User talk:Melty girl/Archive4

RfC on proposal

Hi, Melty girl. Since you have been helpful over on the talk page for WP:MOSBIO in the past, would you do me the favor of looking over my new proposal on listing nationalities in the lead and commenting on it and/or editing it directly if you see obvious problems with it or can readily suggest improvements? Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. It was great working with you on Emma Watson - I'm sure I'll run into you again at FAC or elsewhere. Happy‑melon 15:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 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 any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi - yes, I remind myself to detail my changes/revisions in the edit summary and forget occasionally. Thanx! Oanabay04 (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationality of people from the United Kingdom‎

Hi. Sorry - I felt I had to revert that. This line is on the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)‎ page and I feel it has to be 100% right (and 100% consensus too, given the importance of the page). I created a section offering an alternative line on Jack's essay's Talk page. I see you havent contributed to it yet (only a few have so far - not enough yet for an honest 'go ahead' consensus IMO) - perhaps you'd like to comment on my suggestion? I'm sure we can work something out here. It's only one man's essay too remember, so it needs to introduced as such - not just straight-linked to. I've been busy, so this 'second run' has gone on a bit without me - but I'm back in it now. Some others who attended before might be interested too - I'm not sure that many people have properly realised the discussion has been taken off the official page, and onto the essay Talk (I didn't fully register it myself till today)! --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about here. The sentence you removed simply notes that there is no consensus on how to deal with UK biographies -- that's not a policy or a style rule, that's simply a statement of fact. Editors were unable to agree upon style rules for the UK. I don't know what you're going on about in terms of essays, or how it relates to that one perfectly accurate sentence. I don't think this fact should be hidden from WP editors looking to the guideline for style rules. They should know that no guidance is currently provided for the UK. Please direct all future comments to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). --Melty girl (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the discussions been taken out of there, as I've said!!! I'm want it back in too. I don't think it's productive reverting back simply because you don't understand me. I am 100% SERIOUS about this - I CAN see a future, but the line as it stands is unacceptable as it is, and I've explained why (there a 4 main reasons) - as I will do again in the proper talk, as you suggest - it was wrong to move away from there (my 4th reason - the 'editors' involved in this new consensus were a very small sub-group). Please please lets not edit war!! (I just been through a week long 'headache' were someone kept reverting but never revising, or reading me!!!). After all the work I put in before, It's not fair for me (or others) to be bullied out of this, via Jack going another route.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about, or why you need to revert an undisputed statement from a page. --Melty girl (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I explained in the edit note that I put a new version in Talk, and why. I very rarely revert things, believe me (I prefer revising, which I tried to do this time in Talk - I usually do it on the page).

This is an important official Guideline page. The 4 main reasons are I objected to the addition were:

• There needs to be 100% consensus in such a page (the fact that the discussion had been moved to the essay's Talk page meant the consensus isn't fair - it should be on the main Biog Guideline Talk page per policy (I've just put it back there so was can all talk).

• I strongly feel that saying "presently" is POV, as it suggests consensus has or can be found (neither is true IMO).

• It is UK-centric - If we mention the UK we should at least refer to the existence of other examples.

• It directly linked to Jack's essay! There was no indication it was linking to an essay, and I'm not sure of policy over this on Guideline pages. (indication of the target being an essay, surely, should be made at very least?)

• It is clearly 'work in progress' - it is unprofessional IMO to have this on the official Guideline page. (although as a compromise I'm OK with something being up).

I accepted last year that something can be done here - if we all work together we can maybe even get a guideline page up that isn't an essay!--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota, Juno

