User talk:Yllosubmarine/Archive 2

Edit dispute

Would you please weigh in with your opinion at Buddy - The Buddy Holly Story? Thanks for your opinion either way. -- Ssilvers 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not suggest how you should vote - I only requested your opinion on the matter. Please be assured that I do not normally solicit opinions on an edit dispute, but I have been arguing with this editor for many months, and I felt that it would be helpful to find out if others thought I was justified or not in continuing to disagree with him. If I knew how to initiate a peer review, I would have done so. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you send me that message? I am free to say my comment, what is this? Wikipedia starts to censor stuff? Nothing new. You guys write whatever you want and silence other people.

(Oh, if only I were free enough to write what I really wanted...) *chuckle* María: (habla conmigo) 13:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lovely Bones

As the creator of that article originally, I say go ahead. I have wanted to bring it in accord with WP:NOVEL guidelines for a while but so many other things are in the way (I created before that project existed and we just had to make our own guesses about what belonged). All the info you would need is already in there (I think); feel free to give it proper references and bring the plot summary to reasonable length. Catherine Munro was right; it has GA potential.

I'll be interested in seeing what you do. Daniel Case 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just cleaned up some of your first edits a bit. As much as it pains me to see that long plot summary, which I devoted so much work on back in early 2005, go, it has to. You've got it down to 904 words so I took off the "long plot summary" tag someone else put on (ideally, these things are supposed to be 700 words or so, although 1,000 is the upper limit, and I think for a book with such a layered plot we can go a little longer).

I do sort of think that bit about the Fahrenheit 451 epigraph is relevant; eighth-graders generally don't read relatively obscure Spanish poets, even in the early 1970s. All it needs in the way of citation, if that's the problem, is a citation to the opening page of Fahrenheit 451. And it can go in the "references to other works" section when you get there. The other trivia you were right to remove.

You may have overtrimmed the intro — in fact, you did. I know you wanted to take the spoilers out, but the hook of this story, the thing everyone remembers, is that it's narrated by Susie post mortem from the afterlife. That has to be in the intro no matter what; it's not a spoiler IMO (Well, you know in the second sentence that Susie is dead, and in the second graf that she's telling you this story a long time afterwards). Daniel Case 02:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I figured you were going to build it back again ... you seem too smart not to do that. I just thought that that detail needs to stay in the intro while you redo it, because after all the book is categorized into Category:Fiction narrated by a dead person.

I see your point re that Fahrenheit 451 ref ... I think there's something in WP:A that says it isn't about things you notice (when I wrote that, you could still get away with stuff like that) ... and I just noticed that some rather blatant allusions I noted in Borat were taken out because they can't be sourced (except for the IMdB, which we decided a long time is not a reliable source outside of credit info, as I think you know) and they want to take the article to FAC. It's a shame because I think there is a certain threshold of obviousness beyond which the OR policy doesn't apply, but this is also probably a good time to perhaps get going on doing a Wikibooks study guide (a great place to put the old plot summary). As if I didn't have enough going on here anyway. Daniel Case 13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

I see you became the latest editor to have to revert that supposed change to the film release date (although at this point, with no confirmed casting even, I highly doubt it will come out this year but until the release date is officially changed to 2008 we should keep it as is). Good job ... we have to hold that little line.

I liked that quote from Sebold about why she made Susie's heaven what it was ... I should have found it and used it when I wrote it, but back then there were no clear guidelines about OR in novel articles and a lot of us wound up writing some very nice literary criticism that unfortunately has no place here (in that vein, just tank all the stuff speculating about Ruth being a lesbian because I haven't really found any external sources discussing it, even though it's pretty plain in the book). But I actually learned something I didn't know. Thanks! Daniel Case 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

300 lead

In an attempt to move beyond this debacle, we've gathered a number of options here. I wonder if you'ld mind having a look and weighing in as to which you'ld prefer. Thanks, --Javits2000 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels 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.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

