User talk:Andman8/Archive 2

Nice work on the Midnight movies article!

The new template is great, too! (Ibaranoff24 06:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nice work on the Cinco Ranch High School article

it is gradually shaping up into a legit article. The references are great! (tmbrtmbr june 26 06)

- I am going to add more- you are doing a really fabulous job on the crhs article. Great job, and thanks.

I second that, it's the best high school article I've seen! --Claygate 12:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Movies template nominated for deletion

Vote on the discussion here. (Ibaranoff24 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Cinco Ranch HS pics

Hey, i am going to be gone for the summer. I wrote the vast majority of the cinco article 6-8 or whatever months ago under a variety of IP addresses. Anyways, what is really lacking is pics-- Can you go to cinco with a digi cam and get some relevant photos of the stuff discussed on the cinco page? I'll get back to work on the article in the fall. You're doing a heckuva job <brownie>!! (tmbrtmbr june 28 06)

The Corporation

Wow nice work on The Corporation.--8bitJake 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent-Meridian High School

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School, I just thought you'd like to know that the consensus for High School articles now appears to be swinging back in favor of deletion. So this may indicate the beginning of another campaign to remove most High School articles. Your opinion on the AfD article would be appreciated. It might be helpful if a notability standard for High Schools could be agreed upon. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Boxing

Ok, I'll use that one. I don't like how one's username hangs outside of the box in the User WikiProject Boxing template. -Bringer of Pain a.k.a. ArcTheLad 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Floyd Mayweather Jr. a bit more than Marciano, because of Mayweather's personality and skill. Floyd Patterson was really great too. ArcTheLad 06:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent; I switched to {{User WikiProject Boxing}}. ArcTheLad 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbock High School

Thanks for showing me this article! I was really impressed by it and have congratulated the author! I left some feedback in the small handful of places I thought it was a little dodgy, but there was very little of it.

What's so good at it?

Fantastic structure - reads like an encyclopedia article. Not like an argument; not like a pro vs con discussion; but like a description of the school. The article handled controversies - pretty serious ones, in fact - without looking like the article itself was a battleground. Kudos to the editor.
Exceptional referencing - aside from one small slip, which I've left a note to the editor about, this really is top class stuff. Although not 100% (unfortunately there was weakness in the academic decathlon section) it was as good as most things on WP:FAC are. What was so good about it? Essentially, the article was a description that consisted of a series of facts. Virtually all of these facts had an attached reference. When you look at the reference, what you find is not just something related to the fact in question, not just a related anecdote, but a reliable source (some very strong, authoritative, ones in fact! See WP:RS) that didn't just vaguely back up the point in question but asserted exactly the fact they had been called on to reference. Fantastic stuff! I was seriously impressed.
Sense of scale - editorial judgment was very strong. Only notable, verifiable facts were presented; a "cruft-free" article. No anecdotes, just encyclopedia-worthy facts and descriptions. On the other hand, almost everything worth putting in an encyclopedia was in there. More information about results would be good, and that'd be a matter brought up at WP:FAC, but WP:GAN is more about making sure that an article is fairly comprehensive, and what is there is well-sourced, well-written, and in line with policies and guidelines.
Good editorial practice - not only were the contents of this article carefully selected, they were presented well too. For instance, this was a weasel word (WP:WEASEL) free zone. If it said "X claimed Y", then there was always a reference in which X actually claimed Y. Great! No "some people thought Y", or "Y was claimed". There were logical sections. If any seemed underdeveloped it was because they were developed to the point that good secondary sourcing would allow, and went no further (with the exception of a sentence more than there should have been in "academic decathlon"; although the sentence itself was reporting a verifiable and notable event, it should have been referenced). Self-references (WP:SELF) were avoided.

