User talk:Ms. Sarita/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your 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, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Acalamari 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you, Ms. Sarita! I've gotten to know the overview of Wikipedia and that helps though I'm a newbie who still has a lot to learn! I would mostly like to clean up vandalized pages and that's about it. Writing or re-editing entire articles is something I will seldom, if ever do unless it's really required of me. I'll visit the village pump and other help portals just so I can really get the hang of things, though I'm sure I will need TONS of assistance! --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! :) --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy
Thanks for watching Cillian Murphy and zapping the vandals! Cheers, Melty girl 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Zoe Saldana
Hi. My main point is that Zoe Saldana is latina and that she has played roles in which she has portrayed as an African American woman i.e. Drumline (2002) and Guess Who (2005). Sure she has a brown complexion but that could come from Taino bloodline or African she also has a slight accent when she speaks (even though that matters little with ethnicity). My argument is that is something that some latina actors could and have potrayed just because they have a light brown or brown complexion. There are some people that don't even she's a latina and not black. Same thing applies for actors or actresses that are well known not to be full blooded African American i.e. Meagan Good, Aaliyah, Terrance Howard, James Earl Jones, even Oprah has a mixed heritage. I just don't want any confusion to occur in the article. That's all.Mcelite (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mcelite. Thanks for responding and being civil. I really appreciate it.


 * I know that Saldaña is Latina. I never said otherwise. However, my point is that Saldaña is Black (as she has stated) by racial background and Latina by cultural/ethnic background. Being Latino is not considered a race as Latinos can be any color under the sun. To believe that Latinos are to look a certain way is discriminatory because Latinos comprise part of a culture and they can be Black, White, Asian, or multiracial.


 * I don't want any confusion to occur in the article either, which is why I deleted the sentence in question in the first place. The fact that the article states that she is the daughter of a Puerto Rican and a Dominican, and that she speaks fluent Spanish, is enough for people to assume that she is, indeed, a Latina. But stating that her playing an African American in films is of significant value may lead others to believe that she is not Black, which she is. As I stated before, a Black woman playing a Black woman is not significant. Ms. Sarita (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well from what my friends and I guess people in my age group discuss Latino and Hispanic are the same thing. I mean I have friends that actually look very similar to Zoe and they exclusively consider themselves Latina. They truly are a mixed race of people with strong culture. lol I agree stating her parent's lineage is enough. I apologize if I seemed mean in any way I sometimes can be defensive of certain things.Mcelite (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "Hispanic" is a whole 'nother topic that doesn't need to be discussed here. Like I stated before, I have a good friend who hails from PR and although she identifies herself as a Latina, she realizes that she is multiracial (her ancestry comes from African, Italian (European) and Taíno lines). I used to date a man who was born in the DR but he was Black and identified as a "Blatino". It really is all about preference and education.


 * I see where you're coming from and I understand why you got defensive. Race and ethnicity are two words that are difficult to explain, especially when it comes to the Latin culture, and many people confuse the differences between the two terms. And I didn't mean to make it seem as if I don't believe Saldaña is Latina. I apologize if I came off as such. She is a Latina to the fullest extent, but she can be both Black and Latina (since that is what she is and that is what she identifies with). I'm very happy that we were able to resolve this in a civil manner. Ciao. Ms. Sarita (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to edit Kanye West
Hello, I was trying to edit the arrest section on Kanye West's article, except when I cite my sources, they do not show as links. They are just plain and black. How do I fix that? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there! I have no idea why your citations won't link correctly. Try going to the citation template page and scroll down to the "Cite web" section. That will give you the proper format. How are you writing out your citations? Ms. Sarita (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I typed them as-is at first (like http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b28482_Eyewitness__Kanye_Arrest__amp_quot_Pure_Chaos_amp_quot_.html for example), but that didn't work, so I type them in the format they're supposed to written in order to be recognized as sources (you know, with templates and whatnot), and still nothing. I went to WP:CIT that you recommended and I'm still very confused. It's the first time I'm making a major edit to an article, so there's a lot of things that are foreign to me, especially when it comes to formatting.Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm...that's very odd that you're using the citation templates and it's not working. Let me actually write out the template for you and you can copy it, paste it into the article (after the information that you are citing) and then fill in the information or delete the categories that are unnecessary or that you don't have information for.




 * Here's an example that I pulled from the Cillian Murphy article:


 * Which should show up like this, with the reference at the bottom, under the reference list like this:




 * The date should be in the format year-2 digit month-2 digit date. Let me know how this works out for you. If it doesn't work, show me exactly how you're typing out the citation by copying and pasting it here so that I can try to see what's going on. Ms. Sarita (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's with the first and last name? Should I know who exactly wrote the source? I'm sorry if I take forever to respond, but my connection is EXTREMELY slow at the moment. It took me 10 minutes just to load this post. This is what I'm trying to do, by the way.
 * Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey there. I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I've been extremely busy! Anyway, if you haven't figured out the whole citation thing out yet, here's a piece of advice:


 * From what you have posted in your above response, I can see precisely what is going on. You are replacing the criteria text with the information that you are getting from your source of information. For example, "Kanye Attack Caught on Tape =" should be "title = Kanye Attack Caught on Tape" and "September 11, 2008 = " should be "date = September 11, 2008" and so on and so forth (without the quotation marks, of course, and with proper date formatting, i.e., 2008-09-11). You need to keep the "date = ", "title = ", "url = ", etc. in order for the reference to work properly.


