User talk:Nehrams2020

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Archive

Contents

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

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

[edit] Samuel L. Jackson

Two problems:

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

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

[edit] Thing needed

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

[edit] Fims box

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

[edit] New lists of films appeared

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

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

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

[edit] Edit Count

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

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

[edit] Good work

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

[edit] New navigation in lists of film !!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Comments on Drew Carey

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

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

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

Responding to comments on my talk page::
      • By promotional work I mean notable ad campaigns. Right now some of this is shoved in with the Drew Carey Show information. Move to a new section and expand.
      • Copy and paste THIS to reference the book with an inline reference: <ref name=auto>Carey, Drew (1997). Dirty Jokes and Beer: Stories of the Unrefined. New York: Hyperion. ISBN: 078688939X</ref>. If you want to reference the book in other locations, use the following tag: <ref name=auto />.
      • Looking at it now, the organization is MUCH improved. I would also recommend expanding the early roles bit (I assume his early relationship with Kenney will be fleshed out here). Also, in his stand-up career, I do remember some notable 1/2 hour and full-hour comedy specials on major netowrks like HBO, showtime, Comedy Central, etc. You might want to add those to the Stand Up section. Not required, but it would be nice. IMDB should have info on these. I am impressed with the work you have done in such a short time. --Jayron32 04:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Further responses: Hey, the article looks GREAT now. Just one minor issue: The information about the A&W/McDonalds ad campagain is still entirely non-sequitur. That it occured during the filming of the Drew Carey show is incedental. Either move it to a new section on advertising and promotional work, or expunge it. It seems like it belongs in the article, but its too short to be an entire section to itself, and it doesn't belong where it is now. Also, the sentance: The show ran for a total of 215 episodes between 1998 and 2006 (a couple of episodes were released this year). Is awkward. Skip the parenthetical comment. That the show aired 215 episodes from 1998-2006 is enough. Oh, and I am not actually a member of WP:GA. Membership is not required to promote articles. I drop by occasionally to nominate my own articles from time to time, and when I do I fins a few to comment on. I don't really spend enough time there to consider myself a member. I just try to apply the WP:GA criteria in a fair and equitable manner, and promote articles that meet those criteria, which is all that is required and any editor can do it. Also, my involvement in the article to this point is substantial. While I feel it should be promoted to GA status, I must recuse myself from promoting it directly since I feel I have been so involved with it. Plus, seeing an article get nominated and passed so fast without anyone else getting the chance to see it and comment on it smacks of collusion and conflict of interest. Please go ahead and nominate it, and see what happens. I have a pretty good sense for these things, and I am quite sure it will get passed. Good luck! --Jayron32 06:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, based on your comments, I may end up officially joining after all. I have really enjoyed working with you on these pages, and look forward to doing so in the future. If you have any other articles you want me to look at, let me know, and I will see what I can do! If I put my humility aside for the moment, I do feel I have a skill for this sort of thing. To answer your question about GA vs. Featured, the vetting process for a featured article is MUCH more involved, and requires community consensus. GA's need only one editor to like the article to promote it. Also, GA criteria are MUCH less stringent, and many GA articles, by the very nature of their subject, could never be promoted to Featured status. Featured articles also have a chance to make the mainpage, and thus are under much closer scrutiny. For all of these reasons, the GA notice only appears on the talk page. People who are committed to improving an article should always look over the talk page anyways, and will see the GA status and act accordingly... --Jayron32 07:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry

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

You mentioned you would be receptive to a candidacy notice. Adminship candidacy posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship. TonyTheTiger 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the support in my RfA! What article are you working on right now (GA's for... Samuel L. Jackson, Drew Carey!)? Cbrown1023 21:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes me sad :(. Plus, the fact that he isn't really in good standing means he shouldn't vote anyway (you said 3RR, he blanked a page he did not like, obviously does not know policies). But, I'm not going to try to get his vote removed because he is entitled his opinion, I just hope it ends well! :) Good luck on your finals! Cbrown1023 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blind audition

Hello,

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

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

[edit] Support for a potentially great admin

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

[edit] 66.99.49.36

Hi Nehrams2020,

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

[edit] Thanks for voting

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

[edit] The Mummy 3

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/h/User_talk%7ENehrams2020_f40d.html"