User talk:J.D.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:J.D./Past Newsletters

User talk:J.D./On the Road (film)

Contents

[edit] Ghostbusters

Hi, I don't know if you're still planning on doing some work on the Ghostbusters article, but I made some comments at its peer review. --BelovedFreak 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the comments. I will definitely incorporate them into the article. --J.D. 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escape from New York

Hi, I've left some comments at the peer review for Escape from New York. Hope they help. --BelovedFreak 20:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all the comments! This is great. I will implement them soon. Thank you for taking the time. --J.D. 00:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JFK

I have some more suggestions, particularly on the overall structuring of the reception section. Alientraveller 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! These are fantastic. --J.D. 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Getting warmer. I added a few citation needed tags. Alientraveller 09:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I took care of those tags. --J.D. 14:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome, I passed the article. Hopefully FA is not a far-off sight for you. Alientraveller 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Many thanks! --J.D. 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Darkman01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Darkman01.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austin Stories

Oh man, I'm sorry. I accidentally clicked the Rollback Vandal link while trying to undo the change from stub to start.  :( I rated that article as a stub as it has no major sections and only some half hearted info (and all of the sources are questionable...they say they are from one place, but link off to the same Geocities site). Collectonian 16:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. No harm, no foul. --J.D. 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Unfaithful

I've uncovered some potentially useful articles. You can find them under the sections at User:Erik/Unfaithful -- they're commented out to limit their exposure. Hope you can make good use of them! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are awesome! Thanks so much. This is a big, BIG help. --J.D. (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Walker (film)

Hi. I was wondering why you replaced my poster image here? No harm done and maybe 'your' version is better than mine. I only noticed because it caused me to receive a message from the dreaded Betacommandbot. Best wishes, --John (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, I just replaced your copy with one that had better resolution. That's all. Cheers. --J.D. (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trlstillphoto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your GA nomination of National Lampoon's Animal House

The article National Lampoon's Animal House you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:National Lampoon's Animal House for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your contributions...

The WikiProject Films Award
I, Erik (talk • contrib) -, hereby award J.D. the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films.
Awarded 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Usual Suspects

Hey, would like to ask why the edit to The Usual Suspects had be undone, it's a nice little fact and captivating sentence for the readers. Cheers.

Sorry 'bout that. I read the previous user's comments and thought that it applied. My mistake! --J.D. (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh alright, good to know.


Hi, don't know how to create a new topic on here

In regards to my contribution on the usual suspects page, the bit about Al Pacino is mentioned by Bryan Singer on the "Pursuing the Usual Suspects" documentary. The bit about Walken and De Niro turning down the role is from IMDB trivia section, but I can't find a more concrete source for that.

I thought the bit about Pacino especially was worth appearing on the page, so could you maybe put it back up in a place you feel is appropriate, as I don't know how to properly cite stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi 1983 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I gotcha. I think I know how to cite it. Let me take a crack at it. --J.D. (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wild at Heart

Hi J.D., I've done a peer review for Wild at Heart. Hope it is of some use. --BelovedFreak 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is great! Thanks so much for all of the comments. --J.D. (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats on Zodiac

Seen that it has been promoted, and just wanted to give you a thumbs up. Thanks for your hard work. 76.10.142.168 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Much appreciated! It certainly was a labor of love. I'm a big fan of the film.--J.D. (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future films

Hi, I noticed you created Public Enemies (2009 film). I wanted to let you know that the notability guidelines for future films says that articles on films should be created when shooting begins. This is due to various factors, including budgeting issues, scripting issues, and casting issues. Some films like Justice League of America (film) have faltered due to the strike, while others like State of Play (film) barely make it to production. Any chance you could follow the process? Userfying it may be the best approach -- see my User:Erik/Nottingham (film) due to its delay caused by the writers' strike. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now how do I go about deleting that Public Enemies article? --J.D. (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You can do a {{prod}} of it or even a {{db-author}} since you're the only one who's edited it so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Magnolia (film)

May I ask why you created a duplicate of the film template at the top of the page? Ward3001 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I was just trying to create a Peer Review request.--J.D. (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That's why we have a "Show preview" button. Just a thought. Ward3001 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Use of References and citations

The Notes are a part of the references section and when you use other sources, they are part of a Bibliography and not a Further reading section which implies that these are ancillary sources. This style guide is employed in WP:Aviation and a format, see the use of Aviation:Films and the multiple uses within this category.

