User talk:Jay-W/Archive 1

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:


 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use 	 ~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the test area.
 * You can get help at the Help Desk
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk to me

List of film noir
I noticed that you excised Dead Calm from the List of film noir (I've restored it). I was interested in your rationale for that. The list is not simply a grab bag of what you or I would like to call "film noir," but a tally of the films significantly recognized as such. I could give you multiple citations in re: Dead Calm, but perhaps this passage from the leading encyclopedia in the field, Silver and Ward's Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style, will suffice: "[O]ur personal favorite among new foreign noir is the Australian picture Dead Calm" (p. 423). I realize that I mistakenly pasted in Dead Calm as the Wikilink for (a misdated) Mona Lisa, and I thank you for correcting that; in turn, please be more conscientious about your substantive edits in the future. Best, Dan —DCGeist 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Production designer
Production designer is not Art direction. I don't know why you replaced Peter Lamont on Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun. K1Bond007 15:28, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

That's true. But a production designer is more important than an art director. Older films will credit the chief designer as "art director" but from the 1960s on they are usually known as Production Designers, with the art director as an assistant. There's no harm in crediting both, but for limited credits the production designer should take precedence. JW 16:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The point to listing them is that they have notability within the James Bond franchise, some including Lamont have been nominated for Academy Awards for their work on Bond films or other films and should be noted in the article. I'm not going to debate this. If you want to make the articles FAIR by adding all the executive producers or all the art directors, then by all means add the information instead of removing it. This is an encyclopedia afterall and your actions here can be considered vandalism given the information, specifically about Peter Lamont which was correct and notable.


 * If you have a problem with Wilson being listed under Producer then add EXECUTIVE PRODUCER. I don't care. What I do care about is you removing perfectly valid information because it doesn't you suit you. This is just foolish. Also, in the future please don't attempt to assert to someone who has done major contributions to an article, with good information, as attempting to build a fansite. I've done no such thing especially by simply listing Wilson who is an executive producer as producer. If you disagree with my edits, see a problem with my edits, then correct them or by all means discuss it on the talk page. K1Bond007 20:16, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to follow this up, Tom Pevsner is not an executive producer of Octopussy. He was an associate producer. All these different types of producing are generally considered "producers" anyway. I don't think its necessary to list them all, but ones that notability to the film or the franchise should be listed such as Wilson who is Broccoli's son and went on to produce every future James Bond film. I'd also like to say that I mean for my comments here to be mean, but it is upsetting when information is simply removed rather than corrected or discussed. If you take offense to anything I said, then I apologize. K1Bond007 20:27, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * As previously stated all types of producers are generally considered producers. See IMDB and other sites that group them as "producer". It's not like I'm twisting the facts here. He's still a producer he just happens to be the "executive" one. If you want to seperate them by whos an executive producer and who is just a regular producer then fine, I don't care, but I don't feel its necessary or really notable. For films the difference is usually that they take on a larger role as financier. This isn't "minor credit corrections" either. You removed information from articles that was true and notable. I see that as "a big deal". I'm sorry. K1Bond007 21:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please tell me this is another joke of yours? Now you're asserting that I have problems with people editing my contributions? WTF!! Where do you even get off with that? Trying to say I don't know what I'm talking about, the difference between a producer and an executive producer now? If you want to remove the information, fine, I'll revert it. If you want to add to the information and clarify their position as executive or associate, rather than just a producer, thats fine. I never had a problem with that. Seems to be grouped by "Producer - filmography". I really don't want to argue this anymore especially with someone like yourself and all your -"jokes"-. I'm not even sure I lised the information in the first place, but I do support it as is especially since it says "Produced by:" and not "Producer:". K1Bond007 21:17, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Category:British actors
There's no need to add articles to Category:British actors if they are already in a subcategory of this, i.e. Category:Scottish actors or Category:Welsh actors etc. From Categorization:
 * In the "vertical" dimension, you should probably be more frugal. A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in.  For example,  Queen Elizabeth should not be listed directly under People, but Queens of England might be a good place for her.  We know that all Queens of England qualify as Famous Britons and as Royalty, and all of those folks qualify as People.  But sometimes there's a good reason to assign an article to two categories, one of which is a direct or indirect subcategory of another.  For a well-argued case study, see John Lennon.

