User talk:Fortdj33/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Adding templates

I see you are adding a lot of templates to articles - the general rule of thumb is that you add the template to articles that are linked to from the template. Looking over your edits, for example, and in a lot of cases (specifically the characters) this doesn't apply. This means that editors are within their rights to revert those edits, which wastes their time and yours. You might want to reconsider your approach to this. (Emperor (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes it'd be better to add them to the template first but it'd also be wise to wait for the template to stabilise. There are so many people who could be called an Avenger (going by List of Avengers members) that you'd end up adding half the Earth-616 superheroes!! It could easily get bloated to the point of uselessness (like {{X-Men}}). If you want to kick ideas around about this then feel free to drop a note into WT:CMC, it may be folks there have better ideas (I was a proponent of splitting templates down but this has only led to madness like putting them back in as subtemplates, again see the X-Men one but I have seen others). (Emperor (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Come Together: America Salutes The Beatles

No problem! I figured it was a copy-paste mistake, seeing it's an American tribute to a British band. Cheers mate! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

X Factor

Hi, I don't think it makes sense to have articles called "The X Factor" and "X-Factor" on different disambiguation pages, especially as many people refer to the TV show as "X Factor" instead of "The X Factor". Also if I was looking for XFactor but typed in X Factor I'd have to click on the X-Factor link in the see also section, and I wouldn't really expect it to be there. I think the two pages should be re-merged (as well as the page histories). Let me know what you think. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, what made you change your mind? I was just gonna leave it but I do think it's better as one. I agree that the articles called Factor X should be on a different page though, so it is improved from before. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dante

Hi, I don't quite get the criteria for moving fictional Dante's to Dante (name) - copy probably, but not move. Dante (disambiguation) should include articles for people (real or imaginary) who might be called just "Dante." Some of those you moved would seem to be in this category. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand. But that disambiguation page is not really all that big (check out Columbia) and the number of items is less of a problem if it is well divided into sections. If those you moved are not likely to be called just "Dante," which is the criteria from WP:MOSDAB, then it should be fine. But one of your edit summaries said they were moved because they were fictional - which isn't quite right. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Heather

I undid your bypass of the page, the ambiguity of "heather" would seem to make this an appropriate link. Reverse that if I've overlooked something. cygnis insignis 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AWB (July 2009)

Hi, please don't use AWB to make trivial edits such as this one. It's against the rules of use. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Theory of simplicity

Hi, your edit to Theory of simplicity broke the templates. Can you fix that, please? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but when I went to fix the tags at the top of the page, they had already been overwritten by the redirect to the KISS principle. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Artificial

Hello. I've started a discussion at the above link regarding the clean-up of the page. I thought I'd let you know as you tagged it, and see what your ideas are. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

removing sources?

I looked at this edit, but not sure whether you meant to remove the sources? Thanks StarM 23:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

my apologies. I now see what you pointed out. Thanks for clarifying. StarM 01:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Metric

Could you shed some light on your changes at metric? It appears the original disambiguation page started with the dictionary definition of metric (syn for measurement) and there were quite a few article that linked to this. You removed that definition and then repointed many articles to incorrect articles that are variations of the term. Before I run through and fix twenty odd articles, I'd like to be sure we're on the same page. thanks. Kuru ^talk 01:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AVENGERS ROSTER

Thanks for the heads-up on spshu. I honestly do try to be civil but it can be incredibly frustrating at times, as I've been trying to keep the roster page in decent shape for a couple years now and I've got to fight spshu tooth and nail over it. I mean, I had Kurt Busiek and Tom Breevort themselves come to the page to say D-Man was a legit member and he wouldn't even give up at that point!SlamBurger (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? We need as many people as we can get in this, since the 4-6 participants from previous discussions on this matter was felt by some to be insufficient. It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cattive ragazze

Hi. I am not sure I understand why you removed the entry about Cattive ragazze from List of films considered the worst. It is indeed the only not US/UK film in the list, but the article says nowhere that is a "List of anglophone films considered the worst". It has even an eight-month ten-month old "not a worldwide view tag". So I believe the right way would be adding films from several countries defined as worst ones, not removing the only one present at the moment. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed that particular movie, because it does not have it's own article on the the English version of Wikipedia (which is where the List of films considered the worst article is being edited), and is not referenced by imdb, rotten tomatoes, or metacritic, which are more of a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But reasoning as you do, non non-English speaking film will ever be added: we might as well change the article name accordingly. Cattive ragazze is indexed in IMDb, for that matter: [1], with a 1.8/10 rating. Moreover, it is one of the films listed for which there is an actual, literal book quotation about its being the worst film etc. Its not having an article in English WP is fixed by creating an article, or a stub, or requesting it, not by deleting its mention. In general the incompleteness of WP is not cured by removing material. Goochelaar (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for your great work on the article! Goochelaar (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the above? Would you object if I reinstated Cattive ragazze? Bye, Goochelaar (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it still doesn't meet the criteria of the page. My understanding is that the article should be about movies that have been determined by a CONSENSUS to be the worst of the worst, and the only reference for Cattive ragazze, is one that mentions it specifically from one person's point of view. Yes it is low on the IMDB list, but it did not make their Bottom 100, because it has only received 24 votes! If you really think that the movie should be added back, I would suggest that you propose it on the List of films considered the worst talk page first. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made

It's not relevant to the reception of any film to state that it was featured in an obscure video release, whose reviews state things such as that it "belongs on its own list" and that it often only features clips from the trailers, because the producers of the video were too cheap to license clips from the actual film, and that very little is said about each film. These types of statements are made in reviews of this video on Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database. No professional film critic has commented on the video. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

I understand that the article had been deleted before, but I was not the one who recreated it. I was just trying to clean up the current article about the DVD, regardless of how relevant it was. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Meadowbrook, Indiana

Hello Fortdj33, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Meadowbrook, Indiana - a page you tagged - because: G8 doesn't apply - it does not depend on a non-existent page. It may well not be notable, but A7 does not apply to places. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

John, thank you for your response. I had tagged that article as such, because it had been removed from the template it displays, and it didn't seem to be linked to by any other article. I realize now that the G8 does not apply, but I couldn't find any reason that seemed more appropriate. Thanks again for the heads up! Fortdj33 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday (a day late?)

I saw from here that it's been one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Marvel Premiere Motormouth Savage Tales Deathcry Promethium (comics) Llyron Speedy Centennial (comics) Vampire Tales Pyrokinesis Uncanny X-Men Marvel Next Ultimate Six Madripoor Rogues gallery

Cleanup Squirrel Girl Mister Fantastic Marvel Comics Merge Iron Lad Kang the Conqueror Marvel Universe Add Sources Thor (comics) Hawkman Avengers Disassembled Wikify Frozone Decompression (comics) Expand Cyclops (comics) Colossus (comics) Jean Grey

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Time traveler/time traveller

Hi, you've been changing time traveller to time traveler on some pages. The 'll' spelling is correct in UK English, I've therefore changed Oswald Mosley and Goodnight Sweetheart to read [[time traveler|time traveller]] Bevo74 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

[[2]] Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fawn Liebowitz

The article Fawn Liebowitz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi, Fortdj33. Additions (and substractions) of entries to disambiguation pages are not considered minor edits. If you mark them as minor, some editors who are watching the page will not see them in their watchlist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:The Avengers. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.. Bringing up Nazi anywhere is a good way to get off on the wrong foot. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding. The above reply was just an elaborate way of me asking you to lighten up, but I took it personally, because you decided to specifically point out edits of mine on the talk page. It was not my intention to offend anyone, and I have no excuse for doing the same thing that I was accusing you of doing. I hope that in the future, we can both comment on the article's content, without referring to any contributors in an insulting or disparaging way. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. There may be a remaining misunderstanding. My specifically pointing out edits of yours is normal, not an insult or a breach of etiquette. I pointed out specific bold edits that were reverted and then re-applied without discussion, contrary to WP:BRD. Since you re-applied the edits after they were reverted, and I needed more room than I could get in an edit summary to explain why they were contrary to the guidelines, I brought them to the Talk page, which is normal and expected. I was commenting specifically on your contributions, not on you. Editors are allowed and encouraged to discuss other editors' contributions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

quirky

Hello. The redirect quirky isn't eligible for speedy deletion. If you do not find it helpful, you may ant to consider other editorila solutions or WP:RFD. Best--Tikiwont (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Films Project

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for April has been published. May's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! AnmaFinotera

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ownership issues

Regarding List of films considered the worst, please stop removing sourced content from articles. That can be considered vandalism. Many extremely reliable sources refer to The Room as one of the worst films ever made. All the sources are much more reliable than IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes.

