User talk:JMalky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Student TV 2 Terse 3 LSE SU 4 LSE TV and MattnIan 5 OT Filmmaking links 6 Glasgow University Student Television 7 WikiProject Filmmaking Announcement 8 Unspecified source for Image:G-Spot.jpg 9 Wikiproject Universities 10 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Thewritersjourneycover.jpg) 11 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheGuerillaFilmmakersHandbook.jpg 12 WikiProject Films coordinator elections 13 Image copyright problem with Image:GUST Studio.jpg 14 Xbox userboxen 15 Primer 16 Sniper/Marksman 17 Image copyright problem with Image:Following1.jpg 18 :Re:WikiProject Xbox 19 WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter 20 Your GA nomination of Primer (film)

[edit] Student TV

Hi there - yeah, I'm an XTVer and past (2006) NaSTA conference atendee - I couldn't let the wikipedia page get deleted! I'm getting on to working on the article itself soonish, and I've had some thoughts about structure - I doubt any/many of the student TV stations themselves will avoid deletion, so maybe sections on every affiliate station, and a bit about the UK student TV scene in general wouldn't go amiss.Tomisaac 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

please refer to my reply to you on my talk page. Ohconfucius 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

please refer to my reply to you on my talk page. Ohconfucius 10:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terse

I just like to say if any arguments appeared terse or rude, it wasn't my intent but i've been somewhat harried by Wongch2 of Loose TV who's response to by arguments on notability has been an escalating series of rants and personals attack by varies sockpuppets culminating last night in apparantly the fact i don't think his station is notable means i'm the equivolent of a Holocaust denier. so if any of it appeared rude this was not my intent. I've put in request for comment on both GUST and Nasta Sherzo 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to point out this guy is falsely accusing me, and i never said he was a holocaust denier. you could check the archives if you so wish. the personal attacks, in fact, we are both guilty of, that i admit. he did call me a "pathetic idiot", which he declines to tell you now. i did not call him any names however, i did use very sarcastic statements to make him feel pissed off. Wongch2 05:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't worry about it! The debate about the notability of GUST, NaSTA, and the various other stations is getting pretty heated (again), and the arguments are becoming far too polarized, which doesn't help create quality pages! So thanks for taking a more moderate approach in your last few posts. JMalky 09:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSE SU

This thing has been dragging far too long, just because Sherzo cannot stand to lose an argument. I hope you can review the LSE SU article, see the articles that I have referenced, and help to judge if they are of any validity. also please have a look at the points both of us made in Sherzo's user archives, and see whether his or my arguments make any sense to you. Marshalapplewhite 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To help you get through this faster, i will highlight the important parts of the BBC articles which indicate the role played by the LSE SU in the protests. Sherzo has clearly failed to read the articles carefully, or if he did read them, fail to see the significance of them. which ever the case, he insists that the LSE SU played no role in organising the protests, even chided me saying Vietnam war protests were totally spontaneous (i will not go into those, but i hope you should know that they were'nt. Kent State 1970 certainly wasn't.) Feel free to refer to the main article to see the whole article in context. Sherzo has claimed that for the last article, Once a rebel, that interviewee was trying to raise his own importance and that of the students' union and thus the article is unreliable. i would like to argue that Sherzo's argument is that of a poor analyst of evidence. is there a practical, clear self-promotion goal to be met by doing so? i do not see it. by his argument, one could easily discount the use of ANY autobiographical accounts in wikipedia. e.g. the article on Henry Kissinger cant use "Diplomacy" for reference, Romeo Dallaire's article cant use "Shake hands with the devil" for reference, Sandy Woodward's article cant make use of his own book "A Hundred Days" for reference. why not? we can use them, but simply use them cautiously, make sure that the content is not clearly self-serving and of no objectivity, and if necessary, balance the potential contentious issues within them with a viable alternative viewpoint.

Sherzo's argument is basically, if i have followed them right, that the protests were spontaneous, not organised by the students' union, and therefore, the notability is with the school. i have consistently shown and now will show you, that the students' union played a major role in coordinating, organising and directing student protests in the 1960s. most importantly, using secondary sources, from the BBC, which is the probably the most objective news source there is to be found in the UK.

1969: LSE closes over student clashes - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/24/newsid_2506000/2506485.stm

Students and staff held a meeting during the day to discuss the removal of the gates - but the student union president, Francis Keohane, lost a motion that removal should be by negotiation.