What is there to explain? Warner Bros. has clearly stated that the film is "pure fiction". The quote is both on the talk page (twice) and in the article (scroll down). The studio does not use the term "historical" or "semi-historical" or even "historical fiction" - just "pure fiction". You want to know why they call it "pure fiction"? Its basic. Xerxes is portrated as a bald, dark-skinned feminine man with piercings, there are monsters and mutants in the movie, Spartans with no body armour, Persian soldiers wearing absurd ninja dress, etc etc. - all obviously fantasy elements. As sources have shown, Frank Miller's story also strays very far from the recorded history as historians and scholars have strongly emphasised. Naturally the studio has never promoted the film as a "historical fiction" for these reasons. Its not difficult to understand at all. What is difficult to understand is why you and the others would push so strongly for totally incorrect wording, especially in light of the historical errors, and furthermore, that the film is grossly offensive to the vast majority of Iranians, in the West and in Iran. That there are people who are not willing to compromise on this and who refuse to accept what the studio itself has stated about the film is bizarre, but I will not speculate if this is out of anti-Iranian prejudice or what. I for one reject any attempt to impose revisionism here - the current leader is not only fine, but it is sourced to the studio itself. I think that is as clear as I can be about this issue, and I have explained this again and again. Its basic. Khorshid 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wording clearly states that the film is a fiction based upon the battle, which apparently is not good enough for you guys. Thats fine, but don't expect your wordings to get in there, because that is sheer POV. Furthermore, we have shown that scholars and historians have condemned the film's (fictional) portrayal of the battle. Snyder is not a scholar. Talk to me when he gets his degrees in Classical History. 'Nuff said. That is the end of the issue as far as I am concerned, and if you guys have any further issues, take it to RFC or ArbCom and we'll hash it out there. In fact, I think ArbCom is the best choice, since RFC would certainly prove fruitless and pointless considering how long these discussions have been going on for. Khorshid 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Knut (polar bear)

Where did you get the name of Knut's father from? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lars

Thanks for the info. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle Age : A Romance by Joyce Carol Oates

I see you added some things in the history...Do you by happenstance know why the page won't show up in the search results?Zigzig20s 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to this : [1]  : it does not appear in the search results - for me anyway. Does it work for you?Zigzig20s 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OH...I made a mistake in the title of the page then! I think I got it from the list on Joyce Carol Oates's page, and they must have typed it without a space on there, and I hadn't noticed that...I have no idea how to add a space to the page title, though I think it is possible somehow (a typo in the title has been fixed on the Saint-Cannat page for instance.).Zigzig20s 03:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. Unfortunately I don't have a copy to check, as I had borrowed it from the library. Perhaps I am mistaken - then it's all good I suppose. Thank you for the info. Zigzig20s 03:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a few. Great book.Zigzig20s 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your edits to Talk:300 (film)

Very Nice! I like a you. I will listen to you advice. I support your war of censorship. I like! Wa wa wee Wa! Manic Hispanic 18:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when is asking for manners censorship? Act accordingly, Borat. María (habla conmigo) 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the post is already made for me, I won't screw up your talk page anymore than it already is. I figured a liberal/psuedoadmin/librarian would have the intelligence to properly quote somebody. I am wrong. I still stand by the statement that all involed in the edit war should "Grow the fuck up!" If you are one of those people, then heed my advice. Slayerofangels 01:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Screwed up? I think it looks rather nice, what with it being full of famous reporters and people who like red. ;) I'll heed your advice, Angel, when it's actually phrased as advice. As for the misquote, at least I remembered the key word. María (habla conmigo) 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your interchange with User:Slayerofangels. While I agree that his commetn was uncivil, it is generlly frowned on to remove other people's comments from talk pages except in cases far more extreme than this oen was. You could express disagreemetn by posting a response calling attention to WP:CIVIL or even by striking out the offensive comment, but simply deeltign it is usually a poor idea. DES ^(talk) 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your feedback. I'll definitely take that into account next time. María (habla conmigo) 15:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your cool and reasonable response. i have sen lots of times where far more uncivil comments, indeed clear violations of no personal attacks are not removed. Read remove personal attacks and tote that it is highly controversial, even for clear and direct attacks. Frankly it is better to leave the offending remarks where they will let others see what a fool an editor is making of him- or herself, than raise a side issue of "Censorship!". If there are continuing and serious problems that can't be worked out calmly, feel free to drop a line to me or any other friendly admin. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Civilty template

I've altered it. I removed the caps, and the bold, and just made the text larger so that it catches your eye.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that it appears to be less hypocritical, I hope that it helps you all on the article talk page, and your user talk pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tally

I think we should close the voting a week after voting started (the 6th). Your thoughts? Btw, thanks for keeping a running tally. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ask User:Javits2000; he perfromed the first one. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

300 Voting Running Tally

I tallied up them up here. We were thinking that a week is long enough to wait before posting final results. How should I approach the subject of the italicized votes?
I also posted how this pig should finally get roasted here. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

King

Another user just commented that he is also referred to as King of Kings in the movie. What are your thoughts? --Rayis 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Black Water (novella) - help!

Hello, I've expanded Black Water (novella) after reading it, but I don't understand why it stops at 'references to actual history' whilst in the 'edit this page' tab, there are three more subheads...Any idea?Zigzig20s 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

can't we just stop?

