Jump to content

User talk:Nehrams2020/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Sweeps

[edit]

I very much like the change you've made to allow reviewers to choose specific articles instead of categories. It may even reinvigorate me in my futile attempt to catch up with your staggering total of reviews. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psst, he reviewed over 200 articles. Give him the award. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re GA Sweeps invitation

[edit]

Thanks very much for the invitation. Is it alright if I participate but don't do too many reviews, like say, two or three? Cirt (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will look into it... Cirt (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood

[edit]

Hi. I recently bought two books on Clint Eastwood, one of them is here. It cost me only a few cents!! They are excellent books both like 600 odd pages! Using both books it should be possible to get the article up to FA but the article needs to be 3 times more detailed than it is at the moment as vital details are missing. The tricky part will be condensing it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the worrying thing is that it is already 60kb and in terms of how comprehensive it is it is really poor. There is also a massive amount of stuff on his political life etc. Potentially its likely to spew out into sister articles like Film career of Clint Eastwood and things like that. But I'll work on it gradually, its gonna be tough condensing and extracting the main points from the books but it is a core article on film and actors and one which I know gets a huge number of page views. Hey did you see the 1905 Dutch film I started on the front page at the moment. Cool title? Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAs

[edit]

Just a small suggestion,

I think editors will be a bit more active, if their is a proposal for a small sign at the top of the respective article, citing that it is a GA. A similiar format to the FA system. Universal Hero (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Butting in here). That's been suggested many times, but it's not going to happen any time soon. What you can do instead though is to activate the assessment of article quality from mypreferences/User interface gadgets. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we finished the sweeps, then it's very likely that GA will finally see its sign on the top, because all the articles have received a guarantee that they're up to shape up to a certain date, something that FA didn't do. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a tease you are Ohana. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GA sweeps

[edit]

Sure, I'll join. I might be able to review one or two per day. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I'm happy to join up. I'm not going to be doing all that much on wikipedia between now and the end of May 2009, but I will make a start early in June 2009.Pyrotec (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another GA Sweeps question

[edit]

Thank you for your invite to do GA Sweeps, I've considered joining in the past but have not because one of the requirements is that the reviewers be "experienced" and "established". I've been around WP for a while but only have begun consistently contributing about 6 months ago. I'd love to help out though and have done over 40 GA reviews. I'm just not sure what constitutes an experienced and established editor. H1nkles (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forty GA reviews certainly does it for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sounds good, I'll sign up. I feel that the GA process is the best program established for improving articles in Wikipedia. I'm a strong proponent of GA and I'm committed to helping where I can. I'm in. H1nkles (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your encouragement. To sign up do I just add my name to the tracking list? Is there another way to sign up? The instructions say to contact Ohana, should I do this instead? Sorry to be a bother. H1nkles (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just drop a note on Ohana's page. He'll probaby ask you for an example of an article you've passed and one you've failed, so I'd suggest including a couple of links in your note. Look forwards to seeing you at Sweeps. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nehrams graciously signed me up so I am off and running. H1nkles (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Let's see if we can find out whether Ohana's optimism about the little green dot once Sweeps is finished is justified or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn it, Malleus, how did you know I will ask for some review samples? Remember, the green dot got deleted but the bronze star didn't simply because the star got transcluded on more pages than the green dot. Then the FA squad made up some hindsight explanation, combining with the systematic bias where no-consensus at deletion review equals to kept deleted, means they don't care whether GA has improved or not, they just don't want an emerging competitor in the playing field. All other languages have the green dot in articles. Only English and Japanese are the "weirdos". Imagining if the global community hears about this, our language will become a laughing stock. Because this issue kept bringing up every few months, it's clear that while DRV never got turned over in any one try, using inductive reasoning, there's a strong indication that editors, especially new ones, which are very important to the community, believe that it should be there. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just as much in favour of the green dot as I ever was, largely because I think it's motivating to editors. The GA process has improved so much even in my time that I think it would be fully justified now, especially if we can ever finish off those damn sweeps. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to introduce the green dot issue again, and my reasons are (at least) fourfold:
  1. Every time the issue is brought up the consensus seems to shift in the "pro"-direction. The last time there was a clear majority (c. 55%), though not a supermajority (c. 66%)
  2. Once the sweeps are done we'll be rid of most sub-standard GAs
  3. The new reviews system of sub-pages makes the GA review system more uniform and more accountable.
  4. As this chart will show you, it is the GA project that improves the quality of WP, not FA. That's not to say that there are no longer FAs adding to WP, but proportionally GA improves WP, FA doesn't.
I think once the sweeps are done it's time to bring the issue up again. The main argument the anti-green dot people have is the single-reviewer system, but this is largely an illusion. Although many lesser subjects are only reviewed by one person, I believe most articles today go through a thorough, multiple-editor process before they get to GA. Agree? Lampman (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Summer catch.jpg)

[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweep question

[edit]

I undertook my first sweep review on Amenhotep III, I checked to make sure the article had not been reviewed, it was on the list of articles to be reviewed and I noticed that User:Jackyd101 had reviewed Amenhotep I. So I found a lot of issues in the article and I don't feel it meets GA criteria. When I looked more closely at the discussion page I noted that Jackyd101 had in fact reviewed this article in April 2008, and kept it. I can defer to this past review but I think there are some problems with the article. I'm not sure what to do at this point. If you feel that the article shouldn't be reviewed more than once then I'll be fine with deferring my review and keeping the article. My review is here Talk:Amenhotep III/GA1. Your thoughts? H1nkles (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It may be that it's deteriorated since its sweeps review in April 2008, but I agree with you that it's not a GA now, and I certainly wouldn't keep it listed in its current state. I'd suggest carrying on with your own sweeps review, or if you'd feel more comfortable then open a community GAR instead. Personally I'd just press on with your individual review regardless. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I'll continue my review and hold the article. Thanks H1nkles (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kareena Kapoor

[edit]

HI Nehrams. I was wondering if you could give Kareena Kapoor a read and give some pointers of how it could be possible to turn it into an FA. Bollywood is a tough sibject to write about as it is very difficult to write about top Indian actresses without it sounding like a blog. Let me know what you think anyway. I helped promote it to GA with a few people sometime ago but I'm sure with some work it could be promoted. A tough subject though. Let me know your thoughts.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe LOL evil! Having seen You Only Live Twice now I bet my sens eof humor makes a lot more sense. Hence the Japanese volcano jokes. "The piranha will strip a man to the bone is 30 seconds" My dear Prime Minister. Two atomic bombs numbers 456 and 457 are now in the possession of SPECTRE. Unless your government pays us £100 million sterling in a manner to be designated by us we will destroy a major city in the United States" "He must be elimanated. I thought they had you assasinated in Hong Kong". Hehe. You obviously knew about it having read about the film and bald villains but it makes a lot more sense to you now probably! Hope you enjoyed them. I always watch OHMSS over Christmas. The snow and mountain retreat and that it is Christmas during the film makes it a good time to watch it I think. I know what you mean about wanting to return to Connery. I hated Lazenby even though that film overall was good. Diamonds Forever is not very good though, the next best film is Live and Let Die with Yaphet Kotto and Roger Moore, One of my favourites for location is The Man with the Golden Gun in Thailand and of course one my heroes in films Christopher Lee was in it.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must Love Dogs