Within half an hour the gates were down. The union president, and treasurer Roger Mountford, announced their resignations saying they could not defend the law-breaking action.

Testing the student political mood - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6299579.stm

The student union has a tumultuous history, dating back to the 1960s. Demonstrations, sit-ins and hunger strikes were held in 1967 in protest at the appointment of Walter Adams as LSE director. When security gates were installed in 1969 inside the school, the students went on the rampage, pulling them down.

1967: Protest over student suspensions - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2542000/2542639.stm

Hundreds of students at the London School of Economics are taking part in a sit-in over disciplinary action taken against two union officials.

The pair, David Adelstein, president of the Students' Union, and Marshall Bloom, president of the Graduate Students' Association, have been suspended for their part in a demonstration on 31 January against the appointment of the LSE's next director, Dr Walter Adams, in which a college porter died.

David Adelstein, 20, a third year Economics student from Manchester and Marshall Bloom, 22 an American student, reading for a master's degree in sociology, were found guilty of disobeying an instruction forbidding the use of the Old Theatre for a meeting.

1969: Once a rebel - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/january/24/newsid_2639000/2639609.stm

A student union meeting took place and we debated what to do about it. There was a very vociferous, strong and well-articulated opinion that the gates should be just removed.

A motion to negotiate with the school was attempted. That was defeated and then some people went out and took them down.

Marshalapplewhite 10:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've thrown my hat in the ring. JMalky 11:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've recreated the article and marked it Afd. Again WP:DIK. TorstenGuise 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSE TV and MattnIan

i can't find any source for that, and Matt N Ian tv don't strike me as student television station. Sherzo 17:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New NaSTA page seems to still be under construction. Just take my word for it until it's up and running, to avoid any edit wars. Believe it or not Matt 'n' Ian TV is actually a station, with an audience. JMalky 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

you word JMalky? though i don't doubt your a trustworthiness, it would need a source at present the section is title Nasta Station 2006 and ref to the last archived page of the nasta site(which is the same as your Independent list), if you can provide an alternate source that would be fine unfortunately your word is not, particularly on MattnIan which is to guys podcasting which i wouldn't define as student tvSherzo 08:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

whether or not it is student TV to you doesn't matter, because their station is a member of NaSTA. that is a fact. maybe you can say they shouldn't be allowed in, but that is another matter. we like to be inclusive and accept people. CTN is from dublin, and in the original constitution, they wouldn't have been allowed in, but we changed it so that they can join. if you are interested in facts, Matt'n'Ian TV is in NaSTA. whether or not they are student TV is irrelevant. Wongch2 10:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What he said. Plus, you've been very zealous in hunting down 'reliable' sources, so why cite a clearly out-of-date NaSTA webpage? JMalky 11:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

because it is the ,most recent page available and you word frankly isn't good enough Sherzo 15:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WongCh2 you seem to ascribe personal feelings to the matter if you read the post carefully i am saying that it needs a source particularly on such a different style station, any in the list of unaffliated station i could easily believe are in Nasta, Air TV could be or FX:TV but have they ever been? should i take your word they're not? that is why the list clearly reflects the last source i could find, i'd be more than happy for you to change if you have a reliable source. Nasta choices at who it includes aren't something i care about just that its report accurately. as i said provide a SOURCE Sherzo 15:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