If we do, then the people who wish to disrupt due process under various premises, would get what they want. --Mardavich 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of snide remarks

Please elaborate on how my remarks were "snide". I consider this an ill-considered accusation. My comment was meant to be taken literally, there was no snide or uncivil tone to it. It was very topical as Arcayne and Miskin wish to discredit the vote, I noted that it was in fact Arcayne that initiated the vote. I never discredited the vote and I think it should be upheld. Thus I do not understand what you are trying to point out when you say "You agreed to the voting when you, yourself placed a vote". Yes, I indeed agreed to the voting process and still do. I only object to making new rules after the voting has ended. I also object to discrediting the voting process. Please AGF. --Agha Nader 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GF A'ed. María (habla conmigo) 12:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about links

Hi, I just wanted to ask about why was the fansite link in the Natalie Dormer entry deleted? I'm pretty sure it isn't a commercial site and I think it provides with good information for fans (such as media and images) which the wiki lacks. Thank you.

Replied on user's talk page :) María (habla conmigo) 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. :)

Knut News

Your removal (well, censorship, really) of the Knut News blog link is no more appropriate than my adding it. Based on your arbitrary "enforcement" of Wikipedia's link rules, there should be no external links whatsoever on any article at all. Why don't you delete all the other external links on the page? Hmmm? It's obnoxious, self-important editors like you who destroy Wikipedia's purpose of being a community of knowledge. Instead, the site becomes biased toward people who think they have authority by taking out other people's worthwhile contributions.

This user believes that a fan blog is a reliable newssource. I do not apologize for adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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. BetacommandBot 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New article (not mine) on Jane Smiley's novel Moo

Would you mind taking a look at this article: Moo (novel)? The entire article appeared today over the course of several edits by four or five users whose sole or primary contributions have been to that one article—perhaps all the same person under different IDs, or like they were working as a tag team to fill in the article. I'm pretty sure it's plagiarized from somewhere, but I'm also pretty sure the source is not online (I looked & looked). I want to tag it as a copyvio, but I really have nothing to go on. Do you perhaps recognize the style of the presentation? Or perhaps you have access to better offline resources than I do to track this down (Moo is included in Masterplots II, for instance). Anyway, I wasn't sure what to do about this, so I thought it couldn't hurt to have another literature-knowledgeable editor have a look at it. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article more carefully—at first, I was focused on the sheer volume of material—I think you're right: much of it is too poorly written to have come directly from a professional source. So I did as you suggested and left a friendly note for the article's originator concerning proper sourcing, and including links to the relevant WP articles. I guess we'll see what happens. Thank you for your thoughts & suggestions...and for your kind words about the images. I'm going to be adding many more for several authors in the coming days. Best --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Haunting" Road

Hey Maria, that sounds like a great idea. Awards and honors really need to be mentioned, and there is very little about criticism and reception. I'll leave a note of support on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Novels Collaboration of the Month

You supported Moby-Dick, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

L.A. Confidential: splitting novel from film

Another question, since you've done this before. The article L.A. Confidential needs to be split, and ideally, of course, that page should become the page for the novel, and the film should move to L.A. Confidential (film). But L.A. Confidential has 200+ articles linked to it, nearly every one about the film. I don't relish fixing all those links (Is that even expected of me if I split the article?) or is it best to leave the film material where it is and create L.A. Confidential (novel) instead? --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to do it the right (hard) way. I've just requested WP:AWB. Thanks again! --ShelfSkewed Talk 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the nice note re: the photographs - it was far more work than I anticipated (about 70 hours over a week, in addition to a full-time job). But, I'm happy with the results, and it means something to hear from others that they are, too. I also like your signature! Estudie en Espana. --David Shankbone 19:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Edge of Night (song)