Thanks, Vclaw 11:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cinema categories
Pearle only changes category names in response to a consensus on Categories for deletion. The debate over changes to subcategories of Category:Cinema by country was archived quite a while ago. Category:Cinema of Catalan looks like a mistake; I have nominated it for renaming on WP:CFD. -- Beland 4 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
 * Oh, and with regard to British, vs. United Kingdom... We generally prefer "Foo of Country" rather than "Countrian foo", with some exceptions, and certainly "Foo of the United Kingdom" to "Foo of Britain".  I think the film categories are one of the exceptions, though, for reasons that I do not agree with.  I would consider nominating other "British" categories for renaming, though. -- Beland 4 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Beland. Is it possible to access the archived CFD debate at all? JW 5 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Category:Cinema_by_country. Similar decisions are listed at Categories_for_deletion/resolved. -- Beland 5 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Signing comments
Thanks for your input on The Trollenberg Terror. Might I ask that you please sign and date your comments on talk pages, though? All you need to do is add four tildes ( ~ ) to the end of your posting, and your user ID (with a link to your user page) and a standard date/time stamp will be added when you save your edit. Thank you. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 7 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

Living Daylights Aston
Kbond007 asked me to check on it, too. It's a very distinctive car - the Series 2 had a smaller bulge than the series I V8 Vantage and didn't have the blocked off grille. I put a bit in Talk:List of James Bond vehicles but I'll copy it to the car page too. --SFoskett 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. The "V8 Volante" is not a separate model - the car had a Vantage engine and badges so it was supposed to be a V8 Vantage, and happened to be a convertible (Volante) as well.  The actual car was a non-Vantage V8 car, however.  So I modified the text at Aston Martin V8 Vantage and Aston Martin V8 to reflect this.  I hope this is clearer...  --SFoskett 15:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Prisoner
Hi. I'll concede the point re:The Prisoner not being a mini-series, although it is according to the official documentary The Prisoner Video Companion (which is included with the A&E DVD release). Plus it's longer than many other show that could lay claim to mini-series status under this rationale such as Wonderfalls and Firefly, so that's fair. In terms of The Prisoner being science fiction, there are numerous works that confim this, in particular the Encyclopedia of TV Science Fiction by Roger Fulton and it was also featured in Starlog, Dreamwatch, and numerous other SF TV publications over the years. Cheers! 23skidoo 00:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Dramedy
If you had waited more than three minutes before reverting, you would have seen that I was making the main page Comedy-drama and making Dramedy a re-direct. "Dramedy" is not a term I've ever heard of, and doesn't seem to be used as much as "Comedy-drama". A quick Google gives 68,600 results for dramedy (including WP and mirror sites), 9,670,000 for comedy drama, and 586,000 for comedy-drama. All the other articles in the category use "comedy-drama" not "dramedy", so I thought the article and the category name should be changed, unless you disagree? JW 13:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted because I was suspicious about an edit that was from an anonymous IP and that was a copy&paste move (moving by copy&paste is discouraged as that does not preserve the edit history of the source page of the move). I don't really care either way about the naming, although I'd like to say that you should do your google search with quotes around compund names like "comedy drama", because you else you get all the pages where those two term occur anywhere on the page, not just next to each other.


 * If you want to move it again, go ahead, but I would be happier if you'd let an admin do a proper page move by nominating the pages on Requested moves. (That would preserve the edit histories). -- Marcika 15:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

CFR for Category: Heroes of the Three Kingdoms
Hi, the vote on renaming of the abovementioned is drawing to a close. Currently the decision lies between "Personages of the Three Kingdoms" and "People of the Three Kingdoms". Please cast your final vote here. Thanks! :) --Plastictv 07:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Template
That template is horrible, its all wrong. The first film was never called Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, that was just on the video boxset to make it fit with the dodgy TV series. The title was just Raiders of the Lost Ark and it should be shown that way on any template. JW 23:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that it what Lucas retitled it (I know, he didn't in the DVD or any past prints). It's similar to the star wars situation. Although Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was released as simply "Star Wars," that is not what he wanted it to be titled, so he changed the name. I'm sure he felt the same way about the Indy films. The movie was retitled to fit in with the titles of the other two theatrical films. The template actually seems much more organized and chronological now, in my opinion. I guess next you'll remove the fact that I refer to the Young Indy Series as Chapters 1-22, and the trilogy 23-25 in the main article. Hmm... it reminds me of the purists over in the star wars articles. TheAlternateReality 02:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me?
When I have to revert you multiple times over something that is stated so clearly in a number of books and newspapers and even on the back of the box, then it becomes a problem. I used the edit summary to state the reason why I was reverting - otherwise I could have used the rollback button and it would have done the job for me. Using capital letters doesn't mean I lost my civility in the matter. No, admittingly you never specified that he was "credited", but you insinutated it by saying he produced them all. You further wrote: "Don't put too much faith in the credits, "presented" is a euphemism for produced. It's well known that they produced it; check any source." - I hate to bring it up, but another editor agreed with me on that and even reverted you too.