[edit]

I added a lot of information onto Must Love Dogs and was wonder if I had a chance at B-Class. I'm trying to grasp where B-class is. Also could I use this picture for reference to the cast or are there better places to look for pictures? --Peppagetlk 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeps

[edit]

Ok, I'll see what I can do, just back from Spain, so will be a couple of days to get straight, but I've got a GAN up myself, so it's the least I can do jimfbleak (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Matt Damon

[edit]

Just an FYI about the user you blocked yesterday for vandalism to this article. He's back [1] and I gave him the one warning only note. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President Casino Broadwater Resort GA review

[edit]

Thanks very much for the review and I have responded to your comments at Talk:President Casino Broadwater Resort/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Google Earth hint on coordinates, they have now been added. And thanks again for the review and the pass. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

content removal

[edit]

On 18 Oct 2008, Nehrams2020 removed a quote by Vladimir Sharun from the Stalker article. Please explain why. I find it to be especially relevant and interesting. Judging from the revision diff, it appears that Fact-tagged content was simply removed, apparently without bothering to find a source[2] for a proper citation. The edit summary reads "corrections and fixes throughout".

This appears to be the kind of "maintenance" editing which is likely to repel primary contributors (← please read that), and without their content, WP withers. Richard Taytor (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we seem to agree that building verifiable content is a good thing; however, I think you may not appreciate that primary contributors are likely to be unfamiliar with WP style and policy. I imagine you do lots to improve WP and I don't mean to diminish that, truly. I do mean to draw attention to a pattern which is illustrated with the case in point.
Of course verifiable content is desirable, but it ought to be just as obvious that content should not be removed without good reason (even if that means [re]moving it to the Talk page where it is likely to be forgotten). If you appreciate the source I provided, then I wonder why you don't restore the content to the article and add the citation (and accordingly, check the rest of the content which you removed for sources and so forth).
You wrote: "To the best of my knowledge, I don't delete large amounts of unsourced statements on sight. I usually move it to the talk page for the main contributors of the article to readd when sources are found."
To the best of your knowledge!? Please direct me to the WP policy which indicates that unsourced content should be moved to the Talk page. I can support that only if a thorough search for sources has failed. In any case, if content – unsourced or otherwise – is removed from the main page, the edit summary should indicate that (which yours did not).
An article can't be a GA if it has unsourced content, and that may be a root cause of this pernicious pattern (I wonder how many other editors do it too).
I found the revision because I had read the quote in question before you removed it, and then much later when I returned to find it again, it was gone, which bothered me enough that I examined the history. Richard Taytor (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find your response to this situation somewhat disturbing. You are a WP administrator, presumably a custodian of this public resource. Please read WT:Verifiability#conflict_of_interest_causing_content_removal.3F, and consider those issues. Richard Taytor (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, your response is what I find disturbing (and disappointing). For example, your previous post implies that you do not intend to correct what appears to me as an error; indeed, it appears that you defend the edit as though it were not an error, yet you suggest that I or someone else might restore the content (i.e., correct the error). In any case, do as you will; I'm not interested in poring over further details.
The discussion at WT:V is not about you or this specific situation in particular; it's about the general problem of developing content and community. I'm not asking you to engage in the discussion, but I do hope you read what I wrote there and carefully consider the problems I've addressed.
Finally, I don't think you are acting with ill intent; I imagine you are improving WP as you see best. That's what I'm trying to do too. Richard Taytor (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Good articles/recent

[edit]

Hey Nehrams2020. I would just to apologise for and explain the disruption you may have noticed on WP:Good articles/recent. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems (it's still officially in trial), but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. That's the plan, anyhow, so it might be an idea to add the article to WP:GA, then wait ten minutes. If the bot hasn't added it yet, add it manually and come straight to me so I can fix the bot. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. Thanks for your patience and sorry for any disruption caused. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on Bond

[edit]

Hi Nehrams I noticed you;ve removed some of the images from the plot section for some of the Bond films. I know they don't meet our criteria it is just a shame these articles have to look so bare in the plot section as they are definately worse off without any images. I guess tha'ts just me I prefer articles with images but if they don't meet our requirements then I can't argue against you removing them.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what these images might be, but just in case you're not already aware of this it turns out that images taken from trailers rather than from the films themselves weren't copyrighted in many cases until the late 1980s.[3] Apologies if you already knew this. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get you Mr. Bond!! Hehe. Nah its more a WP:ILIKEIT. I like having images in articles but I can't form a strong argument why they are acceptable!! I just like the see articles "brought to life" and least one or two screenshots which help but it in context thats all. Ideally I'd have the film trailer in every article LOL or the actual film to watch in accompanient to the article, how cool would that me eh Nehrams? but that up course is in a utopian copyright free world!! Mwwwooaarrahaahaa! Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropic Thunder is looking quite outstanding. I wish you the best of luck with that. Awesome job!Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nehrams I'll ask Kirill if he can add the ruppee converters. Have a look at Kareena Kapoor article now. I've done a lot of work today bulking out weak sentences and paragraphs into a solid chunky article. I'll work on it for a few days I think. Can you see any difference to the earlier version now? I'm still rather daunted with starting on that Eastwood article BTW!!Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think I met most of Philcha's points. I've asked two people to read the article and see if there are any obvious grammar/MOS issues. Usually there are riddles of them which don't appear to yourself as you read it but others pick up on! I'll continue to prepare it over the next few days but if you compare the article to the Preity Zinta one they are now pretty similar in coverage and quality I think this article now just needs some final copy editing, possible condensing in places and a final spick and span eh?. So a copy editing session or two by some fresh eyes will be on the card, I may see if I can get hold of someone who does a lot of work reviewing FAs and see if they can raise my awareness to any issues. One of the minor issues I can think of is linking of reference publishers, I think they need to only bee linked one, that is the main MOS concern I think, another is the US-UK english issue, vat do be use? I try to write in American english on here but as I am British I make obvious mistakes!.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know what you mean!! I wish I had time to completely write articles on films and actors to FA but there is a such a huge amount needing doing with getting geographical content onto here and some serious missing articles from other wikipedias not to mention creating new stubs on world films, I tend to get sidetracked from spending my time these days on individual articles. Naturally the goal eventually is to get every article up to GA-FA status but FAs can sure be stressful. I've also found that GA criteria seems to be a lot tougher these days with stricter reviewers around like Philcha! I thought Valley of Mexico that I worked on with Thelma would pass but it didn't! One day maybe the missing content will place a lower demand on my editing time and I can completely focus on developing some of our core/mainstream articles to FA. My next task will be to make an obscure article I developed Tea production in Sri Lanka reaches GA! I thought it was a cool subject!Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK city

