User talk:MarnetteD/archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MarnetteD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

		The WikiProject Doctor Who Award
		This award is presented to MarnetteD for his sterling work cleaning up Doctor Who serial articles. Good job! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Marnette, you're welcome to join the project and do as much or as little as you like. There are no requirements — just chip in when you can and when you like. You've already done considerably more with your wikignoming than many people who've been project members for years!

All you need to do to join the project is add yourself to WP:WHO#Participants. You'd be quite welcome! If you have any other questions, feel free to ask, either on my talk page or at WT:WHO. And again, thanks for your gnoming. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Josiah beat me too it, but I was going to say much the same thing. My participation certainly varies depending on real life (or if some other area of Wikipedia takes my focus for a while), and I also have little to no knowledge of templates (I can just about use them, but I certainly can't fix them). But I see you've already added yourself - welcome! (And nice job on all those "Broadcast and (fill in the blank) release" sections.) --Brian Olsen 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have kept further edits, (hopefully), in line with the convention on episode titles.Wolf of Fenric 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about Charles Kay. I have seen a fair few of his stage performances in the early RSC and NT days. Your comments brought back memories. Best regards Orbicle 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem watching over the article. That line that is repeatedly added is just not at all of any value to the article. It isn't needed at all. If it is added back again we will have to start a discussion on the talk page. Many thanks. Eagle Owl 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to claim policy is on your side (ignoring for a moment that Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules is also policy) then at least cite it. The film is based on the play and the names are correct in the play. Alci12 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it. Someone already posted that this grandmotherly sort had a "sexy" image... that, despite what she said to Barbara. The "sexy image" stuff is strictly POV, and it is verifiable that she said she was bottom-heavy (and check out "The Queen" if you think otherwise). Now, tell me why the other stuff does belong in the article. Wahkeenah 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:AIV would be a better avenue - I, unfortunately, am not an admin.. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. TigerShark 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

actually the unused fields are supposed to be removed from infoboxes and replaced when actually needed. it helps reduce clutter and doesn't affect the final product. --emerson7 | Talk 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear MarnetteD

Thanks for your useful suggestion on my User talk page, following my Mirren amplifications. I have already put it to good use.

But I would now like you to have another look at my talk page where I have raised a call for help in dealing with the confusing headings to Wiki pages referring to Critics' Circles, both in the UK and the US, which need to be sorted out for the benefit of Wikipedia users interested or involved in the performing arts.

Since writing it I have received a quite unexpected response from someone called Real96 (whose own User page makes interesting reading).

Help is what is required, not deletion!

Best wishes from John Thaxter 23:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

PS There is only one 'n' in Kenneth Branagh's surname (I have just changed the heading above, supplied by emerson 7)

PPS Hey, am I the only guy using his real name on Wikipedia?

Dear MarnetteD

Thanks for your interesting query, but we are getting into deep waters if we (the CC) had included production details of the shows the winners appeared in, directed, designed or whatever! But I see the value when it comes to Wiki links.

To answer your specific questions:

Fiona Shaw appeared in an RSC production of Sophocles' ELECTRA based on a new version by Kenneth McLeish, Although the award is for 1989, the production actually opened at the Barbican Pit in December 1988 and was seen by the critics in January 1989.

Michael Sheen appeared at the Donmar Warehouse in 2003 in the title role of Albert Camus' CALIGULA, a new version by David Greig.

You can see the complications, But do carry on and I will help as necessary.

Best wishes, John Thaxter 15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear MarnetteD

Quick answers to your queries, as I am on my way to a theatre (again!).

The FAUST was a Punchdrunk site-specific piece, at 21 Wapping Lane, London (sponsored by the National). The writing and design credit is simply Punchdrunk.

FLIGHT is the Bulgakov play but in a version by Ron Hutchinson, staged at the National by Howard Davies in 1998.

Sharman MacDonald (a friend of mine who lives just up the road) is the mother of Keira Knightley (father Will Kn.). Her play, THE WINTER GUEST was staged at the Almeida and I reviewed it in 1995. Robin Don built a set rather better than the play! I have not seen the film version. but I could add a word or two to the film article to mention the play, production, design and performances. I hope that's okay - but it must wait for the weekeend! I have many things to write. Best John Thaxter 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Alas tonight's play at the Richmond Theatre, a touring version of CHARLEY'S AUNT (starring Stephen Tompkinson who recently enjoyed success as Doctor Who), was so grossly overplayed that it defeated the underlying comedy. The "Aunt' of the title, a man in woman's garb acting as a chaperone, a role which needs a degree of coyness not boisterous shouting and falling about!