Now, this may be biased, as I am the author of the mentioned article, but I do believe that this song is extremely qualified for notability, as layed out by [2]. Please see for yourself, but The Edge of Night meets #4, #10, y #11. #4: This is the signature song of [Billy Boyd]], so that one is met. #10: Pippin's song is, behind Into the West, the most well known of the songs from Return of the King. And if any of this fails to satisfy you, as I believe it will, The Edge of Night hits #11 right on the nose: it appeared in a major motion picture. Therefore, debate over, thanks for trying, and, uh, call again soon. Feel free to destroy my next article...and, oh yes, please note that I did some major sourcing, so I believe that the AFD debate should be ended. Pardon the rudeness...Bmrbarre 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if I am not able to forgive your childishness and frigidity, but that is not the point of this visit. Now, I did my quote unquote heavy-handed research, and found nothing in WP:MUSICregarding songs, so, the best guidelines I have to go by are located in Wikipedia: Notability (songs). Therefore, that is what I will base my arguements on. If you have another notability policy hidden up your sleeve, please show it to me: if you do not, though, I would cordially request that you not chew me out for using a "proposed" guideline instead of a more concrete one. I am simply using the resources available to me. You are correct, however, as to my sophomoric views: I am only a freshman...hahaha. I know, not funny, but still true. It just frustrates me so much when people barely give me time to finish my articles, and they are put up for deletion. One day, I had a guy come through and nominate all ten of the articles I had created (note that all but two were saved). I know that happens a lot, and some of my articles are unfit. And also, many of the articles put up for deletion came out all the better for it. I had one that was featured on the front page in the DYK while it had an AFD debate raging! I'm not trying to create articles at random, here, what I am trying to do is create a space where people who are interested in or want to know more about something can go and satisfy their needs. That's all I ask, and I know that many people are interested in this song, as shown by the number of people who have viewed the video on YouTube: nearly 30,000(an extremely unreliable source, btw). I myself created this article because I recently watched The Lord of the rings for a project in my Honors English class. When I found it had no entry, I did some research and created this. Where was I? Oh yes...sorry for the comments, please show me a more reliable guideline, and thanks for helping. Bmrbarre 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidelines. I should be able to work them in. However, I have yet to see any notability guidelines relating to songs specifically, which is what I need. Perhaps I will have to wait and add this again when the Wikipedia: Notability (songs) is finalized. I am going to userfy it for now, just so I have a backup copy. I am ready to talk about possibly merging or moving this page into a larger article, or creating a larger one for it, but I do not think that deleting it would be the most useful or best thing to do. Perhaps you could help me with this, and we could stop bandying words and get to work. Do you believe that this article has merit? Do you believe that this article can be saved, or do you want to delete it as just another useless article? Regards, Ben. Bmrbarre 02:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'll do when I get home from school: I'll try a rewrite, and see how that comes out, using the guidelines that you have set out along with the Wikipedia:Notability (songs), and then I will watch the interviews from the extended edition of the Return of the King, and quote either Boyd, Shore, Boyens, or Jackson, which I hope will meet your needs. If that fails, I'll try to fit in the stuff I have into the Billy Boyd article and others. Sound satisfactory? I'll write more, I have to leave now. Bmrbarre 10:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Won't be able to get to it tonight, have a tennis match. Bmrbarre 13:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Interviews

I did what I said I would do, and watched the interviews with members of the cast and others on the Return of the King extended edition. Here are some quotes:

- "Pippin's song was something that was devised when we were shooting the film. [The scene] was originally an outscript [sic?], no song there, it was just gonna be dialogue...Philippa Boyens had had gone out partying with the actors one night..." Peter Jackson

- "When I heard him doing "Delilah", I think it was, I thought, 'Wow, this guy can really sing!' I'd always wanted to use theline from the book where Denethor asks Pippin for a song. I said to Fran, 'Do you wanna do this song?'" Philippa Boyens

- "Pete asked me, 'Do you wanna write the song?' 'Well, yeah, I'll have a go,' I said, and they gave me what they wanted the words to be, which is a poem from the Fellowship. So I kinda thought about what type of song it would be. Looking at the words and where he is, I just thought a song he'd probably heard his grandfather sing, you know, from when the hobbits were looking for the Shire. So I wrote a few melodies." Billy Boyd

- "So he came onto the set that day, and nobody had heard it [the song], and then he opened his mouth, and this glorious thing came out." John Noble

- "And you know, I'd just finished the song, and I felt about naked to be honest, and afterwards people came up to me and siad they had been crying, which is, you know, kinda great to hear, that it kinda affected anyone as lovely. And we got to record it in Abbey Road Studios in London. That was just a huge highlight, a huge highlight of my career." Billy Boyd

- "You have these performances, and so I just wrote around them, which I kinda like to do, I mean, I wrote pieces that kinda shape their [the soloists'] voices. In Billy's case, he's solo, and then, the orchestra comes in when you see the riders approaching Osgiliath." Howard Shore

- "Instead of a noisy battle scene, you have the juxtaposition of the beautiful, haunting melody that Billy created and sings, and that Howard supports with very simple underpennings of orchestra growing out of it." Paul Broucek, Executive Music Producer at New Line Cinema

- "It's a moment in the film that builds a new respect for Pippin and gives you a shiver down your spine, and it really works." Mike Hedges, re-recording mixer

If I use some of this, will it be satisfactory to be kept? Bmrbarre 01:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Debate

Comments like yours were exactly why I stopped editing Wikipedia. I was asked nicely if I would help out by showing what I thought on the deletion of that article, I did so nicely and to the point and I find you bloody stalking me and telling me to read pages and pages on how to do things your way Who knows how many times you could have edited that to make it suit your point! I have just as much right to use Wikipedia as you do remember. I showed a little personal feeling, yes, I was asked to say what I thought, so if I make a few valid points, without going on and on, and one of them is "its nice in the movie" then thats acceptable. There is nothing wrong with what I have done and you shouldnt treat me like I'm a vandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dafing (talk • contribs) 00:51, May 17, 2007 UTC.