 * Take a close look at the example citation I posted above from the Cillian Murphy article. That is how your references should be layed out.


 * To answer your question, you do not need to input the first and last name of the author, but if it is available to you, it should be included in the reference. If information is not available, you can simply leave that space blank, or not input the criteria field at all (i.e., if you don't have the name of the author of the article you are citing, don't type "last =" or "first =" into the citation template).


 * You can go to the cite web template article; they have some examples that you can look at if you wish.


 * Let me know if you're still having trouble and/or if I am making absolutely no sense. Ms. Sarita (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this myself because of my faulty internet connection but fortunately, it's all good now. I am quite grateful for your help and patience, though someone else has edited the arrest section so now I am wondering if my edits will make any difference to the article. It doesn't mean I'm giving up altogether, but see the Kanye West article and tell me if I should proceed with the editing or if it is best left in it's current state. I just want to move the section to a different part of the article so it can be in accordance with the timeline and re-word the section to sound more encyclopedic. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I took a glance at the Kanye West article and the only thing that I can notice (without reading it over thoroughly) is that the "Arrest" subsection and the "Pending charges" section should be in the same section since they are related to each other. I also agree that the two sections should be gone over to correct grammar and sentence structure. But, it's all on you and what you want to do. Ms. Sarita (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me know if this works or revert. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. I looked over the section and moving it to its own section was a good idea. However, I would try to summarize it even more. It feels like there's just a little too much detail. Folks don't need a play-by-play of what happened with West in the altercation, if you know what I mean. Also, you should try to refrain from writing curse words on article pages, even if it is a direct quote (unless it is absolutely of value, which in this case, I don't believe it is). Other than that, I would just condense the section a little more and maybe someone (or I) will come by and clean it up a bit. But it looks good! Ms. Sarita (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would like to thank you for your help and input and now reading the section, I agree that is written a little tabloid-ish with all the unnecessary details and the alleged quote he made to one of the paparazzi. I will go and try to fix that, but also happen to be busy with other stuff at the moment so if I don't do it soon, I will get to it later. One again, thanks a million. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Ms. Sarita (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this version better? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks a lot better. I may go in and tweak some things out a little bit, but it looks like it's well layed out. This is your first big edit, yes? Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's the first time I'm making a major change to an article. The only thing now is that it'll have to be updated next month, considering the pending charges and fact he's due back in court on October 2nd. Thank you very much for taking the time out to help me. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, congratulations on your first major edit. I'm glad that I was able to help you out. If you have any more questions in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. I'll try to go over the section in the Kanye West article later on in the week (if someone else doesn't get ahold of it first). Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-Wikipedia related question
If you get an iTunes gift card, do you need an iTunes account to use it or can you just redeem the code and buy songs without needing an account? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha! You officially win the prize for random question of the year! I kid, I kid. To answer your question, I believe you need to have an account with iTunes in order to download songs, period, regardless of whether you have a gift card or not. Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, thanks! Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I voice my opinions?
If an editor is under review for possible adminship, but that review doesn't appear on everybody's watchlist for everyone to participate (like the Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/A.1), can you still make comments or ask questions? And just out of pure curiosity, are you an admin? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. Unfortunately, I'm not too familiar with the adminship process. I believe that anyone, who is an established editor and has knowledge of these types of processes (as well as the numerous policies of Wikipedia) can comment and ask questions to whomever is applying for adminship. But I could be wrong. To get a more thorough answer, I would check in with an official administrator. Here is a list of active administrators that you can ask. Hope that helps.


 * To answer your other question, I am not an administrator and presently, I have no desire to be an administrator. I barely have enough time to manage my life and the articles that I work on regularly (which are only a few, comparatively speaking), let alone managing the responsibilities of an admin. Ms. Sarita (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Anytime. Ms. Sarita (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Reverting edits
Have you even checked what i have reverted?. Of course that is vandalism. Removing references and adding "See the talk page, and read" is a vandal. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:VAN to recognize what true vandalism is. As far as the Angelina Jolie article goes, it has been discussed in the article discussion page and the removal of the references was thought to be fair. Ms. Sarita (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Iam well aware of the rules. I know what is vandalism when i see one. Removing references is one of them. Well if it discussed them it i alright. The one who was removing the removing the references should atleast mentioned in edit summaries instead of saying "rm refs". --SkyWalker (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that a more concise edit summary should have been given. But the user did leave a specific comment stating to check the discussion page, so I figured that it would have ruled out any plausible deniability regarding vandalism. But thanks for patrolling anyway. Ms. Sarita (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have around 10,000 pages that i have watchlisted and when i saw -553 done by that person and when i was looking at the diffs i made a revert. Nope i did nor see any comment all i see is "ed ref, rm refs and remove reference again". It says nothing regarding looking at talk page and thank you for informing me. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a crapload of pages. Like I said, thank you for patrolling. I am not too familiar with Twinkle, so maybe I was naïve in assuming what differences you could see before making a revert. My apologies for jumping on your back. It's early and I'm cranky. Ms. Sarita (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just jumping in, as an admin I support the removal of the references. They are unnecessary. 23skidoo (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if you are President of USA. It proves nothing. Support on whatever you want to. Means nothing to me. I do hate how you admins are such prideful.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The reasons for the removal of the references were stated by Enemy of the State and 23skidoo in the discussion. They were valid reasons and everyone who participated in the discussion agreed that the references should be removed. I don't understand why you had to get snippy with 23skidoo over this. Ms. Sarita (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Santa Cruz, California
This is a collaboration and the only means of communication that we have is text. We have talk pages where we can rant a little bit, because there's space to do that. But in terms of day to day editing, it's all in the edit summary. If a person does not leave an edit summary, especially after they've communicated that they want to work together, it's just contradictory. My comment was not a made up wiki rule, but a valid comment based on what happened this evening. So, I don't know, I have presented a willingness to work together. Bye E_dog95'   Hi ' 08:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "...I have presented a willingness to work together." == E_dog95