I am grateful to you for sorting out the links between the CC pages and the various names and productions. I only got into this matter when, late last year, I found the Theatre Awards listings seriously out of date. I updated the lists with the latest awards and, since then when time allowed, I have gradually worked back to complete the lists to 1989.

But I was specifically asked if I could delete the spurious 'London' prefix which misrepresented our structure (I have no idea how it got there). It was by no means easy to work out what to do because, as you can tell from The Critics' Circle article (now with the aposttrophe in place) the Film section having led the way in providing Wiki information, is quite happy to be called the London Film Critics Circle (which is potentially divisive and proprietorial).

However, the nomenclature problems have now been properly ironed out, which should help Wikipedia users in search of information, an improvement achieved very largely thanks to your help and interest.

My thanks on behalf of the Circle. John Thaxter 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As promised I have added stage production details to The Winter Guest article, with a link back to the Theatre Awards. But I have avoided the temptation to reveal that Phyllida Law is Emma Thompson's mother (and also the celeb information that playwright Sharman MacDonald is the mother of Keira Knightley). I hope it's okay as now written - I think it would be wasteful and misleading to have separate articles for film and play. Best wishes John Thaxter 10:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's an Italian movie ripped off a Japanese one, but it's still a western. And the iron-plate-under-the-coat-trick doesn't occur in Yojimbo (which is incidentally a rip-off of Kurosawa's favorite American crime novel Red Harvest). And no, I've never come across a Leone quote where he specifically says he ripped off North American history, but the Jim Miller anecdote in which Miller wins a gunfight using exactly the same tactic is a fairly common piece of western lore. I don't think it's a ridiculous leap to at least insert a "probably inspired". Ford MF 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Corn Exchange is not just one of dozens of ancient English buildings, but is also the name of a Dublin theatre company, founded by American director Annie Ryan in 1995, which works largely using Commedia dell'Arte techniques — although, based on their 2004 Dublin By Lamplight, currently touring the UK, it has more to do with white-face mask work than traditional Commedia.

The frustration is that the title 'The Corn Exchange' has already been annexed as a redirect page for Corn exchange, under which latter heading I have now added a one-line entry for the theatre company, with a link to their website.

I do not know whether, at this moment, one needs to say more about Annie Ryan and her talented troupe, since bigger things are yet to follow. But when that time comes I wonder how one would establish an article specifically on The Corn Exchange that refers only to the performing company and not as a redirect page to other corn exchanges — and does it matter given that I have made the external link?

John Thaxter 13:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, which I will use later. Meanwhile be suitably amazed by my expansion of the Frances Barber article, one of my all-time favourite actresses.

Alas I am missing a few of her early dates (Theatre Record only kicked in from 1981) but I will work on the omissions. Barber is definitely more a stage actress than movie/TV performer and my addition proves that! John Thaxter 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please please help out with List of British films this should be crammed full with alll the films and details!!!! I am currently only half way through A and even then all the details haven't been added!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

HI mate. I have finished the first column of Category:British films so have nearly finished A. If the film was even partly produced in Britain then it should qualify as British the films which are GB-US can be put in but breifly mention co-production. THe frist step in compiling it will be to add as many of the films in the category as possible with the details -the lists are very useful in understanding the industry of each country and film history - the Britain list is extrenmely underdeveloped and needs serious attention!!! ONce that is done I will go through thhe filmogrpahies of major actors and directors and add the missing films, - ideally each year the films would be in alphabetical order -but I did addd the films I could think of off hand first to rid of the emptiness!!!. It would mean aa great deal if you could work with it. All the best and my kitty Mr Bigglesworth meowsss!!! and I bow my bald evil head down at you! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