Look, you obviously have a problem with me, and I can't say you're in good standing with myself, but if you have a problem with me or my decisions, feel free to use your right to WP:RFC or at the very least start a discussion on the talk page about the problem you have with the sentence. Don't come to my talk page and blame me entirely for this little revert war - for my lack of civility and my "ranting". Using capital letters in an edit summary does not mean that I lost my civility or that I was ranting - I was explaining my edit as you did as well - only attempting to make it stand out. You can't bold or use italics in an edit summary. Furthermore, I didn't see you take any initiative to come to a consensus on the disagreement on the article's talk page or even mine. Two people are involved in a revert war, not one. Please don't blame me for this. Start a discussion next time you have a problem. K1Bond007 17:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for adding to the Michael Medwin page - much appreciated. DavidFarmbrough 08:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

thank you
thank you for telling me that Category:Irish Chicagoans was up for deletion. -Mayumashu 01:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish British
what is your source for "nearly everybody in England has an Irish grandmother"? That has no basis in fact imo, I am English and do not have an Irish grandmother and I know a lot of people who also don't. There are probably places in Great Britain where people of Irish descent are common i.e. Liverpool, Manchester, London, Glasgow, that is just the same as Boston Chicago New York Pittsburgh in the U.S. Arniep 11:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * well I am only including people where it is known. To be honest I can't think of many more than is already in the category so I wouldn't worry about the category getting too big. Please reconsider your vote on this as I feel it is perfectly fair to show how Irish people have contributed to life in Great Britain . Regards Arniep 11:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello I am receiving support for the renaming of this category to Category:Britons of Irish descent I would appreciate your support on this at Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_21. Thanks Arniep 23:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Robert Ardrey
Yes, the anthropologist is, surprisingly enough considering how widely disparate the fields are, also the same man who was nominated for an Oscar. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 23:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Jewish American actors
Hi, you cfded this on November 2, I was pretty surprised that User:Kbdank71 judged that there was no consensus. I counted the votes 8 merge, 2 deletes (which really amount to a merge as the users did not state Jewish Americans or American actors categories should be deleted) and 5 keep. It seems pretty ridiculous to me that 5 people wanted to keep this and 10 wanted to delete it, but the 5 people's view is upheld? Arniep 20:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

James Robertson Justice
Please don't edit this page to include the false claim that he was born in Wigtown in 1905. Although almost every source claims this to be so, it is actually false. I do have conclusive documentary evidence of the 1907 date (namely his birth certificate). If you have some superior source, please let me know. Jon. Justice Kodabar

There you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Birth.jpg

Hitchcock

 * Can you point me to where my contribution to the Manual of Style talk page is? I wasn't aware of it, the page is not on my watchlist, and I just had a quick search and couldn't find anything with my sig.
 * In relation to Hitchcock, we've just yesterday established that he remained a British subject when he took out US citizenship. To refer to him as an "American", with no reference to his continuing British nationality, would be misleading.  JackofOz 23:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

See my latest entry into this debate, a response from an anonymous user who might be you. JackofOz 22:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Cinema of Scotland
I was under the impression that if a category is deleted then it really shouldn't be recreated. If this isn't the case then I'll rescind my vote and leave it to the experts. I admit I'm not an expert on categories. I didn't know that the articles had to precede the categories, rather than the category being made and then articles following. If the latter is the case (as it seems to be) then I will cancel my vote. Nach0king 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * p.s. if you want help with the Common Foreign and Security Policy, I'm up for it :) Nach0king 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed my vote. Nach0king 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:War of the Worlds actors
User:Tim! speedy ended your cfd nomination for the above. You may want to comment here Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Regards Arniep 01:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been relisted by Calton at Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_17 Regards Arniep 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom

 * Copied from User talk:Bastin8

"many of my edits are pedantic (mostly changing 'Great Britain', 'Britain', or 'England' to 'UK')"

Yes, they are pedantic, and could you please stop doing it? England, Britain and United Kingdom do not all mean the same thing. When editors write an article they use specific terms for specific reasons, and they don't expect to be "corrected" by you. And please don't throw around terms like "vandalism" against other users. I wrote much of the article on British cinema, and I don't appreciate being accused of vandalism by someone whose sole contribution is pointlessly changing "Britain" to "United Kingdom" to make themselves feel better. JW 11:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I frankly don't care that you wrote much of the article. It's Wikipedia's policy to reject 'ownership' of articles, except as required under the GFDL.  However, if you do feel some sort of paternalist urge to defend the quality of the articles that you once wrote, you ought to be happy that others are willing to improve upon your work, no matter how small that improvement is.  If you reject those improvements, and do so simply because you think that you words are inherently superior, that is called vandalism.