 * Honestly, your attitude says otherwise. Not leaving a comment in the edit summary is not "breaking the rules," nor do I think it warrants a comment on another's talk page. You can easily tell what the person is doing by simply clicking "diff" or comparing two different revisions. And talk pages aren't made for ranting...they are created for discussing how we can better the article. I am all for leaving a comment in edit summaries, and encourage its usage but, with the exception of obvious vandalism, I won't go so far as to accuse another of not being willing to "collaborate" with other editors simply because they leave the edit summary blank.


 * By the way, you have failed to provide me with the written Wikipedia policy/guideline that specifically states "by leaving the summary blank [one is] implying that [they] are the only one working on [the article]." Ms. Sarita (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I sounded brusque though I don't think it was out of line. None of what I said was unacceptable. Was there a better way? Yeah, there's always a better way. I did not insist on anything. I assumed wrongly, xsg, that you were new. My bad.


 * Ms Sarita... Let me tell you that I appreciate your attachment to SC, I do not think that all Santa Cruzans think that the whole list of items is / was notable. The reason that I know this is that if this was the case the list would have never been a bunch of red links with no prose. Notable items get written about because people like them. I will apologize for stepping on your toes though. Take care. E_dog95'   Hi ' 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "I do not think that all Santa Cruzans think that the whole list of items is / was notable. The reason that I know this is that if this was the case the list would have never been a bunch of red links with no prose." == E_dog95


 * Sorry, but I would have to disagree. If there is little information on an event, it most likely will not have a page dedicated to it due to Wikipedians arguing for its deletion. Every person that has grown up there, that I know of, knows of these events and the events hold cultural value to them. So, is it fair for you to assume that it is not of notability and to simply delete the entire list? No. That is what initially bugged me.


 * Like I said, I would love to work with you on the article (although it seems that you have more time to work on it than I do). And like I said, I think you found some great references to substantiate your own beliefs on what is notable or not. However, like XSG has mentioned, the attitude that has fermented from your edit summaries and talk page comments has annoyed me and has made both of us believe that you think you know what is best when that is simply not true. I know you believe that you were not acting inappropriately, but the fact that two separate users have shared the same feelings really says something. Learn to work with people, in a civil manner, and we can all work together. Ms. Sarita (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This next bit is the last thing that I want to say. It's about my comment for using the edit summary. It's not mandatory, but we were talking about collaborating here and I do think that using the edit summary is vital because we have so few means of communicating. There's no verbal cues, no body language, nothing that implies the tone of any statement that we write. So, writing then is the very least we can do when changing things. Last night there were edits made after collaboration was mentioned. I thought it was odd in that circumstance. Here's the recommendation...

Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).

Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. We've found that summaries often pique the interest of contributors with expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but "fixed spelling" would be nice even then. E_dog95'  Hi ' 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the guideline. Like I said before, I encourage the usage of edit summaries, but I do not believe that it warrants a comment on another's talk page, nor do I believe that it implies that the user is insinuating that they are the only one working on the article. Like you said, it is not mandatory. But you came off as though it was. So, let's stop bickering and work on the article already. Ms. Sarita (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK thank you. The lesson you mentioned has been noted. E_dog95'  Hi ' 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Zoë Saldaña's name
Hello, Ms. Sarita. I have to remind you of something called the WP:3RR rule, which goes that 4 reverts in a 24-hour period can result in a block. Also, I encourage you to read the discussion in the article's talk page. Visit the article about naming conventions, which also talks about spelling. You see, Wikipedia is blind to what her name's original spelling is, because what's important is whether our readers can go verify what we write by looking it up somewhere else. Her name with diacritics is not widely used; not even on her on website! Hence, it's not as verifiable as "Zoe Saldana". SamEV (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, SamEV. I appreciate your message regarding the issue. I am well aware of WP:3RR. I have never been warned about violating this policy, and was actually no where close to violating the policy, so I am not sure why you even brought it up. I have read the discussion page that you referred to. Honestly, I disagree with you. Saldaña's name is verifiable through magazine articles (e.g., Vanity Fair, Latina, People en español, etc.) and the pronunciation of her last name. You don't see many television/film credits give proper spelling when "foreign" characters are involved.