More importanyly, WP:CONSENSUS has overwhelmingly decided on this content's inclusion with you being the only person against it. Your continued removal of very sourced content that the community has decided to include is considered ownership. Please stop owning this article. --Oakshade (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Avengers members

First let me start by stating that I admire your dedication and hardwork on this article however it seems that we come to a impasse on its current format. I will open discussion on the talk page to reach a concensus and will refrain from making any further bold edits regarding this topic until that concensus is reached. Also please do not take my edits personal (not saying that you did) as they were made in good faith.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rely on Reliable Sources

Per your recent edit in List of films considered the worst regarding The Room, I need to remind you again that Wikipedia's content is based on reliable sources, not a user's personal opinion. When reliable sources define a "B-movie" as "low budget" and the film "The Room" is reported by reliable sources as having a budget of $6 million, placing this movie in the "B-movie" is factually incorrect. Just because your personal opinion is that this film should not have its own section, that doesn't mean you can provide factually incorrect information. Please base your content and editing on reliable sources instead of personal opinion. --Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about my personal opinion, or the reliability of the sources on The Room. I actually tried to follow up on your suggestion, so that we could avoid another edit war. But when I went to change the definition of the B-Movie section, you had already moved The Room AGAIN, by reverting it back to your version! You keep claiming that I am taking ownership of this article, but you are not following Wikipedia policy, by reverting my edits before anyone has time to come to a consensus. That is a violation of WP:BRD, and I think you should analyze your OWN behavior in the Wikipedia community, before making edits based on your inability to compromise. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a policy, but an essay. WP:SOURCE is policy, which you twice in the last week choose to ignore. In fact, discussion was already being conducted in talk with you being the only user who choose to insist this film is "low budget" when reliable sources contradict that. And nope, you didn't change the definition of the "B-Movie" section [3] before I reverted the factually accurate version.[4] Consensus has decided long ago that the content must be factually accurate. --Oakshade (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are twisting the facts to suit your personal POV. Just because we had an argument about The Room before, doesn't mean that this has ANYTHING to do with it being properly sourced. I wasn't disputing the sources, only its placement in the article. Whether WP:BRD is policy or not, it is poor etiquette for you to just disregard it, and revert my edits twice before anyone had a chance to come to a consensus. That is YOU claiming ownership of the article, because you expect it to stay YOUR way until proven otherwise. You also proved my point with the links above, which show that you moved The Room back to its own section a second time [5], BEFORE I had a chance to edit the B-Movies section [6]. And "factually accurate version" is a blatant point of view statement on your part. Believe what you want, but please do not use MY talk page to make personal attacks, just because you disagree with something in an article. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Adhering to reliable sources, isn't MY point of view, but Wikipedia's. Your version was factually inaccurate. That's not a POV. Multiple reliable sources show the film's budget was $6 million dollars. Sorry, we don't take votes on facts. And had you changed the definition of "B-movie" instead of reverting to your factually inaccurate version, I wouldn't have reverted to a factually accurate one. --Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Hand

Since Ms. Hand is now working with the New Avengers in a supporting capacity, should she be noted in the group's Navbox? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I just added her name to the related articles. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the best bet for now. Someone added Victoria Hand to the List of New Avengers members article, but as I stated on the talk page of List of Avengers members, I think that Maria Hill, Victoria Hand and Sharon Carter will be in administrative roles for the Avengers, New Avengers and Secret Avengers respectively, and not be considered actual members. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fawn Liebowitz

The article Fawn Liebowitz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unremarkable fictional character. Band by the same name is not notable either.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Komodo

Hello. I need some help. About the suppression of my edits on Komodo. Previously, I have tried to create a page Komodo (comics) in the purpose to present the different characters who have this name in comics. For Komodo (comics), there are four characters on Wikipedia Komodo (Marvel Comics) and Komodo (Nocturnals) and Komodo (The Secret Saturdays) (from an animated serie then published by DC Comics) and King Komodo (from Ninja Turtles) and I can give some references of other characters (the deleted edits). I have in mind the page Seth (comics) which contains some references when there is no article on Wikipedia. I have follows the rule of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) and change the name of the page Komodo (comics) which was only about Komodo (Marvel Comics), it has been refused by User:J Greb. So I put the information on the page Komodo and you are not aggree. So my question is : where should I write these informations and references ? Thanks you in advance. --Crazy runner (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You just seem to be unclear about the proper Wikipedia format to present that information. Per the naming conventions on comics, there is no need to specify Komodo (Marvel Comics), because none of the other characters named Komodo have their own article. Komodo (Nocturnals) and Komodo (The Secret Saturdays) are both valid redirects, but both lead to a section of a article with a different title. And all of those links should definitely be included on the disambiguation page at Komodo, but per MOS:DAB, references should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles, instead you should incorporate the references into the target articles. I understand what you are trying to do, but not every character is notable enough to deserve their own article on Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you for the corrections, I begin to see some differences with the French. Some english dab pages have references and links, I thought it was allowed. I continue to think that a title as Komodo (comics) should present the Komodo in comics and not only one character. I want to give the information and help people to find them. Have a nice day.--Crazy runner (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Yesterday (1981 film)

A tag has been placed on Yesterday (1981 film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Request

I will try as best I can. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Punisher move...

Since this was quiried on the Project talk page I've taken a look at what went on.

Frankly, getting the page moved by posting an "Uncontroversial requests" -[7] - after your proposal on the article's talk page - Talk:Punisher#Move? - was closed as a "no consensus" doesn't look good. Since there were coments left cautiong against or opposing the move, it's hard to see it being "uncontroversial". In that regard the move has been reversed. At this point it may be prudent to wait a while before proposing the move again on the article's talk page, and definently avoid proposing it through "Uncontroversial requests" at WP:RM.

