User talk:Girolamo Savonarola/Archive 13

Film coordinator elections

See my comment there. Bzuk (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that my time has not been spent recently in the WickyWacky world, although I hoped that people would understand that professional responsibilities must sometimes trump what is essentially a "hobby." I will continue to devote some time to the projects I had started but in re-establishing my watchlist, I noted with some sadness and resignation that a number of the articles that I had written had been "rewritten" with a revision to an arcane and often singular style by a group of film editors. What is more disturbing is that numerous images have been summarily removed making them "orphans" and thus causing the bots to go into effect. In checking the history of the removals, in nearly all cases, it was an editor on a "crusade" whose intentions were always stated as being for the "common good" but it did appear to be a distressing trend of cyber snobbery and bullying. My initial thought was to replace the images and edits as both actions went against the established "first person's work remains" dictum but I started to pick up a pattern of these editors revising major articles to fit their own style, and further, then eliminating the original research and work that had already been in place. What is further evident is that the editors then triumphantly would boost their revised articles, putting them up for review and attracting further notice when other editors and coordinators recognized their efforts in a plethora of barnstars. I don't particularly mind that there is a sub-set of editors that are working in Wikipedia for personal gratification, the "soliciting" of barnstars, placing their names into contention for administrators, asking for special privileges, ad nauseum... although that was never my intention in adding to the project. I am one of the editors who never has been after rewards and I do not wish to have my work necessarily "peer reviewed" as the articles of themselves invite collaboration and should eventually become the work of many. What I noted on my recent return was the deliberate re-writing of a number of articles without a consensus for change, especially when the changes were in most part, stylistic. One of the galling aspects was the deliberate rewriting of citations and bibliographies that were painstakingly written in "text" but did not follow the sometimes obscure "templates" yet were perfectly acceptable examples of Harvard citations or other standard bibliographic formats. As a former librarian and now a professional editor and author, my work has revolved around the use of the so-called editorial standards or "house style guides" to identify sources, so I believe I am fairly well versed on bibliographic methodology. Now when it comes to Wikipedia's style of referencing sources, the format chosen is an amalgam of two or three formats including the MLA (Modern Language Association), APA (American Psychological Association) and "Chicago Style" guides. Rather than spitting in the wind, I have chosen to not try to re-write Wikipedia into my own notions and I tend to leave other people's work alone, however, that does not seem to be the case for other editors, as can be seen in the never-ending diatribe that is found in the format talk pages. So hopefully, this blathering helps explain my consternation at being labeled "AWOL", as I was never far from the scene but had some genuine reservations about whether an effort in this medium was worth the trouble. Bzuk (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC) (take this for what it's worth – not much in today's economy!)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox Film

Hi Girolamo Savonarola! More developments. Thanks for your time, concern and counsel. Looking forward to collaborating.--Iswearius (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old stuff

I've stumbled across some old project pages and templates for WikiProject Filmmaking. I was thinking some of it can probably be deleted, but you'll know better than me what it all is. Pages are:

There's also a page from WikiProject Academy Awards. I'm not sure what it's for, but again you perhaps will:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academy Awards/Table Codes

Lastly, the old project banner for WikiProject Persian Cinema {{WikiProject Persian cinema}} is still being used on a number of articles, most of which appear to be biographies. Any ideas what to do with this?

Regards. PC78 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh - might be worth archiving them instead of deleting outright. Old records, maintaining the history, and whatnot. Or maybe that's me being sentimental. Table codes appears to be basic coding for how to do succession boxes; probably not of any current value. Persian cinema template probably should be replaced with WP Bio's template where applicable, if not already in effect. How many transclusions are we looking at? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like about 40-50 transclusions; I'll go through them and remove/replace as appropriate, then take it to TfD. I don't mind keeping the rest, though we can probably lose the collaboration link and duplicate userbox, neither of which are linked anywhere. PC78 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jest bein' silly

Hi Girolamo, I put you down in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group page as our head cheerleader but then thought better of it and wasn't sure you would appreciate the humour. However, if you are offended, I will certainly remove the bit of jest (but on a serious note, I do consider you one of the film group's greatest boosters so cheerleader isn't far "off the mark.") FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Less offended than concerned about possible discontent on your part. Glad to see that I'm wrong. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just gettin' back to my old irreverent and irrelevant self. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Film Project Group