 * However, I will leave it as you wish. I don't want this to turn into an edit war and frankly, it's not worth my time. In the meantime, in your efforts to undo my edits, you have failed to observe the other edits that I made. Can you please change them back for me? Thanks. Ms. Sarita (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Users are required to warn those who are about to break 3RR. Since I think your edit was wrong, I obviously didn't want you to repeat it. And since I also thought you were actually editing in good faith and, in general, improving the article, I didn't want you to possibly get blocked (believe it or not). But I was wrong: you'd not reverted (partially, but partial reverts count just the same) 3 times already. In fact, it was only 2. I'm sorry about that, Ms. Sarita.
 * "Saldaña's name is verifiable through magazine articles (e.g., Vanity Fair, Latina, People en español, etc.) and the pronunciation of her last name."
 * Then please provide those sources. But even then, keep in mind that she's credited in her work as "Zoe Saldana" and that that is how she's almost exclusively referred to on her own website. So the most we can do is add mention of alternative spellings, but for consistency the article should use the spelling in the article's title.
 * "In the meantime, in your efforts to undo my edits, you have failed to observe the other edits that I made. Can you please change them back for me?"
 * Yes. Done. SamEV (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerning the references, you can go to Saldaña's official site and see plenty of magazine covers with her name printed clearly. And I have not checked, but you can probably find an archive of the magazine covers so that they may be implemented into the article if need be. As far as her official website not using the spelling of "Zoë" or "Saldaña" consistently, that is the same issue with the official website of singer Beyoncé. And there are many articles in which her name is simply spelled Beyonce. However, no one questions the spelling of her name. May I ask why that is? And thank you very much for restoring the edits that did not regard her name. I appreciate it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is, we're supposed to go with the most common spelling we find. So far, I've seen no proof that "Zoe Saldana" isn't it. It baffles me that you are, in effect, suggesting that she's allowed her name to be misspelled in her film credits for the last three years (until Vantage Point broke the streak), as seen at IMDb. Anything with a diacritic is described merely as an 'alternate name' on her page there, which page is titled the same as her WP article. We seem to have no categorical source that says: 'this is the correct spelling of her name, darn it!' Thus, it comes down to numbers. A Google search easily reveals what that most common spelling is on the internet. An IMDb search easily reveals how she's been credited; and I think it obvious that her recent credits should carry more weight than earlier ones. But your comparison to Beyoncé makes a good point. I'll add the alternate versions to the article. Please let me know whether or not you find that a good compromise. SamEV (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would baffle me more so that she would allow her name to be misspelled by Vanity Fair, People en español, etc., in which she most likely personally spoke to the interviewers. But you have made some good points and like I said, I will leave it. Thank you for compromising with the argument. I appreciate it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. And I hope you change your mind and decide to again contribute to the article and keep it on your watchlist. Take care. SamEV (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Jada Pinkett Smith
Nice work with this article! I've reassessed it as B-Class for WikiProject Biography, but I hope you consider nominating it at WP:GAN, because I think it's ready. Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. And thanks for assessing the article. Are you sure that there is absolutely no room for improvement before I nominate it for GA status? What about more pictures? Or are more pictures unnecessary? Ms. Sarita (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs much if anything to reach GA status – at least, I didn't notice anything obvious. More pictures would be nice, but I don't think they're essential. I think you've got the makings of an FA here. PC78 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. Another user and I are just cleaning up the article, but it's been nominated for GA status. But I'll look into nominating it for FA status. Thank you for the advice! Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Hey again. I added Human Contract because the movie is completed. Btw future movies can be added. Look at other good and featured articles. Also do you have plans on improving Gary Oldman?. The articles needs to be improved a lot?. Any help?. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey there. The movie may be completed, but there is still no release date. Future films should only be added if it is considered notable to avoid violating the crystal ball policy. I researched the Angelina Jolie article (a Featured Article) when I worked on the Jada Pinkett Smith project. The Jolie article states the same thing when speaking about films that have not been released. The Human Contract is already mentioned in the article. When a release date is announced, please feel free to place it in the table. But I am in the process of fine-tuning the Pinkett Smith article so that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. I understand your reasoning for adding The Human Contract into the table, but I don't want any reason for the article to be denied GA status. I hope you understand.


 * As far as the Gary Oldman article, I am currently working on a new project. But I love Gary Oldman, so I will take a look at it and see if I can't add it to my To Do list. Ms. Sarita (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course i understand. Why don't you nominate the article for GA status and they will let you know know what is wrong with article and you can fix it?. Yea i checked your sandbox when you were working on the Jada Pinkett. Yea i too like Gary Oldman. Seeing that article makes me a cry hopefully it will be GA and next FA someday. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just going over the Pinkett Smith article, and trying to make minor changes here and there, so that they may be avoidable when it is assessed. I'm pretty much done, but I saw that you edited a mistake a few minutes ago that I completely missed. So, going over it is obviously needed. Hehe! Thanks for helping out! Oh, and I took a look at the Oldman article and saw that it failed the GA assessment, and nobody did anything about it, even though they were given specific details on how to have the article promoted. It's so close! So I have added it to my To Do list. I should begin work on it shortly. Ms. Sarita (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Iam glad to help. Yea Gary Oldman is a failed GA :(. I have added the table has instructed and have to add cite templates but first i have to remove all unreliable sources before i do that i need to find alternate reliable sources which can be time consuming. When i was wandering around i saw your subpage and saw you need a table for filmography and added it later on. If you need anymore help let me know. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you again for your help. I nominated the article for GA status last night, so keep your fingers crossed! Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup i noticed. It would take some time for them to review. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Tips for GA Reviews
Hello Ms. Sarita! Sorry it took me a little while to get back to you on your request...

First of all, I would suggest reading through the guidelines and some of the cheatsheets provided by the GA project. One of my favorites is User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet. You don't have use her points as a checklist for every article, but reading through it at least once will give you a general idea of what you should be looking for in a GAN. I like using a template to organize my reviews (Ealdgyth provides the template for the one I use at the top of her page), although this is not necessary. I like it because it allows me to keep my thoughts ordered, and provides a basic checklist to remind me to check all of the important aspects of GA.