I got the impression that the editor knew how to be brutal. There are times to wield an axe, for instance, if you really can't find a WP:RS to WP:CITE that says specifically that your info is true, then your info just isn't WP:V. There must have been things they wanted to recount, some tales to tell, but it didn't make it in to the final article. This editor swung that axe, and without doing collateral damage to the encyclopedic-worthy content either. So, personally, I was impressed; if I was reviewing that article now for WP:GAN I'd have stuck it on hold for 7 days and asked the editor to put in an additional reliable source that exactly backed up the claims in the academic decathlon section, and to think seriously about whether personal names deserved mention (are they that notable or important). If they could in good conscience tell me that (1) they thought the names really were important enough to put in, and (2) they are included in a secondary source anyway, so it's already public information, then I'd say it was within their editorial discretion. I'd also ask them if they might be interested in putting in some inspection report information or recent academic results, but that wouldn't be absolutely necessary to pass as a good article. TheGrappler 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Word of advice

Your'e doing a really great job sorting all of the film articles, very gallant of you, but when you assess, you have to use a capital letter. For example:

is what you're doing. This is fine, and the little banner comes up and all, but it actually doesn't sort the article for some reason. They stay in the unassessed category. What you've got to do, to properly sort it, is this:

See the capital on Start? That makes all the difference. Because what I've had to do, is follow you around, adding a capital to all the articles that youve assessed. It's no real problem, but, if you could, from now on, when you sort, use the capital, it would be a great help. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 02:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I didn't know, because I'm going from the top of the list. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's a tedious task. Not a lot of people will be willing to oblige. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 02:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there...

have you seen my post here? Also, I can help with updating the main WikiFilms Project template with some cool formating. Just let me know. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the WikiProject Films template. It looks good. Anyway, I just started unassessed cat and just starting from different points so that's what I been doing today. --

Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I been working on it. It's a little tougher that I thought. --

Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --

Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template

added the ToDo section :) -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check Discussion on WikiProject Films

Template discussion is going on. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript code: I made it very easy to grade articles. So all you have to do is click on the right tab to grade an article. That's how I got all the A articles done last night. --

Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 15:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikipedia Version 1.0 Assessment

Hey, I'm not sure I fully understand the assessment process for 1.0, and I thought you might be able to clear it up for me. Who exactly does the assessments? Some of your comments in the... 'lively' discussion on WikiProject Films seem to suggest that anyone can do an assessment. Is this true? Because if it is, the assessments seem relatively meaningless. I did a lot of work on the episode articles for the TV series Clone High, so could I just decide that they're A-Class Top level importance articles? A bit of explanation would be much appreciated. Thanks! --Gpollock 02:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do an assessment. If you feel the article is up to the grades that the guidelines suggest, rate the article. The only thing is articles GA, A, and FA, have to go through the official channels. A-Class should be "a group" of editors and contributer from the project to promote them within. If you going to start taging (also directed to Andman9) we should work from Category:Unassessed film articles here. Starting with all the "A" Letter films. Cheers. --

Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the process isn't exactly useless. Like I know that most of Wikipedia is entirely equal - almost anyone can make any edit they want almost anywhere. It's just that my experience with article rating consists of the more formal forms of review: GA, FA, RfC, and peer review. With all of those, the process is more formalised than anywhere else on Wikipedia, and that's (I believe) what gives their ratings the strength they have. FAs have such high status because of the strenuous, horrifically critical review process they have to undergo to be called such. That's all I was saying. But don't get me wrong: I do think these reviews are definitely useful. Any kind of feedback from anyone can only help an article, and the more feedback the better. It's just a different process than I've seen before.--Gpollock 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been in the system for a while... from what I noticed, there really hasn't been much change. --

Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject songs template

Hey there. I like the idea of the WP songs template. I'd be happy to help get these on existing talk pages, but as far as the rating system goes - is there a good way to know how to rate them? I feel kind of unqualified. Don't suppose there could be, say, an "unrated" template that could be put on for other people who are better raters to come through and grade them, or something to that degree? GassyGuy 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FilmsWikiProject|class=X|importance=X