Hi. I have two questions about the Film Project Group ... and I believe that you are the head of that group. Please reply. (1) Does Wikipedia have any sort of rules / policies / guidelines / etc. regarding the creation of an article (or page) that is simply a collection or listing of other Wikipedia articles? For example ... if I want to create on one page an article that lists all of the Wikipedia articles that are related to the Academy Awards ... is that something that is do-able ... and what are the guidelines for doing so? If you want an example of what I mean, please take a look at this sandbox page of mine (which I am currently working on and is certainly not finished): User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page36. (2) My second question is ... how does an editor (like me) make changes/edits to a template or an info box? For example, see the info box at the top right of this page: 81st Academy Awards. If I wanted to edit that to read "Most Awards" instead of "Most Wins" ... how would I do that? Thank you. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I believe you are essentially creating what is a topical index. I don't see any reason why we couldn't consolidate this as such - although isn't most of this already in the Academy Awards template? Might be too redundant to bother. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I looked at the Template that you referred me to. No, there are many, many more Academy Award articles in Wikipedia than the (relatively) few that are listed in that Template. So, redundancy would not be an issue, I believe. How about my second question? How to change a template / info box? Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Fair enough. As for the infobox - you'd edit the template much like any other article: find the text and change it. That being said, it's generally a good idea to raise this on the template's talk page first. Good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. Where exactly will I find the template for the info box for the one at the top right of the article called 81st Academy Awards? I can't seem to locate it. Thank you. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks for your help. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WP:FILMS Coordinator nominations

Coordinator nominations

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process has recently begun! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on March 14! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw the notice above or the election page that you created, but are you planning on running? Just kidding, I'm sure you're waiting till the last minute. Hopefully we can get some more experienced people to run instead of the possible return of Creamy. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually about to "file"! Just procrastinating, really - nothing deliberate. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to file a SSP report? —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full cast list of Flashdance

Please consider changing your vote to a merge. I ran WikiBlame and was unable to find evidence the material being discussed was split from the main article in the past year. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article being discussed is a split. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Election 4

I have re-written my paragraph to better prove my statement. Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 16:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Titchbits74 and User:Shamwow86

I responded at ANI but basically see the block log. It looks like User:Aspririn was created because of the username block and User:Shamwow86 for whatever reason. There weren't any problems with the Aspririn account. I hope that clarifies. If you need some admin-related help for the election (like a review of deleted edits or something), you can ask me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the articles listed on his user page that he has contributed to, and then look at the histories, you'll see that they are predominately contributions from User:Titchbits74 (Price of Glory), User:Creamy3 (Hurlyburly (film) & The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing), User:Magicbullet5 (Blood on the Highway & Prison-A-Go-Go!) or both Creamy3 and Magicbullet5 (Adam Green (filmmaker)). It certainly appears he may be Creamy3. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking not to go with this further? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did look into this further -- and concluded that Shamwow86 seems to pass the WP:DUCK test. (Or should that be fails the test?) Anyway, I felt it was best to proceed with a sockpuppet investigation. It is open for comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creamy3. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving coordinator discussions

Hello, I would like to make a suggestion for using WT:FILMC when new discussions begin. First of all, we should export the handbook to WP:FILMC since it is not discussion-related. Secondly, we should do a gradual rollout of topics for discussion. I personally felt that it was overwhelming to unload multiple topics on the talk page; it was not clear which ones were of highest priority within that set. We should also keep discussions to a minimum and have at most 10-15 threads available on the talk page.

A final thought is to keep discussions alive by having engaged coordinator(s) notify unengaged coordinators perhaps 48-72 hours after the last comment. I think that we are usually reluctant to do something like this because we don't want to appear bossy, but we all did sign up for the position. Perhaps some kind of prodding like this would encourage more active participation. Let me know what you think. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

Look Girolamo Savonarola, I'm glad that you care about Wikipedia and keeping it a great website, I am too. But I have a question for you, is it your intention to publicly slander me during the campaign season. Dirty politics don't sit well with me. Shamwow86 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, and am not trying to get at anything other than the truth. Look at it from the project's perspective, particularly considering the history of candidates in this and prior elections with minimal editing history. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think it would be an unreasonable request for you to strike out or at least correct the allegations here. That's the only thing people will see and it would be better to make sure that everyone knows what the evidence says. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism?

Hi Girolamo Savonarola, it's been a while since I've been here, but I just want to tell you about something that has occurred. Shamwow86 has left a questionable message on my talk page:

"Listen, Limetolime, most people out there are saying you're finished, done. Your time came and went. We all know it's true. But listen, we both need votes in this election, and if you'll scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Your friend, Shamwow86"

What's up? Limetolime ^{Talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism so much as bad faith. I've already open a thread on AN - this may require further attention there. Keep a cool head and let me know if anything further develops. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Film Movement

Hello,

I've created a very basic template for an infobox for film movements. Basically, the years active, major figures, nationality, as well as what or who the film movement was influenced by and what other things it influenced. As coordinator of the Film project, would mind taking a look and giving your stamp of approval (or suggesting any changes)?