I had added the setting of the film to the page about it. I understand that it's probably not primary enough to be in the lead, but why remove it entirely? Yes, it's unsourced, but unsourced information should not be automatically removed without an attempt to find a source unless it is clearly contentious. As the film is inarguably set in Minnesota - this is not really a controversial point - why not move it to another section? The setting of a film is important, which is why I added it. I'm not some radical pro-Minnesota loony or anything. Never been there. Response appreciated! 65.190.89.154 (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember this edit. Can you provide the diff? --Melty girl (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Diff: [1]. I see that you are editing the article in obvious good faith, and agree that the setting is not primary enough for inclusion in the first paragraph. I tried to stick it in the plot summary, but it got yanked by another user, and I've re-added it with a source this time. I've been on a sort of setting-establishment crusade lately, as I feel that a setting is always crucial, and that it's a (mild) form of US-centric bias to assume that any reader will know the setting already. Thanks for the response! Mr. IP (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I get you. We agree that putting it in the lead like that was clunky. In general, however, I don't always agree that stating the specific setting is crucial; and not stating it is not an assumption that everyone knows what the setting is -- sometimes it's just not that important to the story. Sometimes a film sets out to be very site-specific, but other times it purposely tries to be rather generic in terms of setting or time period. In the latter case, it's usually not that important to specify the setting. The same goes for time period; I just found out that there are no cell phones or computers in Juno for precisely that reason. Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oz (magazine)

Nice edit. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! :) --Melty girl (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cilian Murphy

I semi-protected it for ten days, as there haven't been any constructive IP edits since Christmas. Good luck persuading them to stop playing around! Happy‑melon 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming to leave a note about this. I left a message on the IP's talk: User talk:69.211.3.221. I wonder if the person actually has a reason to believe it. Probably just mischief. (p.s. just noticed the banner at the top of your talk page. You're having the Melty baby!!) --JayHenry (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Melty baby?! That's hilarious. Hadn't thought of that one. Yes, I've wondered if the person does have a reason to believe it... seems like such a narrow issue to vandalize on. I've noticed the person editing from another IP too -- I never know whether to leave a talk message or not. --Melty girl (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 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 delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Once (film): others said she said other things

Please, tell me, who said she said something different? From the view of native Czech, it is totally intelligible and there are no doubts what she said. However, I added reference to it from Czech movie magazine (unfortunately there seems to be no references in English). --Adam Zivner (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear that there are no doubts -- at least one other person posted something else on the Talk page. But can you tell me, what is this reference? Giving only the URL is not a full citation. I'm not sure a non-English source is valid on the English Wikipedia, but we need to complete the citation if we're going to try to use it: is it a professional review? Does Recenze mean reviews? What is the full, translated quote for the part that discusses the Irglova's dialogue/ad lib? What is this publication? --Melty girl (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is professional review, sorry I didn't mention it. According to WP:REF non-english references are valid. I have little time right now, but I'll try to complete the citation in a few hours. --Adam Zivner (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

infobox icons

hello...i thought you might find interesting the discussion going on here. cheers! --emerson7 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jordan Bayne

Hi. You seem disaffected with this article ("maybe it should be deleted?"), yet eager to have it assessed. I have tried to pave the way towards deletion on the copyright issue (I was quoting its identicality to the IMDB bio during my unsuccessful copyvio challenge, not her website bio, but apparently the same person posted both - talk about promotional!). I won't touch it with the proverbial bargepole myself, but good luck with it anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted some other eyeballs on the article, which seems completely inappropriate. I've never participated in an AfD and don't have the time to start a big process like that. At the same time, even if it is deleted, it is likely to be restored immediately -- and it does seem possible that with a few sources and a rewrite, the article could be salvaged somewhat. I just don't have time to do that, but I have time to watch it. Do you have ideas on how to get more people to take notice of it? --Melty girl (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion guidance

I see that you are opposed to a guidance for the Atheist category. This is currently a problem for the Irish Roman Catholics category. The guidance I used for the Atheist category was from the Irish Roman Catholics category. Under the guidance, Cillian Murphy would not qualify to be in the category. Since you disagree with this guidance, please voice your opposition to the guidance being included in the Irish Roman Catholics category. Thank you. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by the above. What does "opposed to a guidance" mean? What do you mean that the Irish Roman Catholics category guides the atheist category? Where are you asking that I voice my opposition? I don't have a clue what you're talking about, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you wrote in your edit summaries where you removed the Former Roman Catholics category and the Irish atheist category from biography articles -- in you summaries, you wrote that a person must be notable primarily for their religious views to be included in these two categories, an argument for which I don't know the basis, since that's not how they've been used as far as I have seen. --Melty girl (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My basis is that it is what is being used for the Irish Roman Catholics category. I added the same guidance to the atheist category that is used for the catholic category, and Cillian Murphy does not warrant inclusion in an atheist category under that guidance. If you think the guidance is a bad idea, then you should be opposed to the guidance being included in the Roman Catholics category. What I want is equal treatment for all religious groups at wikipedia. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What is "guidance"? How about some links to help explain what the heck you're talking about? --Melty girl (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Melty. In this instance, the editor is obviously using the word "guidance" in talking about the introduction or application of their particular point of view in Wikipedia as an established authority on religious matters. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow opinion regarding one point of view against another (e.g. it may equally be seen by another scholar that Cillian Murphy's inclusion is indeed valid, although I use this only as an example, not that I know the first thing about all that).

