User talk:Nehrams2020

First Archive (Feburary-November 2006)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson

Two problems:

1. The sections should read: "Fair use rationale for Samuel L. Jackson"
2. You need to state why it is important to use those images in the Samuel L. Jackson. Right now it reads like a fair use rationale for use in the film articles themselves. Basically, you're probably going to add something about how those films are the paradigm roles that he's been in.

--SeizureDog 01:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thing needed

I saw your message in film project. Just wanted you to know I have applied for AWB, which can add tags and preset corrections to a series of articles much faster than doing it by hand. I haven't been approved yet, but I think I qualify and you too. I would suggest you apply too (unless you are not using Windows). I could also help you out once I get permission to use it, but even so two are more effective than one. Hoverfish 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fims box

Thanks for the note; I actually was the one who made the new infobox tag, I just wanted to make sure that it'd be acceptable for me to create one. Oh, and thanks about the heads-up for putting the infobox needed tags on the talk page; I'd always thought they went on the article page. On that note, are the copyedit and wikify tags supposed to go on the talk page as well? I always see them on article pages (which is why I assumed the infobox needed tags went there too). -Elizabennet 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

New lists of films appeared

Hi Nehrams, look please here for this new issue: User talk:Cbrown1023#Note to the editor and follow links from there. We have to either integrate this new series or take some decision all together. Hoverfish 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconds before your message I voted for keep under condition (see afd). I am not sure what is the right way to proceed with the lists. Ernst has so much enthusiasm and is able of making things presentable too. He is asking for help but doesn't notice we have our hands more than full. I'd rather he would post in film project, but he keeps posting in user space, so we don't get wider feedback. I even asked him for sources but got a reply without any answer. I warned him he would be tagged too. I wish he would join in with our efforts, but surely he is free to do as he wishes. On the lists by country I can offer no important opinion, as I haven't checked how many of his lists overlap other project work. The presentation looks good. He also went along with my suggestion and stoped giving red links for films without an article. About the films in year, there definitely has to be a merger before it all gets out of hand. I am still in doubt which is the best way to merge. On the one hand it would be good to merge his lists into the existing ones (unlinked reds, unless notable). Yet we may start getting feedback that the comprehensive years in film are getting overly long. I really wish we would get more members to decide on this properly. For my part I have my hands so full lately (wiki and everyday) that I don't know where to start. But that's not the point. I am also trying to make an newsletter article to mention the need for guidelines in red linked titles, but my concentration is very poor at the moment. Hoverfish 07:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's a link: List of 1896 films, but the navigation takes back to years in film, some earlier lists have been turned to redirects (to years in film). It is a mess presently. Have to run :) Hoverfish 09:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit Count

Dude, you are gonna hit 10,000 like any edit now... like 2 more at last count!!!! Big milestone.... good job! Cbrown1023 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

About the 10,000th... be careful! You are cutting it close. For the GA, I now you were thinking about it, I feel a little guilty, I was kinda "eavesdropping" on you by seeing the note you posted on Hoverfish's talk page (all your user talk's are on my watchlist...). We have a listing of films and film characters (basically stuff in the project) already at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Distinguished items (but it is gonna be moved soon, so that link won't be right forever...). However, we don't have one for other film-related topics... if you want to keep one up, that would be great!!! (it's also great that you want to contribute to the newsletter!) Just make sure you know, it is a lot of work! It's so confusing, the GA nom page is huge and you've got a ton of stuff coming in. You also don't know when they are added to WP:GA. I'm just having trouble keeping up with the project ones! All in all, congrats on your 1k and if you want to keep a listing up, great! Cbrown1023 23:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work

Thanks for adding the movie poster to the Emerald Forest page. I really love that film which was why I started the article. It looks much better now, thanks :o) Tom Michael - Mostly Zen (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

New navigation in lists of film !!!