I don't want a big fuss every time I do something. Ok, maybe I voted for the other option, the one you dont agree with, you shouldnt then find out who I am so you can come after me and tell me how to do things your way. I am a very nice person, who helps others, without shoving things down their throat, and I just want to be left alone by people like yourself. See, even then you pointed out something I did "wrong". You may edit more than me, it doesnt make you better than me, pointing out links "like, maybe you would like to read this *thousand pages, hour of my time, nothing interesting OR new*" If I wanted to know all these sort of things I can find them easily for myself. And now you act like I'm the one with the problem. Im going to have to sleep with the light on now, and check under the bed in case you try and brainwash me when im sleeping! Please, just dont hound after me just because I voted for the other option.

"Although I understand your recent comments on the AFD for A Walking Song, and I also believe it should be kept, perhaps you should look at How to discuss an AFD for information on relevent arguments as well as Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. People will commonly cite policy and/or guidelines to support their reasons for articles to be kept or deleted, which gives their arguments credibility. That the song is "very nice to hear in the movie version" may be seen as an irrelevant statement and will most certainly not be given much weight. I thought you should be aware of this in case you plan to contribute to AFD discussions in the future"

Thats how you started, as you know, many times through your messages you have said that I'm wrong. You use what I say against me, and to prove your point. I find the way you said "perhaps you should look at How to discuss..for information on relevant arguments as well as Arguments to avoid..." as an obvious attack. It all boils down to "you are doing it all wrong, do it this way, my way, thats how everyone else does it so you are wrong". I don't think I should have to put up a note saying "please don't harass me for doing an acceptable thing, differently to how you would".

I hope this can be the last time that you attack something I have done. You cant bully me into doing it your way. I would like an apology for all the attacks, but I'm far from expecting that and if anything I think I'll get more abuse. Or maybe you have moved on from me.

I was hoping we could have ended this with a nice comment like "I wish you well in future" instead of how things have turned out. I *do* wish you well in future Yllosubmarine.

I dont want to keep replying to your attacks on me and my decision to keep the article you wanted to be deleted. Please just accept that *maybe* just maybe you didnt do everything exactly right, I wish I knew someone more indoctrinated on the Wikipedia Nazi Kool-aid than yourself who could refer you to Section 74b part III on your mistakes.

If you do think that I am hostile and taking things the wrong way, why would you then keep provoking me, telling me I'm wrong, and that I'm getting wrong-er? I even said that I wish we could have worked this out and ended it amicably, as you know, and you said that it was just a ploy, or something. I didnt attack you once, you started and kept this going. I just want you to say "sorry for trying to make you the bad guy" and we could all be happy about it being over. Maybe you dont get tired of battling other people, I just dont like doing it in the first place, it actually keeps me from using Wikipedia, which I have used before you judging on your User Page, because if I spell something in English rather than American I might get jumped on, for example. Maybe you should have listened to yourself, and assumed good faith when I just asked you to be left alone in the first place. I dont want to fight with you. Please stop telling me to read thousands of words, please stop telling me Im wrong. Have a nice weekend, its Saturday here.

Gosling

Nice work in Ryan Gosling. Haven't heard from you in a bit. Everything okay? I figured, after the bit of the Rant-y above, you could use a bit of a giggle. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahahaha! María (habla conmigo) 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WPBooks

Please read the response I was given [3].Zigzig20s 15:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Feel free--I put it together and rewrote it from other editors' rationales myself. There's also a useful template and several other examples of fair-use rationales in the article Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Grimes Sisters

The article is a summery of the two articles. Since it is not accepted that you simply copy information, I needed to rewrite the information of the two articles completly. This also made the article more structured than the information provided in the two articles. The information of the articles can be found in other sources too, but since all information provided in the wikipedia entry is reflected in those two articles, I decided to list those two very specific articles. The Grimes Sisters is a case that isn't THAT represented, so it's hard to find all the information at crimelibrary or elsewere most popular crime cases are listed. Still the Griems Sisters are a case known and there are information in the internet about this case. The two articles are only the two best sources.