[edit]

Hi, my pleasure. Thanks for writing the article; I picked it up from WP:PR. About WP:LEAD, a good technique is to have a sentence or two in the opening paragraphs correspond to each section in the article, in order. (e.g., Bombing, Results, Aftermath, Arrest/Trials, Conspiracy, Memorial). But the article is very good in general with lots of good cites. I may drop in for more copyediting. Good luck! Kaisershatner (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nehrams2020

[edit]

I am new to I have been contributing to Wikipedia for a couple of years but am honestly, just getting the "hang" of the rules. I recently joined Wikiproject films, and would like to know if you could suggest where I might start in adding contributions, cleaning up articles, or any other tasks I might be of use. Thank you --irshgrl500 20:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)irshgrl500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs)

oklahoma bombings

[edit]

Have reviewed the article via the peer review.02blythed (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very quick response. Could you either tell me on my user page or on the peer review which is on my watchlist if you have altered the article as have found legislation etc. Thanks.02blythed (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical GAs

[edit]

Took a quick look through the medical GA. There are a number that IMO do not qualify. Than there are a bunch that are sort of on the edge. Have left comments on the talk page. Here are a list of the ones I do not think qualify with as I said the list on the talk pages. Cheers.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not really listed any of them for review. Just added informal comments. Unsure how much time I have. This is just a response to your query at WP:MED. Still a couple of FA that need review aswell.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have listed all of these for review. Have not contacted anyone as not sure the best way. Most people should watch the pages they get to GA though. How long should one give before removing from GA status. A few of these require a lot of work.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, Robot (film) GA review

[edit]

Regarding the I, Robot (film) GA review, The JPS did start the review on the subpage. So maybe it would be better to consider this as reviewed and failed, rather than reverting the nomination. I've transcluded the subpage onto the talk page, but I don't want to move your comment. Could you move your comment from the talk page to the subpage? - kollision (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City National Memorial

[edit]

Hi Nehrams2020, the National Memorial belongs to a privately run organization,[4] and since 1984, copyrights are automatically given on artworks without requiring registration, or notices on the artwork. The photos of the exhibits there are derivative works of the art, and they have been deleted on Commons. Ref: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Oklahoma City National Memorial images. If you wish to illustrate one of the exhibit, it would have to be under fair use. In that case, you would have to find a published shot of the Field of Chairs, and ensure that Is the exhibit is of significance in the article (does the article has a reasonable section on the conception, description and reception of the artwork?). Jappalang (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck some words above as Kralizec! has pointed out that he has published the photo outside of Wikipedia before uploading it here. In this case, the image can qualify for fair use, but it depends on its subject's significance in the article (per above). Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, the imagery can be easily described with words (rows of chairs, varying in size) and need not an image to describe. The significance of the exhibit is not that great (it is just one part of the memorial). As for why photos of the gate and pool are on Commons, it is noted in the deletion request that the subjects can be considered architectural works; per Commons:Freedom of panorama#United State, such photos are allowed. Jappalang (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Could list up more specific Somaliland goal for nominee

[edit]

Hi I would appreciate it very much if you could organize the points. To fulfill for nominee once again. From 1 --- 5 ?

regards Hailsgloryfus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Ohlone being reassessed

[edit]

Hi. I understand you are taking a Wikibreak so I hope you are having a nice vacation. I have just asked for a Good Article Reassessment of Ohlone. I have fixed some of the things you commented on tonight, the others I just did not agree were vital. Anyway as the past delister, you are invited to be part of the community at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ohlone/1 Goldenrowley (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with GA assessment formatting

[edit]

Hi Nehrams2020, Girolamo Savonarola suggested that I contact you as I have requested a GA assessment for the article Lagaan. However, in following the directions, I was not able to "transclude" the request as I could not format the template for the bottom of the talk page properly. I followed the directions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

Could you help me to fix it? I would also appreciate your comments on the reassessment. Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks so much for the clarification. I'm a newbie when it comes to GAR so your explanation really helps. I wonder if the instructions could be tweaked a bit to highlight some of the points that you made? They were a little confusing. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what happened. I used the box for an individual reassessment but I clicked the link for community reassessment. Since I'm new, I didn't really understand the difference. This should have been an individual reassessment rather than community. Is it possible to correct this? My only real goal is to fix what I see as problems in the article. There really isn't an outstanding disagreement.-Classicfilms (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:AguirreandMonkey.jpg)

[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kareena Kapoor

[edit]

Hi Nehrams. This has been edited substantially since before and undergone much cutting and rewording to maintain its focus. I may list this at FAC tomorrow. What do you think? It probably still needs some minor fixes and copyediting but hopefully this can be achieved at FAC. There will undoubtedly be loads of minor things people will bring up at FAC but I think it stands a good chance of being solved anyway. I think we've had enough participation on the tlak page as a further sort of peer review to make a FAC now on the cards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'll do that! Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some final tweaks, I also am not a fan of short paragraphs and where possible try to make paragraphs as chunky, concise but resourceful as possible. Anything else? Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay FAC has started. I'm having serious computer difficulties (keeps crashing and connection breaking every two minutes on here so if I'm not here much forgive me!) I'll try to stay online through this FAC anyway! Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Fuzz - Actors names in Plot section.