Thanks, --Granddukesfinances (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Meridian merge

Hello, you recently expressed an interest in merging the article for Chase Meridian. There is a proposal for this here. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A message from the lead coordinator

Hello and congratulations on being elected as a coordinator for WikiProject Films! As the lead coordinator, I look forward to helping set an agenda for the WikiProject for this term and beyond, and I hope that you will actively participate in working through our agenda's objectives. I ask you to take a moment and review the goals of WikiProject Films (listed on the WikiProject's front page and reiterated here):

To standardize the film articles in Wikipedia
To improve Wikipedia coverage of films by adding, expanding and improving film articles
To serve as a central point of discussion for issues related to Wikipedia film articles
To provide the necessary framework to assist in bringing all articles within the project scope to the highest possible quality

Since you have stepped forward to take on the responsibilities of the coordinator position, my expectations are for you to play an active role in most coordinator-related discussions and to bring new ideas to the circle whenever possible. Since all seven of us will collaborate in discussions, I ask you to take a moment and leave a comment here about your background as an editor (I provided my own background). Outline what you believe your strengths and your weaknesses are, and summarize what you want to accomplish for WikiProject Films this term. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request advice/assistance

Sirs: I am crossposting this request to these users. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Lugnuts, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Girolamo_Savonarola, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:SouthernNights The first two are users who head up the Wiki film articles. I have seen your names on hundreds of articles and appreciate your good and fair work. The last is a semi-retired (?) admin that I see has been involved in this sort of issue before.

As you can see from my edits I am a film fan too, but because of personal issues and work requirements I have precious little time to do much serious editing. Just a few snippets every few weeks. But, for every edit I’ve done I’ve read a hundred or more film based articles.

Recently I made some edits to this post: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/La_strada I reverted an anonymous vandalism of the page wherein a good link to a fine essay was removed. The vandalism was done by an anonymous IP editor. When I restored the link another editor deleted it and claimed the link was spam.

A few months ago I got a silly warning/threat on my talk page saying that I was vandalizing and spamming pages because I restored another link or two. The issue seems to be the particular writer and source of the links. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer) You will notice this page is under protection for vandalism by the admin I crosspost this too. After I was threatened as a spammer I looked into the history of this writer, etc., and saw that there have been numerous vandalisms and deletion attempts of the article, and mass reversions of links to articles by this writer. I cannot find it now, but I even saw that there was a list where my handle was included as a spammer thought to be the writer Dan Schneider.

This is very ridiculous. It seems to be a pattern that there is a war between anti-Schneider and pro-Schneider forces, and anyone who links to anything containing or referencing Schneider is threatened, banned or harassed. First I am not Dan Schneider. Second, in fact I first found out about Schneider’s film reviews thru Wikipedia. I think his reviews and website are great. But I have not indiscriminately linked to pieces. I simply have not the time to do so, and even if did have better things to do. But every so often I have restored a few links when I see blatant vandalism. And note that Schneider’s personal Wikipedia page was vandalized by another IP #. This seems to be a pattern.

My point is that I am a film fan and participate in discussion groups and boards and have found many good sites and articles (including Schneider) because of Wikipedia links. I think the links are usually MORE valuable than the articles, frankly. I dislike returning to an article where I found a link and see it removed because of some editors’ personal bias: film or director or critic or whatever personal silly reason. Take a look at the links recently removed from La strada. http://www.brokenprojector.com/wordpress/?p=40 This is a rather generic personal blog link http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/12/175922.php This is the Schneider link and it has far more detail history and quality here. When I was claimed to be a spammer I followed a link provided and found this page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:EL What should be linked Shortcut:WP:ELYES 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. On all three listed points the Schneider article I linked and many others meet the mark. Then there is this. Links normally to be avoided 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Clearly the link I linked back is unique, especially compared to the generic link that was restored. This and these other two points seem to be used as reasons to delete.

4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.

The link I restored made no mention of Schneider or his website. I restored it just so that others could make use of its insights like I did. If that’s spam then every Pauline Kael or New York Times or Roger Ebert link (and there are hundreds of times more for them) is spam too.