Hi, Andman8. Thanks for the note and the compliment. I'll try putting that tag in the talk pages to film articles I've started. I'm a little unclear on how to judge them though. Most are obviously stubs, but is their any sort of guide-line to help separate a "stub" from a "start," and then on to the other ratings? The "importance" rating could be fairly subjective also... Not to mention the personal attachment the author may have to the subject (naturally I feel it's important if I created the article), an article like Arirang (1926 film) is probably of pretty low importance to the average American Wiki-user, or general (non-Korean) film-buff, but of very high importance to those interested in Korean cinema. Anyway, I'll look around at other articles to get a feel, and start adding them to old articles and new articles as I create them. Thanks again. Rizzleboffin 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link & advice. I'm still not quite sure about the 'importance' ratings though-- the judging seems very subjective to me, and also very relative. Angora Love may be of no importance at all relative to human history, low importance in history of cinema, but (I think) mid-importance, or notability, in L&H's career... and possibly high-importance relative to their silent films, since it is their last...

Also, I have a fear that someone's going to come along behind me and recommend for deletion every article I've labeled of 'low' importance, even though I feel an article on something as relatively obscure Angora Love is certainly apropriate for an online encyclopedia, which doesn't have the space-limitations that a print encyclopedia has. Anyway, I've put the template on all my film talk pages. Rizzleboffin 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Now, I get it! This is template is for Wikiproject Films, and there are other templates for other subjects, and could potentially be one for L&H specifically... Now it all makes sense! I'm still learning the ropes here, still picking up new details on how the Wiki-project works every day. And I agree-- there's nothing more fun than learning and contributing to the knowledge-base. I look forward to filling in those stubs when I get the chance. Rizzleboffin 00:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Hello! Just wanted to let you know that [[Rap]] links to a disambiguation page, Rap. You created a lot of links to it, you might want to link to Hip hop music or Rapping instead. Thanks! Dreadlocke 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KISD Controversy - Amusement Park?

I see that someone added a new paragraph to the KISD controversies about a proposed KISD amusement park. Is that true?? Also the grammar is very bad but wanted to wait until it was verified before cleaning it up. --Claygate 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it - I thought it was BS or there would have been something in the media or net about it. I think they're barely keeping up with the portable buildings, much less financing an amusement park. --Claygate 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films

I have been a member of WikiProject Films for some time now, and I have been devoting most of my time recently to adding films to the Lists of films and adding the WikiProject Films template to films I come across. I was wondering if I should continue to add this template to the talk pages, since it appears a new one has been created. Let me know if I should continue to add it. On the project page is a template that states 11,000 pages have the template but 84% of films don't. Do you know how 84% of films don't? Is there a master list of films on Wikipedia? The reason I ask is that I would like to continue to add the template and then use the master list (if it exists) to add multiple films to the Lists of Films page. Please respond on my user page, and if you don't know the answers to my many questions, can you please direct me to someone who might know? Thanks. --Nehrams2020 04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I see that you are working on assessing the films from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality. As of right now, I am taking these films and transfering them to Lists of films (by letter) since the list is pretty empty compared to the number of films out there. I don't plan on assessing films for the higher classes as that will take too much time for me. I would like to assist a little in the assessment, but I have a few questions. Do I just add the assessment for stub, future class, etc. to the {{FilmsWikiProject}} and that's it? Or do I need to move the film I graded to another page? Is it automatically moved by MathBot, or is it done by the user? Again, I would probably only be grading films as either stubs or future class. Please tell me the basic step-by-step process so I can assist the project as I take part in my own project. Thanks for the help. --Nehrams2020 08:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film assessment - capitalize

Thank you for assessing film articles. Please just make sure that you use class=Stub/Start/B... and not class=stub/start/b... (i.e. capitalize the quality category) so that they will be automatically included in the correct category and in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality list. Happy editing AdamSmithee 07:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I wasn't intending to rip the guy a new asshole, but I don't object at all if that was the effect my comment had. :) --Aelffin 03:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mach 6