I know you are busy with other things, but can you please take a look at what this navigation is useful for in the Lists of films, between Years in film and By lettes? Hoverfish 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, what you say makes sense, presentation-wise it's a fine template. But no decision I know was ever taken that we take all the Films released in 19xx from the Years and start with them a series of Films in year (which if properly decided I will contribute also work to forward it). What is my main concern is that E.S.Blofel had been compiling some early years of films where the Years in film lists were almost empty. So I asked if we should bring all these films simply in the years. But if we take some decision on something clear we can act in some communicated way abpout it. Yet no discussion about it in Film Project or List member circle. So since he was refering to Pegship about it, I even asked Pegship to tell me what is going on, because this pushes my patience with sudden undiscussed moves that will involve a lot of our time to make happen. Hoverfish 19:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One note, is that if we do this change, we can't just strip the years in film from "Other films", but we will have to filter some descriminating factor and let some films there too. So, who does what and how? Hoverfish 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't meaning to put it on your shoulders, but if you feel more detatched, maybe it's best you make an introduction. I will follow when needed. Hoverfish 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Read my proposals on the main wiki film talk page. Everyone will realize my full potential soon I hope!!

If the lists of films are at present regarded as unencyclopedic I propose that changes are made to List of films by country and List of films by date maybe years. Rather than delete them I think each country should have the list of notbale films in order by year of release rather than an A-Z that the categories will eventually create anyway. This is far more useful which I believe Thai films and that have already done. Alos the format could be changed to a box With year and date of release in chronoligcal order and director of film by country. I notcied debate over the dates of film releases. If lists were drawn up of films by year then the same could eventually be done, from Januray 1st to december the 31st by year. This will not only be an expansion of the main pages e.g 1947 in film and Cinema of .... but will give more specific infomration about date of release in chronological order which is not present. This would also be a highly knowledgeable part of the Cinema of each country and year. Also the probelm with the redirects would be avoided if the lists accomplished somethin which categories cannot. E.g List of 1947 films would have pages as part of 1947 in film conveying infomration about films with date of rleaease in order of that year. So eventually we end up with an extremely useful timeline of all notable films released from 1894 to 2007. Can you see the potential for this?

Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Drew Carey

Not a bad start. It is definately close. A few issues:

• Mix of reference styles. At least one of the references is a parenthetical reference. Fix this to an inline reference like all of the others.
• Organization: Its a little jumpy. I might try the following organizational structure:
  • Early Life
  • Stand-Up Career
  • Acting Career
    • Early Roles
    • The Drew Carey Show
    • Whose Line is it Anyways
    • Other Roles & Appearences
  • Promotional Work
  • Writing
  • Personal Life
    • Political Involvement
    • Sports Involvement
    • Photography
  • Awards & Honors
  • Filmography
• His professional relationship with people like Kinney and Stiles needs to be better developed. Kinney's connection to his work seems very important, and it is confusing the way it is handled in the article.
• If you use the organization I list above, or something like it, then use the {{main}} tag for The Drew Carey Show and Whose Line Is It Anyways.

The article is well referenced, which is a great start, and I like it mostly, but the jumbled organization is a weak point. Fix that, and make the minor fixes I recommend, and I think this could pass Good Article status. I hope I have been some help. --Jayron32 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to comments on my talk page::