Said editor needs to back off and modify their stance and method of contribution. I have seen so many editors crash and burn just because they thought theirs was the only credible voice regarding a particular subject. Getting an account would be a start. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

He had an account - Bobby Sands man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as a previous IP - 75.32.36.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Jordan Bayne

Thanks for the heads up. The license on the talk page negates the copyright violation and I have removed the tag. This is the first time I have seen such a license. From now on I will read the talk page first. The writing is horrible for an encyclopedia. Whenever I see writing like that I immediately look for a copy and paste. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It's licensed promotion at its most raw and unashamed. The shame lies with those who allow it in the name of GFDL. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll just have to see what happens to it now, I guess. It seems unclear that the anons (one of which I would guess may be Jordan Bayne herself) will take Wiki policy seriously and change the article for the better. --Melty girl (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, User:Sfoley feels like you're doing a hatchet job on the Jordan Bayne article (I processed the GFDL release in OTRS and she's continued to email me). I explained to her that everything you've done seems perfectly correct accordingly to Wikipedia policies, but she seems to feel you have some sort of personal grudge against the actor. I encouraged her to raise concerns on the article talk page, but she doesn't think it will do any good. Perhaps you can be proactive and engage her in dialog? I know you have no obligation to, but it might be nice. OTOH, she might be so fixed in her thinking that nothing will change her mind, but I figure it's worth a try. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If she can't see that I actually saved the Jordan Bayne article from potential deletion, then she doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Sfoley clearly doesn't understand central Wikipedia policies like WP:Neutrality, despite my careful summaries explaining it and pointing her to where to read more. She in fact, may be the actor herself, or she may be the actor's number #1 fan, but either way, she emailed me at a fansite I run to try when she was spamming the 'net to get people to publish hearsay about Bayne's work -- that in and of itself is fine, but her brand of unsourced rumors and hyperbole about the actor does not fly here on Wikipedia. Accordingly, I spent a lot of time salvaging that article, and I also documented what I did on the talk page and provided a list for what else could be done to try and help her. My edit record on the article is clear and correct, but she obviously doesn't understand that the article is not owned by her or Bayne, and that she can't just fill a WP article with unsourced praise and exaggeration in the way one can on an entertainment resume on a private website. If she wants to talk to me, she can engage in a real Wikipedia discussion of the edits I've made at Talk:Jordan Bayne. Otherwise, well, there's probably nothing I can do to make her see that I actually improved the article. --Melty girl (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you and as an admin I will back you up 100% on this; I've tried to explain it to her, but she won't listen to me. I was just thinking that maybe if leave you her a friendly message ("Hi, thanks for creating the Jordan Bayne article. I've made some edits that put it in line with Wikipedia policies..." etc) it might defuse her tension, that's all, but seeing as how you have some previous experience with her, you may have more insight into her personality than I do. BTW, I think she runs Jordan's web site, FWIW. howcheng {chat} 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she does run Bayne's website, and given Bayne's very low profile, I wonder if she is Bayne, though obviously, I do not know whether she is. I understand what you're saying about friendly messages, but I've already left clear messages in my edit summaries and on the talk page a while back, and I don't think she is going to suddenly start listening now if she's still upset about it, and if she also won't listen to you, an admin. You're nice to try to help her; it's too bad that she doesn't realize that I have helped her here too. --Melty girl (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 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 delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So yeah...