- J Greb (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I was not trying to be deceitful, or trick my was through the system. I honestly couldn't remember where I had proposed this move before, so I put it on the Requested Moves page, expecting it to be contested. But before any editors could give their reasons in support or opposition, someone considered it to be "uncontroversial" and made the move. I'm not sure if I will ever propose the move again, but thank you for clarifying why it was denied. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"List of Christmas hit singles" article marked for deletion

Wikipedia user TenPoundHammer has marked the article "List of Christmas hit singles" for deletion! Since I know you've greatly contributed to this article over the last few years, I'd love for you to add your thoughts to the discussion on this proposal. Perhaps changing the article name to "List of popular Christmas/holiday singles" or "List of popular Christmas/holiday songs" may be more appropriate based on the user's concerns.--Sliv812 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliv812 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I added my opinion on why I think the article should be kept, and I hope that you will do the same. Thanks for letting me know about the proposal! Fortdj33 (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Could you let me know how to probably edit the discussion so I can correctly add my feedback? Is it anything other than using standard wikipedia edit tools (font/style buttons, etc.)? Are there some special java tools, gadgets, etc. that I should be using for adding comments to talks/discussions on wikipedia? I typically only know how to edit articles. I noticed you put *Keep at the opening of your comment. Thank you.--Sliv812 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit of entry "Grown-Up Christmas List" in article "List of Christmas hit singles"

Hello Chad:

I modified this entry in the "List of Christmas hit singles" article yesterday after realizing that (at least up to 2004) Kelly Clarkson was the first artist to hit any of Billboard’s singles charts with a version of "Grown-Up Christmas List" (according to the book Christmas in the Charts (1920-2004) by Joel Whitburn [ISBN 0-892820-161-6]). When I first edited this entry in the article a couple of years ago, I believe it had Amy Grant listed in the artist column, and though her version was probably the first version that attained significant radio airplay around the country (aided by a music video that VH1 played), it still never hit any of Billboard’s singles chart. If my memory is correct, I was the one who changed the Artist column of this entry to "David Foster featuring Natalie Cole", because they were the artists who originally recorded the song. This brings up a question that needs to be resolved for the entire article. Should the Artist column of the article indicate the artist first known to record a song, or the artist (or artists) that have had chart hits with the song (in the event that it's not both)?

Also, since Kelly Clarkson's version of the song was actually titled "My Grown-Up Christmas List", should the entry include the word 'My' at the beginning of the title and in parentheses? The song has been titled both ways by different artists in the past (though I believe the word 'My' was not originally used with the 1990 recording by David Foster featuring Natalie Cole). This is why my last edit of the entry included the word 'My' in parentheses. --Sliv812 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I changed it back, is because my take on the article in general, is that the "Artist(s)/Year" column should be for the first artist to release the song as a single, regardless of how it charted. Anyone else who released the song, can be listed in the "Additional Information" column. There are other songs in the List of Christmas hit singles article, where other artists are better known for having recorded the song (such as "Auld Lang Syne" and "Jingle Bells"), but I think that the article is more accurate the way that it is. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

List of films considered the worst

Hi, first of all sorry for my english. I'm a user that edits your article, about the worst movies ever made and recenly I've re-added "The Garbage Pail Kids Movie" and "It's Pat" but there's a user that continues to change the page and add "Jaws 4", "Bratz the movie", two films starring Hulk Hogan and many others (including is favourite "Old Dogs"). Many times I've tries to bring back the page and delete the movies that aren't so bad, but him continues to add those. You can see here. Also he have deleted the movies that I've adden in this page. The user is MikeWazowski. What we can do?. Again sorry for my bad bad english. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts on that article, but I gave up on editing that list a while back, because it became filled with so many films that didn't meet the criteria. The other editors can't seem to understand that it's not based on personal opinion. You can refer to the criteria that was set up on the talk page if you'd like: Talk:List of films considered the worst/Archive 4#Criteria for the worst movies, but I wish you luck in trying to convince MikeWazowski and the other to come to a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help; now again take a look at the page of the edits--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, I removed the films from the "removed films" list because once they;re on the main page, they do not belong there. What I'm more concerned about is an editor who hasn't edited in six months suddenly edit-warring on this article, when there are obviously more than one other editor who feel his deletions on the main page are in error. The items I've restored are well-sourced as to how crappy/"worst" the films are. Also, this editor keeps adding a tag for television series, when the article is blatantly about FILMS. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can see he try to Block me, maybe MikeWazowski believe the the page belongs to him... --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

One could say the same of you - you've done practically *nothing* but edit-war to your preferred versopn since you started editing again - you apparently don't care that multiple editors are disagreeing with you. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

We will see if multiple editors disagree with me. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This particular article has been subject to personal opinion before, which is why some definitive criteria needed to be established. While every editor is entitled to their opinion, the place for expressing that is on the talk page of the article. Just because someone asked for my opinion on my personal talk page, does not make it OK for you to have an argument here. Edit summaries are also a poor place to make personal attacks. Please try to be civil in your discussions, and come to a consensus on the talk page, before entering into an edit war. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What's up with Chuck?

You tagged it for cleanup; I didn't see anything particularly wrong. Can you elaborate? Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone else cleaned up that page, more than an hour before you asked me about it. Please check the history, before asking me to justify a cleanup tag that has already been taken care of. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It appear the cleanup was actually done four hours after I asked, but it's possible I'm misreading the history. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I was just going off the timecode of your comment on my page (03:26, 12 January 2011) which appeared to be after the time shown for the edit on Chuck (02:10, January 12, 2011). Sorry for any misunderstanding. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the charming quirks of WP— comment signature dates are always generated in UTC, but if you set a time zone in your preferences, dates in logs will be displayed to you in reference to that time zone (apparently EST for you, if Elonka's edit appeared as 2:10). Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:ScrubbersDVD.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ScrubbersDVD.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Juliancolton (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:APO template deletions

Hey guys, a couple of templates used by WP:APO have been nominated for deletion. We could use your help to Oppose their deletion. If you agree the project needs them, as per WPAPO:HN then please vote Oppose here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Aboutgivenname

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 04:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Minor edits 2

Hi, Fortdj33. Adding templates[8] is not minor. Please see WP:MINOR. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambig Project

Well, your request seems to be a case of "be careful what you wish for."  :-) The report turned up over 6,000 talk pages with {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} that are attached to redirects. Not all of these necessarily need to be deleted; a quick look at a few of them suggests that there are many different situations, such as pages that were moved without also moving their talk pages. The list starts at User:RussBot/Talk pages of redirects to disambiguation pages/001 and continues on pages linked from there. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd welcome any suggestions you might have for making these reports more useful. It has occurred to me that it could be formatted as a table, with added columns for (a) the page that is the target of the mainspace title associated with the talk page, and (b) whether the page in (a) is a disambig page or not. Anything else that would help? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to create more work for anybody. It does appear that a lot of the links on the report, are from merges where the talk page was not merged as well. I was mainly concerned about a specific situation, where an incomplete disambiguation page such as Rhubarb (film), is redirected to a disambiguation page, yet the talk page still has the {{DisambigProject}} template on it. I cleaned up dozens of such pages before I realized that I had been leaving these links behind, and I just wondered if there was an easy way to find which ones still needed to be fixed...

As far as suggestions for the report, maybe it could be sorted by classification or by date, and also show a link to the talk page of the article that it was redirected to (e.g. Talk:ANZAC → Talk:Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, because ANZAC now redirects to Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). Thanks for getting back to me, and if there's a way to limit the report to just the redirects like Rhubarb above, please let me know and I will be happy to help fix them. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:GIJoe-stub

Whether the image is local here on this project at File:Joelogo.jpg or on Commons at File:Gijoethumbnail.jpg, it does not affect the copyright status of the image. I've tagged the image on Commons as a copyright violation, and removed it from the template here. We take copyright very seriously here. Please do NOT do this again. Further, I've been removing the image before this because we have a strict policy at WP:NFCC #9 forbidding the use of non-free images on templates. Please stop. If you have questions about this, copyright, or anything else feel free to ask. But, continuing to try to push copyrighted works onto the template is not the route to go here. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Cobra characters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Cobra characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cobra characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply.