• • • By promotional work I mean notable ad campaigns. Right now some of this is shoved in with the Drew Carey Show information. Move to a new section and expand.
    • Copy and paste THIS to reference the book with an inline reference: <ref name=auto>Carey, Drew (1997). Dirty Jokes and Beer: Stories of the Unrefined. New York: Hyperion. ISBN: 078688939X</ref>. If you want to reference the book in other locations, use the following tag: <ref name=auto />.
    • Looking at it now, the organization is MUCH improved. I would also recommend expanding the early roles bit (I assume his early relationship with Kenney will be fleshed out here). Also, in his stand-up career, I do remember some notable 1/2 hour and full-hour comedy specials on major netowrks like HBO, showtime, Comedy Central, etc. You might want to add those to the Stand Up section. Not required, but it would be nice. IMDB should have info on these. I am impressed with the work you have done in such a short time. --Jayron32 04:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Further responses: Hey, the article looks GREAT now. Just one minor issue: The information about the A&W/McDonalds ad campagain is still entirely non-sequitur. That it occured during the filming of the Drew Carey show is incedental. Either move it to a new section on advertising and promotional work, or expunge it. It seems like it belongs in the article, but its too short to be an entire section to itself, and it doesn't belong where it is now. Also, the sentance: The show ran for a total of 215 episodes between 1998 and 2006 (a couple of episodes were released this year). Is awkward. Skip the parenthetical comment. That the show aired 215 episodes from 1998-2006 is enough. Oh, and I am not actually a member of WP:GA. Membership is not required to promote articles. I drop by occasionally to nominate my own articles from time to time, and when I do I fins a few to comment on. I don't really spend enough time there to consider myself a member. I just try to apply the WP:GA criteria in a fair and equitable manner, and promote articles that meet those criteria, which is all that is required and any editor can do it. Also, my involvement in the article to this point is substantial. While I feel it should be promoted to GA status, I must recuse myself from promoting it directly since I feel I have been so involved with it. Plus, seeing an article get nominated and passed so fast without anyone else getting the chance to see it and comment on it smacks of collusion and conflict of interest. Please go ahead and nominate it, and see what happens. I have a pretty good sense for these things, and I am quite sure it will get passed. Good luck! --Jayron32 06:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, based on your comments, I may end up officially joining after all. I have really enjoyed working with you on these pages, and look forward to doing so in the future. If you have any other articles you want me to look at, let me know, and I will see what I can do! If I put my humility aside for the moment, I do feel I have a skill for this sort of thing. To answer your question about GA vs. Featured, the vetting process for a featured article is MUCH more involved, and requires community consensus. GA's need only one editor to like the article to promote it. Also, GA criteria are MUCH less stringent, and many GA articles, by the very nature of their subject, could never be promoted to Featured status. Featured articles also have a chance to make the mainpage, and thus are under much closer scrutiny. For all of these reasons, the GA notice only appears on the talk page. People who are committed to improving an article should always look over the talk page anyways, and will see the GA status and act accordingly... --Jayron32 07:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on getting this to pass. You worked really hard on it! You deserve a barnstar:

		The Original Barnstar
		for tireless work in getting the Drew Carey and Samuel L. Jackson articles up to GA status! Jayron32 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry

You are one of several people who was instrumental in cleaning up my List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry page. This page was the first page I created and still remains the page that I have made the most edits to on wikipedia (95 edits). Thank you for your assistance. Since this page received so much more cleanup assistance than most of my other pages I am wondering if it was a focus article of a WikiProject Group. Do you know of any such designation? It would be helpful because I will be self nominating for admin tomorrow or Tuesday. Please reply at my userpage with any info you may have. TonyTheTiger 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned you would be receptive to a candidacy notice. Adminship candidacy posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship. TonyTheTiger 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support in my RfA! What article are you working on right now (GA's for... Samuel L. Jackson, Drew Carey!)? Cbrown1023 21:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes me sad :(. Plus, the fact that he isn't really in good standing means he shouldn't vote anyway (you said 3RR, he blanked a page he did not like, obviously does not know policies). But, I'm not going to try to get his vote removed because he is entitled his opinion, I just hope it ends well! :) Good luck on your finals! Cbrown1023 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blind audition

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support for a potentially great admin

Thanks for letting me know. From my first day in Films I noticed Cbrown's potential and wished him success in adminship. Now about politics, I'd rather have Zaphod Beeblebrox for president, but I don't let this overshadow my evaluation of worthy wikipedians. Hoverfish 08:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