I may not be the first one to admit I was wrong but I do admit it eventually. Yout input here is requested and appreciated.
Peace! SWik78 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Juno

Hey, yeah sorry. I'm actually in the middle of a big edit formatting the refs one by one - I was checking out an article trying to find the name of a newspaper when I got the new messages thingo. I actually copied the whole section from my sandbox where I'd just listed the refs as URLs but thanks for paying attention! —97198 talk 05:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and with the cast - see WP:MOSFILM#Cast and crew information. It actually commends the use of actors' names within the plot prose without a listed cast section using the example Tenebrae (film). As I see it, all the actors listed in the cast right now are already bracketed within the plot so there's no need to re-list them. I'm going to re-delete the section but feel free to bring up any further issues with me. —97198 talk 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your take on the guideline. Yes, it commends the use of actors' names within the plot without a listed cast section, but it also offers many other ways to approach the issue, concluding, "Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles." I think it should stay, and hopefully someone will expand the section with real world casting information, as you have expanded the themes section. Reposting this to the talk page... --Melty girl (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Juno again

Melty, my apologies for being brusque as well as inaccurately labelling you as a "reverter" and I have left some notes explaining my reasoning behind establishing a reference section divided into sub-divisions. Please see the Talk:Juno (film) talk page. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC).

Thank you! --Melty girl (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Melty, let me clearly state my intentions. I responded to a request for assistance. I looked at the article and provided some direction as to references. I made a "test edit" to show that a bibliography section could be incorporated (I did not have current research information and placed a decidedly questionable source in as an example)/ I have found some additional sources for information that are more detailed and authoritative, given that this is a recent film with a scarcity of text material available. I placed the note above to indicate that it was possible to establish a bonafide notes and bibliography section, given that new material is provided. My intentions are as such, good faith edits not intended to disrupt or "irritate" folks. FWiW, take it as it is, or not; a request for help was sent out, I responded, nothing more. I do not intend to rewrite the article nor "hijack" it for ulterior purposes such as are implied. I do not have a mission, but do wish to help people in referencing researched articles. Bzuk (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

I never meant to imply that your edits weren't in good faith. When I said I was irritated, I did not say that you were intending to be disruptive -- but I was explaining that I found it irritating that despite two people writing back to you with long explanations and suggestions, you didn't respond to them but instead stuck to your original strategy. Your strategies do seem to have good intentions, but there seem to be many aspects of things that you don't seem to understand, even after discussion, which are again reflected in your comment here. I will name but one (since I've already outlined many without it seeming to get through): there was never a problem of scarcity of source material. There was a lack of people using the plethora of sources out there to actually add prose to the article. And so there was never a problem with the References section. It was growing appropriately as the prose expanded. OK, that's it for me on this topic at my talk page. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting words in your mouth

Melty girl, since I took the liberty of speaking for you regarding the ongoing discord over Juno edits, it seems only polite to let you know (lol). If I mischaracterized your position at all, I apologize. Feel free to correct and chastise me appropriately. Happy editing!
Jim Dunning | talk 19:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Jim. What you said looks right on target to me. --Melty girl (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, am I that dense or am I just feeding the troll (1 and 2)? Feel free to be as blunt as needed so I know what's going on.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't yet have time to look at all the edits today, but I must say that I am getting very frustrated, as well as concerned about the project's choice of coordinator. I'm not sure exactly what advice you're looking for, but feel free to elaborate, so that I do. For now, my main piece of advice for you is to try to stop discussing with him on personal talk pages and make the debate more public -- stick to the movie's talk page or the project's talk page. --Melty girl (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Understand. I, too, am concerned since there seem to be basic disagreements on guideline understanding/interpretations regarding WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:Verifiability, and WP:AGF. I think I was trying to not antagonize by keeping the discussions off the article Talk pages, but I've changed my mind on that.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what we can do about it, except bring it to the project's attention if it goes further downhill. Did you see this thread? Oy. --Melty girl (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I present this award to you for your great work on Juno. Honest to blog. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of... etc.

"Discover the Networks" is not a superior source. It's a David Horowitz-funded right-wing polemic site which is not acceptable as a reliable source for anything except its own criticism. But you're right that there's better stuff out there than that .edu site - I found a reference in a dead tree book, and have used it. FCYTravis (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw that the original source was about Davis in particular, not a generic list. Glad you found a better option. --Melty girl 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 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 delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A decent project