Feel free to read the articles. You will notice that all information of the entry is also represented in the two articles. It's true that I have not made footmarks, but that doesn't mean it isn't sourced. There ARE the two sources, you can read them and check back. I am working for a long time in Wikipedia and know the rules well. Please, read the articles, check the facts back, and if you find ANY fact that isn't listed in one of the two articles you can state that this particular section (not the whole article) is not sourced. I have removed the "unsorced" remark again since it simply does NOT withstand your allegations. I will open a discussion on the articles discussion page about this. You can write down your concerns there and we can discuss it there. But please do not simply undo the change again! Do not say an article is unsorced just because you haven't read the sources! That is not academic. Hope to see you on the discussion page of the article (where everyone who is interested in the article can see your concerns and discussed). ColdCase 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007

The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Diary of Anne Frank

Thank you for alerting me to your edit to the above article, and for explaining your thinking behind it, which is certainly reasonable. I've endeavoured to be concise with all the articles I've started here and to try and prune back edits which repeat what's already there or embellish without informing. It was very kind of you to compliment my work, also. Thank you, Yallery Brown 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pity is not enough

Personally I think this article is enough to not consider it a stub. We (meaning you, really) covered the inspiration and the like and included a brief overview of the plot, etc. I would think that it's enough for a regular article, considering the sparse amount of credible articles. I guess we have some time to discuss it. Imasleepviking 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:EmpireoftheSunbook.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EmpireoftheSunbook.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Allen R. Schindler, Jr. edits

Hi, I don't agree with your edits but at least we can agree that it was a "brutal" murder? "The attack was so brutal Hajdys-Holman could identify her son only by the tattoo on his arm." Benjiboi 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(sorry for delay wikipedia server error messages)

agree that throwing heavy words around should be avoided that's why I let the reference do it but you moved it. Benjiboi 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you have a reliable source for "The attack was so brutal Hajdys-Holman could identify her son only by the tattoo on his arm"? That would make a great addition to the article -- but not in the lead. ;) María (críticame) 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do and I'm in the process of researching it and the campaign the family had undertaken for justice.[4] Benjiboi 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've fleshed out the article a bit and would love a second opinion. There is also a few sentences

"The captain denied Schindler's request and kept the man's sexual orientation and his death a secret for months. It was not reported until a special team composed of a psychologist, two lawyers, a counselor, and a corpsman from Yokosuka incidentally met at a bar in Sasebo."

that I'm not able to confirm and I'm not sure exactly what they lead to or where it should fit. I don't know where they came from but I think should be cited for fact checking at least. Benjiboi 23:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for looking at the article again and the lesson on ref naming as I wasn't sure how to do it and didn't want to mess it up! Benjiboi 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre

Just wanted to say a quick Welcome to the project! --omtay38 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jon Favreau

Hello,

Can you please add back the 4th section under the actor Jon Favreau in regards to the confusion with the Obama speech writer. The section was previously in wikipedia but I noticed it was recently missing. I believe the link in the passage takes care of the "uncited" claim: "No, the man charged with writing speeches for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is not the actor who played the lovelorn Mike Peters in the movie "Swingers." Thank you.

Robert

Rent (musical)

Thanks for your contributions to the page - it looks great now! Thanks also for cleaning up my edits. I'll be sure to be more careful next time I edit a page. Keep up the good work!

Popular culture

I just found this today: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, a Featured Article. Now, I don't mind examples of which Joan of Arc is a prominent influence, such as the artwork, but the music section and the following sections mostly do not demonstrate any kind of notability of Joan of Arc's presence, with the exception of items like Jeanne d'Arc (video game). Since it's a FA, I'm not sure how to best approach this one. (I checked to make sure that the sections weren't added after the FA passing - this is the revision at the time of the FA passing.) What do you think should be done? Maybe we can grab a whole batch of the popular-culture articles and see if we can't cut down on the more trivial bits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the admin's talk page. We'll see what is said. Thanks for the advice. Maybe we should start advocating a Wikitrivia.org. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I cut back on a lot of minor references (see here), but there may be more to be removed, such as the figure as a leader in a strategy computer game. Can you take a look and see if any further clean-up is needed? I also have a discussion on the article's talk page explaining what I did. No one has said anything about it so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Logan Marshall-Green

Sorry for the harsh, Maria. I have noticed that pages with 'references' tags take longer to cite than those with cn tags, as the specific info needing citation is pinpointed by the use of the tag. Also, becaus ethe cn tags are uglier, it inspires industrious editors to do the work to cite the noted statements. The harsh wasn't directed at you at all, but at the situation. I still think you are a fun gal. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't be such a nit-picker. I will also do some of the grunt work, too. I am still not so convinced about Imdb, but guess I have to realize that some of these articles for celebs have no other fan site or launching point for more interest. Lesson recieved, Maria. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rossetti gallery

