou RJFRJ. This method of messaging (editing your message) seems slightly odd, is it ok? The title did not feel correct as it was written, not being a language expert I searched French New Wave (an equivalent) and it is capitalized, at least on wikipedia, so I presume that the change is correct. As for the movements notability, it will take me time to build up this article as firstly I am very slow at this, learning as I go, and secondly the references (to pncm) are emerging slowly. By all means doubt, but give this some time as it is a work in progress (mostly by me, and I am snowed under with other less charitable work) but it is not self serving hype. Which brings me to something I would like to discuss further. I am interested by which page is in your watchlist, especially if it's the Lollywood page, or maybe I should say more accurately whether you are interested in pages that refer to film in Pakistan. The reason being that this is where I have entered wikipedia as an editor because of my own work, and also where I know there to be a galaxy of notability problems and inaccuracies. Films and filmmakers are undergoing a struggle with hype because of it's nature, desirability, digital image acquisition and the internet. It is actually unique in the disparity between the claims (long awaited, award winning big budget etc) of wannabes (for want of a better kinder word) and the facts as pertain to productions both completed and in progress. Part of the reason for this is complexity of what happens to films after they are made and the intrinsic nature of such a unique mass medium. Upshot is, I have a vested interest so would not feel comfortable editing claims by people I know or know of, but I am interested in accuracy and fairness and would like to know how to deal with this and also discuss specifically the special case of films. It could for instance be appropriate to restrict listings or mentions of films that are completed and or listed in a strictly checked forum like IMDB. What do you think? Maybe if this isn't an area of interest you could point me, thanks. Filmmaker2011 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Some editors prefer to have responses placed on the original talk page and some on their own so it alternates. It depends on whether they will check back or have added the talk page to their watchlist.  In this case I happened to check back and saw you message.
 * Feel free to ask questions. I did some checking and found this entry WP:IMDB addressing whether IMDB is a reliable source (WP:RS); that page advises against it being considered a reliable source. RJFJR (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Pakistan New Cinema Movement has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=192239108468. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

About making legal threats
Please read No legal threats in relation to these two edits. Are you serious about seeking legal action against these IP adresses? Yoenit (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks I read the page. Interesting, but what does 'serious' mean? Yes I'm serious about stopping a libelous attack, and from putting off the misuse of Wikipedia, but so far have only sought legal advice. The page is characteristically vague jumping from the threat of legal action to taking legal action with clear distinction between them but no distinction as to implication, citing actual legal action as the problem. The libelous and extremely damaging edit(s) (one was just a section removal that was part of a systematic unsigned removal of all references in articles that was made from a different IP address but at the same time) were made on an international public portal, from unregistered users(s) from IP addresses within Pakistan about me personally whilst I am at risk in working in Pakistan, where I am very much an alien. The search summary showed the vandalism for a week after it was removed! When it happened, my first reaction was to remove everything that related to this part of my work. Then I read the vandalism article which tells me not to remove my article. So, given the severity of the attack and the specific conditions which bear no resemblance to the psychology of the west (circumlocution), what would you have me do sir? I am discouraged, It's the nail in the camel's coffin after the straw broke it's back, so kindly explain the quickest way to remove the article, and thanks again for pointing out my indiscretion.--Filmmaker2011 (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked for help on how to deal with this issue, as I do not feel confident to handle this matter. An administrator should be here soon to discuss the issue. Yoenit (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have taken the liberty of removing the legal threats from the warnings that you administered; typically, contributors are blocked so long as legal threats are outstanding, and I think that would be very much the wrong approach in this case. :)

Legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia because they are often used to quell legitimate disagreements over editing. They have a chilling effect on the community. This situation is obviously different, particularly with this edit, which can not have been intended constructively. Nevertheless, legal action must be pursued elsewhere and should not be made to seem any kind of official proclamation from Wikipedia. You are free to follow your legal remedies against these individuals, if police are able to help you, but there is no need to notify them of this through Wikipedia, particularly as there is a good chance that the person to actually see those notes may be a different person altogether, with no idea what you're talking about. You can imagine how encouraged you might feel to edit Wikipedia if you received a message of that sort, not understanding that a prior user of that IP address had left potentially libelous vandalism.