[edit]

The WPFilm style guidelines reckon actor's names are meant to be in the plot section? Seems a bit redundant to me. Geoff B (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA sweeps Gee, 'ay

[edit]
The Content Review Medal of Merit  
An award for Nehrams2020 from IvoShandor recognizing the straight up "gee-like" contributions to the GA sweeps process by Nehrams. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! IvoShandor (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--IvoShandor (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request

[edit]

I was looking at your userpage and I suddenly remembered that I still haven't managed to find a contributor to articles about TV, film or music to issue a DCMA takedown notice to [5]. I've tried warning them, to no avail. Any chance you'd be interested? There's a full guide available. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main question (and the reason I can't do this myself) is: can you find an instance on that site where your (yes, for the first time ever, you get to own an article) text has been ripped off on that site. Any significant content-creation-type contribution will do. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a collection! Unfortunately some work is required on your part, but if you're not happy doing it I'll understand. Firstly, pick one or more articles where you contributed considerably to the lead. Now comes the hard part: email the owners of metajam.mobi with a warning (per WP:FORKS's non-compliance process). Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter#Followup looks a good one. Then wait to see if he does anything. Again. Many thanks if you could do that. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all credit to the guy. Best outcome all round. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okla

[edit]

Hi, no prob again for the edits, my pleasure. You've written a very good article. One thing that has been nagging me- the intro (that I wrote) and the first para both tie the perpetrators to the militia movement. Even if this is not a non sequitur, it should be better cited IMO in the intro that they were sympathizers with whatever movement it was, AND that that was given as a reason for the bombing. I think in McVeigh's case this is in fact cited in the early paras but not in the intro. Just the first of my $0.02. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS invitation

[edit]
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another GA Sweeps question

[edit]

Your recent update spawned a question in my mind: once this sweep is over and all the articles have been reviewed, will there not be another set of articles that will need to be reviewed? Your update made it sound as though the project would end but it seems as though there will be more articles that have passed since the project was started that would need to be reviewed. Am I out of touch on that? H1nkles (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GA standard was beefed up in August 2007, so this effort is to look at all articles listed before that change. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great makes sense, for some reason I thought it was an on-going project to look at articles that were passed over two years ago to make sure they hadn't degraded, I didn't know about the GA standard increase. H1nkles (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heterodontosauridae

[edit]

Hi, Nehrams 2020;

I don't have a ref on me for that section, but I asked User:Dysmorodrepanis about it since he added it, and he's good for this sort of thing. If it's just speculation, it's pretty good. Trisauropodiscus is a pretty obscure and fairly mysterious track, with slim bird-like toes if I remember correctly, and heterodontosaurids did have oddly bird-like feet. He should publish if it's not; it'd make this whole thing much easier (granted, with several months to a couple of years of time to wait)! J. Spencer (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

I hope you've seen my work and conduct long enough on WP to know I've good reason for reverting the sock account, I've filed a WP:SSI and checkuser request. There have been two different occasions when oversight has had to remove postings by socks of ColScott that had personal information. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know: the user was blocked as a sock. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metajam

[edit]

I'll make this quick, because I really want to go sleep now, but yeah, I got your emails but hadn't read them. Will do a full analysis tomorrow and let you / more knoledgable know as appropriate. Cheers, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any more action need be taken. He seems a nice guy, and looks like it's compliant now, so I think he's suffered enough. Skweezer also looks fine, by the way- it's keeping the GFDL license link that's the issue, and they don't destroy that. Unless you thought otherwise? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My error

[edit]

Thanks for making this correction to this anon's talk page. I know we all make errors when fighting vandalism, but I truly believe that I am normally pretty accurate. And when I do make errors, I usually realize it instantly (like I hit the ROLLBACK VANDAL button instead of the ROLLBACK AGF button), and I immediately go back and correct it and usually proffer an apology to the editor in question. In this case, I simply misunderstood what I had read; I'm glad you caught it.

Could I be so bold as to make one suggestion? When you spot something like this, could you point it out to the offending editor? I believe that its very possible that an editor—possibly making his first edit ever—could be scared away for a long time (maybe forever) because he read this vandal warning. Yes, you got rid of it, but when he gets the big yellow new message bar he'll still be able to read the warning, and may just decide it's not worth his time. But if you let the mistaker maker rectify his error, say, with a warm message of welcome, a potential contributor might not be lost.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Thanks again for catching my mistake. Unschool 13:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. See you around. Unschool 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another question on Good article sweeps

[edit]

I've given an assessment of Japanese grammar on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#GAR: while I feel that it doesn't precisely meet the GA criterion for in-line citations, this doesn't appear as relevant as it is in most cases. So I'd be grateful for a comment on the advantages (or disadvantages) of enforcing it here. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collaboration

[edit]

What I mean by collaboration in my user page is actually about a article which I've contributed. Not all actually. Just the chosen one. Thanks for the advice. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 12:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup listing

[edit]

Hi Nehrams, regarding your request for a cleanup listing for GA sweeps, there is a listing here Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing‎ which can be cross-referenced, Tom B (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A late birthday present

[edit]
Happy Birthday!

Sorry I missed your birthday! Happy Birthday! Here is a mushroom shapped rock present. "Nick Nack. you've surpassed yourself!". I seriously nearly gave up my quest for world domination for good but the Evil one has decided he will always be evil and remain. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. What's the update with the Bond films. What have you seen since we last talked? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think of DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and Moonraker? Roger Moore of course is completely different from Connery but I find if you get into the Moore mode his films are very entertaining. His one line quips such as "Just keeping the British end up Sir" etc and raised eyebrow you probably also find amusing. I think Moore's films had the best locations than any of the other Bonds. I thought Dalton was an excellent Bond actually but a direct contrast from Moore in that he is cold and too serious. The Living Daylights is good. The location and suaveness of Octopussy is really good, Louis Jourdan and Roger Moore in the same film reveals something like this alone, but mix that with the lavish Indian palaces Octopussy was probaably the most elegant film of the lot. A View to a Kill in my view is the worst film of the lot. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably get what I mean about the delicatessen in stainless steel now then. Yeah I agree the For Yours Eyes Only reappearance was weird, after all Moore had never met Blofeld. That's what I like about the Bond films the most is the location, the women and the gadgets! View to a Kill is not that bad, Grace Jones as May Day is quite scary but one of the assets to the film I think but you'll have to see it to find out. Now I see why she only dates man mountain hard men like Dolph Lundgren and Sven Ole Thornsen and she'd eat most men for breakfast. I gather they rarely show these films on American television? In the UK any Bank Holiday or holiday period they are on in the afternoons any one of them. The most shown is probably World is Not Enough whichh you've probably seen. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Michael Crichton image I made in the new year is up for deletion despite sending several emails of confirmation from Jon Chase the Harvard owner of the image saying we are free to use it. Basically it seems OTRS has to be be 200% certain we are free to use the image, so these days it seems they reqire a formal statemeent from the provider basically saying yes you are free to walk all over it, making deriratives and sele it etc. I try to make ageements more discreetly as undoubtedly this will put people off but it seems we have to make absolutely certain the image provider knows what the license entails to avoid future conflict. I've givne up on making batch agremeent by OTRS anyway, these days I tend to just ask the flickr user to alter the license on that website so we can upload select images. My recent is Gran Teatro Cervantes. Most people I must say are very helpful and I seme to have a 70% success rate. I look forward to seeing these new images. Are there any images which we are missing or are they just all better quality replacements? Michelle Pfeiffer I';m still looking for! Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Day the Earth Stood Still