I would suggest reading through a bunch of GA reviews done by experienced reviewers to see what they consider most important. Each person has a little different focus, or pet peeves, but by reading a selection you can get the basic overview. I would suggest reviews by myself, User:Arsenikk, User:GaryColemanFan and User:ThinkBlue to start.

If you would like, I could act as your "mentor" for the first couple GA reviews that you do. You could do the review, and then I could go through the article behind you and point out things that were missed or could use improvement. We could do this until you felt comfortable doing the reviews on your own. Let me know if you'd like to do this...it's definitely not a requirement, but it can be useful.

I hope these tips help, let me know on my talk page if you would like me to be your mentor for a little while. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are awesome. I would love to just have a couple of reviews of my reviews just to see if I am doing everything correctly and to make sure that I am looking for the right things. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to dedicate your time to helping me out. I have already done a couple of your suggestions (i.e., looked at checklists and read others' reviews). I'll be out of town for about a week, but when I get back, I'll try to do a couple of reviews. Thank you very much for your response. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Just drop me a note when you get back in town, letting me know which reviews you're working on, and I'll follow along behind you :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  21:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Christina Milian
Thanks so much for reviewing the article. It has been on the list for one-and-a-half months now, and as I have exams for the next few weeks, I was hoping for it to be reviewed ASAP. Hope it's not too much trouble,  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  08:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I will try to get the review done as soon as possible, but I have exams as well, so it may take a little longer than expected. I noticed that it was on the nominations list for a while and that is why I picked the article as my first review (an experienced reviewer will be following up, so don't worry). I hope your exams go well. Regards, – Ms. Sarita  Confer  19:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I'll try get on some of it right now, but it's quite late here and I am tired, so I'll see what I can do.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  11:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I'm going to bed now, so good night.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  12:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note on this, Ms. Sarita. I'll watchlist the review page, and when I see that you've added your comments I'll drop by and introduce myself and add any further comments I may have. Dana boomer (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; it was great working with you too. I'm guessing the only issue left is the quotes problem. I have asked Dana boomer a question on the talk page, so I guess we have to wait for her reply.  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  05:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. It's been a pleasure working with you. I'm so happy we both made it through. Whew! You did a beautiful job tightening things up. I hope I wasn't too hard on you...I am a perfectionist and I believe the article has a lot of potential to be an FA. I saw your comment directed to Dana boomer and since she is highly experienced in reviewing GANs, I'm going to wait for her to comment before passing the article. I will talk to you soon either way. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  06:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yay, finally passed. That article had been on my to-do list for quite a while now, and I am happy to strike it off. :) Thanks for the review, and by the way, it was very good for a first timer! ;)  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  03:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to edit Kanye West again (Hey, it's not my fault the guy keeps getting arrested)
I used mtv.com as a source to add the second arrest in the arrest section of Kanye's article, but Google News has a bunch of articles reporting slightly different details about the incident, I would like to know which one do you think is the best in reliability? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! Can you give me a couple examples of the details that are different? I would say whichever article is more current, but MTV is a pretty reliable source of information regarding music artists. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  01:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * SFGate goes into details about the (alleged) injuries, and the LA Times even mentions that the paparazzo in question has a knack for accusing celebrities of assault. MTV however, is steering clear of that. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The LA Times link took me to the SFGate article. Either way, unless the information majorly conflicts with each other, you can probably incorporate bits and pieces from each article. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I fixed that mistake. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry it took me so long to reply. I've had exams and research papers up the wazoo, plus a GA review that has taken up a lot of my time. I looked at all three articles that you posted, which all come from pretty reliable sources (I've used the LA Times, SF Gate, and MTV as references). My only concern is that all of the articles use a lot of words like "allegedly", "reportedly", etc. These hint at "rumors" about the event that have not yet been proven to be true and thus can be challenged. You could write a short stint about his arrest and maybe over the reason why, and West's subsequent release and the drop of charges against him, but I would leave the nitty-gritty details out. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  13:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for your output and sorry it took me so long to reply as well. I agree with you, the details are just pure speculation at this point, so I wrote the section with only the bare and important facts. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks good. I revised a sentence that was a little awkward, but I don't believe anything else needs to be changed regarding this specific arrest. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  10:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Maine Coon