Our practice with libel is precisely what you have done: to remove the material or revert it and to caution the contributor. In some cases of severe vandalism, we may delete the revision from history entirely so that it may not be viewed by anyone but system administrators or, in even more serious cases, suppress it so that even most system administrators cannot read it. I have not pursued either of these options here because if you have notified police, it will not aid them in their investigation if they can't see the material as it was. If you feel at some point that it is no longer needed for investigation, please let me know, and I will delete it from history.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the search summary". Do you mean an external search engine retaining the vandalism in the article? If so, deleting the article will not speed the removal of the vandalism from those search engines. Google, as well as other search engines, update their database by "crawling" sites, including Wikipedia, periodically. They are not updated in real time, and thus they may continue to carry content that has already been removed from Wikipedia. This situation goes on until they "crawl" Wikipedia again, which typically occurs every two weeks or more frequently (the exact period depends on the search engine). The same problem applies to both the search results and the remotely retained copies provided by some search engines (including Google). Wikipedia itself has no control over what appears on Google or other search engines, so you do have to deal with them directly. The good news is that, once vandalism is repaired, you can request that the search engine's cache and description be updated quickly; with Google, the steps are at.

Since there is no pattern of abuse in this article, it is possible that this was a one-time piece of nastiness that will not be repeated. However, if it is, we have the option of "semiprotecting" the article for a time so that only registered users can edit it. This does not eliminate determined vandalism, but it makes it much easier to control, as any would-be vandal will have to register for an account and pass an editing threshold before being able to alter that article. Then, if they vandalize it, they can be blocked, forcing them to start the process all over again. This is an investment of time that seems to quickly grow wearisome for those who are not dedicated to it.

If you encounter any more problems of this sort, please feel free to let me know or to raise the matter at Requests for page protection. Wikipedia is very interested in helping ensure that this kind of abuse of its system does not go unchecked. We just have to make sure that we do so within the allowances of our policies and guidelines. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, incredibly you covered everything that had concerned me about this, and I am fine that you removed the threat, it was just the only way I could think of to discourage this from happening again. Actually the IP's server was from a large institution at which I have taught, and so that both gave me confidence that I could get information. However the reality here is that whilst the 'law' (both police and courts) do not have a good reputation, ironically the threat of action is quite effective as it can be fast tracked if you have any authority and this won't rest on the existence of evidence!. Upshot is that I would rather that this edit is removed from the history if possible, as it's existence is potentially more damaging to me than any loss of potential legal recourse. The method you outlined is fine and I will just let you know if it happens again. The search summary I was referring to was I think from Wikipedia's own internal search engine, but the result is the same and it has been updated today so it's no longer a problem. One other thing, in my area of activity (guess what that is!) there is a specific problem with individuals (mostly students again) that have been making articles on themselves can I point these towards an admin, I don't feel it would be fair or wise (case in point) for me to edit personal pages of people I know or know of. Thanks again. --Filmmaker2011 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for overlooking your reply; thanks for letting me know at my talk page! I try to keep up with it all, but I watch over 2000 pages for activities and reply, and I'm embarrassed to say that sometimes I do lose track of something. :/ Anyway, I'll respond to the issue you raised on my talk page here as well, just to avoid sending you back and forth. I have deleted the libelous vandalism from the article's history so that it is no longer accessible to the public.


 * We don't really have a process in place that allows you to draw attention to articles that you think are autobiographies without editing them at all. I guess that the action I would recommend would depend on the problems you see with the articles. If you think that the articles may not demonstrate "notability" (as Wikipedia defines it), you might add (the curly brackets must be included; you may already know this, but I'm unsure how experienced you are with Wikipedia markup, and I'd rather make you roll your eyes by telling you the obvious than leave you confused by failing to tell you what you need to know :)). This will alert the article's creator and other editors that there may be notability concerns. It may lead to improving the sources or to somebody else nominating the article for deletion. If there is notability, but you are concerned that the conflict of interest may cause neutrality concerns or problems with verifiability, you can add autobiography or coi to the articles. Again, these will alert the contributor to issues while at the same time inviting others to review the articles. This shouldn't really constitute any kind of conflict on your part, so long as you leave addressing the matter up to somebody else. If an article fails to even so much as suggest that an individual has encyclopedic significance, you can also tag it db-A7, which will invite an administrator to review the article and, if he agrees, to delete it.