[edit]

After going through a peer review I was wondering if it was proper to start with nominating the article for GA first? I think the article is comprehensive in all aspects and it could be an FA. I'm uncertain where to proceed from here. --Peppagetlk 01:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rocky'2006shot1.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rocky'2006shot1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Bullock

[edit]

[6] Major, vast, tremendous improvement!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and these are all brand new images!! Kevin Bacon was talking about being at this event Tuesday night on Craig Ferguson. Very nice and great work! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community GAR of Hurricane Felix

[edit]

Hi. I just thought you should know that Hurricane Felix (1995) is undergoing a community reassessment at GAR. As you probably recall, you recently did an individual reassessment as part of GA sweeps. I wasn't the initiator of this, but I thought you should be notified. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeps procedure

[edit]

When we keep articles what type of review is appropriate. We are essentially saying, yes it is still a GA quality article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is a good idea, but most reviewers are simply passing things by removing them from the list as I have seen.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to go through my old GAs that have been removed from the worklist without having talk page commentary. I don't know which ones off the top of my head.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mudflap photo

[edit]

i have a question that mudflap photo i uploaded last night ROTF Mudflap promo.jpg it seems fine i dont get whats wrong with it Baller449 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iwill try to change it but i cant seem to find an image editing program on wiki Baller449 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
its smaller check it out Baller449 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it would have been smaller but i didnt have any of the programs exept paint and i tried to use it but it didint work so i found a smaller one and used that one here another one that i made smaller File:Optimuys Prime ROTF.jpg(yes theirs a y in it) i dont know how to delete the bigger version Baller449 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks dude it worked Baller449 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry to keep bothering you but could you do this last one for me File:Transformers2bumblebeeposter.jpg Baller449 (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oklahoma bombings FAC

[edit]

Your welcome for the support i gave to the article at the FAC it is an brilliant article and it shows by the quality of the article how long it has taken you to get it to this standard. You should be very proud of your achievemnets of this articlce on such a controversial subject to get it to the standard it is. 02blythed (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piggybacking this thread, I have corrected the vehicle's orientation and widened McVeigh's route. The map can be forced to 300px as allowed by the MOS (for clarity) if you wish. Good luck with the FAC. Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a "thumb"ed image is displayed at the preferred thumbnail size (I guess you set your thumbnail preferred size to be 300). A forced size "thumb" is displayed at the larger (forced or thumb) size. MOS prefers all images to be unforced unless needed (in this case, the map can be justified to be forced size). Jappalang (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McKellen

[edit]

Hi, it's pesky old me again. I had some issues arise this evening regarding the delisting of Ian McKellen from GA. I'm not so much disputing the delisting itself, but there are certainly some other issues that came up with it. The editor who did the review was Jezhotwells. After posting delisting notices at some user talk pages, the editor then placed tags in the article in this manner, which highlighted entire paragraphs in some cases and left a lot of ambiguity about what was being challenged. When I questioned the method, as well as some of the tags, my concerns were brushed off and the editor did not respond to direct questions about what was being challenged. I was then referred back to the editor's talk page, where someone else had just posted that he or she liked the highlighting tags. The editor also said highlighting paragraphs helped the review process because then the reviewer didn't have to copy and paste portions with which there was issue. Is this the current method being employed in GA and GAR? How does highlighting a paragraph that only lists 3 or 4 films an actor was in clarify what the reviewer thinks needed cited? The film roles themselves? Since when? And why would the process during which a good article is delisted need to be streamlined and made easier by just highlighting and how professional looking is that? And finally, since when do GA reviewers post a notice at the top of the article talk page, above the banners, about the delisting? Like I said, it wasn't the delisting that is at issue for me, it's the actions of the reviewer after the fact and the use of what is basically very unorthodox tagging. Thanks for listening and responding, if you do! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. None of the tags were present at the beginning of the review, all of them were placed by the reviewer after the delisting had been done. I actually don't take exception to the delisting itself, it probably did need to be, and I wouldn't contest it. It was the way it was tagged and the lack of response about it that bothered me. I don't even take exception to some of the things that need cited, although I really have no clue how he/she thought an editor would know what in specific was an issue. At first, the cite to Inside the Actors Studio for his crush on Derek Jacobi was questioned (although the other 5 referencing that episode were not questioned) because the cite is to the episode page on IMDB, but then there are no legitimate transcripts for this show available. After I questioned that, the reviewer did remove the tag for that. I felt like a hold could have been placed, but it wasn't done.
The only other thing was something I happened upon while I was looking at another review that was started. A GA review was initiated for this article, the reviewer then undertook a number of edits to the page [7] and then put the review on hold. Is that orthodox? Just asking... Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joffrey Tower

[edit]

Thanks for the notification. Please also contact all the projects on its talk page. I know you have not yet contacted WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do a lot of these you may want to help proliferate this policy. At the top of all my GARs, I say who has been notified. This makes it easy for all concerned.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is the GAR should emulate FAR and add notification listings to the top of the discussion pages. I am not sure if you got this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed your issues at GAR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terraforming

[edit]

Dear Nehrams2020, I'm afraid that I have elected to indulge myself in some travel over the next few weeks. I need to stop working on terraforming for that period of time. I think you will find that it has been vastly improved, including the addition of no small amount of higher-quality information, as well as the removal of numerous weasels and some truly scandalous vandalism that had stood unaltered (yes, even in a GA article) for the past two years. The article still has numerous flaws–it needs quite a bit of expansion, and the political section in particular remains in a nascent state. I hope you will elect to retain its GA status. If not, however, I will return in a few weeks to set things right. I do intend to continue improving it, and indeed hope to see it wearing an FA star in the next few months. Best regards Water.writ (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of the Marathon

[edit]

Thanks for your assessment. You mentioned that it needs one more section. From what I understand, it should be Cast and Crew. I'm not sure if "Cast" is right for a documentary but I added the new section. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Ag Assessments

[edit]

Hello - I completed the 1300+ assessments for WP:Ag. Hope it helps with your GA sweeps. BlindEagletalk~contribs 04:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was somewhere around 850 assessments. I had your number on my brain when I was typing. BlindEagletalk~contribs 05:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CIA

[edit]

If you want to reassess Central Intelligence Agency please go ahead. I'm travelling and won't be able to be much help. I can check back in a couple of weeks if that would be useful. Geometry guy 19:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

[edit]

Hi Nehrams. Do us a favor and delete List of greatest Boston athletes by jersey number. For some reason somebody retained it even though the reason they gave makes it deletable! Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mind boggles why they declined the speedy tag I placed on it. Strange. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TCF Bank Stadium

[edit]

Nehrams2020, thanks for your GA sweeps review. I think the things on your list are done now and if not please holler. I replied to your note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
For cleaning out Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old by deleting over 500 old revisions (and probably more), I award you this barnstar. Most excellent and much-appreciated work! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you're interested, I have created a script that more or less automates the removal of the {{non-free reduced}} tag... it could save you some time whenever you work on this again. Thanks again! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What parameters?