what a joke. some dude from some other country telling a member of NaSTA that he doesn't know NaSTA better than some guy who frankly has no idea what NaSTA is apart from seeing it on the internet. you are more interested in guidelines that you like, to create a wikipedia in your own image and according to your own liking, rather than getting the facts right. bare in mind you are editing an article on a subject you are not a member of and have minimal knowledge of, and you are telling people from that organisation what that "no, this station cant be listed because there is no source for it." and where do you get the source and reference from? from NaSTA. now i'm telling you Matt'n'Ian TV are a part of NaSTA and LUST which is in charge of maintaining the official site is still working on it. you can go on making a fuss about something which you have no idea about and continue disregarding the people you are writing an article about. it just makes the whole thing a farce, since you are not editing in good faith for NaSTA, but in good faith for yourself, and what you would like wikipedia to be - a totally and absolutely flawlessly referenced online encyclopedia. that desire is your own, and by no means a generally accepted one. Wongch2 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo, try being constructive for once, and don't be a dick. JMalky 09:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When have i ever been anything but constructive, wikipedia is based on verifiable fact not personal truth, because then we go down the road of truthiness and wikiality. if anything you and your associate Wongch2 are being unconstructive attempting to fill wikipedia with personal vanity pieces and then misleading people in AfDs. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself better with the first pillar of wikipedia, this an encyclopedia not a place for your word and all information must be sourced reliably Sherzo 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WongCh2 actually if something is only notable to its members so that they are no sources that an external person could use to write or verify the article then it shouldn't be on wikipedia, thats why we have notability, if you now saying no one but a member is qualifed to write about it, then it isn't from a neutral viewpoint. whereas i am neutral i have no feelings either way if you provide a source that be the end of the discussion, but since Capone of Lesta who original removed them also appears to be from your group, your opinion isn't universally held within if this in fact the case. as you for you "telling me" wheres your source? your assertation are not a facts and wikipedia is not your Soapbox nor is it a place for your original thought. The only farce is your entire argument, i suggest you familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies, but you are correct on one thing i aim not editing with any bias towards nasta, nor am bias against it, i simple want the article to reflect verifable facts, not your word. "a totally and absolutely flawlessly referenced online encyclopedia" thats actually aim of wikipedia, perhaps you feel more comfortable editing here they care far less about reliable sourced facts. Sherzo 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

i want the NaSTA page to be as updated as possible, and i know for a fact that those stations are in NaSTA. i am a member of NaSTA and you yourself derive the sources from NaSTA. when the official site gets put up, it is a NaSTA generated source. the difference between my word and that of the website is a technicality you are unwilling to let go of. you do realise you keep harping abt reliability of sources, and the way you do it, it is at the expense of reliability of the information you put out. how is a pure and simple fact of whether a station in NaSTA or not dependent on the neutrality of the writer? is the Earth going to be flat because a member of the Flat Earth Society comes along to edit the Earth page? perhaps we need a "neutral" alien to arbitrate that fact then? your original thought argument is ridiculous. i'm not creating some new mumbo jumbo philosophy here, i'm stating a fact for the benefit of the article. i know it, i'm saying it out loud so that we can put it up and get the facts straight. just because the fact cannot be verified by you from your computer doesn;t mean it isn't true. are you saying that all facts must be verified using an online source? must it be a website? what happened to physical documents? books? written evidence? published material that may not have an online version? simply because you cant see it on the net, doesnt mean it doesn;t exist, nor do they lose their viability as sources. if you as a neutral is unable to independently verify something, doesn;t mean it is not existent. it just means you are probably not able to access the proper stuff. your highhanded methods are quite frankly pissing people off. Wongch2 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All anyone is asking is that you allow an unsourced statement to exist in an article for a short period of time, which has been said to be accurate by several editors who have first-hand knowledge of the subject (so, as Wongch2 says, it is sourced, just not according to the Wikipedia bureaucracy). Don't say that the aim of Wikipedia is write a totally and absolutely flawlessly referenced online encyclopedia. That's just your editing philosophy. The only rule I pay any serious attention to around here is the only rule. JMalky 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And the other thing is, can we stop fighting on my talk page? JMalky 08:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And conservapedia is a hoot. JMalky 08:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

JMalky its not my place to allow anything, we simple follow the guidelines one of which is verifibility. I would also remind you that the ignore all the rules section states this is an encyclopedia the aim of any encyclopedia is to be sourced to the best possible standards, but what is your "editing philosophy" if not to make wiki the best reference tool it can be? as for claims of beings experts, are you recognized published authorities on the subject, your claims are not sources, come on Jmalky you've been editing wiki long enough to know this. as for conservapedia, the Colbert game is a fun. Sherzo 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WongCH2 as usually you revert strawmen the reason the flat earth theories doesn't appear is because there are verifibility reliably sources to the contrary, as such what comes out of your mouth is not one. when i have verfied to the best of my ability, i am not god thus i cannot know everything, perhaps if you spent less time pissing people off and more time finding sources you might be a positive contributor, if you're at university surely you know how to reference, why are you looking to me to do it for you? Sherzo 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