66.99.49.36

Hi Nehrams2020,

There are no strict policies governing the vandal warning system. Essentially, it's just a matter of judgement and picking the method that works best for you. In this case, I decided not to block 66.99.49.36 because his last warning was issued on November 8. That's more than a month ago. Additionally, 66.99.49.36 seems to be a shared IP (most likely a school), so the long history of vandalism is probably the work of numerous curious students not a single malicious user. I hope this answers your questions. Feel free to contact me if you ever need help dealing with a vandal. Best wishes, Canderson7 ^(talk) 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting

I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mummy 3

I'd like to request for The Mummy 3 (film) to be moved to The Mummy 3. Per naming conventions for films, (film) should only be added if there are other articles about The Mummy 3. However, since there are none, it's not necessary to have (film) at the end of it. The Mummy 3 was a redirect to The Scorpion King, which is inaccurate, and I've fixed it to redirect to The Mummy 3 (film). I think the pages should be reversed. Is this possible to do? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Dec News

Yeah, we have a listing. I keep it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Spotlight... However, I don't have the actors ones on there... I just have the films and film characters. I would be more than happy to have you add your information on other film-related items to the newsletter. :) We should probably get the newsletter out this week (like before the 22nd) because of all the Holiday's coming up. Cbrown1023 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It's four GA so far this month, "She Shoulda Said 'No'!" was just added. :) Cbrown1023 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we just mention December's articles but add a link to the full listing. In the newsletter, feel free to talk about the other film-related (actors/directors...) in the newsletter. For your listing of actors, directors... I had added the Other film-related section. Feel free to fill it all up as you see fit. Also note that the Main Author(s) doesn't need to be filled, I don't really like it since this is a collaborative project but kept it anyway. It can also be tough to figure out who the main author is sometimes. A definite yes to your new templates. Cbrown1023 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, films and film characters go in the regular ones because they are both within our scope as opposed to actors and directors which just relate to our scope (so they go in the other section...) I feel like I sound confusing, contact me if anything is unclear (well, all of it is probably unclear... contact me if there is anything you do not understand...) Cbrown1023 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna be working on it, too... I'll be doing the department update. You can do the templates and GA/FA listings... If we ever edit conflict, let's just merge our changes. Then, we'll proofread and copyedit each other. I've already done the collaboration update. Cbrown1023 04:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we should post that in the from the editors section for this months newsletter or, if you are talking about for the current newsletter, on the project talk page... we should also come up with a monthly deadline that is the same for every month to keep it less confusing. Cbrown1023 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. This month is just weird though because we have all these holidays: Christmas, Hannukah (I probably butchered the spelling...), Kwanza, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day... which make it so that fewer editors are on at those times (we assume this because it is the the english wikipedia...) Cbrown1023 04:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How ironic, I was just thinking about that last night... but I'm wondering whether to put it in the newsletter or on the Project page or both... that's funny, I guess great minds think alike. :) Cbrown1023 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just added some, I get an e-mail from AMC every week that has the next two weeks... please add any that I missed, especially the Christmas ones. Cbrown1023 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What should we do about the rating? As you saw, I included it also... but it may be a little too America biased... I don't know... it's helpful so I guess we can just leave it. Cbrown1023 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Idk... I'm gonna add some stuff on our peer review department probably... I know Hover wanted to add some stuff, but I don't know if he still is. He wanted you two to write about the in film lists and about the Blofeld incident thing... I'm gonna go ask him... Cbrown1023 05:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Definately, you can put them in the genereral one if you would like... or a special one that just show those types (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Spotlight#Other film-related)... Do whatever you think would be better. I trust your judgement. :) I'm gonna go to bed now cause I'm on the east coast (it's like 12:20...) and I'm gonna go see Eragon (film) tomorrow at like 11.... so g'night and happy editing! Cbrown1023 05:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a Miss Piggy?