[edit]

What parameters/dimensions are you using in reducing images? Generally I think its going fine, but I think some stuff is being made too small. There is some relevant discussion here. Wiggy! (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel L. Jackson

[edit]

I didn't mean to imply that the awards per se would result in a quick fail, but the main article is kind of thin regarding career details beyond the mention of some films, some awards and doesn't tend to address critical response or career milestones. It's well written for what is there, but to me, it really needs more details. Meanwhile, I find the filmography page kind of a reference nightmare that makes it less than clearly readable. It's got a solid basis and certainly doesn't stink, but it could be better, IMO. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, it didn't come off that I was trashing the article, did it? It's got a great fundamental base, it just needs some expansion and content beefed up. I don't know, though, why it would have been okay for an editor new to the page to come in and remove the filmography and actually do to it what was done. It's equally confusing to me why other new editors come in and say it shouldn't be returned. That's probably too blunt, but eeps. Hey, at least I've made edits to the page in the past!! Meanwhile, we've eliminated what was becoming a serious issue regarding WP:BLP and liability with the block of a number of accounts connected to a sock master. [8] Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what happens a lot in cases like this with articles is that the more recent stuff ends up getting a lot more addition and it seems to me like that is what happened. Plus, as you probably know, the GA/FA process is tougher regarding sourcing and broadness of scope than they used to be. I didn't realize this was one of your GA babies. I understand completely about being protective - that's rather how I am with Gene Wilder and my List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men articles. (By the way, the history of that list was creation on 20 December 2008 and it passed featured list on 4 January 2009 - I'm kind of proud of that. I think you even made an edit on it when it was new.) I also agree with you about being concerned that filmographies start to be spun off. I've undone some of that as I've gone along. I've found them that were done for no solid reason, it just seemed like the thing to do. I know when myself, Rossrs or one or two others have worked on the list of Academy Award winners whose articles still need filmographies or tabling, we've discussed the necessity of some of them needing a new page, but then, you know that the 30s and 40s actors sometimes made 4 or 5 films or more a year, and the very early ones could easily make upwards of 100 a year. The article dictates the need, but really, it needs to be consensus driven and not arbitrary. But that's just me. A couple more salient points for the filmography remaining in the main article is it actually does away with the need to mention each and every lesser film, role and award or nomination because they are already present in the table. Without that, it begs the question that will eventually pop up from a fan of some more obscure film: "What about him being in Blah and Blah?? That isn't even mentioned!!" Depending on the actor, some awards become more notable. I think NAACP Image awards are fairly high profile or at least have become so. Ah well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, I almost mentioned John Wayne's films as an example. Filmographies seem to be my main interest these days. I like to see them complete and fleshed out, consistent in styling between articles, contain all the awards and nominations from industry, critics and festivals (to avoid undue weight toward the top 3 or 4) and decent to look at and easy to read. I asked Rossrs, whose opinion I highly respect, to look at the discussion and weigh in with his opinion. He usually has a well-conceived and relevant opinion on these things, so hopefully he will respond later. I'm off to add a filmography to James Caan, who seems to be a bit neglected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waco FBI photos question

[edit]

As I wrote on my talk page, OK, [got] them together and found some great ones I hadn't ever scanned. Am thinking of doing a collage of 4-19. But I know sometimes people delete photos if they aren't used and perhaps they won't all be. Unless I put them on wikimedia, then they'll be safe from deletion? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mount_Carmel_fire CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Why did you delete my edit on WP:FAC? You said you moved the newest nominations to the top, but their is one problem. My edit was—if not—is the newest nomination, which was The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. Can you please revert my edit back. Thanx! ATC . Talk 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh never mind, I didn't see that you moved it to the top of the article. That page confuses me. Sorry about that. Thanx! ATC . Talk 23:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Vice, Trivia Cut

[edit]

I saw the list and having read the MoS the other day (which states that huge chunks should not be spent listing differences between versions (unless it's Blade Runner)) I decided to remove it. However I didn't add it to my watchlist so I didn't know it had been reverted, but if it needs to be anywhere then the talkpage is as good a place as any. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gol 1907

[edit]

Hi Nehrams, thanks for your cleanup and GAR work. As you may be aware, that article is under consideration for FA. I have not been able to find a perfect positioning for the images, esp. while varying the font and window sizes in the browser. I think maybe the best idea is to wait for the FAC reviewers to chime in on this issue, and get their consensus. I have no strong opinions in the matter, except I don't like images overflowing sections, or indenting quotes, etc. Again, thank you for your work. Crum375 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard (or perhaps impossible) to get the images to line up properly under all possible browser font and window sizes, so I guess we have to shoot for "typical", whatever that it. I think we are in agreement that it makes sense to let the FAC reviewers come to some consensus for this specific article; I could live with anything reasonable. I do like the alternating images personally; I think it's more engaging. As far as the synthetic image, in general I am not fond of material created by Wikipedians, and prefer to under-emphasize it. Especially for accident articles, where hard facts and solid evidence are key, I like to use and emphasize real photos from real sources, wherever possible. Crum375 (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Nehrams2020. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image request

[edit]

The image seems a bit too complicated for me to create (3D layout). Furthermore, I think the layout and design is complicated enough that close replication would violate copyright. Contacting the authors might be the best way to go. Jappalang (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

[edit]

I just saw Oklahoma City Bombing has been promoted to FA. Well done! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome - I saw the image question above. There is an author listed for reprints (Sue Mallonee, RN, MPH) that I would contact about permission to use the image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me too. A nice piece of work on an important topic. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE

[edit]

Will do. Got busy yesterday and a bit today so been preoccupied. But I'll continue the review.--WillC 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll continue the review tomorrow. I'm going to be a bit busy today and not in the mood to read an article.--WillC 23:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I was going to finish the review even after the FAC ended if it did during my review. I nominated the TNA X Division Championship shortly after you nominated OCB at FAC and have been wanting to read OCB since then. Quick note, I had to withdraw the TNA X Division Championship due to a dispute between myself and another editor which made it fail stability. So no worries on my review, I'll get to it later. I kind of want to rewrite TNA Bound for Glory and nominate it at GAN before the end of the day. Plus I'm in the middle of painting stuff at home.--WillC 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the review had around 8 supports, I believe, so I was expecting for it to close soon. Though I was like you and thinking that it wouldn't be closed till I was finished.--WillC 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chkeiban