The use of this convention has been very carefully screened since a Swedish editor implemented it last year. It follows and fits MoS guides and has not been reverted even once (well, once- in the case of this article). Admins and other experienced editors use this format throughout the Aviation group. The reason for its implementation was the nonstandard use of references as a "catch-all section" when in fact they incorporated an endnotes or footnotes section and a bibliographical record. The Further reading section is just what it says, further to the article's research sources. My background is as a reference librarian and presently, author/editor for a number of publishing houses. See: 49th Parallel, A Wonderful Life, The Right Stuff and countless other film articles for examples of this use of referencing.

As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the The Rocketeer (film) article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "The Rocketeer (film)" citation/reference notes. The "true style" is primarily use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet.

As to the website citations, the simplest system is all that is required as per Jeff's suggestion [1] You will have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations. IMHO, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. The simpler form should predominate, not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system.

Excuse the pedantic ranting, but I can follow up with more information on referencing on this talk page if your wish. FWIW, it can be a Referencing 101 primer for you. Bzuk (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

Fair enough. Works for me.--J.D. (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further

Here's an example of how complex cataloguing and referencing can be (note that both ISBN:10 and ISBN:13 formats are being employed):

The original edit:

  • The Big Lebowski, by Ethan Coen and Joel Coen ;(May 1998, Faber and Faber Ltd.), ISBN 0-571-19335-8.
  • I'm a Lebowski, You're a Lebowski: Life, The Big Lebowski, and What Have You, by Bill Green, Ben Peskoe, Scott Shuffitt, Will Russell ;(Bloomsbury USA - August 21, 2007), ISBN 978-1596912465

The MLA style guide edit:

  • Coen, Ethan and Coen, Joel. The Big Lebowski. New York: Faber & Faber Ltd., 1998. ISBN 0-571-19335-8.
  • Green, Bill; Peskoe, Ben; Shuffitt, Scott and Russell, Will. I'm a Lebowski, You're a Lebowski: Life, The Big Lebowski, and What Have You. New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2007. ISBN 978-1596912465.

FWIW, that's why there are reference librarians lurking about the WikiWacky world in which we both inhabit. Bzuk (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] My peripheral interest in films

Oops, forgot to mention that I am also an editor (by trade) and author as well as a filmmaker, directed two documentary films, screenwriter on two others, worked variously as an extra, gofer, grip, gaffer, consultant and on-screen actor on 10 films.

It was a brief fling at directing in 2003 when as the screenwriter on a series of television documentaries, I was enlisted to take over two films when the original director was called away to Chile on another project. Being a screenwriter on a documentary is a thankless task anyway and since I knew the context and focus of the documentary projects, I fell into directing. The first film, Bearing his Soul was the life of Gerry "The Big Bear" Barrett, an aboriginal comic starting out as a stand-up comedian that appears on local channels and an Aboriginal network at times. The second film, Zero Over the Prairies was a Canadian-American co-production with PBS. That one also still pops up on television and documents the recovery, construction and flight of a Mitsubishi Zero fighter aircraft. My first book was also made into a film and that one is everywhere, Avrocar: Canada's Flying Saucer (2004) was purchased by Discovery Channel, History Channel, Space Channel, ad infinitum... I know now, I should have taken "points" instead of a commission/salary, that "flick" is shown all over the world... FWIW, that's why I also casually look at film articles in Wikipedia based on films that I have loved in the past, and "tweak" them a bit, sorta stems from my first career as a writer of movie reviews at the local university newspaper. Bzuk (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC).