the ultimate aim of an encyclopedia is to provide information to the reader. i see a blatant error, and being a member of the organisation in question, i feel obliged to correct it. i think it is not out of line to bend rules to get the facts right. why even have an encyclopedia if you provide information that is outdated, just because you are unable to verify it via the internet? remember, you are unable to reference it only because you are limited to your own desk. your source is from members of NaSTA anyway. it's not as if i am an outsider claiming to know insider details. if Richard Gere joined wikipedia one day to edit his own article and add something that no one else knew about him, are you going to be a dick to tell him, sorry, you cant do that because you cant reference it? isnt this the advantage of wikipedia, that nothing is concrete, that wikipedia moves along, develops in any potential direction, nothing is set in stone? it's not as if we are trying to wreck the thing. for goodness sake, IT'S AN ARTICLE ABOUT US. if you cant take the word of a member of NaSTA for what it is, and choose to believe yourself (considering the website too is the word of members of NaSTA), with whom do you verify information about NaSTA? can you answer that? your logic is hopelessly circular. Wongch2 13:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If its an article about you, you shouldn't be editing it, thats wikilobbying. if you are saying only insiders can comment then its not notable enough to be on Wiki. you keep critising me for sourcing it to the best of my ability but whats stopping you from sourcing it? why do you constantly expect me to do it all why if your such expert can't you find a source? please read the rules of this ENCYCLOPEDIA, it is to be as up to date as possible but with verifiable facts, what if i edited george bush page to say an opinion poll coming out next week says he's the best president ever? are you american can you dispute that? if not would you just accept it unsourced? Sherzo 13:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

what if i edited george bush page to say an opinion poll coming out next week says he's the best president ever? are you american can you dispute that? if not would you just accept it unsourced? this is such a drastically different analogy to the one i used. u like to use the strawman label so much, ever thought abt using it on yourself?

i'm telling u to update the article, in the interest of this encyclopedia you are so passionate about. if i was from LUST and am in charge of updating the website, my word would be the one you are taking. in fact, the OH SO HOLY source you are talking about in this article, is from a member of NaSTA. the only difference is, he puts it on a website, and i'm telling it to you right here and right now. in fact, about 20 posts ago. so having a fancy website saying it is enough to give it credibility? with your logic, that is the case. that is the only difference between taking the website's word for it, and mine. Wongch2 15:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

your right that is a strawman and i apologize, but i wanted something i no you'd be familiar with however i shall give a more abstract example, what if the school wrote it had the best grades in the county or in the country, in a particularly, subject if i was a teacher at that school would the fact i'm a teacher there make it anymore credible or any more reliable? Nasta is an official organization you are a private individual, if it publish itself directly on wikipedia it would be violate wikipedia's rules, if its publish its own page and in the course of sourcing an article is sourced that is verifiable and anyone can go and check it is correct. Sherzo 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that you WongCh2 is a noted vandal and sockpuppet master, Jmalky admits to inflating the importance of things to keep them on wiki and IP IP 217.147.240.180 has been blocked for vandalism and and is the process of wiki lobbying on behalf of MTV europe since that where the IP was traced to, i can't really see how its student tv? its more likely viral marketing by MTV aimed at students like MtvU in US colleges Sherzo 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OT Filmmaking links

I recently helped some students set up a film makers group, and i thought these links might be of use to you

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/9373/SCREAM/ http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/ http://www.abracadabravideos.com/DIY/DIYpage1.htm http://www.indymogul.com/ http://wikivid.com/index.php/Main_page http://www.channel101.com/ http://www.pinnacleshare.com/final/includes/view/index.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OePFgmyvnWo http://www.matthawkins.co.uk/index.php http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/ http://www.videoforums.co.uk/reviews/ http://www.instructables.com/group/film/

Sherzo 04:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow University Student Television

I reopened the afd debate, because the discussion had not ended. People were asking for another AfD debate, but instead of having one, Sherzo took it upon himself to wipe it, add the redirect, and create another article. Sherzo's unilateral actions meant it hadn't been given due process. I was amazed when he did what he did. I nominated it for AfD, but I was honest enough that I wanted it kept. After I'd nominated it, Sherzo marked my revert and AfD nomination as vandalism, and reverted it to his redirect. Another user, AndyJones subsequently reverted the page. Two complaints to have been made against this guy for his actions on three seperate articles, and language used on the relevant discussion pages, my talk page and CR7's talk page. Both have been overlooked by administrators for some reason, yet his questionable actions still go unchecked. I do not trust the integrity of this user, and believe that I can no longer assume good faith.