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). 11

Now, some claim that Blogcritics is just a blog, and I’ve seen deletions of Schneider and other good articles for that. But, Blogcritics is not just a blog. It uses blog technology, but it’s a magazine with over 4 million readers a month. That’s more than all but a few print magazines and papers. And it’s quite professional looking to read. Having followed links provided by the person who said I spammed I found that Schneider meets notability requirements because he has his own Wikipedia page and twice was noted as notable. He is published online and off and has had articles in major media. He also is part of some film critics group.

Yes there are folk who just add Schneider stuff to battle the vandals but I think that’s because there are many more people, like the IP # people who deleted and vandalized the Schneider page. I’m not one of them. I just want to see editors take some care and time. I’ve seen English wiki links written in foreign languages retained while Schneider and other good links are removed for the sorts of reasons I describe.

I realize this is a hornets nest, but this is why good editors get turned off to Wiki, like that admin I crosspost to. Could you please look at the revert I made and fairly decide if it should stay? I detest mindless reverts w/o even looking at links’ quality. I just think some unbiased eyes need to look at this. And, it’s not just Schneider’s link, but many links for films. I agree that 30 links is too much, but there has to be room in an encyclopedia for quality regardless of its source. Just because the New York Times has an article does not make it better than an online writer’s.

I do not wish to be trouble, but I also don’t wish to be labeled a vandal or worse, and I do not want to edit war with people. Thanks for your time.

Veritasmaximal (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be brief - relevant analysis by recognized critics should be integrated into the text where appropriate. Failing that, links to critical analysis generally are not considered a proper link in the EL section. We aren't a link farm, and you should try to understand the long-term implications if we allowed these links to populate EL willy-nilly. Good luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. I will follow it. Thanks. :-) Veritasmaximal (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing task forces' participant pages

I want to categorize the task forces' participant pages. Do you think they can be added to Category:WikiProject Films task forces without any issue? I'd like to track the recent changes since updates are sporadic and show up infrequently on watchlists. (In case you were not aware, I've been using the recent changes links at User:Erik/Portal to find editors who have made some effort with film-related articles. Three sign-ups so far!) —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Kelly filmography

I saw it here, but didn't check the page yet. Looking over it now, it appears it's still in the nomination stage. It appears it is very close to passing, but I'll revert for now. It looks like Signpost was a little eager to get this one passed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything right today! I rearranged them, take a look to make sure, and feel free to change it back if you wish. I just figured it would save space and seem less redundant with all of the "List of"s. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the reason I reverted you the first time was because I had clicked save, and although I had wanted to click preview, it had already saved. Sorry for the confusion. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Girolamo Savonarola. You have new messages at Steve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Film banners with redundant parameters & Category:Film banners using obsolete parameters

Was that you who emptied both of these categories? That was certainly fast work! :) PC78 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: By the Sword

I've reverted back to the small banner, which will hopefully quieten things down again. It really is quite pathetic, though. PC78 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rang De Basanti A-class review

Hey, don't know if you're watchlisting this or not, but PC78 and I have listed our support for the article to reach A-class. Since you are the only other reviewer and have not decided on the status on the article, could you take another look? The A-class went on for far too long in my opinion, so hopefully we can all get better at getting these completed in a quicker time period. As a side note, the reviewer hasn't edited in nearly a month, so if you have any other objections, it may be best to fix it or let me know and I'll take a stab at it. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vénus aveugle

I have put the case for reversion of a title-change that you made; discussion at Talk:Blind Venus. Lampernist (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo!

How the hell are you buddy? You've done some really great work for WP. I think that what you do is great man. I wish I could be like you. Sometimes I think... sometimes I want to be you. I know it sounds kind of weird but, do you know what I mean man? You're like this great Wikipedia guy with great articles and some high-level position, and who am I? I'm nobody. I probably shouldn't drink before coming on here huh? I'm gonna take a nap. Matthew Francis (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!

Thank you! :) -- edi(talk) 15:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP Bollywood

Hi! Yes, his idea was that somehow "Bollywood" becomes seperate from films and they remove our involvement with them and become independent. Naturally we aint' havin that!!! The Indian cinema group is practically all working on Bollywood films anyway, the active ones anyway. Hope you are well, best Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper

Hi! Any chance you could clarify something for me? In writing American Beauty (film)#Cinematography, I've been attempting to paraphrase comments from Conrad Hall about his lighting choices. In one such comment he mentions a "Pepper" (full quote: "I then had a Pepper shooting onto a piece of beadboard hidden behind the bed.") What kind of light is a Pepper? And, more importantly perhaps, is there an appropriate Wikipedia article to which I can link the term? Many thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 15:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a particular brand of lower-power lights (usually sub-1kW). See here. Any chance of an A-Class review for this one? Stronger articles like yours should be able to pass through rather quickly. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's kind of you to say (and thanks for the info on the Pepper!) But it's Erik who's contributed most to the article so far; truth be told, we've only just started expanding it this week, so GA, A-Class and beyond are probably quite some way off. Thanks again, Steve ^{T • C} 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