[edit]

Mr. Nehmans, I don't know you deleted my entry for the word Chkeiban! Please, reply to -email- <details removed>. ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michc1 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter delivery

[edit]

Is there anyway I can have the entire newsletter sent to my talk page in a navigation box? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 08:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great! Also, please see this ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 08:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TiaCarrereMay09.jpg

[edit]

Many thanks for this image. Gid damn it this woman is one of the hottest around!! Cnograts on the FA BTW I supported it! Dr. Blofeld White cat 23:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Did you have any success with your recent requests? Dr. Blofeld White cat 23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of speedy delete protocols

[edit]

Hi, this page was deleted well before the 7 day period was up. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AlphaCentauriGameCD.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AlphaCentauriGameCD.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 notes it - it was in the SMAC article and got subject to an overzealous edit. What can we do about an undelete? Krupo (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incentive system for sweeps

[edit]

Hi. Because of your experience at GA sweeps I was wondering what you thought if an incentive system was used at WT:FAR. Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Gump GA review

[edit]

No problem. That notice went by fast. 2 hours? Didn't notice that until now. Anyway, I added brief information from a Terry Gilliam interview I found about him turning down the director's position. I didn't know what section to put it in, so I just put it in "script". It's on page 3 of this interview. Happy editing to you too. Great work on the article. Wildroot (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those casting choices are just too good. LOL. Dave Chapelle? That certainly would have been........different. Wildroot (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown second opinion

[edit]

Would you care to give a second opinion on the Gordon Brown article. I have had it at GAR for about two weeks and some of the minor issues have been resolved, but no one really wants to do most of the things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps worklist

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you created the GA Sweeps worklist. I looked over the original list, and it appears to be missing an entire set of articles on meteorology and atmospheric sciences. Maybe I'm confused about how the process works, as I'm new to it, but is this just a mistaken omission? -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 06:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sunday

[edit]

I know we each have our own styles for doing sweeps GA reviews. However, it seems that Billy Sunday may be a contentious one. It would be extremely helpful if you added a header on top of who has been notified like I have used at Talk:National Hockey League/GA1. I am unable to tell which editor and projects have been contacted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot

[edit]

Hey, I'm sorry. I forgot about finishing my review. Stay turned, I'll get too it.--WillC 06:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've been a bit busy with other things.--WillC 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Bond

[edit]

Latest progress? DId you find Octopussy "elegant" and "The Living Daylights" a definitive spy film? Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Davi and Benicio del Toro made very convincing latin drug lords didn't they! I think Franz Sanchez was the most believable of the baddies, he certainly looked every inch the Colombian drug baron! What did you think of Dalton? He is much better Bond than many people make out I think. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton grows on you actually. I hated him more than Lazenby at first but having seen those films many times he has grown on me but Connery, Moore and Brosnan were better. I hated Lazenby as Bond in all honesty though. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eldred

[edit]

See Talk:Arthur Rose Eldred/GA1. Any issues left? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update on descendants — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

108 North State Street

[edit]

I have been continuing to clean up 108 North State Street. It is probably getting close enough that you can give it a review now and give me some pointers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot who had contacted me and since we have talked so much about GARs, I thought it was you. Yes looking at my own talk page it was clearly Lampman.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs to the articles of the various seasons of MTV’s The Real World, so I’m contacting editors whom I find have edited the articles for those cities. Do you live in San Diego, and if so, would you be able to take some nice pics of the San Diego residence, and upload them here if I give you the location? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks for responding so quickly. The address is 4922 N. Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 92106. You can see pics and other info on it (copyright-protected, of course) at http://www.realworldhouses.com/realworld14.html. If you can take or find several to provide a choice to choose from, (in good resolution, if possible) that'd be great. As for other pics, well, I do need the ones for the Los Angeles and Hollywood seasons too. I initially wasn't going to ask, since I know S.D. is not right next to those locations, but since you ask, can you take (or find) good, free ones for those too? Let me know, and I'll send you location info for those. Thanks again! Nightscream (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your efforts. Lemme know how it works out. And you too. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU!!! You rock!! :-) If you ever need any pics in the area of Hudson County, NJ or New York City, lemme know! Nightscream (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine

[edit]

"If any assistance is needed in preparing the article, let me know and I'll help out." Well, it already failed a GA nom. Can you provide a copyedit to the article? igordebraga ≠ 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sunday

[edit]

John Foxe and I have fallen back into our edit war over the Billy Sunday article. (See article history & talk page.) I would really appreciate it if we could have a mediator. Could you or someone else chime in with an opinion? Thanks.--Rocketj4 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burnham Park

[edit]

I have attempted to resolve your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I was looking at the dead links, I'll see what I can do about finding replacements for the first two, but the last two dead links for Sprint and Toyota are not dead. For some reason the link tool is listing them as "dead", but you can access them without problem and they take you right where you're supposed to be going.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the two dead links, plus another dead one I found. Everything, from what I can see, should all be accessable (include the Sprint and Toyota links that are claimed to be dead but aren't really). Thanks for the GAR.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, it does need a thorough copy edit. I think I wanted to work on the Reception section some more before any FAC (it just had a PR this past March). I want to see if I can find some more general reviews, instead of season reviews - as I cannot include every season in that section because the page is already pretty long. That may take awhile though, because the show is still airing and people don't tend to look back on a show as a whole until it's finished. That's kind of another reason why I haven't taken it to FAC yet, because I don't like it when articles for shows that are on-going are already featured articles. It makes you wonder just how comprehensive they can be if the show continued to air 3 years after its article became featured (e.g., Lost (TV series) promoted in 2006). I want to make sure the Smallville page is damn near as perfect as possible (ironically, it's impossible to make any article perfect, but you get my meaning). As for the sources, which ones do you think are an issue? I already expect that I'll have to defend certain sources. If I have to use a source that is typically not that professional, I always limit it to first hand interviews that they have conducted themselves. For instance, Kryptonsite is cited a few times in the article. It's a fansite, but the interviews are personally conducted by the webmaster, who is also the author of the officially licensed companion books (thus he typically gets access to the cast and crew).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice and the support. My plan, if I haven't replaced those sources by the time of an FAC, is to note each source in the FAC and explain why it cannot be replaced and why the information is important enough to warrant keeping (if that's the case...if not, then I'll just remove it entirely).
I was the same way with the show. I'm a huge Superman fan, and I boycotted the show when it first came out because I thought they were trashing the mythology and everything I loved about Superman. I happened to catch the end of Season three's "Shattered", and it convinced me to buy the first season. I watched the entire first season in basically one sitting. I was hooked from then on out. Last season (number 8) was amazing, so I'm looking forward to this one. It appears that Hulu at least has the first five episodes of season one - so, if you ever have spare time you could get a taste of what the show is kind of like (season 1 was really freak of the week episodes, but you get a basic sense, plus the episode where Clark gets his X-Ray vision). Anyway, thanks again for the thoughts, support, and the GAR. Cheers,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil cinema

[edit]

Hi Nehrams. Dunno if you want to mention it on the monthly newsletter but I gave a South Indian cinema barnstar to User:Vprajkumar for his work on Tamil cinema. Check out his considerable efforts at developing e.g Tamil films of the 1960s, Tamil films of the 1970s, Tamil films of the 1980s etc, pages which needed a great deal of work before. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Nehrams2020/Archive 11's Day!