Hi, Ms. Sarita. Just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for the nice clean-up job on Maine Coon, especially with the references. The article looks much better now. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I have a feeling I'll get a lot of flack from one user in particular that drops in on the article and other users whose images I removed from the article, but hopefully, that won't be the case. Thank you for appreciating it and for the minor copy edit. That sentence was a little funky. ;-) – Ms. Sarita  Confer  01:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've done an admirable job in trimming the images down. I know everyone wants to see a picture of their own cat in the article, but... it does get a bit unencyclopedic after a while. Thanks again. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No bother - I noticed this too and will continue to keep an eye on the article. We can always file a sockpuppet or 3RR report if it becomes a serious problem. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in commenting - my presence tends to be a bit sporadic on weekends, and I'm afraid I didn't see your note until a little bit earlier today. I think we can work out a compromise here now that we're all talking to each other? :) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on the Maine Coon page, Ms. Sarita. I have two suggestions. I believe the introduction section would look better without the large empty white space. Perhaps the text can wrap around the contents box. Secondly, the image meant to demonstrate the size difference between Maine Coons and other breeds is of poor quality. Virgospell 16:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgospell (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you, Virgospell. Regarding your suggestions, the large white space between the lead section and the "History" section is normal. All articles have them and, as far as I know, there's no way to wrap the text around the table of contents box (nor have I ever seen it done that way). As far as the image, I agree. But it has been on the article for over a year, I believe, and is the only picture that displays a comparison of the Maine Coon's size, which I believe is important. Once the edit wars cease on the page, we'll see what a GA reviewer says about the image. It may have to be removed, but we'll see. Thanks for the suggestions. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Referencing question for GA process...
I'm not sure if there's a definite rule about this sort of thing, but I don't see any reason not to allow them. As long as the videos/audios are reliable, as with any source, they should be fine, particularly if the information is rather non-controversial. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That has got to be the fastest response I've ever seen on Wikipedia! Thank you for your input. I have taken note of it and I appreciate the advice. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. :-) –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  02:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Twilight plot
Thanks! Of course I'm completely open to you helping out with the article. That was just my first attempt, because I couldn't leave it as it was. I actually didn't notice your comments on the talk page until I had already made my changes. I look forward to working with you! Andrea ( talk ) 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. I know that when I first saw that long edit, I winced painfully because I didn't know what to make of it and it just didn't feel right. But, it did help pave the way for expanding the plot section (now that the film has been released). I didn't want to overstay my welcome and come in, fists flying, undoing edits left and right but I was confident that an established editor would take care of it. Glad to know I wasn't wrong. Look forward to working with you and I'll keep you updated. The project page is here if you care to keep on eye on it. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  00:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jada Pinkett Smith Set It Off.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jada Pinkett Smith Set It Off.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) 06:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Chaos Theory image
Hi, Sarita, nice work on the Amon Tobin GA review. I have a question concerning the Chaos Theory image. See, I barely know anything about copyright/general tagging on images, as I have done very little work in the area, and so, I don't really know what the image needs. You can answer me anywhere really, either here or on my my talk. Thank you. Rtyq2 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there Rtyq2. You've been doing a beautiful job on improving the article and I admire your willingness to work on the article. (I wonder what happened to the nominator?) It really is almost there. Just a few more things to take care of. Concerning the rationale for the image, don't worry about it. I'll take care of that tonight. If you wish to learn more about it, just click on the other images to see how the rationales are done because those ones are okay, as far as I'm concerned. Just keep working on the references section of the GA review and it'll be finished. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay! Thank you for your response. Rtyq2 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Italian Job
I had another issue with The Italian Job referencing. IMDB seems to say that there is a track by Amon Tobin, however, according to discogs' entry of the soundtrack, amazon's entry, and soundtrack.net's, (I don't know if soundtrack.net is reliable, I just found it through google) all have unique tracks, not citing Amon Tobin. I'm not really sure if I should leave it in the article at this point. Rtyq2 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a tricky one. It seems like Tobin may have a song heard in the film but that it wasn't put onto the official commercially-released soundtrack. I took a look at Tobin's discography on Allmusic.com and it says that that particular song ("Saboteur") was not featured on the soundtrack for the film either. Since IMDb is not a particularly reliable reference (although I have seen it used in FAs), you may, unfortunately, have to remove the information if a source cannot be found. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  18:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It says on the IMDB page that " Please note that songs listed here (and in the movie credits) cannot always be found on CD soundtracks. Please check CD track details for confirmation. " From what I can tell, the CD is a few select songs and IMDB is taking the soundtrack from the end credits. Should I cite IMDB? Rtyq2 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell you what. I actually own The Italian Job. What I'll do is take a look at it tonight (after my finals...ugh) and if the song is listed in the credits, we can cite the actual film. I tried to do a search for information on the Internet and turned up nothing, so the video may be our only chance of keeping this information in the article. So, for now, just focus on the other things on the list and don't worry about this particular citation. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Second ref
Hi. Re: this edit, from my perspective I was essentially trying to make sure information wasn't deleted.