Hi there. I noticed you moved the images in the Dante Gabriel Rossetti article into a gallery. I was wondering if you'd mind if I moved them back as I'm worried that having a gallery will just encourage other users to add more and more paintings to the article - which will end up as a duplication of the collection that exists at the Commons. Even better I might make sure that the paintings included in the article are those discussed in the text! Best wishes. Madmedea 10:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being open to my suggestion. My general standpoint is that galleries are not the best thing for artist's articles as they aren't encyclopedic in themselves - they don't add a great deal of value information-wise to the article. Although not all Wikipedians agree with me (see Thomas Cole) I thought I'd check first! I do a lot of editing on Commons as well so I always feel its a good idea to have a few illustrative works in a WP article and then point the reader to the Commons page for more images. Madmedea 12:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Some recognition

You've done such a good job keeping up with The Lovely Bones that I've added you to the {{maintained}} tag on the talk page ... hope you don't mind? Daniel Case 03:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hans Christian Anderson

You removed a sentence from the intro of this article on the grounds that it was an "uncited POV remark".

It was a statement, not a remark. And it was not POV. A POV remark would be something like "H.C. Anderson was the greatest story writer to have lived".

Here are three categories:

1. POV
2. Original research
3. Unsourced fact

They are not the same thing. Editors who remove material on these grounds should be quite sure they know the difference.

In this case, the statement falls into the category of "unsourced fact", which could be supported by quoting a written source. Deleting it as "POV remark" is inappropriate. It needed a banner. --Amandajm 09:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The June 2007 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. Nehrams2020 09:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

H.C. Anderson

Thanks for getting back to me! I'm glad that you like the revised version better.. I taken it fairly directly from Bredsdorf. He allso makes the interesting point that different stories have bbeen published in different languages, and that what we get in English are mainly the early stories and don't indicate the full diversity.

--Amandajm 11:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Animal House

Excellent work! So many people still need to realize that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

11 easy steps..

An explanation will be provided at the main wikiproject talk page. I apologize for not doing so last night, it was late and I got off for the night before I had a chance to write an explanation. Psychless 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Charley Pride article graded

Hi! I appreciate your grading the Charley Pride article, which I have had a large hand in writing and editing. However, why give it a grade when it's still got a pretty long way to go? I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia, and I still don't understand a lot of things. Anyway, I'll be working on this article for a while, yet. It's a pet project for me, as I'm a big country music fan from the "Charley Pride Era" and all country eras that came before. (Please see Slater79 page, where I describe my love/hate "relationship" with country music). I'm just curious as to why you gave a letter grade while the article is still largely a work in progress. Hope to hear from ya! Thanks much. Sincerely, Slater79 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag dispute

Hi. Is there really no middle ground here? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure to which point you're referring Well, the entire issue really. Is there no possible compromise between my position that the proliferation of tagging requires a new way of doing things and yours in favor of the status quo? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I greatly disagree with your attempts at a one man mission, and if you can cease relocating templates and were to take your concerns to an appropriate outlet In fact, at the suggestion of Viriditas (sp?) I have stopped relocating templates, and had only done one before that once the discussion began. As for venue -- what would you think was an appropriate place? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As you wish

The Princess Bride, Carptrash 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to get English Wikipedia for three days

Hi. I'm Slater79 , the guy who was discussing the Charley Pride article with you. I am writing this from someone else's computer. I was not able to download the Wikipedia English website for the past three days. Yet, I got it on this computer right away. In the three days in which I wasn't able to get English Wikipedia, I was able to download everything else on the internet with no trouble at all.

About a week ago, I received a message from some wikipedia guy. This happened when I started to edit a page, and I forgot to log in. The message said that I was guilty of being a "sock puppet", and therefore could not edit without signing in, and that the prohibition of this would end on some date in December (I forgot the date; it's not important). Believe me, I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I didn't know, at the time that I temporarily changed my user name to "DaveMarshall70". I just liked the user name better, that's all. I was new to Wikipedia at the time, and I didn't know anything about sock puppets, or any such thing, or even what the meaning of what a sock pocket was.

Then, I had a problem logging in as "DaveMarshall70"; I think I forgot whether I had used capital letters, or what have you, or maybe i forgot the password. I don't remember. But then I changed it to some other user name, one that I can't recall at this time. Then I had trouble logging in with THAT user name, and I went back to Slater79, which was my original user name when I first joined Wikipedia in December. I am going to stay with this name. I have no intentions of causing any problems or doing "sock puppetry" or any such thing. I just enjoy writing. I enjoy editing. I enjoy reading other people's articles and learning. I had absolutely no intention of pulling the wool over anyone's eyes or fooling around in any way.