PS - Sherzo has been monitoring my posts Firstly to change revert some pages under the guise of WP:VAND, and secondly to see if my own statements have violated WP:NPA. Everything that I have listed above is based on facts that you can find for yourself in a matter of minutes with a bit of brief surfing. I'm still expecting him to make some comment here or on my talk page. TorstenGuise 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to my actions in this debate, This has happened. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TortenGuise. I would like to hear your comments.TorstenGuise 14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd noticed the new tag. New user. Never edited before. Think it's worth a WP:RFCU? TorstenGuise 21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely. To quote Michael Corleone, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. I arrived too late to comment on the other RFCU, but... well, words fail me. This is getting a little out of hand. I've been trying to use the ostrich-like tactic of ignoring this nonsense and hoping it'll go away. Petty arguments and edit wars aren't why I wanted to edit Wikipedia. Sorry I didn't throw my hat into the ring over the LSE SU debate sooner, but the thought of trying to save another student-related article from discussions about the dreaded 'N' word just makes me crazy. And on that note, let me rant for a minute: I'm sick to death of this whole concept of 'notability'! It's elitist, childish, highly subjective and above all based on a total delusion. We're not writing Britannica here! We should allow Wikipedia to play to it's strengths: the potential to be totally comprehensive, a first port-of-call for information on any topic. Rather than some dusty manual about whatever Wikipedia nerds think is worthwhile. </rant> There, I said it. I feel better now. JMalky 22:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On the LSE debate, I seem to be the only one really pushing to keep it. Sherzo again seems to be the only one who is really trying to hammer the death nell to the article. I'm disappointed that he didn't understand my statements, and just chose to be insulting. I'm very careful in the language I use, and also the reasoning behind my debating. It comes from being a physicist. We're taught to analyse things carefully. I've also said nothing on Wikipedia that can't be backed up with facts. I started the debate as it was, yet again, another one of his unilateral actions. The man is quick to quote the rules but not follow them when it suits him.

As far as this new user is concerned, I don't really have the time, or know how to go about this. WP:SSP might be the right path though. The three edits made by the anonymous user have been rather suspect for someone new to wikipedia. It could be someones sockpuppet. I'll let you decide. TorstenGuise 22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Filmmaking Announcement

A PROPOSED PROJECT MERGER with WikiProject Films is under consideration. All opinions and questions are strongly encouraged! Girolamo Savonarola 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:G-Spot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:G-Spot.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Universities

• Wikiproject Universities is drafting guidelines for application to worldwide higher education systems, and in my opinion ONLY favors the American collegiate system, making the British Universities system a potential target for deletionists. Under the proposed guidelines, most, if not all, Student Union & Student Activities pages are at serious risk of deletion. Your help would be much apreciated. TorstenGuise (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Thewritersjourneycover.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 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:TheGuerillaFilmmakersHandbook.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) 02:21, 12 February 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) 09:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:GUST Studio.jpg

Hi JMalky!
We thank you for uploading Image:GUST Studio.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox userboxen

Yes, please feel free to use any of the userboxen I've created. They are actually categorized at WP:Userboxes/Games/Computer_and_video_games#Xbox. Let me know if you need any other assistances. Happy editing, xenocidic (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primer

The Primer article actually looks pretty good. I reformatted the cast list to conventional wikistyle. Mike P ^talk 00:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent first WP effort.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on Following. I had looked at the article before, but hadn't seen the movie, so I didn't attempt anything. My son worked for Nolan on The Prestige, so I follow his career.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sniper/Marksman

I agree with you. I think historically he is a marksman and not a sniper, as he works with a sqaud. The concern about Pvt. Jackson having a sniper rifle is interesting, but I believe you can have a sniper rifle and not be a sniper (in essence, a marksman is a sniper who works with a squad). Regardless of weather or not we replace "Sniper" with "Marksman", we should take out the citation, because you can't just sight a interview with the word "sniper" in it and claim it as evidence. Besisdes, for such a simple matter we should not need to have a citation, all we need to do is reach a consensus. I propose a vote, besides, do you think anyone would notice if we replace Sniper with Marksman? Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Following1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Following1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] :Re:WikiProject Xbox

Hey, JMalky. Yes, we are still very active. We were really rolling in March and April and as a result me and DJS24 took a Wikibreak which meant alot of stuff stopped on the page. But I'm planning on starting again in a week or so. Thanks. BW21.--BlackWatch21 00:50, 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) 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Primer (film)

The article Primer (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Primer (film) for things needed to be addressed. —97198 talk 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)