(I have a foreign headcold this week, and am functioning partially on autopilot, so sorry if I'm incoherent or just mistaken (and for not trying harder to research the policy-answer myself). Please ask for details or explain/point them to me :).

The link removed, to musicradar, contains details not mentioned in the pitchfork linked retained (and vice versa, obviously), such as "... even ants eating grass". Now, I'm not familiar with the GA process (nor all of the FA process details, this year), but I would hope it never advocated simply deleting links that offered future potential (?). Would it be better to: (1) transfer it to the end of the references section as an uncited ref, or (2) to move it to the talkpage, or (3) just leaving as a duplicate to confirm/validate the pitchfork reference (I've seen sentences with multiple refs before, but the only examples I can think of are for controversial topics...)? (obviously (4) writing a new sentence to justify getting cited separately, would be ideal).

It's a tiny ref (unlike the other one I saved from deletion), so not at all critical (nor a good example for my questions, but hopefully you see what I mean), but I am curious as to what the standard-recommended-practice is currently..

And other such rambles, with options. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Quiddity. Thanks for clarifying your edit. I really appreciate it. Excuse my possible incoherence also (I'm brain dead from studying for finals).


 * From what I can see on WP:BLP, multiple references are usually only necessary when the information written is considered highly controversial (e.g. if Tobin were accused of a crime). The two references are not necessary to cite that the Kronos Quartet and Sarah Pagé contributed to the making of Foley Room. From what I read out of both references, there isn't any information in either webpage that is not mentioned elsewhere in the Amon Tobin article (e.g. the "ants eating grass" is summarized in the sentence "...the samples came from a wide range of sources including motorbikes, tigers, insects..."). However, I did find some information in the deleted reference that we can use to cite information that did not have a reference. So, in a way, you opened my eyes to something I missed in the review process. Therefore, the deleted reference will be put back in the article; it will just be put in a different place, if that's okay with you.


 * Again, thank you for clarifying your edit. If you have any more questions or comments, feel free to leave me another message. Take care and I hope you feel better soon! – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"New game" soundtrack
Okay, I ran into another issue. Concerning the "new video game" soundtrack he's working on, I found this on Tobin's site, ( which I got through Current -> News ) Dec 8, 2008 : New game score in production for 2009 Amon is now mid way through a new score for an undisclosed PS3 title. More details will follow Great, except the whole site is a Flash page, so it's all the same URL. Is there some way I could still cite this? Thanks for your reply in advance. Rtyq2 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I crashed and burned after my 4-hour final last night. As far as the website goes, I was concerned that since the information was labeled "Current", that it might be updated too often and the corresponding information would be pushed out within a few months. After looking at it, it seems that their information goes back almost two years, so it looks like it's okay to use. As far as format, just use the regular "cite web" template and put the address of the website; in small writing, I would write something like "Current > News". Make sure you input a date for the information (i.e. "2008-12-08"). I'll take a look at the citation after you've put it in the article and tweak it out if need be. I also incorporated the reference from The Italian Job into the article to support the related information, so that is finished. And I will be working on the rationale for the image later on today. Again, sorry about the late response. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  18:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We did it
We did it. Thank you for being patient in the changes, as it took just over 2 weeks to get to GA status. In addition, thanks for answering all of the questions I had regarding the revisions. If you do any more GA reviews in the future, feel free to contact me, I'd be open to contributing. Rtyq2 (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. And ooh...another barnstar! You did some wonderful work on the article. If you ever need help with bettering it (or if you have GA nominations in the future and want me to review them), let me know and I'll come help you out! It was a pleasure working with you. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  03:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New Moon
Hello, I noticed that you created New Moon (2009 film), and I think you've done an excellent job with gathering content! However, I was wondering if you could take a moment to read the notability guidelines for future films, which says to hold off on creating an article until filming is confirmed to have begun. We have this threshold because even with large-scale projects, there is no guarantee that production will take place. Obviously, with the success of Twilight, it is clear that people want to make New Moon. Unfortunately, factors like scripting, budgeting, and casting can interfere with production. I was wondering if you would consider merging the film content to "Film adaptation" at New Moon (novel), and the article can be revived once filming begins. I work with the future films department under WikiProject Films, and we suggest that kind of merging until filming does begin. We've done this for some projects that seemed like that would be easily made, such as Spider-Man 4, Jurassic Park IV, or Magneto. I think that if filming begins on New Moon and there are plans for a third, you could create a Twilight (film series) article where information about planned films can go. By the way, I noticed on your user page that you want to bring Twilight (2008 film) up to Good Article status. I have some news alerts for headlines about the film, so if you are interested, I can put them on the film article's talk page. Let me know your thoughts! :) — Erik (talk • contrib) 04:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I know about the notability guidelines, but figured that since a budget had been set and much work had been done into finding a new director, the article could stay. I actually wasn't the one who created the page. I saw that it was created by another user and that they had blatantly copied the information from the Twilight (2008 film) page, which I found unacceptable, so I began working on the page immediately to improve it. If you feel that merging it into another article is the best course of action, especially if it is to abide by Wikipedia's policies, I wholeheartedly support it. I just hope that all of my hours of work on the article will be saved. ;-) I really appreciate the heads up and thank you for your feedback on this. Let me know what you decide to do either way. And as far as the Twilight (2008 film) article goes, anyone is welcome to edit to it. I actually haven't focused on that article too much as my attention has been on the New Moon article. But feel free to put in some new information if you feel that it will better the article. Again, thank you for your time. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  04:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We can converse on this user talk page! I'll add it to my watchlist.  I went ahead with the merging of the content, though I left out the "Cast" section for now.  Can you look to make sure the merge is okay?  The section can be developed, and when filming begins, you can restore the stand-alone article and move any new details over.  Thanks for being so accommodating! :)  As for Twilight, I am not sure if it is my kind of film... I only tracked news headlines about it because I figured that it would be a topic of interest to many. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 05:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that. Everything looks okay; I just made a couple of minor fixes. I was working on the "Cast" section before the merge. Do you think I should put it in the article when I finish with it? Or save it until the film gets its own article space? I'll also probably need your help merging the page back since I have absolutely no clue how to do that. As far as the news articles for Twilight go, if you could dump a them here so that I could take a look at them, that'd be great. Thanks again for your help! – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  07:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not kept up with casting information for New Moon. Are there any changes to the cast or any new additions?  What you could do is add a statement like, "The cast from the first film are contractually signed to reprise their roles in the sequel."  You could wiki-link to the "Cast" section at Twilight to lead readers to the names, perhaps?  So basically, I think it would be good to hold off on the "Cast" section for New Moon until filming begins.  Also, to merge the page back, follow the redirect back to the film article.  To do this, when you click on New Moon (2009 film), it redirects to New Moon (novel).  When it takes you to that section, scroll to the top of the novel article.  You will see "Redirected from New Moon (2009 film)", click on the link, and you will get this.  Click on "history", and you can restore the full-fledged article from before the redirect.  You can then update the article with new details from the "Film adaptation" section.  Hope all this makes sense!  And I will be happy to put some Twilight articles here for you... let me try to do that this afternoon. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