I am a little late but thank you for the welcome. It's no surprise that you found me on a comic book related article (And definitely a Spider-Man related article at that). I am planning to be active with the WikiProject and related articles of that in the future. So I hope we get to hear more of each other. And even make G.I. Joe articles conveniant for Wikipedia. Happy editing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#GI Joe part 2 -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cancelled vs. Canceled

LOL - technically, they're both accepted variants. I guess the difference is that I was trained to use British English. I'll defer to you since this is about ARAH and not Action Force. Cheers. :) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know that the British spelling is OK, but it came up in my spell checker, so I changed it. BTW, I tried to help you out a little bit with the Spock article. Good luck with that, and let me know if there's anything more that I can do. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that. Thanks, dude! The deletionists are getting annoying around here. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering, what Wikipedia gadgets do you use to help with your editing? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many, but the ones that I've found to be the most useful, are AWB, HotCat and Twinkle. The latter two can be found on the Gadgets tab, under the link for your Preferences, and are good for quickly adding categories, or reverting someone's edits due to good faith or vandalism. Information about AWB can be found at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, where you can make a request to download the software. AWB is useful for tasks that are sometimes monotonous, such as fixing links or removing stubs, but it also has built-in tools for fixing general errors, such as spacing and uneven brackets. Just be careful that you don't use it for too many minor errors, because that tends to clog up the edit summaries, and can result in your AWB privileges being revoked. Hope that helps! Fortdj33 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Joe Special #1

Just wondering, other than the fact that MacFarlane did new art for it, what's so special about this issue (I know it was when Stalker etc. got trapped in Borovia)? What I mean is, is it really significant enough to merit inclusion in the article? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I deliberately removed a lot of the spin-off stuff like OoB and the Balboa figure, similiar reasons. OoB coukld make sense, but Balboa's a bit trivia-like. Thoguhts? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved the Rocky info back to the G.I. Joe (comics) article, but I think the OoB and Special information should remain, because it is specifically part of the Marvel Comics publication history. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Need some help whenever you're able. I dropped in a graphic to illustrate "Silent Interlude" (same pic as in the Larry Hama article), but now the blockquote in that section doesn't justify properly. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

G.I. Joe Template response

OK. There should at least be links on the template for those pages I had added. Outside of that, I wasn't even aware that some of the characters who appeared in any G.I. Joe media got redirected to one section until I clicked on specific links. I haven't seen a mass-merger for some of them since they compiled most of the Digimon pages one page while the rest were transferred to the Digimon Wikia. Rtkat3 (User talk: Rtkat3) 3:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OOU vs. IU

I saw your revert, and I'm actually tempted to revert it. Checked WP:MOS and IU would tend to use past tense, while OOU would use present tense. The reason being that if you talk about it in terms of past tense, that implies history which means it's IU. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, but I think that you've been tweaking the article so much the past few days, it might be hard for you to determine how much is too much. Walking away from it briefly, and coming back to examine it fresh, might help you determine what's really necessary in terms of OOU style. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - although if you look at the last revert, it also took out some of my edits that didn't necessarily have to do with IU/OOU - stuff like concision, grammar, and redundancy. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for simply reverting your edit, but I was about to go offline, and I wanted to make a point. Now that I've taken the time to look at the differences, I think I understand your intentions, and I reinstated some of the edits that you made. I don't profess to be an expert, but I hope you can see that changing it too much might backfire, and accidentally reduce the quality of the article. Sometimes it just helps to have a second pair of eyes look at it from a different perspective. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no harm. It looks pretty good now. I was just unsatisfied before with the diction ... a lot of repeating of the same words in the same sentence or in adjacent sentences (e.g. prominent and prominent, featured and featured .... it's a dictional nightmare ... personally I like to whip out the thesaurus and mix it up with other words like highlight, focus, etc. :) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Consolidating References

Did you use a gadget for that? I tried to install the code for the WP:REFLINKS tool, but it doesn't seem to have installed properly for me (i.e. it doesn't show up in my toolbox). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

AWB will sometimes catch duplicates uses of the same reference, but only if they each have the same ref name tag at the beginning. In the case of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics), I did it manually, because I noticed some duplicates when I ran it through AWB, and I wanted to be sure that I didn't miss any. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

GA reassessment for G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)

Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)

Fort, do you know any admins from whom we can get another opinion on the GAR? I know Raintheone's been doing some canvassing for admin support, and aside from Nikkimaria who commented on the GAR a couple of days ago, the most recent one he's found is SilkTork, see discussion here, and he's already targeting some "weasely" wording in the article. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, BOZ is an admin, and he seems to understand where we're coming from, because he has seen how disruptive Raintheone can be. I've left messages for a couple administrators, who are known to work on comic book articles, but I'm sure they're both pretty busy, so I don't know if they will respond or not. I have to agree with Nikkimaria on one point though, this bickering with Raintheone about why he proposed the GAR, is not doing us any good. I'm guilty of it myself, but the damage is done, so I think we should just focus on how we think the article meets the criteria, and hope for the best. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Aye, well the bickering has moved onto Nikkimaria's talk page now :P Also, I've emailed you a couple of times - dunno if you've seen those or not - as Raintheone's been monitoring my in-Wikipedia communications. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Avengers members

Just wondering why Maria Hill and Victoria Hand were removed. Was there a new development?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They really shouldn't have been there in the first place. I know that I was one of the people who complained about their addition, when the "Heroic Age" titles first started, but their inclusion appears to be simply because of their appearances in Avengers #1 and New Avengers #1 respectively. And after editing other character lists recently, I realize that is at best WP:OR. All the characters currently listed, can be verified as members of the Avengers by outside sources, which should have been the criteria for inclusion all along. I apologize for not clarifying this ahead of time, but if you feel differently, please let me know and we can open up a discussion again on the talk page of the article. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikia

Just a heads up, Wikia wikis (or wikis in general) can't be used in referencing articles. Feel free to source directly to whatever the wiki's article is about or to a source they use, though. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking Raintheone to AN/I

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of Raintheone towards the G.I. Joe WikiProject articles -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Per discussion with Admins, this has been taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raintheone instead. Note that all RfC/U require two involved editors signing-off to be certified (I am one of them) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I signed off on it myself. Hopefully some other editors will endorse the summary that you've prepared, and we can get on with improving the G.I. Joe articles on Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for co-certifying the RfC/U. Feel free to add to summary if I've missed anything. I'd actually had more in the original AN/I submission, but not all of it was relevant to the desired outcomes as stated in the RfC/U -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Would like your input on this, specifically point #4: [9] -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cerebellum

Any idea where he's disappeared to? He's been MIA for almost a month now. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not uncommon with Wikipedia editors, considering different levels of interest and RL obligations. Not everyone has time to edit Wikipedia on a daily basis, so I'm sure that he will return when he is able. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise that, but he just seems to have completely fallen off the radar. I hope everything is OK with him in RL. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk)

G.I. Joe character merging

I was wondering why you have merged some of the important character of G.I. Joe like Copperhead into one character section. He has had more than one media appearances. As for any plans on bios for the Manimals, all I know is that they are also aliens like the ones associated with the Lunartix Empire. I'm beginning to think that Cobra Command had enlisted alien allies during that point. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Copperhead is an important Cobra character, and if you look at the history of the Copperhead (G.I. Joe) article, I actually tried to expand his article quite a bit. Unfortunately, when the editors of WikiProject G.I. Joe decided to merge some of the smaller articles, it was apparent that Copperhead didn't have enough information to sustain his own article. If you want to expand on his media appearances, and provide the proper references, hopefully his article can be reinstated. As far as the Manimals, I'm not really familiar with them, but I don't think there's enough info there to warrant a separate article for them. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comics characters images

Thanks for getting some images up there!  :) I have a list I have used in the past, even though it is fairly outdated now: User:BOZ/Images. Feel free to edit the list for anything you add an image to.  :) BOZ (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Since I am limited to what I can do with G.I. Joe articles while I am at work, I decided to look into improving articles related to some of my other interests, such as the Avengers and Transformers. I removed the articles that I added images to from your list. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