SOunds cool to me zzzzzzzz!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alphabet not using the. Saludos ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please refer me to the section in the Manual of Style that gives the guidance on removing date links from filmographies? I don't even know where to start looking. Deb 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful info. There are so many guidelines and conventions these days that I confess I don't often have the patience to wade through them. The only time I would maybe prefer years to be linked is in the case of authors and their books. Because I work on the Year and Year in Literature articles a lot, I tend to look for these in "What Links Here". But I can understand the reasoning behind removing them. Deb 11:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for cleaning the article up a little but I'm setting the article up for peer review. If you have any other ideas in how the article can be improved please list them at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Three Doctors/archive1. Thanks. Retiono Virginian 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, MarnetteD! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule criterion\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for the update you left on my talk page. However, as you might have noticed, your contributions to The Unquiet Dead have been reverted by the same anon I warned. I have reverted the edits back to your most recent contribution to the article. --Aarktica 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The image on the page is replaceable. As you can see from the warning on the image page Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale should be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent. Commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights. The rationale on the Dule Hill mediation is sound here. Please explain why it is not. If you wish we can take this to mediation? (195.147.83.66 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Nothing in the above statement has anything to do with the images from the films that are on Helen's page. They represent her work. Are you going to go to every wikipage for an actor and remove the images?.MarnetteD | Talk 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The work can be found by clicking on the link on the actor's page. You have to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be as free as possible. Anything that shows the actor's likeness has to be restricted to free images on their page. If you look around you will see this. Mosey over to Martin Sheen and see roles that he is famous for are there. (195.147.83.66 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

You seem to have missed the point. I am not talking about the image in her info box which, incidentaly, was from her work in Prime Suspect making it very much like the image on the Martin Sheen page. I am talking about the images of her from her films that are in the body of the article which you kept removing. Hundreds of actor pages here at wikiP have pictures of the actors in roles from their films and your edit summary when you removed them intimated that all such pictures should be removed. MarnetteD | Talk 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not missed the point at all. The picture of Martin Sheen is a free image as it has been released into the public domain by the person who took it (he is off set but in character) whereas the image in Helen Mirren's infobox is a publicity photo released by ITV. This remains the case with all the other photo's. I repeat the assertation that this is the same as the mediation on Dule Hill and feel that the only way that this can be resolved is by mediation. (195.147.83.66 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

I've read your advices. Thank you. I'm new at wikipedia and it's difficult to know how to write / edit in a propper way. By the way, I made wrong with 3 Academy Awrds. I've seen that in the UK list it's edited with letters and not with numbers. Sorry. In my next contributions, I'll do it well. Rohmerin 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I do have all the DVDs, and if one can check on these items by viewing the DVDs I will check them out. I also have the "Mayflower Books" 1978-1980 copies of the earliest plays transmitted and Susan Willis's The BBC Shakespeare Plays: Making the Televised Canon. I would guess too that you are right for removing the dates next to the titles in parentheses since the taping dates and first transmission dates are listed. Should we change "broadcast" to "transmit" for the American dates?--Drboisclair 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that it would be more appropriate to have the plays in the order of their taping, since the transmission dates are a bit of a tangle?--Drboisclair 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deferring to your better advice: I have rearranged the BBC TV Shakespeare plays in accordance with the first transmission dates; however, in at least two instances the American transmission date preceded the British transmission date!--Drboisclair 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes. I envy you knowing Tony Church, whom I consider a great Shakespearean actor. He was in the film Krull as was Freddie Jones and Francesca Annis and [!] Robbie Coltrane! I think that the BBC TV Shakespeare should have the plays in the order of their taping. I have adjusted them that way, except for Macbeth, which is in a different series as you can see.--Drboisclair 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a few tidbits to Mr. Church's article, but please feel free to edit them at your discretion. I was quite offended that anyone would dare to delete his article. As Hamlet said to the Player King: "'Twas caviary to the general" but Mr. Church is excellent!--Drboisclair 18:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As "Sir" said in The Dresser: "A kindred spirit!" mutatis mutandis (the change being made)! Cheers to you too!--Drboisclair 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I worked on List of British films untill the 80's. Sorry, but I want to go on with my work only on Italian films. I supposse there are more people interest on UK films than Italian movies, so, I guess the list will be filled up soon or later.

Saludos. Rohmerin 11:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong with my citizenship. I'm a Spaniard, not Italian, but Italian films are my passion. I love, love, love Italian cinema. By the way, If you or whoever wants to go on with UK list, it's easy if you take Top 100 BFI films. I did it that way, and the films of Michael Powell and Hitchcock. I forgot to fill up Frenzy by Hitch in the 70's, and ¿¿¿Stage fear??? (Pánico en la escena, in Spanish) it's another Hitch's UK film of 1950 with Marlene Dietrich. I'm going to do it NOW.

I discovered that the wikipage of Alexander Korda is very poor. There's left his filmography as film producer, and most of the best UK classic films were made by Korda. If you can put Korda in the section to expande his article (sorry, I don't know where's that section), perhaps, somebody wants to do it.