New Moon protection
No problem! And sorry about it, I just instinctively groan at the mention of any of those books now (my girlfriend wouldn't stop chatting my ear off about them for a good week). If the vandalism continues after the current protection expires feel free to request an extension. Keep up the good work! Master of Puppets <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  04:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Twilight headlines
Here are some headlines that could be used:
 * 'Twilight' Co-Star Anna Kendrick Braces Herself For Buzz Bigger Than 'Harry Potter', March 11, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Author Stephenie Meyer's Cameo: More Details Emerge From Book-Turned-Movie's Set, April 8, 2008
 * She just wanted to be an actress, April 19, 2008
 * 'Twilight' taps teen-vampire romance, May 11, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Tuesday: How Faithful Will The Movie Be To The Book? We Visit The Set To Find Out, June 17, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Actor Michael Welch Auditioned For Edward Cullen But Found Right Fit With Athletic Geek Mike Newton, July 1, 2008
 * EW's 'Twilight' cover backlash, July 10, 2008
 * 'Twilight': Inside the First Stephenie Meyer Movie, July 18, 2008
 * SDCC 08: Twilight Time, July 24, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Masterminds Catherine Hardwicke, Stephenie Meyer Take In Wild Comic-Con, Talk Movie's Music, July 25, 2008

1

 * Twilight and True Blood at Comic Con, July 25, 2008
 * 'Twilight' film features an author cameo, July 30, 2008
 * We Chat with 'Twilight' Creator Stephenie Meyer and Director Catherine Hardwicke!, August 8, 2008
 * Twilight leads Robert Pattinson and Rachelle Lefevre, August 12, 2008
 * Twilight Moves In On Potter Vacancy, August 15, 2008
 * 'Twilight' sees light earlier than expected, August 26, 2008
 * 'Twilight' reshoots: Why is Catherine Hardwicke filming again?, August 29, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Tuesday: Catherine Hardwicke Gets Swept Up By Bella And Edward's 'Obsessive Love', September 2, 2008
 * Catherine Hardwicke, The Invincible Auteur Behind ‘Twilight’, September 2, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Tuesday: Peter Facinelli Reveals On-Set Pranks, Says He's On Team Edward, September 9, 2008

2

 * 'Twilight' Stars Robert Pattinson, Kellan Lutz Describe New Flashback Scenes, September 15, 2008
 * Twilight's Author and Director Talk About Bringing The Film To Life, September 17, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Tuesday: Kellan Lutz Recalls How He Almost Wasn't Cast As Belligerent 'Goofball' Emmett, September 23, 2008
 * Catherine Hardwicke, October 2, 2008
 * Robert Pattinson on his 'Twilight' songs: 'Music is my backup plan if acting fails', October 9, 2008
 * Interview with Twilight Star Peter Facinelli
 * Exclusive Interview: 'Twilight' Screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, October 14, 2008 (see here for more)
 * 'Twilight' Tuesday: Anna Kendrick Says It Was 'Easy To Get Googly Eyed' At Robert Pattinson, October 21, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Countdown: Edi Gathegi's vampire love, October 29, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Countdown: Catherine Hardwicke says original script was more like 'Charlie's Angels', November 6, 2008

3
Hope you can find some useful nuggets in these! — Erik (talk • contrib) 17:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Twilight': Will the Movie Be a Hit?, November 14, 2008
 * ‘Twilight’ seeks blockbuster bite, November 14, 2008
 * Interview with Twilight Director Catherine Hardwicke
 * 'Twilight' Author Stephenie Meyer Recalls Robert Pattinson Spat, Seeing Movie The First Time, November 14, 2008
 * Moviegoers enter "Twilight" zone at box office, November 23, 2008
 * 'Twilight' is No. 1 by more than a neck at box office, November 24, 2008
 * Twilight: A New Take on Vampire VFX, November 24, 2008
 * 'Twilight' Director Catherine Hardwicke Reveals DVD Details, December 11, 2008


 * Wow! Thank you so much for taking the time to leave these here. I'm sure they will help tremendously! – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure. :) I figured a while ago that the film would probably be popular, so I am glad that I set up News Alerts to accumulate such headlines.  I hope that not too many of them are redundant with what already exists in the Wikipedia article!  There are probably some print sources available, too... some News Alerts linked to articles that were since concealed behind a subscription-only page.  If you need any help with the headlines or with developing the film article, please let me know! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the barnstar! You are too kind. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maine Coon
Sorry for the long wait. If I don't finish a review for you within the next couple days, I'll throw it back in the pot. Thanks, Steven Walling (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas! Sorry I'm a bit late, but it's better late than never. Right? ;) While I'm here, I wish you a happy New Year too. :D  Corn.u.co.pia /  Disc.us.sion  08:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jada Pinkett Smith peer review
Hi Sarita, I have gone back, looked through your changes, and left comments at the peer review. In my opinion, the article could stand a good chance for FA, although you might have to be prepared for some questions as I noted. Jappalang (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot, when you bring the article to FAC, close out the peer review via the processes stated at the top of WP:PR. Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)