G.I. Joe articles-related

The articles being redirected to one page is considered a mass-merger even for some important characters. I just don't think this mass-merger is a good idea. Perhaps we should've left brief info for some of them on those page even if someone surprises me with a redirect of some of the other major characters. Rtkat3 (talk 3:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but the character articles were merged, because of a consensus on the WikiProject G.I. Joe talk page. Most of the characters in G.I. Joe are not notable enough to warrant their own articles. However, the links should remain, in order to direct people to the information that has been merged into the alphabetical lists. If you feel that a merged character deserves their own article, feel free to bring it up on the project talk page, but please do not delete the redirects for character articles as they still serve a important purpose. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Outside of that, we should think of someway to warrant their articles in the event that some of those characters make appearances in G.I. Joe: Renegades or any other G.I. Joe-related projects. As for any character that would be merged with their associated group (like Cobra-La or Iron Grenadiers), we should at least have a full bio for them there until then. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I see what you're saying, but just because a character appears in G.I. Joe: Renegades, does not make them notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. Again, please see the WikiProject G.I. Joe talk page for more information. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Animation

Hi, Fortdj33, welcome to WikiProject Animation! We are a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to animation. Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve animation-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, all of which you are welcome to take part in. The project has a guidelines which tries to help editors improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles within the scope of Animation related articles. For Wikipedia guidelines regarding how to write about fiction in general, see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! - JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 16:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:G.I. Joe twins

Hello I noticed you reverted the addition of this to pages because the characters were also listed in the parent category. Is it a policy that we can't do both? I mean I think it makes sense to list them on a page of all characters, but also to distinguish unique things like them being twins. I did not delete the parent categories because I was not sure if the child category was survive since I just made it for the 2 sets of twins in the Joe-universe. Would it be possible to restore it? AweCo (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Norman Hetherington assessment

Hi, I was wondering if you could take care of the assessment for this entry and then mark it completed on the Comics Assessment page? Thanks. Homoaffectional (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles at WP:FLC

You have several outstanding comments at FLC. Please indicate if you're prepared to deal with them! Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Resolute

I appreciate the "cleaning up" of my atrocious grammer, you see I noticed the error very late at night and in such a state my grammer was worse then usual. Anyway, thanks all the same! HAAKO8 (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it wasn't specifically your grammar that I was correcting. I'm no expert on English grammar, but the whole section was poorly written, IMO. Happy to do what I can, to cleanup the G.I. Joe articles on Wikipedia! Fortdj33 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Optimusprimealtmoviemode.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Optimusprimealtmoviemode.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 18:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Children's Museum backstage pass

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

G.I. Joe

• The G.I. Joe character pages are about the canon G.I. Joe world, the Marvel/IDW comic books characters right? And the main picture of that character should be an image from that continuity. I mean the sections on there pages make that pretty clear. Well if this is correct, could you inform user Xybernauts of this?[10][11] 99.89.242.216 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Startling Stories

Hi - just noticed you added a Wikiproject Comics tag to some Startling Stories covers, e.g. File:Startling Stories 1946 Winter cover.jpg. These are not actually comics -- they contain fiction in written form, and no comic art at all. Any objects if I remove the tags? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the tags, or change them to something else that is more appropriate. I added them to the WikiProject automatically, because those images already had the {{Non-free comic}} tag on them. You might also want to remove the Comic book covers category that I added to them as well. Sorry for any confusion. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter

The September 2011 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. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere to Hide

I filled out the plot summary of that movie since I have it and that I'm very much familiar with the movie. What do you think of it? BattleshipMan (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I cleaned up some of the grammar and spelling mistakes, but it's a nice upgrade to the article! Fortdj33 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. I wrote the plot summary of that movie as accurately as possible since I have that movie and that is it rarely seen and reviewed online. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 11:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

Why all the stubs? "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which — though providing some useful information — is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject..." Almost all of those comic strip articles have more than a few sentences. Most have several paragraphs! Pepso2 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the {{WikiProject Comics}} criteria, a stub is "a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article". I have been running different categories of comics articles through this tool, in order to find articles that meet this criteria, according to their size in relation to other comics articles. The reason I am adding stub tags to those articles, is so they have a better chance of being expanded, per WP:STUB. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand. But what about "few sentences"? Pepso2 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all relative, but you have to look at the bigger picture. I'm no expert, but I've assessed thousands of articles according to Wikipedia 1.0, and if a subject is notable enough to warrant its own article, there should be more than "several paragraphs" written about it. Articles like that should either be expanded, or merged into existing articles. A stub template is an explicit request for expansion, and can be removed once more information is added, but just arbitrarily removing them is detrimental to WikiPedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's take Abbie an' Slats. What do you think of this article? What would you add? Btw, I want to mention that Don Markstein suffered a stroke in February, and now his Toonopedia has disappeared. This was one of the two or three most important sources for in-depth coverage of vintage comic strips on the Internet, so a highly valuable resource for Wikipedia research is now gone. Pepso2 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have begun to add citations to Abbie an' Slats. This was one of the first strips I worked on six years ago, so there was much I learned about later. In all that time, I never checked to discover that the creator's name is Raeburn Van Buren, not Raeburn van Buren. It was put there by the first person who posted, and thus I assumed it was correct and slavishly repeated the lower-case "v". Never assume! Pepso2 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Beelzebub Jones was a stub three years ago, so I set out to change that and succeeded. Now it's a stub again. In some cases, all available sources have been tapped dry, meaning certain articles cannot be expanded. Pepso2 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Non-fiction comics, what would you suggest adding? It covers comic strips, comic books and trade paperbacks. It has a good visual example, references, see also and an external link. I'm not sure what direction you would prefer. Pepso2 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Toonopedia just came back! This means I can check many of these references. Pepso2 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubs on parade

Re the beautifully drawn Napoleon and Uncle Elby: WP defines a stub as a "few sentences". This page is packed with information in more than a dozen sentences, plus bonus features. It has creator, real-life model, other artists, origin of characters, syndicates, sample illustration, bibliography, dates of transitions, references, merchandising, external links and films. Much research went into the writing of this entry. Thus, a reader is fully informed, and if the reader clicks to learn about the strip's creator, even more encyclopedic delights await. Pepso2 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to get a handle on this and understand this situation. What do you mean by "their size in relation to other comics articles"? I was unaware of this during the six years I have been writing detailed articles about comic strips for Wikipedia. Do you mean the more than 500 people writing lengthy articles about comic books and superheroes somehow casts a shadow over the four or five people committed to researching vintage comic strips? If this is case, could you explain please? I never knew this about "size" and just don't grasp this. Pepso2 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I am simply trying to help clean up some of the stub articles that fall under {{WikiProject Comics}}, which defines a stub as "either a very short article, or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article." But please do not take this personally. I respect the work that you and other editors have put into the comprehensive coverage of comic strips on Wikipedia, and by no means do I think that the lengthy articles about comic books and superheroes, are any more important to the project than the articles about comic strips and creators.

There are almost 40,000 pages on Wikipedia relating to comic books, strips, creators, characters, etc. I am only marking a fraction of these articles as stubs, because of their size per WP:STUB. And while I understand that it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length, the tool that I'm using defines a stub as anything 4,000 bytes or less. Plus, the Croughton-London rule of stubs excludes "images, infoboxes, navigation templates, lists of examples, external links, and any of the other items which may be found on an article", all of which are basically there for the purpose of supporting the actual text of the article.

