User talk:Cbrown1023

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Current March 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 –

Hi.

[edit] Yes

Oh, it's you for a change! What a relief! Yes, it's time to move on. Back to the Future should be on. I almost forgot it. Will you do the change? Hoverfish 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sending the collab template to all film members or just the ones who voted. I didn't... Hoverfish 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK got it. Btw, The Mad Baron isn't with us lately... any idea? Hoverfish 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CineVoter

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Back to the Future. Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

[edit] Film importance link

Yes, thanks for the support. It can be draining, but it's useful for me too, as I start getting a better idea on all these disputed issues. One thing I don't understand in what E.S.Blofel is saying, is a plan to make alphabetic lists into lists by dates. I've also heard some other members with similar intentions. What do you make out of it? I mean "day in films"... the way of the future... do you make anything out of it? I'm a bit slow to catch up. Also I think alphatical lists are more user friendly, unless ALL film articles have been assigned ALL possible categories AND categories have been put in a nice hierarchy, so we could simply look in categories for the full alphabetical. Is this a point?

And another thing that I meant to ask: the template we put in film article talk pages has an importance assessment. The link it offers goes to editorial team version so and so. I've tried to find any clues as how I can use this page to understand how a film is rated by importance, but I don't find a clue. Do I miss something, or is there a general absence of criteria? By the way on film notability I keep posting anywhere I might get some feedback. Hoverfish 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey it was me who added the section and layed out the starter pages to list of missing articles. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have started with Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Argentine Films. I have filtered the list so far to A-AN. About 65% of films are not notable or suitable for wikipedia. Of ocurse something useful will come out of this. Six months down the line beleive me you will realize the potential of this. I have also started several films from Argentina and Bulgaria todayErnst Stavro Blofeld 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Like How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (film)? We don't have to get it to FA, but it could get somewhat better... for a Jim Carrey comedy. But I'm open to more ideas. Hoverfish 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

The only problem I have with being called the king of knee-jerk responses is that I didn't get a crown.

Dammit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A small piece of thanks

Thanks for pointing out my slip-up on CinColla. It might just be a small thing to point out, but I'm still a newbie to Wikipedia in some ways, so I appreciate any mistakes pointed out to me. Regards, Breed Zona 05:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also noticed you at the talk section of paranoid fiction. Good thing I was quick on the draw. :D

[edit] Request for adminship

[edit] Note on AFD

You voted to delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mischief Makers. I don't know the specifics of this page, but the nominator was indefinitely blocked; the account first edited yesterday and his only purpose was to nominate articles edited by WietsE for deletion. I speedy kept the other AFDs, but did not for this one because of delete "votes". I have no opinion, but because of the nominator, you may wish to look into this debate further. Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scope of Novels project

Hi, I don't believe articles about novel genres are in scope of the Novels Wiki Project. Errabee 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, what are you talking about? Cbrown1023 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You marked Paranoid fiction as in scope of the Novels Wiki Project. The scope is however about specific novels, stories, not about genres. Errabee 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just marked it because it was asked to be created through the newsletter that is sitting on your talk page two posts up. Cbrown1023 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you seem to read something more into that than I do. I only read that short stories and novelettes are now also in scope; I can't find anything on novel genres in there. Anyway, it's not that important, just wanted to prevent any unnecessary action taking place. Errabee 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean you are right. I was just saying I marked that article because it was asked to be created through the newsletter. Cbrown1023 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. Only now do I get what you mean. I'll ask Kevin if this should be in scope or not. Sorry to have troubled you. Errabee 03:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I was mistaken, and novel genres *are* in scope. I'll restore your assessment. Errabee 09:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plot summary

Not a problem. I noticed you were kicking this article into shape, so I thought I'd jump in. Bobanny 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. you haven't seen The Public Enemy? time for a trip to blockbuster! ;=) Bobanny 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

Regarding the mushroom article, my mistake! I'd just finished reverting obvious vandalism from the same IP and didn't bother checking.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zegoma beach (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 December 2006.

[edit] RFA

I appreciate your concern about the equitable process. He is the only person I will be contacting. He was one of the editors who helped polish up my first wikipedia article. Good luck. P.S. I am in the middle of archiving my talk page and you mussed it up. TonyTheTiger 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {film}

Hey! Thanks for the tip on using {Film} rather than {FilmsWikiProject}. I never noticed the latter was a redirect. I'm not a big fan of redirects anyway. Of course I don't actually type anything in...I just cut-and-paste since I am such a crappy typist. I got in the habit of putting the line in to separate the boxes from the rest of the noise on the talk page. MANY of the ones I hit are pretty ugly. I can leave the line out if you think it is unnecessary. Like I said, I don't actually type this stuff anyway.

Since I already have your attention, I ran into some ugliness and I don't know how to remedy it. If you take a look at, say [Category:1953 films] there is a "List of 1953 films" which would be fine, but someone redirected the list to [Category:1953 films] and that make it kinda self-referencing. Any idea how to fix this? I was thinking about usiing a redirect to [:Category:1953 films] but I wasn't sure of the rubbercushions (repercussions). This is not an isolated problem, it is in almost all of the {year}-films categories. Any ideas? Schmiteye 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I guess I listed myself as "interested" in films, but didn't actually join the WP:FILMS project. Thanks for letting me know. Schmiteye 05:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)