So baby time is coming up fast for you! That will keep your hands busy for a while. I had not noticed your editing recently on any of my watchlist pages but, for a while, have been thinking that Cinema in Ireland is very sub-standard for such a wide topic and nowhere near complete. It could even become a GA or FA with sufficient work. A few months ago I read Kevin Rockett's Cinema and Ireland and thought it would be a great resource for improving this article even though it only goes up to 1987. This might be a topic that would interest you, especially if you can get a hold of some more modern books. I am sure you will get some time to read while looking after the new baby, before he/she starts crawling or walking. On a related topic, Ardmore Studios could also do with some expansion. Cheers and keep healthy. ww2censor (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started the expansion of Ardmore Studios at User:Ww2censor/Ardmore, if you want to join in. I added several book references, all of which have google book links. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation/suggestions! At this point though, I'm removing things from my watchlist, not adding any new projects. Maybe sometime down the road though. Keep up the good work, and hope all is well. --Melty girl 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Good luck with everything. Maybe later. ww2censor (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Harvey

I saw you re added the moslow tag. What exactly is wrong with the filmography list per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)? From a quick browse to the guideline the "role" part could be added. But that doesn't really seem to warrant this tag instead of just a message on the article's talk page. Garion96 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two parts to your message: first you indicate that you don't see the multiple violations of the WP:MOSLOW#Filmographies guideline, then you suggest that a talk page message is preferable to a tag. Here's my take. First I will spell out the list's problems for you, since you only can spot one:

1. The years are listed first instead of second to the title.
2. The years have no parentheses separating them from the title.
3. The films' titles are not in italics.
4. And yes, there are no roles listed, which is pretty important.

Second, what the heck is the argument against a tag? It's an invitation to help, not a bad grade; WP is a collaborative work-in-progress. More editors will see a tag on the article than will read the talk page -- WikiGnomes may even come by thanks to the tag's categorizing the article as needing cleanup. I didn't have time to fix the whole list myself, so I tagged it in the hopes that someone else would have time to help the article. And now, I've spent more time having to explain this to you. --Melty girl 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not saw multiple violations, so if there are any (and you explained to me there are some) in my opinion they are small and do not warrant a tag but only a message on the talk page. To me this seems to be an example of overtagging. Garion96 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a Wiki policy or guideline to point to regarding what you term as "overtagging"? Interesting how you sidestep the issue that this long list and important component to an important actor's page is wrong in four different ways and that tagging attracts people to fix something more than a talk page note does. I wonder why you prefer to spend your time and mine arguing about whether a real problem is big enough for the tag that goes with it, instead of either fixing the list or allowing others to be attracted by the tag and category to fix it themselves. Seems like you should be trying to get rid of the MOSLOW tag instead if you don't like it, since it was deployed exactly as indended. --Melty girl 18:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Geez, relax. I don't sidestep that issue at all. I just don't find these issues important enough to warrant an ugly tag on an article. Some issues are so important they warrant a tag on the article, some aren't and a notice or a tag on the talk page is good enough. Basically for me it is the difference if the tag is also used to warn readers or only to warn editors. This tag is only for editors so on the talk page would be good. Regarding the moslow tag, yes, I don't like that it is placed on article space and that's why I try to cleanup the biggest issues when I encounter the tag through Category:Wikipedia articles contravening the Manual of Style for lists of works. Which is now empty except for this article. Mainly the reverse order part, oldest to newest. Discussing this single article, it is probably easier to fix (although character for xx number of movies...) but it is more about the tag in general. Discussing this or placing it on 100 articles. Is there a guideline about this? Don't know, although I did only a second ago discoveredWikipedia:OVERTAGGING#Over-tagging. Garion96 (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't violate WP:OVERTAGGING: the tag is properly used, and there are only two tags on the article, which is not disruptive. And you know what? It's not policy or a guideline -- it's just an essay anyway. --Melty girl 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 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 delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a girl

Congratulations! ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Awww!! Congrats on the Melty Baby!! You'll be able to edit now because she'll keep you awake all night anyways :) --JayHenry (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to have to learn to type one-handed. For now, I'm probably reduced to protecting my first Wiki baby and neglecting the others. Thanks for the good wishes, you two!! --Melty girl 15:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me. :) Acalamari 17:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, and all the best from me. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just now saw the notice about your new baby girl, congratulations! Not sure if you're aware or not, but Juno passed GA status last month (the 28th), so good job on the article. Have a happy 4th of July and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool about Juno! And thanks for the kind wishes, everyone. --Melty girl 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian Survey

Hello,

My name is Brenton Stewart. I am an African American, doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin- Madison in Library & Information Studies. Currently I am conducting a study on the motivational factors of African American Wikipedians. I am asking for your help by participating in this short online survey which will take take approximately 5 minutes to complete. Please feel free to distribute to other Black Wikipedians. The survey will be available from Tuesday July 1, 2008 until Tuesday August 5, 2008. Thank you so much for your participation.

Survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=HlzQGQIRUjncj7O09zgy4g_3d_3d e1977 07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 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) 23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Miller's Crossing

Hello, Melty Girl. Congratulations on the baby. When you have a moment, can you take a look at the Miller's Crossing article, and give me your opinion on the changes made to the cast section? It seems to me that the information added there is not in keeping with other WP film articles. Thank you, and congratulations again. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Very quick look. I think this is all really Plot info, not Cast info. Would be preferable if it was actually real world info about the actors, how they were cast, how they prepared and performed, etc. See MOS:FILM for more. Hope that helps. --Melty girl 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It does help, yes, thank you! And I agree with everything you said. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! :) I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am interested, but have no time at the moment. Will keep you on my watchlist though. Thanks, Melty girl 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 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 delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Once track listing drafts

Hi, after seeing your post at WP:ALBUMS I took the liberty to check your recent contributions and figured your inquiry about compilation track listings might be related to Once soundtrack. Right now the list is indeed quite inscrutable, especially without noting anywhere that the names before the track lengths are supposed to be the performers (I had to go to Allmusic to figure that out). Given that, I whipped up two drafts. Please take a look and tell me what you think. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 05:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

YOU ARE AWESOME!! Thank you so much. Version 1 is perfect. --Melty girl 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Once track listing ver. 1

All tracks are written by Glen Hansard, except where noted

No.	Title	Performer(s)	Length
1.	"Falling Slowly" (Hansard, Marketa Irglová)	Hansard, Irglová	4:04
2.	"If You Want Me" (Irglová)	Irglová, Hansard	3:48
3.	"Broken Hearted Hoover Fixer Sucker Guy"	Hansard	0:53
4.	"When Your Mind's Made Up"	Hansard, Irglová	3:41
5.	"Lies" (Hansard, Irglová)	Hansard, Irglová	3:59
6.	"Gold" (Fergus O'Farrell)	Interference	3:59
7.	"The Hill" (Irglová)	Irglová	4:35
8.	"Fallen from the Sky"	Hansard	3:25
9.	"Leave"	Hansard	2:46
10.	"Trying to Pull Myself Away"	Hansard	3:36
11.	"All the Way Down"	Hansard	2:39
12.	"Once"	Hansard, Irglová	3:39
13.	"Say It to Me Now"	Hansard	2:35
14.	"And the Healing Has Begun" (Van Morrison, Collector's Edition only)	Hansard	5:19
15.	"Into the Mystic" (Morrison, Collector's Edition only)	Hansard, Irglová	4:21

Once track listing ver. 2

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Performer(s)	Length
1.	"Falling Slowly"	Glen Hansard, Marketa Irglová	Hansard, Irglová	4:04
2.	"If You Want Me"	Irglová	Irglová, Hansard	3:48
3.	"Broken Hearted Hoover Fixer Sucker Guy"	Hansard	Hansard	0:53
4.	"When Your Mind's Made Up"	Hansard	Hansard, Irglová	3:41
5.	"Lies"	Hansard, Irglová	Hansard, Irglová	3:59
6.	"Gold"	Fergus O'Farrell	Interference	3:59
7.	"The Hill"	Irglová	Irglová	4:35
8.	"Fallen from the Sky"	Hansard	Hansard	3:25
9.	"Leave"	Hansard	Hansard	2:46
10.	"Trying to Pull Myself Away"	Hansard	Hansard	3:36
11.	"All the Way Down"	Hansard	Hansard	2:39
12.	"Once"	Hansard	Hansard, Irglová	3:39
13.	"Say It to Me Now"	Hansard	Hansard	2:35
14.	"And the Healing Has Begun" (Collector's Edition only)	Van Morrison	Hansard	5:19
15.	"Into the Mystic" (Collector's Edition only)	Morrison	Hansard, Irglová	4:21

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 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 delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)