If you find a talk page that no longer has an article attached, you should add the template {{db-talk}} and leave the content otherwise unchanged. It is not "proper" to delete content and then nominate the page for deletion as an empty page. Plus, criterion A3 applies only to articles, not to talk pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is speedying talk pages which have no articles controversial? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a matter of process. There's no need to blank before adding a speedy deletion template, and the speedy deletion template needs to be the right one out of the bunch. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And deleting tags for non-existent pages is - as far as I can tell - appropriate action. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern is that it's slight misrepresentation. Deleting a talk page's tags then deleting the talk page itself does not need to be two steps; talk page deletion should be at the point of the last valid revision (for later restoration, I suppose). So there's no rush to de-tag if the talk page deletion is not going to be controversial. Just takes a little more time. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not controversial. As Erik said, it's just a matter of using the right process. As the deleting admin, I have to go through an extra step to change the deletion reason if you don't pick the right one. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/Rang De Basanti

This review has been stuck in limbo for far too long now. It already has support from myself and Nehrams, and your initial concerns seem to have been dealt with. I plan on passing it for A-Class in the next day or so, but I know you've been doing some work on it so I wanted to check first to see if you have any remaining opposition. Regards. PC78 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Since the nom seems to have disappeared, feel free to pass it - I may still tinker around, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Girolamo Savonarola's Day!

Girolamo Savonarola has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Girolamo Savonarola's Day!
For your excellent work over at WP:FILMS,
enjoy being the star of the day, dear Girolamo Savonarola!

Signed,
Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

--Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 00:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well earned, man. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bot Request

All done. I'll leave this as a sort of talkback, and let you reply on WP:BOTREQ. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed you, but I've got that report done for you. The link's on the botreq. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page blanking

Hi can you explain why you are blanking all these pages and rmeoving the list banner? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are talk pages for redirects and hence should not be tagged there. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lagaan

I have requested a GA assessment for the article Lagaan as the prose, structure, and organization appear to need work. However, in following the directions, I was not able to "transclude" the request as I could not format the template properly according to the directions given here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

Could you help me to fix it? I would also appreciate your comments on the reassessment. Thanks-Classicfilms (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help, but in truth I am largely ignorant of the GA process. You might want to try Nehrams2020 instead - he's very active with GA, IIRC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will. Thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional non-free images

Hello, should we delete the non-free image from Samurai III: Duel at Ganryu Island or is this one important? I often add free images and I would like to know if additional non-free should be deleted always then or if there are exceptions. --Snek01 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't both non-free? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Snek01 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see adequate fair use justification for the Criterion cover, so I'd advise deleting it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film length categories

Hi there! I added some films to the Category:Films_over_seven_hours_long page, and you urged me to "list film titles only in the greatest length category" they qualify for. So films that are, for instance, over eight hours long should be added only to the Category:Films_over_eight_hours_long page. On one level, that makes sense, but I wondered if it wasn't misleading. After all, a film that is over eight hours long is also over seven hours long, and if someone were trying to assemble a list of all films over a certain length point it would seem like more inclusive category pages would be useful to that end. It seems that you're saying that the category actually contains "films between seven and eight hours long," although that would not be immediately apparent to the casual browser. I appreciate the motivation for the edit, and am reluctant to undo it, but just wondered how (or whether) WikiProject:Films reconciled the misleading aspect. --jbushnell

You should undo it for the meantime, IMO. If you want to discuss the appropriate category title, this should be handled in discussion at WT:FILMS or the category page; while I'm sure you're acting in good faith, such edits can be perceived as POINT-y. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future-Class

While I don't mind you reverting Future-Class assessments where you feel they are unnecessary or inappropriate, could you at least remove the {{future film}} tag from the article page? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Talk:BAFTA Award for Best Makeup has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Talk:Banlieue 13. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Film Talk Page Edits

I'm incredibly sorry. What with the high vandalism and the amount of talk page vandalism I've seen today, I reverted before I thought about it. You have my sincerest apologies. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Can you please add an edit summary when you blank a talk page? It looks weird to recent change patrollers when you blank a page without one. Thanks, I dream of horses (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request, etc.

Bit tired at the moment, so I could only skim read your query. I think that Duesentrieb's (excellent and largely under-used) tool Cat Scan would be able to handle that, if you found equivalent categories to use (it's recursive). Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]