Therefore, what may seem to be a long article, may in fact be a one or two paragraph stub with "peripheral add-ons". However, please do not automatically view Stub-class as being a bad thing. Some of these articles have been part of the project for years with no classification, or been worked on by experts with very little content being added. Classifying them as stubs puts them into additional categories on Wikipedia, which increases their exposure to other areas of the WikiProject, and improves their chances of being expanded. By blindly disagreeing that these articles are stubs, you are essentially saying that nothing more can be written about them. And given their size in relation to the other thousands of comic articles, that will cause other editors to question whether they are notable enough to warrant separate articles for each subject, per WP:NOTABILITY. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There are too many points here for me to respond to at the moment. But in doing six years of research through books, sites, Newspaper Archives and Google News Archive, I have found some valuable information in some cases and in other cases, very little. Also since some of these newspaper stories about cartoonists were promotional, certain facts are questionable. Only a few times did I find someone on Wikipedia going to these same newspaper sources. After spending days researching and expanding an article such as Carl E. Schultze I am often left with a feeling that the article can no longer be expanded further. Often I have hoped someone would appear to expand further, but usually the only additions from others are correcting typos or adding wikilinks. This has left me feeling that I am virtually alone in doing this research. On the plus side, I feel like I have written the equivalent of a book on comic strips, giving Wikipedia more than a few pages with details that cannot be found in articles elsewhere about these cartoonists. Unlike films, radio and comic books, there are only about a half dozen sites and blogs offering extensive coverage of vintage comic strips, making Wikipedia a leading online encyclopedic source for information on this subject. Pepso2 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand. I am also a member of {{WikiProject G.I. Joe}}, and a few months ago, some editors questioned the number of articles on Wikipedia about G.I. Joe characters. I was instrumental in helping to make sure all the articles in the project were classified correctly, but then a lot of the G.I. Joe stubs ended up being merged into several list-class articles. If you are looking for a way to get more involved with the comic strips articles, or to find other editors with similar interests, you might consider adding your name to the participants list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comic strips work group. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How much more do I have to add to Zeke Zekley in order to remove the stub tag? Pepso2 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Son of stubs

Re How to Read Nancy, what would you add? Have you read the essay? Pepso2 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate that you have put a lot of effort into many of the comic strip articles that I have added stub tags to. But please understand, that does not make me an expert on how to improve comic strips articles. I am adding tags to these articles, because of their size in relation to ALL of the articles that fall under the {{WikiProject Comics}} banner. With all due respect, please don't expect me to justify every edit I make that you have a question about... Fortdj33 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Cap Stubbs and Tippie, references have been added. This is a stub of a Stubbs. Pepso2 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Chip Sansom: This is what I regarded as a stub during the six years I have been writing about comic strips. Little info is conveyed. It consists of only a "few sentences" as per the WP directive regarding stubs. Pepso2 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Howard Huge: Over a six-year period, more than two dozen people wrote what is really a definitive article about a very popular cartoon series, Howard Huge. It includes publication source, website, span of years in Parade, quote from an article, description of the dog, origin of the character, real-life model, sample illustration, book collections and references. What more do you feel should be added? Possibly something could be added, but it's questionable if it should. If this is what two dozen people came up with over six years, then anything added now moves into an area of unencyclopedic trivia. Pepso2 (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that the article on Howard Huge is comprehensive, if the current article is all that two dozen people could come up with over six years, then it probably isn't notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. That's exactly why I am adding stub tags to those short articles, so that articles that have been stubs for a long time can either be expanded, or merged into another more appropriate article. I'm sure many would argue the notability of that article and many of the other stubs written about comic strips, but please don't ask me what I would add for every article that I tag. If I were that familiar with the subject matter, I would simply add any information I have, instead of tagging it for someone else more knowledgeable. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Since Howard Huge ran in Parade, it had 80 million readers. I suspect many of them land on Wikipedia looking for more information about the cartoon. Pepso2 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you believe there should be an orphaned tag?

[12] As I said over a week ago when I reverted you the first time, "It has a link to it. There is no need for the tag since there is no real chance anything else will ever exist to link to this." Do you believe having the tag there will cause other links to be made somewhere that will link to it? "This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available." Are there any related articles that would ever link to it for any reason? Dream Focus 16:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Orphan, "Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable to readers." The reason the orphan tag was re-added by AWB, is because the article only has ONE incoming link. If, as you state, "there is no real chance anything else will ever exist to link to this", then the subject is probably not notable to have its own article in the first place, and the information should be merged into an existing article instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added more for a total of 24 links. Snappy Sammy Smoot is an important figure in the underground comics movement, and I'll add more body copy when I have time. Pepso2 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Fortdj33/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 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. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

B-Class checklist for WikiProject Animation

Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist will be added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Franco-Belgian comic stub

Any reason that you are removing the much-used Template:FrancoBelgian comics stub from a lot of articles, like here and here? Franco-Belgian comics are a separate, well-known type. What you are doing is a bit like replacing a manga-stub with an Asian-comics-stub. Has there been any discussion about this? If so, why can't I find any trace of it on the stub template talk page? Fram (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair example, since I am updating stub tags with ones that are MORE specific, not less. The examples that you give, are for articles about comics creators, and should therefore have stub tags "relating to European creators of comics", instead of simply "relating to Franco-Belgian comics". So, I'm not removing anything, I'm just doing my part to better organize and categorize stubs, for articles that fall under WikiProject Comics. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

They are more specific for the job of the person, but less for the field, the region he or she is working in. European comics includes much more than just the Franco-Belgian ones, it also includes things like fumetti, or Adamson and Moomin (or their creators), and even all British comics authors. Perhaps a specific FrancoBelgian comics author stub is what we need, instead of the current duplication between FB comics and European comics authors? Fram (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I could see how a new, more-specific stub tag could be beneficial. But in the meantime, I will not modify the FrancoBelgian-comics-stub, as long as it acceptable to ADD the Europe-comics-creator-stub. That may be redundant, but it will place the articles into more than one category, making it it easier for me to double check that those articles are part of the Creators work group AND the European work group. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Befuddlement regarding article importance

I generally don't get involved in the classification of articles and project associations and ratings and all that, so it's well outside of my expertise, but I have to admit a bit of befuddlement in some of your calls - Charlie Brown's Super Book of Questions and Answers, a relatively-obscure illustrated prose tie-in series to, admittedly, a highly important comic strip, gets rated as of mid-level importance as a comics project... while The Complete Peanuts, a 25-volume complete collection of the strip itself, including many, many strips that have not been available in the hundreds of previous English-language Peanuts collections is of low-level importance as a comics project. Are these ratings which should be reconsidered, or is there some obvious generation of import with which I in my admitted ignorance am unfamiliar? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert on classifying and assessing articles either, but I have updated the talk pages for my fair share of comics articles. However, if you look at the history for the talk pages of the articles that you mention, you'll see that all I did on the Super Book of Questions and Answers was to classify it as a stub, and add it to the Comic strips work group. The "Mid level" assessment was done by another editor before me, and since I am not familiar with the subject of the article, I left it alone. On the other hand, The Complete Peanuts was assessed by me from scratch, and even though it is Start-class, I assessed it at "Low-level", because it has sat for almost a year unassessed. Again, it's all completely arbitrary, but you are welcome to update the talk page for any article that you feel has been incorrectly assessed. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My apology for misreading the history; its obviously quite different that you were inconsistant with someone else. I am now at least less befuddled. Thank you! --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

With Peanuts tops and The Complete Peanuts low, it's a curious contradiction. Pepso2 (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever "destructive editing"?? excuse me? (aka wtf)