It'd would be interesting to put on that list most of the Ealing_Films. I can do it, I love Ealing comedy films. Today, I do it. I promise it. ¿ok? Rohmerin 13:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of work with Ealing films. I can not do it ALL today. I've put their 50's films. Rohmerin 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments [[1]]. (Please reply there too.) Thanks for your consideration. BrainyBabe 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me in the direction of some pages you feel I should review owing to User:Rambutan's work? Thanks. Wolf of Fenric 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this situation. I agree his clean-up may be excessive, but it actually does not appear to have affected any recent changes I have made, as far as I can make out. Wolf of Fenric 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I have only got as far as early Pertwee, as far as I remember, in checking links. Wolf of Fenric 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing out just what I've "unleashed"! The de-linking was due to an alert that came up for "multiple wikilinks" (obviously, if something's linked higher up, it needn't be linked again lower down), but the cast-list didn't occur to me. I didn't quite follow your point about Wolf of fenric, because quite a few of the links shouldn't have been links anyway (even if I did make rather a lot of mistakes), but do you think I should apologise to him/put them back?

Anyway, as I say, thanks for pointing it out; I'm rather new to AWB. Thanks,--Rambutan (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You may recall, back in February/March, that Usertalk:62.85.192.81 continually reverted my inclusion of significant text about the Electronic libretto system on that article and you came to my support by reverting the removed material yourself.

Eventually, we got three or four editors, by also reverting, to agree that this text was valuable, and he/she stopped removing text.

Would you please go to the Ellie Caulkins article and add your support for my position?? I am accused of "self promotion", though have nothing to do with Figaro Systems

Viva-Verdi 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Viva-Verdi 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Un ion flag is probably not the best choice because it annoys the Irish nationalists who will keep changing it to the anachronistic tricolour. I was wondering if either the St Patrick's saltire or some other Irish flag (harp?) would prove to be more acceptable. I don't know how to make icon templates of flags, I could try and put in a small image and see what happens, but if you know how to do it more elegantly please do so. Dabbler 12:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted on Talk:Oscar Wilde to see if we could get a consensus on which flag would be most appropriate. There are several choices here, scroll to the bottom for some choices. Dabbler 13:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

HI hope you are well. The British list is going well - do you mind if I make the split by decade now - already its over 72 kb on one page and we're only getting started!!!! If you don't want to split until it hits about 100kb thats ok but it will definately need splitting soon enough. I await your response ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See the List of British films the top right cinema and list template and you'll see the idea. If you are happy I'll split in about ten minutes after I have created a new article on a 1941 clark gable film . Regards and thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey recognize Joseph Egger I started ? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There were some terrific character actors in al those westerns -those familiar faces that keep appearing but you never know who they are or their names. Enzo Petito is another -played the weapons store owner in GBU. Are you interested in a WikiProject Spaghetti Westerns or westerns or something I am thinking of setting up? I've seen your name in a few western film pages so I thought it might interest you. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 08:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right that film should definately not!! be in the British list -someone has wrongly categorized it it is German and French at the most -I'll correct it. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Right you are a disamb page should be created -did you see the ridiculous categories. How can you have Category:2008 films for a 1928 film!!! I wouldn;t merge them -they should have articles different. I'll do that now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that I could help (especially in apparently teaching you something new). Most editors probably go mostly unnoticed for the work that they do unless they are spamming, so it was nice to be thanked once in a while. Thank you for the considerate award. Because I do primarily minor edits in bunches (touch-ups such as the one you mentioned) by usually going through whole categories of topics at a time (currently Category:American television series by decade), I never expect anyone to notice or have reason to give a thank you. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 07:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That one editor has got it in his head to remove spoilers from older works of art. He's essentially imposing his view of the matter for no reason other than being a busybody. I think all of that stuff should be reverted to restore the spoiler tags, but it could take awhile as he's been a "busy" busybody. Wahkeenah 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing we have the "contribs" feature to track these yahoos down quickly. I'll be checking later this evening to see how many gazillion of these articles those two characters have messed with today. Oy. Wahkeenah 22:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah has just landed himself a 3RR block for edit-warring spoilers back in - David Gerard 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Template:Spoiler itself now notes it should not be used on plot summary sections as these can be reasonably assumed to, ahh, contain plot details. So please don't re-add a template directly against the instructions contained in said template - David Gerard 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy that making a link to a page that doesn't exist (yet) is disallowed. In fact, I was under the impression that doing so would help make a page a 'wanted' page, so someone with the knowledge could create it. Redlinks is okay :) Check out WP:RED. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of this and have restored many red links in my time. I also have not removed any red links in my editing today so I have no idea what you are talking about in leaving this note.MarnetteD | Talk 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to know what I was talking about on my talk page ... Cody Cameron. Anyway. Argh. I hate short-sighted views like that (redirecting to a movie, instead of AFDing so people can know something's needed)! I'm restubifying him. The reason I said as I did is that your edit comment was confusing and lost me a bit in the logic. Retrospect? Makes perfect sense. Ah well. Hingsight's like that ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid that, after leaving my note, that you may have been referring to some other edits I made today, but, it turns out that I had guessed correctly. Anyway, I am glad that everything is cleared up. MarnetteD | Talk 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report about 71.104.3.109 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