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Latakedown.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Latakedown.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Wood (film)

Are you going to be nominating the article for GA status any time soon. It's pretty impressive, and it's only missing a plot section and minor work on Cast. I can help out. Oh yeah, if you have the time, (since your are a decent film editor), would like to review two articles I have for nomination? They are American Graffiti and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Thanks. Wildroot (Talk) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to tweak the Ed Wood article a little more. I can work on the plot section but whatever you would like to do to make it better, that would be great! I will take a look at your articles and see what I can do.--J.D. (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citizen Kane

Hi, I'm working on User:Erik/Citizen Kane 'cause I've had similar thoughts like what you expressed on the film article's talk page last January. I'm still in the midst of Fight Club (film) (to add "Critical analysis"), but I'd like to make Citizen Kane the next project, considering the scale of the film. I have a few links there, and have written out the ISBNs for some books so far. Any interest in joining forces? It only seems proper that Citizen Kane should be a flagship article for WikiProject Films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When I first started looking at the Kane article, it was a mess. Very few citations, load of info but very unorganized. I've tried to make some sense of it but there is still a lot of work. I've checked out Kane rough notes page and it looks fantastic! Load of sources. I've been a Orson Welles fan for years and, in particular, Kane, so I have a few resources. I think the best books to get the bulk of the info for the article are:
  • Kael, Pauline. Citizen Kane Book. Bantam Doubleday Dell. ISBN 0553142739. 
  • Welles, Orson; Peter Bogdanovich, Jonathan Rosenbaum. This is Orson Welles. Da Capo Press. ISBN 030680834X. 
  • Naremore, James. The Magic World of Orson Welles. Southern Methodist University Press. ISBN 087074299X. 
  • Carringer, Robert. The Making of Citizen Kane. University of California Press. ISBN 0520058763. 