What one hell of a job you've done getting the references together for The Blues Brothers (film). The article is looking good. I'm sure Jake and Elwood thank for your efforts. — WiseKwai 08:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also my congratulations for your contributions (future ones too) to the Blues Brothers article. I hope it gets GA. Hoverfish 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! and a minor point of usage

Thanks for the congratulations and for splitting the references into two columns on Ginger Snaps. However, the endspoiler template should not have been added. I did not know this until I was peer-reviewing The Public Enemy and suggested to Cbrown to do the same thing that you did. He linked me to the template's usage (here) which specifies that it should not be used at the end of a section. It is definitely an obscure point, and one that I wouldn't mind changing. I'll look around to see what the general usage is and then ask for consensus on which way it should be.--Supernumerary 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cinema navigation

Hi Nehrams, do you care to take a look at the bottom of my talk page and see if the new navigation is OK? Hoverfish 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA & Newletter

Thanks. :) I'd appreciate it if you notify me of any help you'll need. About the newsletter, there should always be candidates on the page, so we shouldn't have to wait for that. I don't mind on the date, it's just that if it is after the 21st, I can't help (so you'll need to do it yourself or get Hover to help). Cbrown1023 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do it using AWB (if you don't have it already, you should get it, the insturctions are on that page). The Outreach Department the information you need (link-only is what you want to use, unless they want full/no delivery). I just load the users from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Participants/Member List, remove the users who want no/full delivery, run the program, and then later, deliver the full delivery ones by hand. Cbrown1023 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thank you so much, Nehrams2020, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Matchmaker

Re: The Matchmaker (film), the camel case given in the IMDb profile may be wrong. The DVD cover clearly shows "Matchmaker." House of Scandal 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pineapple

Hey Nehrams, I think you mave been too quick to call 71.146.70.233's edit vandalism. The edit wasn't just clearing content, he also rephrased one of the trivia items, and positively in my opinion. It may have been a good-faith edit. -SpuriousQ 08:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New gnoming field

Hi, I'm trying myself with putting categories in films. Here's one I did for a test: Forget Paris. Do you think they are any not needed or any I missed? Hoverfish 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Still in thoughts about it. Shouldn't American films be sub-cat of English language films? Oh, don't worry about me. I've just recently read the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification and being very impressed, I'm vaguely trying to figure out the WikiProject Films Classification, if any. Hoverfish 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Newsletter

I don't care either way, but it would definately take a lot of boring work to do it without it... I guess I'll just deliver it tomorrow unless you have any other ideas. I've also added the rest of the release dates for January because of your idea. This has caused me to also move the location of it down so that discussion comes first. If you need anything else, don't hesitate to contact me again. Oh, and I left Hoverfish take a peak, he is asked where it was on my talk page. :) Cbrown1023 22:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tar pits

I saw your tar pits image and the rabbit. I can't help thinking of Sam n' Max. Does it ring a bell? Hoverfish 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we a go for the newsletter in like 10 minutes? or do you think we should wait. I know you are looking into AWB, so... what's the plan? Cbrown1023 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was approved for AWB but even with Ms Network 2 I can't get it to install, so I gave up trying. Hope you have a better luck. About cats: I proposed to Her Pegship that she helps us start the Film Categorization thing. It will be a good day in Film Project when we have it straightened up. Oh, Sam n' Max are also comic books? I meant the superb adventure game Sam & Max Hit the Road. For better or worse, since I became a wikipedian games have faded in the past. Hoverfish 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Approved for AWB!

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 05:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

List of film series

Hi. I thinks it's about time to interfere in List of film series. Someone tried to do the only rational thing (ie. move its content to hexologies/dodecalogies). But another one put it back and wants it there. Could we start some vote on moving its content it permanently to where it belongs and turn this page to a small list of links to the actual series? By the way I did some category work in Category:Lists of films (rearranged some of its articles to subcats. I'm warming up for the creation of the Film categorization department. See my sandbox for first ideas. Hoverfish Talk 22:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I will start discussing in WP:Films as soon as I know what to say. I need to do some more research. For the moment I have created Category:Lists of films by genre and Category:Lists of films by technical issue (I didn't say "technology", because there as more technical issues that can fit here). Both are subcats of Lists of films. So I populated them and reduced a bit the amount of lose articles in the parent cat. Hoverfish Talk 11:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice

This is to inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization has started. Any contributions in further developing it are warmly welcome. Hoverfish Talk 15:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion going on about breaking down Category:American films. Your opinion about it would be most needed and appreciated in categorization. Hoverfish Talk 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Question

The type of license to use will depend on what type of permission the author gives you. It could be GFDL, Creative Commons, Copyright Free Use or the author might decide to release to the public domain. To credit the author do something like Image:Zebra finch.jpg. The source can be the link back to the Flickr page. Please post the text of the e-mail granting permission on the image talk page like I did at Image talk:Zebra finch.jpg, so there is no question about receiving permission. Remember the e-mail must be specific about what rights the author is granting, not just "permission" but "license under GFDL" or "permission for free use", etc. If the image on Flickr is already under a free license then you can just use the image and choose the same license as is used on Flickr. And also it cannot be a noncommercial type license or the image will eventually be deleted. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The acceptable licenses are the "Attribution License" (Wikipedia tags {{cc-by}}, {{cc-by-2.0}} and {{cc-by-2.5|Attribution}}. {{cc-by-2.5|Attribution}} is the newest and preferred "Attribution License") and the "Attribution-ShareAlike License" (Wikipedia tags {{cc-by-sa}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.5|Attribution}}. {{cc-by-sa-2.5|Attribution}} is the newest and preferred "Attribution-ShareAlike License"). The other licenses are unacceptable on Wikipedia as they do not allow derivative works and/or do not allow commercial use. Hope that helps. -Nv8200p talk 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL

Lol... that was a pretty funny vandal! ;) Happy New Year! Cbrown1023 02:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It was good and fun, thanks! It went to the Caribbean (sp?). I'd ask you how your holiday was, but, if I recall correctly, you are still on it! Is is going well, at least? Cbrown1023 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. I just see a more tabs at the top of the page (like "history" and "edit this page"), "protect" and "delete". I get to see some special pages and features that regular users don't get to see (Special:Unwatchedpages, Special:Undelete/Wikipedia (3)). But yeah, I feel pretty comfortable with the tools, they're easy when you get used to them, it's the descision-making (such as when to delete/block) that's tough! ;) Cbrown1023 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that you'll be able to use that camera to help WP greatly! Cbrown1023 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Country and language (Template discussion)

Shouldn't we wait a bit on these two kitties? Actually I would be happy to see you step in a bit on this issue in categorization. Hoverfish Talk 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant, but as you say, it's not big deal. There is this user who said we shouldn't be afraid of big categories, and I thought you may have to comment something for. I feel very strange about it. On the one hand I like one all inclusive "Films", on the other "your" A-Z-# lists are even better, since one finds also the years. About country, it's good to have also an A-Z list, but since to create too many comprehensive lists needs too much continious updating, the cats would make it better. Then there was the storm with Blofeld's changes. Finally I see so many long named categories (for awards and what not) that if we go too far, no one will be able to find anything, even the useful bits, in the categories of an article. If there was any mechanism which could combine given categories (for example we give 1985, American, English, Comedy as separate cats and "it" places the film in a composite "1985 American English-language comedies", where we can find all such films) it would be great. But I think this cannot happen in wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice edits you did. As I was going throught them I felt the need to see links for some entries. For example WP:LEAD would be useful after intro. Are there any articles for the other entries? Also WP:IA, WP:TRIV, WP:CITE could be of help. Hoverfish Talk 13:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some good examples will help. Do it! Did you know about the new sortable tables? (see in my Notebook) Hoverfish Talk 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be repetitious or frustrating (thinking it links to various pages and getting the same). But I would let it so till we present it and hear other opinions. Hoverfish Talk 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC) - Actually whenever you think it's ready you can present it in the project and we take it from there. Hoverfish Talk 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed you edit in my talk page because of multiple messages. You have to make the table class="sortable" and read m:help:sorting for details. Hoverfish Talk 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to draw your attention to the project talk on the template. We could include it in the Film template with an IF switch for display/hide. Later we could do the same with the further upgrading tags. Shane sais he can do it. Hoverfish Talk 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On photography interests