And could you please keep reverting this dude that is always breaking the paragraphs at random, usually on the very same day that I fix it? (I think it's a troll, he also does a similar thing with List of Street Fighter characters too.) I'll work at rewriting the rest of the article later (less details/trivia, better flow, hopefully a more readable size). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is, that your edits have been reverted several times by more than one editor, but instead of trying to come to a consensus on the talk page, you continue to just change things back to your POV. This edit warring is not constructive to Wikipedia, and disrupts progress towards improving the article. Furthermore, edit summaries such as: "this is how it should be written on Wikipedia", border on WP:OWN, and when you state "if you have some reading attention problems maybe Simple English Wikipedia would be more for you", that is a personal attack, and goes against WP:CIVIL. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first couple times that I reverted your edits on Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe), but the fact that the disruption was in good faith, does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's THE SAME ONE EDITOR, using various IPs (changed repeatedly). He/she is also reverting some of other articles whenever I make a change, such as List of Street Fighter characters, Sonya Blade, Ada Wong, and most recently Gordon Freeman (check out "their" edits if you don't believe me). Basically, it's some kind of obsessive stalking of me by someone for the reasons that are completely unknown to me, and these reverts make no slightest sense (and so they are usually being reverted-back by the others), other than just trolling probably, and I don't know how long would it continue. (I even thought it might be some kind of a bot, but no, it's jut a maniac.)

Oh, and just whatever wrong is with all characters being displayed in Template:G.I. Joe (instead of lacking several such as Jinx, for no apparent reason), and sorted in alphabetical order for a change? Come on. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For doing a great job of getting rid of unrated WP:COMICS articles. I've been trying to catch you to award you this for about a fortnight! Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 16:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hazel

Technically, Hazel is a single panel cartoon series, not a comic strip. Pepso2 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but per WP:NCC the disambiguation "(comic)" should not be used in favor of "(comics)", or the more specific "(comic strip)". And all the other links in the {{King Features Syndicate Comics}} template use "comic strip" as a disambiguation... Fortdj33 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I read WP:NCC just now. Does that mean a graphic novel is disambiged as a "comic book"? Pepso2 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the title, an article about a graphic novel would probably just contain the title of the graphic novel. The disambiguation "(comics)" would be added first if needed, and then in a case where there is already an article with that title, the disambiguation "(graphic novel)" would be added. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I gather Hazel is unique because of the common name. The other syndicated gag panel series have such unusual titles that they do not require any parenthetical qualifying label. I think it should be Hazel (cartoon). The word "strip" is just misleading. With certain obscure gag panels, I myself have been fooled into believing they were strips, whether the source used or did not use the term "strip". Pepso2 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

National Lampoon template etc

Hello FortdJ33, If I am not mistaken you have done a few edits on the template National Lampoon and one on the article National Lampoon's Vacation (film series). Is this an area you have some interest in? I ask because I would like to discuss with you (or with someone else who is interested) what to do about these two subjects. The template has some serious problems and was put together by a sock puppet of someone who was blocked indefinitely a month after he started editing. I have a strong suspicion that there was a COI going on in the creation of the template and also the article on the films. In any case I feel that the template needs either a major re-working or failing that, a deletion. Thanks in advance for any input you might be able to give, Invertzoo (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I created the List of National Lampoon films article, but I'm not sure what you mean by "a major re-working", or what you think would be accomplished by deleting the template. The template currently contains every National Lampoon film on that list that has an article, and I don't see any problem with that. I'm open to suggestions for any improvements, but they would be better suited to the template talk page, or the talk pages of any of the articles that the template includes. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me explain. I will also copy all of this to the talk page for the template. I strongly suspect that the template was created by someone working for hire for the modern company that has the name National Lampoon, Incorporated and dates from 2002. (The person who created the template was blocked 4 weeks after joining WP and had multiple sock puppet accounts.) The modern company has nothing whatsoever to do with the old National Lampoon, except they bought the rights to use the name. The heading for the template links only to the modern company, which was created in 2002 and has nothing whatsoever to do with Animal House, was the only film that was directly spun off of National Lampoon magazine using writers and even several actors such as Belushi who had worked on the magazine and the National Lampoon Radio Hour. The template as it currently stands thus conflates the superb original work with the less than mediocre straight-to-video crap films that were created by the modern company.

If the template is supposed to be about the modern company, then it should not include any work older than 2002, but... the modern company is not notable enough to need a template anyway. If the template is supposed to be about the original National Lampoon, then the recent dreck needs to be removed. If the template is supposed to contain everything that is "National Lampoon" then why is it only about films, TV films and videos? How come no books or albums? Because... the template was written for the modern company and essentially by the modern company. In other words it is cleverly disguised spam.

I am fortunate enough to know personally about a dozen of the surviving National Lampoon staff because my husband was one of them and worked with Belushi and Chase, Doug Kenny and so on. When the National Lampoon started falling on hard times they started renting out the name to anyone who could afford it, and later on the name was sold outright several times, finally ending up as the property of the modern company.

I had a run-in with a COI editor a couple years ago who had tacked everything about the recent company onto the Nat Lamp article. I split the new stuff off into the current article on the modern company. The editor mysteriously disappeared when I asked him directly about COI. Obviously the company is still trying to find ways to combine their stuff with the far superior older Lampoon stuff and this template is one of the results of those efforts. Invertzoo (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Continued on Template talk:National Lampoon. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Class ratings

I don't want to get into a dispute with anyone over something like class ratings, but I would like to understand what warranted "start" class ratings for Chester Brown's Gospel adaptations‎ and Chester Brown's autobiographical comics‎ so I can do what's needed to fix them. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything needs to be "fixed". The class system on Wikipedia is completely arbitrary, but I rated both of those articles at "start" class, simply because of their size in relation to the thousands of other articles in {{WikiProject Comics}}. At second glance, they are very close to being C-class articles, but you can see the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment#Quality scale for more information. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Video games and visual novels tagged with WP:ANIME

Hi, Fortdj33. Thanks for your help for adding project banners to article talk pages. I have noticed that you have been tagging some video games and visual novel articles with the WP:ANIME banner. I took a look at the articles, and I just wanted to point out that while some of them indeed do fall under the project's scope because they have received either an anime or manga adaptation, several others do not because of the contrary. Thank you! -- クラウド６６８ 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of cleaning up and properly classifying stubs, I apologize if I've classified any articles incorrectly. I added the Anime and manga project banner to those articles, because Category:Visual novel stubs‎ is a sub-category of Category:Anime and manga stubs. Since other editors may have more knowledge about the subject matter than I do, please feel free to remove the banner from any articles that I've incorrectly added it to. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Came here to comment on the same issue. Noticed a couple dozen visual novels pop on my watchlist with your banner additions, and every one that I've checked has been added to the Anime and Manga Wikiproject erroneously. To quote "we topics we cover" from WP:ANIME: "Visual novels related to anime or manga are under a shared scope with the Visual novels task force", meaning visual novels in general (i.e. those without a manga or anime adaptation) are not. I respectfully request that you undo your edits, since any correctly tagged articles were the exception rather than the norm from this good faith edit wave.--Remurmur (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for my mistake. However, since some of them do fall under the project's scope, as pointed out above, I am reluctant to remove the project banner from any articles that I've already added it to, because I do not know which articles should be included and which ones shouldn't. Thank you for bringing this to my attention though, and I will plan on excluding the visual novels from the remainder of any anime and manga stubs that need to be added to the project. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I refined my search for the remainder of Category:Anime and manga stubs, to exclude anything that I wasn't sure about. I also went through Category:Visual novel stubs‎, and removed the Anime banner from any article that clearly didn't need it. If there was any doubt, I left it alone. Hope that I have sufficiently corrected my mistake, and I am better informed for the future. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Fortdj33. I just wanted to let you know that after a discussion at WT:ANIME, the WikiProject decided to adopt WP:VN as a joint task force with WP:VG, and all visual novels (maybe with some exceptions, but I'm not sure about that) now fall under WP:ANIME's scope. Sorry for having you to add the banner to the articles' talk page, remove it, and only to have them fall under that scope again. Here's a cookie for your troubles. Thanks!