These are the books I keep coming back to - Carringer's book especially is invaluable, giving you a blow-by-blow account of every aspect of the film. I've been meaning to start work going through it and making notes but I would definitely be into teaming up on this article.--J.D. (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I was thinking that if you have access to books, you will probably have a better opportunity to develop the production details of the film. Nearly all the critical analyses I found, I've saved. I think it would be a milestone for film articles since I don't think we've ever really explored the field of critical analysis. I want to develop critical analysis for Fight Club first, as to master the learning curve for Citizen Kane. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I already started last night going through my Welles/Kane books and started making notes so I should have a bunch of stuff for Monday. Now, how do you want to work it? Do you want me to start posting stuff on your User:Erik/Citizen Kane page and then once we have it worked out and looking good we'll post it onto the actual article? I'm thinking that might be a good idea and that way we can decide what to keep, etc. as there is so much detail one could put into a Kane article that I'm trying to just keep the most important stuff.
As for critical analysis, that could be interesting. I know, with my books, I can probably dig up what critics thought of Kane when it first came out and then we could juxtapose it with what critics think of it since which it sounds like you've got covered.--J.D. (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, my subpage is a little bit full with the listed resources and the popular culture detail that I retrieved from an AFD. (Hoping to see if I could salvage something that won't be trivial.) You mentioned that the article was very unorganized, so I think we should use a sandbox in the meantime. We could start on the typical sections like Production section in the sandbox for our content and copy some uncited items from the film article itself into a bullet list under a Miscellaneous section. When the information is in the Miscellaneous section, we can do two things: 1) Work from scratch (using the resources we have combined) to put together a "new" article, and 2) Seek out citations for the uncited items and integrate them when we can. To be honest, I'm not sure what to expect from the critical analyses as I've only given them a brief look, though they won't be typical "critical reactions". For Fight Club, it's been topics like Deleuzian philosophy, spatio-temporality, and downplaying of homoeroticism using the DVD. I'm sure Citizen Kane will be nothing like these. :-P I'll print out a few Kane studies and see how digestible they are. In the meantime, User:Erik/Citizen Kane/Draft. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this new link. I will use that to hammer out a better Production section and integrate some of the details from the existing article (as you mentioned). Yeah, you certainly have your work cut for you re: Fight Club. A lot has been written about that film. It's funny, before you did all that work on it, I was thinking of giving it a much needed makeover but you did a great job! It's weird, because I've been working away on another Fincher film article as well with Zodiac. Anywhooo...--J.D. (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Zodiac was very enjoyable. I was familiar with what reviewers said of the film, so I knew to enjoy the path of the film and not expect a true conclusion. There were some elements that I initially thought unrealistic like the detective knowing all the details about the case so long afterward, but the article showed that was really how he was. Any interest in Fincher's next project, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button? I'm really interested in seeing the backward aging, which is definitely going to make the film trippy. (Makes me think of Merlin from The Once and Future King, who ages backward, too.) Fincher, as I recall, is attached to at least three projects -- Torso, The Killer, and Black Hole. Kind of annoys me when a director has so much on his slate. Guillermo del Toro is the worst -- he's attached to Tarzan, Deadman, 3993, At the Mountains of Madness, Runoff (rumor), The Hobbit and its sequel, and I think he's interesting in rounding out Hellboy as a trilogy. The man is busy! :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Benjamin Button looks interesting. And, Fincher is teaming up with Brad Pitt again - they always seem to work well together. I really hope Fincher decides to pick Black Hole next. It's a great graphic novel and I think he could really tap into Charles Burns' sensibilities. I really dig Del Toro too. I am really looking forward to Hellboy 2 and I sure hope he does Mountains of Madness as I know that has been a pet project of his for some time. The only problem is that's going to be expensive to make and not very commercial so we'll see. The Coen brothers have a lot of on their plate as well.--J.D. (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The content you just added looks great! I had a question, though -- is there any chance you could cite page numbers from the books? I've noticed in Featured Articles that there's usually a "Bibliography" section and a "References" section that has something like "Carringer, pp. 13-15." It's more of a breakdown, but I think it's more realistic because it would make the information more immediately verifiable with the page numbers available. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the page numbers thing. I just added some more content, but let me go back through my notes and cite page numbers.--J.D. (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a lot of notes from Barry Norman's Anatomy of a Classic. Erik suggested I add it to the subpage and hopefully we can merge it together. Alientraveller (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at your additions and they look great! Let me take a crack at merging 'em into what I have done some time today.--J.D. (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just remember to cite pages for Simon Callow's book. Alientraveller (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say that both of you have done terrific work with the draft so far! I feel bad that I haven't pitched in yet, but it's not for lack of wanting to. I've been bogged down with academics lately, but I should be able to contribute something after this week. Keep up the excellent work, both of you! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hey, not a problem...whenever you can add something, that's cool. I'm taking a little breather myself. I think we're in good shape though. I wanted to make sure that I created the foundation for the Development and Reception sections and then go through some of my other Welles books to see if there are any little details that can be added to what I've already put in there.--J.D. (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 18:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kowalskisingle.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kowalskisingle.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 04:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

To answer this question Tony Dushane has been using various IPs (see here and here for example) to promote himself. That's why I removed the links. IrishGuy talk 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I gotcha. Understood. Thanks for letting me know.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. If you really like the link, it's no problem at all for you to add it back in. :) IrishGuy talk 20:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Goldsmithmummy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Goldsmithmummy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for your kind support of me as a coordinator! But really, I haven't done too much (yet) with Citizen Kane -- you and Alientraveller have gotten the draft off to a great start. I really do hope I can find some downtime to just add something to the draft, lest I feel like a freeloader! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no sweat. Kane is just one of the many things you do/have done and I was more than happy to lend my support to your bid for coordinator. I've been slack with working on the Kane draft as well. "Real life" intruding and whatnot but I haven't forgotten it.--J.D. (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 01:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stripesmovieposter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stripesmovieposter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BluevelvetCD.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BluevelvetCD.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Beret"Star

Image:CheBarnstar.png The Che 'Beret'star
"Hasta la Victoria Siempre"

In appreciation of your recent "revolutionary" work on The Argentine (film) & Guerrilla (film). Great job and keep it up.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 20:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)