The reason that I'm writing all this is because I have this terrible feeling that English Wikipedia is not allowing my IP number to access them. This should not be the case. I would hope that it wouldn't, because I am not a malicious person.

Could this POSSIBLY be the reason as to why I couldn't get Wikipedia English version for an entire three days at my own personal computer at home???? Or was the Wikipedia English version having some kind of technical difficulties. I don't know if when I get home, within an hour, that I'll STILL be having trouble downloading the Wikipedia English version.

Please reply! Thank you.

Sincerely, Slater79 01:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

At home now; no problem accessing Wikipedia English version!??!

Well, that answers my question. Wikipedia's English version was obviously having problems for a few days. Maybe they were doing some maintainence or repairs. Who knows? Anyway, when I came home and clicked on Wikipedia, the English version came on IMMEDIATELY. Well, as they say, "Much ado about nothing." They also say "Don't sweat the small stuff." Both cliche's fit in this instance. Sincerely, Slater79 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Editor review

Recommended further reading... The Essence of Wikipedia: A Crash Course in Wikipedianism Tips and tricks library Wikipedia's tools page My tools page Bots Coaching advice archive Successful adminship candidacies Unsuccessful adminship candidacies Help:Contents, and all sub-levels Wikipedia:Contents, and all sub-levels Wikipedia:Department directory, and all sub-levels Wikipedia:Administrators Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship

Hi, Yllosubmarine. I've just finished my response on your Editor Review. Sorry for the long wait, you've been very patient. If your thinking of going further, you should check out:

• Wikipedia:Admin coaching and
• The Virtual classroom¹

Which are both excellent resources. Keep up the good work, Dfrg.msc 03:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

¹The box is taken directly off the The Virtual classroom page.

Watchmen

Just a heads-up -- this previous plot summary is actually the official synopsis of the film. Alientraveller rewrote it to present an original form. So the anonymous editor's change was a copyright violation. Just thought that you'd like to know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

An essay I've written

Hello. Since we often express similar arguments in deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at User:Eyrian/IPC. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its talk page. --Eyrian 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007

The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink full dates

Any where that the full date is included (January 1, 2007), it must all be wikilinked. Even if you have (March 28, 2007) later in the article, it should all be linked as well. If in the same paragraph/section the year is mentioned several times, consider removing all but one occurrence and then the month and day do not have to be wikilinked. Let me know if that doesn't make sense. --Nehrams2020 00:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Knut

Sure, sounds good, we should work together to get this article to GA status. As a way of communicating efficiently, I usually create a to do box with suggestions on what to do to improve the article; in this case, perhaps you should clarify what you believe to be the better course so I can help. Judgesurreal777 00:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have passed the article as a GA, congratulations on your first one (even though you didn't nominate it, you still improved it to bring it up to GA status). I hope to see you continue to work on more GAs of topics that interest you, as you will be helping to improve the quality of aritcles on Wikipedia for the masses to read, learn from, and enjoy. Keep up the good work and let me know if you want to look over any articles before you take them to GAC or if you ever have any questions. --Nehrams2020 05:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Christian Bale

Refute what I said, then. Don't just delete a comment like a coward because you don't personally agree with it, prove that I'm wrong. Optimus Sledge 16:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't clutter up my talk page with your insults. Optimus Sledge 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags

No, I didn't know that, I've been away from Wikipedia for a while. I'll be sure to act accordingly. Thanks for letting me know! Ben Tibbetts 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny that the last hed on your talk page is the most relevant.

I saw that you reverted the unexplained removal of the explanation of the title from The Lovely Bones; I went and warned the user (anon with just that edit). I suspect that was actually a good-faith edit. If so, it's probably the law of unintended consequences kicking in for the removal of all spoiler tags ... we're going to see a lot of anons and new users thinking they're being helpful by removing all spoilers if they're aren't any tags setting them apart as such. Daniel Case 17:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

B.R.

I actually explained the revert on the talk page before doing it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't noticed it, sorry :) - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reese W.

Hi Maria, thanks for letting me know. I was trying to "unclog" the page and get rid of useless information or arguments that had already been settled long ago. I shall clarify my next edit in the edit summary. Thanks again.--Mimi C. 14:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

UNF

Good catch at University of North Florida. The writing was much more informative and clearer the way you have it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ellis Paul link at River Phoenix

Understood. Having the info within the body of the article makes more sense. Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated. Kmzundel 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dorcas Drake

Thank you for adding to the article! I knew Dorcas was a female name, but I figured the New York Times would know best...so surprising they'd get someone's gender wrong! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)