 * You are precisely correct to note that the terms don't mean the same thing, which leaves me scratching my head as to why you use them to mean the same thing. 'Britain' does not mean 'the United Kingdom'.  In fact, it means absolutely nothing, being merely shorthand for three different terms (Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and the British Isles), whilst being encyclopaedic for nothing.  Hence, when the use of the term appears to describe the subject country in an article about Cinema of the United Kingdom, it is being used incorrectly.  That is why 'United Kingdom' is preferred, and why I changed it thusly.


 * Oh, and don't quote my policy out of context. The reason that I don't use a bot to change terminology is because it is impossible for a bot to work out what the term is supposed to be.  I, as an educated human being that knows (and cares about) the differences, can.  Every time I change the terminology of an article, I read the usage, and change or leave unchanged as appropriate.  I have changed terms to 'United Kingdom', 'Great Britain', 'British Isles', 'Kingdom of Great Britain', 'Kingdom of England', 'Kingdom of Scotland', 'The Protectorate', 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland', 'Kingdom of Ireland', 'Ireland', 'Republic of Ireland', 'Irish Free State', and others, and each one is precisely correct for the circumstances.  However, as I made clear earlier, 'Britain' is never correct, so stop using it. Bastin8 13:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop throwing around terms like "vandalism". You use the word much too freely, particularly given your own record. The point I was making was that you should treat other users with some civility and respect; they may well have made a useful contribution to this site which goes beyond pointless and ill-informed meddling. But I can see from the tone of your reply, that this has again passed you by.


 * The problem is that your changing "Britain" to "the United Kingdom" is not in any way an "improvement". It alters the meaning of a sentence, which I thought you would realise. It is ironic that someone so obsessively pedantic on the use of these terms should themselves substitute one for another as if they have the same meaning, when they obviously don't. It is also clumsy writing to constantly use three words instead of one, when the meaning is already clear and accurate.


 * And yes, Britain is correct. It is a real place, and a real term. It does not mean "absolutely nothing", so please don't tell me to stop using it. If you so desperately feel we should always say "Great Britain" and not "Britain", you can always raise this on the manual of style talk page. But "Britain" is perfectly correct, and you can check any reference. It may shock you, but the word is in everyday usage and is accepted by everyone in the world except you. If you really want to argue that it should never be used, you can start by going on to the Battle of Britain page and insisting they change the title to "Battle of Great Britain".


 * Oddly enough, you don't appear to have noticed that your favourite term "the United Kingdom" is itself "shorthand", which makes your arguments against other terms on the grounds of "accuracy" all the more absurd. JW 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the initial comment is supposed to mean. Maybe it's an insult, but it's definitely not a valid criticism.  I made a constructive amendment to an article to which you made a great contribution.  Sure, all Wikipedians should be grateful that you did that, but one can't just claim ownership of an article.  With the exception of the word 'vandalism', I have been perfectly civil; given your subsequent bad faith, in twice undoing my edit and then throwing accusations in return, perhaps I shouldn't make that exception.


 * Now, actually onto the kernel of the matter. It's good that you realise that changing 'Britain' to 'United Kingdom' does qualitatively change the meaning of the sentence.  If it didn't, I wouldn't do it.  I don't change them 'as if they have the same meaning'; I change them because you used one of the terms incorrectly.  That is to say, precisely because they have different meanings, and you don't know them.


 * Since you so carefully ignored what I have already written, I'll reiterate what is painfully obvious to everyone else (even those with whom I have had this discussion at Wikipedia in the past). 'Britain' is shorthand for several different things, all of which have different meanings and are often confused.  'Britain' is not a real place.  It is shorthand for several different real places, but 'Britain' itself is not any of them.  Hence, if one took the time to look up its Wikipedia article, it would produce a fancy disambiguation that directs one to the terms commonly confused with 'Britain'.  At no point in the 'Britain' article does it state that 'Britain' is a country, an island, an archipelago, a province of the Roman Empire, or anything other than a commonly misused term and an historical and etymological oddity.


 * The fact that its use is accepted it in informal circles is irrelevant, because it is incorrect in all formal, academic, and official circles. Furthermore, Wikipedia is supposed to disambiguate between commonly confused terms, and, as the page at Britain suggests, other Wikipedia users have agreed with my position of clarity, not yours of simplicity.  Your comment on 'Battle of Britain' is borne out of either ignorance of history (that the term used by Churchill was 'Battle of Britain', as it ought to remain) or ignorance of the problem (that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia).