If you are interested in photography, I have some rather good ones I made in Munich few years ago. If you use my emailing facilitiy I could send them over. Hoverfish Talk 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On what basis should I upload them? Does wikipedia welcome photography indiscriminately? Souldn't it be meant to accompany a certain subject? Hoverfish Talk 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked in Commons. I must first overcome this newcomer feeling that everything is too complicated, before I upload anything. Hoverfish Talk 21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I got help from user Nv8200p and uploaded my first photo in Commons: Image:Ducks in Munich.JPG. I also started a gallery (via categories) for my next uploads. I'm waiting to hear if I did it right before I proceed with more. Hoverfish Talk 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

AWB update

No, it's just me. Actually the update is that there is something with my Windows2000 (I got NET v.2) and can't install it. But I will be soon installing a special version of XP (I think it's XP Fundamental), so it may work. "I'm going to go through all of the start articles" has an AWB feeling about it. Hoverfish Talk 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside program? It's in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/fixer. Are we talking about the same thing? Hoverfish Talk 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's called CorHommo, I downloaded it but it asks only for disambiguation pages. So how do you navigate in articles? Hoverfish Talk 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

That's nothing, look at this one from Brad's page! No problem, though, it's fun reverting vandalism! :) (to some extent) Cbrown1023 21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Edmond

Thanks for adding the film poster to the infobox -- it's a vast improvement. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 15:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mee-Shee

I've been expanding this article, please take a look. If you think it now meets B class or have any comments on what's needed please tell me. (I know the plot section is short, but I've never seen this movie). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also note there's not a lot of sources available on this movie. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on it, I just found some stuff and added it just as you left that message. There is no Boxofficemojo info or Rotten Tomatoes info on it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter: Spotlight

OMG, we're not even half-way through the month yet and we already have that many GAs and FAs!? I think they took your comment to heart! Cbrown1023 23:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything and everything should go into the newsletter, it should be concise enough to give all members information on where to find their little niche where they can contribute the greatest. So, yes, definately. :) Cbrown1023 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Night at the Museum

After a lengthy discussion, the general consensus appears to be that less is better. The majority has supported a brief overview of the plot, so please stop adding your detailed description that renders seeing the film unnecessary. Thank you! SFTVLGUY2 20:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some users simply don't like Wikipedia to be informative

In particular User SFTVLGUY2 seems to decide what is enough for an article and even removes stub templates, considering "enough was said". How does one reason with this logic? I agree that long synopses should be an additional altenative to short ones. We had talk in the Project, but when we learned that subarticle with extended plot can't stand alone, the talk died down. So we are left where we were: Nothing was decided. We are still at the 500-700 word limit and that's guidelines. I am trying to find an argument, but you have met a particular trend of users there. Did you see my gallery link, btw? Hoverfish Talk 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We have to ask our software experts if they can make a feature of hidden sections, that upon a click-here can expand. ;)Hoverfish Talk 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The last few hours there seems to be a problem with images in Wikipedia. It's happening to a lot of pages I visit. I commented on the film's talk. Hoverfish Talk 20:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way of plots, here is one you may like: The Blob (1988 film). Hoverfish Talk 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know :) That's an extreme case I found adding infoboxes. The bad thing with the hide option of templates is that we will need subpages to put our extended plots in, and it may be a no-no again. I meant like the hide/show that appears for page elements. But I did find an editor who might help clear out if it's possile or not. Have a good trip back to student life and high speed internet. Hoverfish Talk 20:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Shooter

Whoops, how about that. I wasn't even focusing on adding film posters. That was stellar timing, haha. Cheers, fellow editor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)