Cloud668 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

-- クラウド６６８ 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

National Lampoon template talk page

Hi Fordj33, I would like to talk to you on the NatLamp template talk page about your last edit to the template. Invertzoo (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for reposes to my messages on the template talk page. Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tribute websites

I thought fan tribute websites were not allowed at wikipedia[13]99.174.181.182 (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A new question

Hello Fort, On the template talkpage I need your opinion about how to decide whether to ask for deletion on what appear to be non-notable stubs from the 2002 company. Invertzoo (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you get a chance, please let me know what you think about this. Invertzoo (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Fort, I need to know about this deletion question. Invertzoo (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I also need to know if the template is already too long. There are more items to add. Invertzoo (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

While I am happy to help with formatting and expanding the information in the {{National Lampoon}} template, please do not use my talk page to "summon" me, just because you are impatiently waiting for an answer on a different talk page. I understand your anxiousness to expand the template, but I do have other interests that I am working on at the moment. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I regret that it seemed to you that I was "summoning" you, but I needed a quick answer to a few questions. If you did not or do not have the time to help me with all this, that is perfectly OK, but you need to drop me a line and explain that that is the case. Yes, you are right that I am anxious to try to get this stuff into reasonably good shape (so that I can leave it be), because the main work I do on Wikipedia is in a completely different area: I am normally very busy in a science subject, at WikiProject Gastropods. I do want to thank you for the improvements you have made to quite a number of the new stubs.

With the template, basically all I need is an answer to one or two questions every few days before I continue with the work. You have encouraged me to keep improving it, but your input is needed because I don't want to be accused of POV editing. If you consider I can be trusted to continue to edit this template without your input, fine, but again please let me know. If you don't want to keep an eye on this but feel that someone should do so, perhaps you can suggest another person. Thanks for you help, Invertzoo (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons articles

Fair enough, I wasn't sure. I have seen the good work you were doing and wanted to help make sure nothing was missed. Although you did remove the template from all of them, so would it be OK for me to restore it for all of the legimiate unique characters in D&D? I may just restore them later today, but I wanted to let you know first. I'll leave it off all the monster and character class types; there is some disagreement over whether archetypes are fictional characters or just classifications thereof. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert, but I understand that there are some D&D characters that should be included. It was just easier for me to plug all the unassessed articles into AWB and remove the template that way, but feel free to restore it to any article that is a "legitimate unique character" in D&D. Thanks for getting back to me, and I appreciate your help! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as the remaining character articles with the (Dungeons & Dragons) disambiguator go, those are also unique fictional characters. The reason for the disambiugation is that the name is in use for something else, most commonly a being from mythology for which the D&D character is named. You can check each of those articles if you're not sure. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand why those articles have disambiguation, I'm just pacing myself, because I have several projects that I'm working on at the moment. And I always check every article that I update the classification of, to see how large the article is, and whether the current classification matches up or not. Of course, it's all completely arbitrary, but IMO even with leaving out the generic D&D monster and character classes, it still seems like you're adding a lot of minor D&D articles to the project unnecessarily. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (November 2011)

Hey, Fortdj! Long time no see :) I can't promise that I'll get as deeply involved with G.I. Joe stuff as I used to be, but I definitely want to get the article back to GA, at least. I have posted some thoughts about how we can improve the article over at Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)#Recent edits, and I would love it if you could let me know what you think. You seem like you are here for the long haul, whereas I tend to come and go, so I really value your perspective as someone who is dedicated to making the encyclopedia better and is willing to put in the hours day after day to make it happen. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, it's true that I spend a fair amount of time on Wikipedia daily. My recent focus has been on Marvel Comics and fictional characters in general, but I'm happy to help out if I can. I still have a checklist of which remaining G.I. Joe articles still need references added, from when we merged a lot of the secondary characters months ago, and hopefully we can work together to improve some of those articles, before the G.I. Joe sequel comes out next year. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Subheading

I am a well-established and trusted editor like yourself. I know you are busy, but please do not revert significant changes of mine (even if you don't understand them) without leaving me a note beforehand asking me to explain the change or justify it first. This is the third time you have treated me in a rude and off-hand manner, and then afterwards you say you hope I was not offended. After three of these incidents, yes I am offended. The Wikipedia civility guidelines say, "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect."

Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, any edits I made were in good faith, and certainly were not directed at you personally. However, for you to continually leave messages on my talk page, expecting me to explain myself to you, that is not very considerate or respectful. And asking me to personally contact you first, before making edits on articles that you are following, is bordering on you claiming ownership. I am happy to explain my edits, but only if you are able to remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you were never at fault, how come you would ask me on 2 separate occasions if I was offended? Doesn't that imply something? I am not sure we can continue to work together, because our personal styles of communication are so very different. You feel I am rude to you, and I feel you are rude to me. I am sorry to say I think we will have to give up on this attempt at collaboration, the first time I have ever had to do that in over 4 years working on Wikipedia. Best wishes to you and thanks for the help you were able to give me. Invertzoo (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said that I wasn't at fault, only that it wasn't my intention to offend you. But even if our styles of communication are different, your comments clearly show that you are taking it personally, just because we don't agree on how to edit Wikipedia. Again, I'm sorry if you feel that we are unable to collaborate, but my goal will always be to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible, and follow the policies and guidelines that have been set up for that purpose. Fortdj33 (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 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. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yo

I asked you here, I asked you in the article, got no actual reply, so maybe stop threatening me now for no reason. What's wrong with you? --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am hardly threatening you, just trying to make you realize why your POV edits are constantly reverted. And it is not my intention for this to be personal, but you have shown no desire to come to a consensus with the registered editors that have worked on specific G.I. Joe articles, namely Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe), which falls under the scope of WikiProject G.I. Joe. I am happy to discuss the improvement of these articles with you, but not if you cannot remain civil. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Badger with a Rickshaw 2011 Wildwood page 173 by Carson Ellis.jpg

File:Badger with a Rickshaw 2011 Wildwood page 173 by Carson Ellis.jpg isn't actually from a comic book. It's from an illustrated children's novel, Wildwood (novel). It's just that the comics license was the closest one I could fine to a case where you're using a picture from inside an illustrated book, rather than the cover. I'll fix it if I can find a fair use license text that fits better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the removal of Pan's Labyrinth from the list of films considered the best?

Hello, how are you? I was looking through the list of films considered the best and I realized that Pan's Labyrinth had been removed from under the "Mexico" sub-section of the article. I remember seeing that movie in the list like, ages ago, since it's the highest rated Mexican movie on imdb. Considering that a lot of countries have multiple movies on their respective list and that many times the "highest rated movie on imdb" is used as a criteria, I wanted to ask you, why did you remove "Pan's Labyrinth"? I think it should be added back because of what I mentioned, but I would like to know the reason as to why you removed it. Thanks! Cancerbero 8 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're asking me about an edit I made almost a year and a half ago! If you look through the archives of the talk page for that article, you'll see the criteria that I used for removing Pan's Labyrinth from the list. I haven't followed that article for a while, but I still believe that the list should only include movies at the top of audience or critical polls, separated by genre or country. Adding movies based on their rating at Rotten Tomatoes or IMdB just dilutes the list, even if it is "the highest rated Mexican movie". There are other articles for those sources anyway, so if the list is limited to information about films that have been voted #1 in a list of the greatest movies, there should be no problem providing references to back them up. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4