User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Dark Angel/Max Guevara

Just a note to say I really like what you've done with these two articles, particularly the latter which has become a wealth of information on the subject. Thanks! --Squiggleslash 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Squiggleslash- Thanks so much for the nice note about my edits to the Dark Angel and Max Guevara pages - two of my favorite subjects. If you have thoughts or ideas on how these and related articles can be improved I would be interested in hearing them. I think that the main article still needs quite a bit of work, with the addition of more sources. Thanks again, -Classicfilms 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad Move!

Moving Two of Us is not appropriate. The song is spawned the other works, and moving it breaks dozens of links. Move it back, please. Thank you. John Cardinal 03:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi John Cardinal, Thanks for writing, though I must disagree on this point. Please note on Wikipedia:Disambiguation:
"When there is risk of confusion, the page for an ambiguous term should have a way to take the reader to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term; either the top of the page should have one or more disambiguation links, or the page itself should be a disambiguation page."
No one will disagree that Two of Us (1969 song) is an important song. However, there are a number of uses of this expression that, in following with the rule above, need to be recognized. The disambiguation page Two of Us solves the problem. Regards, -Classicfilms 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation

Hi Classicfilms. Someone removed the criticism of the choice of Gore as Nobel Peace Prize winner. This is a violation of NPOV. Can you do something about it? Regards, Masterpiece2000 08:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added a comment. -Classicfilms 14:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta M.D.

Dear Classicfilms, A {{prod}} template was added to Gangsta M.D. on 2007-10-22 suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor who tagged this article felt it might not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion because "Article is not yet warranted per the notability guidelines for films. If the project enters production, the article can be recreated". While editors who propose deletion are encouraged to notify article creators, you were evidently not notified. However, while the article has been deleted, articles deleted through this process of Wikipedia's deletion policy may be restored at any time on request. If you would like the article restored, please contact me at my talk page, and I will restore it. If I'm unavailable, you may post your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review for the attention of another administrator. Note that though the article will be restored, it might still be sent for review at Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl - Thanks for your note. You are right, I was not aware that the article was deleted. While I would have liked to know about the proposed deletion when it was posted, I think at this point it is better to leave things as they are. If the film moves further in production perhaps we can revisit the development of an article at that time. Regards, Classicfilms 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lasso of Truth‎

The article currently lacks references and is a bit weak on the origins and I see you have added some interesting material on this to the other entries you were working on and thought it worth flagging it up here as the same material could improve that article too. Keep up the good work. (Emperor 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Hi Emperor! Yes (sigh) I noticed the same thing about this article and (as I normally do when encountering an article that is virtually unreferenced) felt a bit overwhelmed by it. I'll see what I can do with regard to at least the Marston section of the article - I'll also flag the other sections to encourage other editors (who may be more familiar with these versions of the lasso) to add sources. Thanks again for your words of encouragement and for your help on the Wonder Woman (and related) articles - it is much appreciated! -Classicfilms 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose in the end we can only do our best but adding a few more details could encourage others to do the same. I have to say I haven't got anything to hand but, again, if I see anything that might be useful I'll see what I can do. (Emperor 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

I went ahead and tagged much of the article. I also added some sourced material to the Marston section, though much of it is from elsewhere. It's about the best I could come up with at this point. Please feel free to edit what I have put there - this is not my area of expertise so it's about the best I could come up with. Hope it helps. -Classicfilms 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that's great - the origin is the important bit and your additions help cover the bases. Fingers crossed it inspires others to source the other statements ;) Thanks again for the hard work. (Emperor 01:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
Thanks! And thanks for the tweaks - they improve the overall article. I did look around a bit but these seem like the best and most reliable sources to use. If I come across anything else in the future I'll add it. And yes, I hope other editors will develop the rest of the article with sources. Regards, -Classicfilms 01:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see ...

Please see some comments about your editing style at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment desired on article change

Hello. You previously expressed concern with the treatment of "polarization" expressed in the Hillary Rodham Clinton#Cultural and political image article section. This material has been reworked to try to address such concerns. And mention of "polarization" has been removed from the lead section. Please give it a read now and comment on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton as to your reaction. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback is needed at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Solicitation of opinions from previous "polarization" objectors. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)