[edit]

User:Nehrams2020/Archive 11 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nehrams2020/Archive 11's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Nehrams2020/Archive 11!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desolate North

[edit]

Thanks for the review. Got to say, that whole process was great, and not nearly as miserable as a lot of the processes I get weighed down in... Keep up the good work. J Milburn (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fibreglass GA sweeps

[edit]

Hi Nehrams,

I'm sort of on semi-hiatus due to work pressure, but I'll make a note to check your comments, thanks! --Slashme (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bean's Holiday

[edit]

Hi.
I'm living in Sweden and i'm transliting some english artiles (mostly about comedians or comedy) and I really need the two pictures from Mr Bean's Holiday I just uploaded it but it says that it soon will be taken away. Mayby you could help me with that or change the pic so it can be used in other countries to. I know that some pictures I've ben using is from the english wiki.
Seriously I need your help!
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolipopfred Lolipopfred • contribs) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually got a lot of problems cause I just can't upload files right. They are allways taken away after a week. But can you mayby give me exactly what you wrote when you uploaded both the posters please. So i can try to copy it into the swedish wikipedia. But I know I've been using other pics from the english wikipedia to the swedish one.. hmm... whatever. Thanks! Lolipopfred

Yes that's sounds smart! Thanks for the help!Lolipopfred —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

re sweeps invitation

[edit]

Howdy. I've left a reply on my talkpage asking a coupla things (oh and it's a "sure, count me in" from me). If you can drop a reply there next time you're around that'll be peachy. :) Thanks muchly, Whitehorse1 23:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vampyr note

[edit]

Thanks Nehrams! I didn't even know that list existed. Thanks for your support with the article. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review?

[edit]

I recently expanded the plot section of Sweethearts (film), and did a major job on Hunt Stromberg including references (such as they are). (a) Are they eligible for anything, in your opinion? (b) Where should I plant this question next time? Thank you, Shir-El too 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-instate the Answers.com references in the Hunt Stromberg article: before I expanded it there WAS no text (see History), so it COULD NOT have been a copy unless they copied it afterwards! Thank you very much, Shir-El too 05:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Shir-El too 06:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Stromberg, Jr.

[edit]

Hope to start a stub on him, but there are even fewer sources than on his father! Have a Good One, Shir-El too 05:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BT46

[edit]

Thanks - fair points all. I'm happy to work on it, although due to a new arrival in our household (three weeks old and screams a lot!) it's harder than ever to get the time for this, so it may take longer than seven days. However, let's see how far I've got by then. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. 4u1e (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 film awards to users

[edit]

Hi Nehrams. For the next WP:FILM newsletter, I've awarded three users the WikiProject Films Award:

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey and Smallville

[edit]

Yeah, that's season one for you. Almost every episode (as a matter of fact, I think it is all of them) were Freak of the Week episodes. It wasn't until season two that we actually got our first story arc in a season - which was Clark learning about his Kryptonian heritage and finally meeting his biological father (so to speak). Plus, the first 5 episodes aren't that great in the first season. "X-Ray" has its moments, but overall I hate most Freak of the Week episodes. If they release the rest of the season, I would say keep a look out for "Hourglass" (actually episode 6), "Stray", and "Tempest". Those are, IMO, the best of the season.

As for Spider-Man 3, I haven't actually touched that page since December 2008. I took it off my watchlist. I'm not sure what the page even looks like now. I'll give it a gander and see if there is anything I can do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Spire GA Sweeps

[edit]

Hi Nehrams2020, I think I addressed all of your concerns listed at Talk:Chicago Spire/GA1. Could you look and see if anything else needs to be done for the article to retain its GA-status? Thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 03:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And great job on the San Diego list - the list is the new standard for an excellent tallest building list, so I'll be going back and modifying those older FLs ;-) Cheers, Rai•me 03:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really glad you did - the coordinates and images both really add to the lists. I wish I had thought of it earlier :-) Cheers, Rai•me 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola

[edit]

Hey, Nehrams. It's been a while. What's up?

I was wondering if you could give me some input on some stuff; I'm planning on putting myself to work on the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire film, and I am wondering if I should include the Differences from the Book and Television Release sections (among others). What is your overall assessment of the article? It's been a while since I've been film-article-editing and I am unsure of how to proceed with this specific one. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help, again...

[edit]

Expanded and changed layout of The Dark at the Top of the Stairs but the 2nd reference will not cooperate. I don't have the hang of it yet and don't know what I'm doing wrong. Would you correct it and clue me in? Thank you, Shir-El too 23:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction - it was pretty late when I finished. Actually I looked up "The Dark" because I was listening to an interview with Angela Landsbury on YouTube; lately I'm bouncing back and forth: watching something there, looking it up here, then trying to cross check or expand from somewhere else, then back to watching. You've told me before that IMDB is not considered reliable (and I've noticed some snafus myself), but many of the best sources are subscription only. Please bear with me: though I'm good at organizing material and am a good editor, these are my first forays into research. God willing, I'll get the hang of it. Again: Cheers! Shir-El too 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final PS: is it acceptable to cite and link to YouTube material? For example if I wanted to quote Lansbury or cite the interview? In the Hunt Stromberg article I linked to a clip of his credit as an independent producer, but somebody tried to remove it. And "The Dark" article begins with the play, but the info box is for the movie. Chicken or egg time? Thank you, Shir-El too 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

[edit]

Can you review those lists; List of Cher concert tours and Cher filmography? Kekkomereq4 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray of Light

[edit]

Hey Nehrams, I have addressed you concerns for this article. Could you take a look if anything else needs to be done. ?--Legolas (talk2me) 06:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Institute of Technology Featured Article Nomination

[edit]

User:Lamenta3 and I have nominated Georgia Institute of Technology for Featured Article status. Please improve the article and contribute to the discussion. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nehrams2020/Archive_11&oldid=1166515063"