Please don't write an article on every non-notable song on an album. If they're released as singles and chart, then they could be conceivably considered notable, but if there's nothing to say about a song other than that it's on an album, why not just talk about them on the album article? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every song ever written is not notable. They'll get deleted if they don't get merged back into the album article. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you till tomorrow to come up with some justification as to why every single on this little-known album deserves an article, or I'll be doing some speedy deletions. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So please leave my little articles alone.. Sorry, no. If you can't be bothered to explain why some non-notable album's non-notable album cut deserves its own article, maybe you should be working on other articles. And note that I am not the one who's redirecting all of them to the album article. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And see Wikipedia:Notability (songs). User:Zoe|(talk) 03:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel your time was wasted. Could you put some more work into the Mach 6 article, or the article about the artist? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KISD

I see that WhisperToMe removed the Wikipedia controversy as not being a controversy, but I reverted back because I know it's a controversy to at least a few people. Could you leave him a note explaining the situation as I don't have as much direct info except that it is a controversy that has stayed on there for a while? --Claygate 13:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a source

Uh - A lot of schools and organizations forbid using Wikipedia as a scholastic resource. Have you ever tried citing Wikipedia as a source in a university essay? Universities won't let you use Wikipedia because Wikipedia doesn't have quality control that other sources have. It's simple, really. WhisperToMe 19:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As of November 2005, KISD has banned Wikipedia using the program Websense. Wikipedia is now classified by the heading "tasteless."" - That doesn't have a source, one.

As for the Wikipedia not allowed for sourcing, what's special about it? - Many teachers and schools do not let people use Wikipedia as a source. There's nothing special about teachers not letting kids use it for a source. WhisperToMe 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cite your sources - The articles that don't are supposed to. Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability WhisperToMe 22:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main controversy is the ban, rather than the citing that Whisper keeps going on about. Are there any references to the ban in the school documentation or media? --Claygate 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasdaq 5yr chart.png

I have listed Image:Nasdaq 5yr chart.png for speedy deletion. Although there is no copyright in the data themselves, Yahoo does have legitimate copyright in the layout etc. It is certainly not GFDL, and is highly misleading for you to suggest so. (It implies that you own the copyright, which is clearly not the case.) I doubt you'd even be able to claim fair use.

If you point me to a nice table of the data, I shall make a free replacement image. Or you can do it yourself, of course.

— Wereon 01:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antiwikipropagandainenglishclass.jpg

In the description at Image:Antiwikipropagandainenglishclass.jpg, you state: "Under United States law if you can give a good reason why something should be copied this is definitely one of them. The source material is not copyrighted so it goes to the public domain." This is unclear: the first sentence indicates that the scanned handout is fair use, whereas the second says it's in the public domain. Neither of these agree with the GFDL tag you provided. There are a number of possibilities regarding the copyright status of the image:

The handout came from a university that releases all its publications into the public domain.
The handout came from a grade school, and the school board is part of a municipal, provincial or state government that releases all its publications into the public domain.
The teacher who wrote the handout agreed to release it into the public domain or under a copyleft license. (Note that the lack of a copyright notice is not a relinquishment of copyright under modern law.)
None of the above conditions apply, and Wikipedia must claim the image as fair use.

Which of these is the case? We need to know so that the image can be correctly described and tagged, and a fair use rationale can be written on the image page if necessary. Note that per Bridgeman v. Corel, when something is scanned, it is the copyright holder of the original, and not the person scanning, who holds the copyright. Neon Merlin 05:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it was from Cinco Ranch? If so, then it's probably fair use, since from what I've seen the state of Texas takes copyright on its work. Neon Merlin 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

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

Cbrown1023 21:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Truthinessindictionary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Truthinessindictionary.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sacred Heart School of Halifax.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sacred Heart School of Halifax.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. ccwaters 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seizure colors.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Seizure colors.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Colin°^Talk 10:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 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. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey. Just wanted to thank you for your kind words about the "B-movie" article and that barnstar for "Midnight movie" a ways back. All the best, and happy holidays, Dan.—DCGeist 19:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

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

Cbrown1023 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Willifordpervert.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Willifordpervert.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — --Clorox MUN Goatse Virgin ONS (diskussion/fortune cookie) 18:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]