 * One thing you do need to be careful of here is "outing". On Wikipedia, this refers to attempts to disclose the identity of a pseudonymous editor. coi and autobiography tags should be added only where it seems clear from edits that there is a conflict. Many of us, obviously, use pen names for a variety of reasons, including safety concerns, so the Wikipedia community is rather firm about this. If it's not obvious that there's a conflict, it's better to use notability or specific concern tags such as Original research or Primary sources. If conflict is obvious, you can also list the article at the conflict of interest noticeboard, explaining that due to a connection to the subject yourself you feel you should not be the person to assess or address the article. This may or may not attract response. Noticeboards are typically a bit hit-or-miss on Wikipedia. :)


 * In answer to your question at my talk page, it's easy enough to edit a redirect. Say, for random example, you want to create an article on African witchcraft, which currently redirects to the larger topic Witchcraft. When you perform the search for African witchcraft, it automatically directs you to a specific section of the article. Hit your browsers "back" button, and it will take you to the top of the article, where you will see the words "(Redirected from African witchcraft)". If you hit the link within those words at the top of the page, the software we use will understand that you're not wanting to follow the redirect, but to access the page directly. When you do that, you can edit the page just as any other. Remove the redirect markup (which in this case looks like this: ), and add the article you think needs to exist.


 * In terms of your last question, these kinds of disputes are typical on Wikipedia. Please try not to be put off by it; it's actually one of the strengths of our model, even though it doesn't always seem like it in specific application. :) When you have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you're likely to wind up with quite a lot of biased writing if not for the balance provided by other views. Sometimes, of course, those other views may be simply misguided rather than helpful. The thing to do is always, as you have done, to begin by explaining why you disagree and also (where possible) addressing any legitimate concerns they may have. You should add sources as soon as possible; while Verifiability encourages tagging content that is in dispute before removing it, the fact is that policy does permit removing any content that is not verifiable to a reliable source. Without sources, other readers have no way of knowing if the material is original research, which is not permitted. For one example, the section says: "Much of the criticism of autuer theory could be argued to be inherently skewed, perhaps not surprisingly so, as critics and theorists are generally writers, and therefore naturally identify with this part of the process." You need to tell our readers who advances the opinion that this criticism could be argued to be inherently skewed.


 * If you and another contributor disagree on content, the thing to do is to seek wider contribution. "Dispute resolution" gives several suggestions for how and where to do that. I am myself partial to beginning with WP:3O, but listings there must be carefully worded and formatted to remain neutral. You have to try to write the request for feedback in such a way that a reader could not guess which of the two disagreeing parties you are. One generally does not request administrator intervention until other dispute resolution processes have broken down. The community is the authority on questions of content; administrators don't have special powers to arbitrate content, only to enforce compliance with the community will.


 * I'll try to keep a better eye here; you should be able to ask any questions you may have. But you are welcome at any time to nudge me at my talk page if you think

I've missed it or even to prevent my missing it. There is a template you can use to help somebody find a reply at your own talk page:. That tells somebody they have a message at your talkpage. Looks like this:


 * (Except, of course, that it won't say "Hello, Filmmaker2011" on somebody else's page. :)) Optionally, you can add a third parameter to tell them the name of the specific section: . --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

your post and the Filmproject talk page
Hello Filmmaker2011. I saw your post about the auteur theory. I am not sure how much response you will get so I wanted to suggest that you contact User:WickerGuy and see if he would be interested in looking into your request. He does in depth work on numerous film articles and is aces at researching things to finding references that meet WikiP's standards. Having said that I can't guarantee that he will be a) have the time to look into it or b) agree with your assessment of what should and should not be in the article I just know that he will be thorough. Of course you are also free to ignore this. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pakistan New Cinema Movement


The article Pakistan New Cinema Movement has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no significant third party coverage about this organization was found

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter
The September 2011 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. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election
Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter
The October 2011 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. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter
The  2011 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. —Peppage (talk &#124; contribs) 22:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter
The December 2011 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. —Peppage (talk &#124; contribs) 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter
The January 2012 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.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE  X  00:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list