woops I missed that you had received the same message already :). So, this IP adress last vandalized 30 minutes ago and received your warning 15 minutes ago. It did not edit since. Blocks are a preemptive measure to protect the project, not a punitive one. Therefore, since the vandalism stopped, I don't want to block the IP. But in the event it vandalizes again, don't hesitate to report it! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please can you discuss before reverting my changes on the Planet of the Daleks page, I have, as you suggested, discussed it on the wikiproject page and the article would seem to be too long. There's much trimming to do to the plots on some Who stories to bring them up to the higher standard on other SF series' pages Alastairward 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have begun structuring the List of British films:1940s - each year can have two or three images of the top films but I'll need to add a fair use rationale -it should be ok e.g see List of Italian films: 1960s. THis way the page looks much better and it is easier to edit!! I hope you like it and the moderations I have made to the templating . Ideally I would like to list all the notable films of the 1940s on one page but we'll se how many there are in the end and after imdb filtering for missing films - only the US will have a page for each year I think ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You can see some here. Yonatan ^talk 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can, so you can too. ;) Yonatan ^talk 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD. You may have already seen them before or even know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. There are also some scripts and tools which make the process easier for you; WP:TWINKLE is an excellent script for this purpose. Regards, Anas ^talk? 23:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

it's easy to fill up the UK list if anyone follow this list BAFTA Award for Best Film.

Saludos.

I always forgot to sing up. Sorry Rohmerin 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Not sing, it's sign. ¡Vaya día!

Hi. Firstly The Secret of NIMH is an American film. There is some considerable overlap in production many films both British and American for expample. I'd suggest if the film has purely American cast and crew then it is American. However there are many british films which don't fit this. Beleive me that all James Bond films are British produced even License to kill. If you are in doubt then leave the film out of the list - there is always some bright spark anyway who'll question what you do - I have had more than my fair share of questions!!! I don't however want people deleting anything that you or I have spent good time in filling in. The purely British films can always be rooted out . Keep up the great consistent work anyway Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll reword it later -best to also mention there is often considerable overlap in duel production e.g between GB and US. Star Wars I don't think qualifies as British - most cite the US as the primary producer. However if you feel one of towo of the films are par tof British culture then feel free to include them. I have just been looking at Steven Seagals' latest films and many are filme din Romania -I was just pondering whether to categorize them as Romanian films or not!! (I happened to be watching Under Siege earlier. The lists are developing well either way. Keep it up -I don't know if Rotherin is also helping or not. Saludos ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jupiter12 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Jupiter12 00:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you very much. I hope your sore mouth gets better, Best Regards!--Jupiter12 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

re the 'notable roles' changes you made to kingsley. i've run across a few articles with as many the 'ten' notables, and fans tend flip out when their favourite is trimmed. granted, the entire concept of 'notable role' is inherently rife with npov issues, but when i see a list grow to five, i trim it back to three...often accompanied with a low grade revert skirmish over the course of a few day. so i'm just wondering what strategies and mos/infobox guidelines you use to anchor your view? --emerson7 | Talk 13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a line to say thanks for the award. It was unexpected and a welcome distraction from all the hassle I've had today regarding User:TTN's episode article deletion crusade. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Episode blanking and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using Wikipedia:Television episodes for more info). I'll carry on with the "italics to quotes" work for the time being. Glad it's appreciated. :-) Chris 42 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we were lucky that Bouguereau did that other self-portrait. Let's keep our fingers crossed. Studerby 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, when I realised that quite a number of images were not in a gallery I put them all into one. I shall see where that signature belongs and put it back. Those were the days before everyone had a camera.. Gregorydavid 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt realise you were in the process of editing it. You know, there's a tag for that somewhere. And yes, my smaller cousins are interesting to watch - • The Giant Puffin • 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)