 * Finally, 'United Kingdom' is not shorthand, but an official short version. If you think that it's shorthand, you need to brush up on the Act of Union 1800, which refers to 'Britain' not a single time, 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' just the once, and 'United Kingdom' (without qualification) 24 times.  The past 200 years have unambiguously deemed this country to be called the United Kingdom, in formal terms as well as in informal; that's why the Wikipedia article on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland redirects to United Kingdom, whereas Britain produces a disambiguation page, rather than a redirect.  If you want to continue to direct users to that disambiguation page for no reason, be prepared for it to be considered vandalism by me and plenty of others beside.


 * You have demanded the same explanation of me twice. Now, explain in which way 'Britain' is superior.  If you can find one, I advise you to go to Talk:United Kingdom and suggest moving the article to Britain. Bastin8 23:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Aircraft by country CfD
Hi,
 * ''Could I ask you to look at this one again please? ...

Thanks for drawing my attention back to this one. I agree that there would be a shift in implied meaning, so have amended my vote. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier
Thanks very much for cleaning up my edits on the Laurence Olivier article. I'm trying to get it to FA, are you interested in helping? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for cleaning up some of the clumsy phrasing in the Noel Gallagher article. It seems as though it won't be accepted as FA status, although I'm inclined to think that it's pretty damn close. Anyway, thanks so much! &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; 14:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you be interested in voting at the FAC page? Any comments and thoughts would be appreciated. &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sally Head productions
Thanks for cleaning this article up. Now agree with you that makes sense keeping, esp. if you feel she had notability. Martinp 15:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

List of epic films
What happened to that page? Orbicle 00:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn template
I have to respond to a comment you made at the TFD nomation for the Audrey Hepburn template. We can't replace the templates with categories because they aren't allowed either. I tried to create one and it was deleted for the same reasons being given for the templates. It's this inconsistency which is making me question why I bother contributing to the project. Images aren't allowed, templates aren't allowed, categories aren't allowed. They should just scrap the whole thing. 23skidoo 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What annoys me is that Wikipedia has all these guidelines but very few rules. If actor templates and categories aren't allowed, there should be an outright ban placed on them, with such a statement visible on pages where Templates are created. I can see the point with regards to templates, but categories don't take up any room at all and I've seen articles with dozens of categories -- they should be allowed. Basically what this guideline means is we can't give readers any sort of easy navigational aid; they have to keep going back to the source page. 23skidoo 16:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Audrey Hepburn
Would you link to the relevant discussion for me? Thanks. // Pilotguy  ( Cleared to land ) 13:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cinema of Ireland
why were several films removed from this list with no explanation? Films like the 'The Crying Game' may not be 'purely' Irish (whatever that means) but deserve to go on the list as they are filmed (partly at least) in Ireland, Irish actors etc. If you disagree, maybe a new column could be added (Half-Irish of somesuch)instead of just deleting them. Sdrawkcab 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)sdrawkcab

Wind in the Willows
Hi, I just wanted you to know that The Wind in the Willows (1996 film) was not a Walt Disney film but an Allied Filmmakers production, which IMO is why it didn't get well distributed in the States. All Walt Disney Home Video did was rename it to Mr. Toad's Wild Ride and circulate it for a short while in video. Does this make it a Disney category? Hoverfish 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have been somewhat hasty with the edit history. I'm quite with you about distributors. There have been some comments in project films about it, but not enough members discussed, so we don't have any consensus. I'd rather have the production company in infoboxes. If the issue comes up again, I'll drop you a note. Hoverfish 13:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

W.Somerset Maugham
Given your previous or current interest in Somerset Maugham - can you please add any thoughts you might have at Talk:W. Somerset Maugham so that we can move the article up a notch? V i  r  tual  Steve  09:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cry, the Beloved Country (1951 film)
Hi, I have reverted your edit to Cry, the Beloved Country (1951 film) because the Internet Movie Database states that it is a South African as well as a British film. If you have better proof that it is not a South Africa film, then could you please tell me or at least put it in your edit summary? Thanks, Belovedfreak 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Many apologies! I must have been asleep that day, especially as I did actually double check it before reverting, but still got confused between the two films! I've reverted my revert. Thanks for letting me know... Belovedfreak 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Brit flags in film infoboxes
Would you mind having a think about why you find these necessary? Some users are becoming irritated by all the little flags in Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you could read the essay WP:FLAGCRUFT and my attempted simplification of it, and offer some comments on whether you disagree with the basic premise that flags next to country names are purposeless. Thanks, Cop 633 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Independent Film Distributors
A tag has been placed on Independent Film Distributors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 article (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. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)