User talk:MovieMadness

1227:

cast/crew information can be questionable and indiscriminate. Sometimes a star is listed, but no role is identified. Sometimes stars are mixed in with extras. There's no accounting for the importance of certain roles in such a database format. Also, verifiability does not mean the information should be available online. If it's published in a newspaper or in a book, it can be cited. It takes more effort to verify the information, yes, but it would be completely unrealistic to rely on solely the Internet to source anything. Take a look at our Featured Articles -- they utilize print sources for the most part. As for articles on upcoming films, I don't completely disagree with you. Sometimes there's nothing for a while... nothing... then a wave of information from the press. I think it inconveniences readers far too much to exclude information about a notable topic until it's available for public consumption. Feel free to share your thoughts at

1537:, the characters may steal that focus. Lastly, I understand your concern about passive POV -- I saw the brief discussion praising the film, and it can be an issue. Perhaps it would be best to ask all involved to consider if they have incorporated as much content as possible in an encyclopedic context as possible, no matter what they thought of any particular element of the content. Also, Moni3 will surely have other editors assess the article, which is in a period of expansion right now. When she seeks wider assessment, I think that there will be independent opinions available to weigh in and nitpick the article for neutrality and flow. I think you should present your concerns to Moni3 -- you explain yourself clearly, just try to assume good faith of the effort and suggest a conscious review of their contributions. — 1524:

passage.) As for your concerns with the referencing, I've looked over the citations and found the use of newspaper sources and academic studies like film journals to be appropriate. I'm not sure if the analyses of this film would be considered positive or negative; an analysis should be objective, commenting about the structure of the film and what how it ties into cinema in general, not necessarily referring how "good" or "bad" elements of the film were. I've gone through some film journals, and this seems to be the case. In structuring a film article, I don't think that there is anything regarding the order of the content. As you may have seen on the talk page, I've been talking to Moni3 about how to re-order the sections. I think she's open to suggestions, so you are welcome to share your thoughts.

1840:

develop the article. When there are relatively few actors/characters, the list is a visual representation and is not intended to "overwhelm" a section. I consider the graphic list merely that, a list in a different format that makes it easy for readers to see actor and character portrayed. If a major casting decision is made, for example a "star" "ankled" the project, then using a list will not work, and the standard paragraph note is best used. Lists being what they are, I have seen a variety of them in use and for consistency, I find the cast graphic easy to implement, and has little variance (I like the "look" of it but that wasn't the real reason for using it as "prettiness" shouldn't be a consideration).

895:

Note that reliable and verifiable sources need not be linkable. While there are many who will be unable to access the article, I usually choose to include the link, either because the preview contains enough meaningful data to make the link immediately useful, the link can be accessed by those with a subscription, and that the link supports the fact the article exists even without being able to read the entire article. As done here, the concerns about the fee-based access to the link does not mean that the reference should be eliminated in its entirety. As I have done, removing the link to the preview page would address the issue, real or otherwise.

1164:, the link is indeed dead, but that does not make its information invalid. It was published in the newspaper and posted online, but it was taken offline after a certain amount of time. Lastly, the filmmakers had the goal of showing it at the festival, but they didn't. We don't know why the goal wasn't met, but considering the prominence of the festival, this intent seems worth noting. Hopefully, we can eventually find out why it wasn't shown. Lastly, I'm not certain about the Jake Weber issue myself. Maybe it was bad reporting on the part of 6496: 6444: 6323: 6271: 6219: 6165: 6109: 6053: 5942: 5886: 5830: 5774: 5718: 5662: 5606: 5550: 5494: 5438: 5382: 5326: 5270: 5214: 5158: 5047: 4930: 4764: 4708: 4652: 4596: 4540: 4477: 4414: 4351: 4192: 4089: 3913: 3743: 3646: 3549: 3452: 3355: 3258: 3186: 3114: 3042: 2970: 2898: 2826: 2754: 4298: 1701: 1568: 796: 736: 290: 4985: 4823: 2588: 2527: 2376: 2259: 6375: 21: 3852: 4024: 104:. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it, to see if your idea has already been discussed. Even then, it is often helpful to suggest a major change before making it, to see if anyone objects or wants to discuss it. Do not delete materials on other people's talk pages or on the talk pages of articles. 1472:. And as for your question, I was thinking of deleting the daytime serials bit too, but only kept it because it was primarily someone else's work. So anyway, I personally wouldn't actually mind at all if that section were to be deleted, to leave simply a list of winners by year and award. Hope that answers your queries, and keep up the good work! 6513:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 6461:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 6340:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 6288:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 6236:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 6184:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 6128:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 6072:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5961:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5905:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5849:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5793:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5737:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5681:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5625:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5569:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5513:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5457:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5401:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5345:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5289:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5233:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5177:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 5066:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4949:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4783:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4727:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4671:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4615:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4559:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4247: 3608: 3802: 3414: 3511: 3968: 1794:. As to table coding, it's just another "copy-and-paste" effort so it is easy to implement. Let's talk, I am on the verge of doing some more work on this article and have no abiding interest in the film, other than it was the target of some vandalism and I wanted to restore some of the original edits. FWiW 3317: 3705: 4144: 2477:

The mere fact references can be found doesn't make a subject notable. There is nothing outstanding or encyclopedic enough about Lansing Mall at this point in time that warrants its having an article in Knowledge. If it burns down or is destroyed by a tornado and thousands are killed as a result, then

2353:

magazine and introduced the proper use of references. I assumed that everything you added was due to that book and created references acccordingly. The only detail I knowingly removed from your contribution was that the show began as a 30-minute show; I favored the cited summary by Time magazine, a

2074:

I have been away from Knowledge for the past 2-3 months ... and I just today saw your Comment on the Talk Page. Many thanks. I replied to you at the Talk Page ... but, since it has been quite a while, I just wanted to bring your attention to my reply by cut/pasting it here (below) at your User Talk

1787:

Hi MovieMadness, thanks for your recent note. Let me briefly explain the choice of a cast table that I used. I utilize a cast table where it makes sense; often when there is expanded information about cast members or their selection for the role, then the more common paragraph style is preferable. As

1437:

into bold face print to signify those which were won. In my opinion, I think that looks better than lots of repeated 'winner' and 'nominee'. Also, I'm not sure what wiki policy is on this but most movie articles I've come across either splits it up into 2 separate lists for wins and nominations (such

629:

The explanation makes sense, but although you believe the Davis/Durkin images to be publicity stills, they are not. I watched the film almost frame by frame to get two good images of them. They are taken directly from the film and are cropped screenshots, as I stated on the image description pages.

1823:

Hi MovieMadness, nice to hear from you again. I understand you have an interest in the Bette Davis films and she does represent an iconic figure in film history, so I can appreciate your work on the numerous film articles that revolve around Bette. Classic films and actors are my interest and I tend

1262:

had a limited release to qualify for the Oscars, then expanded later. Such an opening would probably be considered public, but I think for the large part, festivals don't necessarily indicate a full opening. (An exception may be a film that only shows during a film festival and has enough coverage

4896:

source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users

1903:

article and I think it much better, thank you! I was wondering if you can give me your opinion on changing the format of the list of awards section. I know you must have put a lot of time and effort into creating it which is why I'm asking. With so many awards for that movie I think a list makes it

1839:

As for the use of graphic lists, cast lists are a minor issue in the development of a major article and although this graphic note in question is not my creation, I happened upon it when others were using it as a section list. I have and have not employed it as a graphic, depending upon the need to

1757:

I think that simple bulleted lists are most preferable for Cast sections, but not imperative. I don't think that tables are unsightly, but I think that the table coding can be intimidating for new editors. Also, the setup tends to limit expansion of background information about each crew member.

1532:

may be a film that would be restricted by full compliance with the style guidelines. For example, there is a more stronger emphasis on characters of this film rather than the people that played the roles. Most roles are self-evident in a film, so there is usually a focus on the portrayal. In the

1156:

due to its lack of reliability. I saw that the filming locations were culled from there, and I assume it was the same for the Cast section. IMDb operates on user submission like Knowledge itself, but it is not backed by verifiable sources. Hence, we purposely avoid citing it for anything besides

894:

states "Warners has not indicated who will portray Miss Morgan, but at one time Doris Day was mentioned for the role." The wording of the hook could be read to mean that she turned down the 1957 version, and not an earlier attempt, but the link to your article may have muddled the intended meaning.

2647:

Hi MovieMadness - I've had a look at the discussion, and while I tend to agree that the list of current plays probably shouldn't be included there, I'd rather not comment in the discussion because it's rather outside of my area of expertise (though you can quote my opinion, if you think that would

1962:

Hi MovieMadness. I hope that you don't think that I was complaining. There was a desire a year or so ago to have any picture in the infobox relate to the language of the film so I thought that the DVD cover was preferable to an Italian poster. But that is just me. Your poster should be okay if you

1873:

You're welcome, I'm glad I could be of help to you. If he exceeds four warnings, including a last warning, he will be blocked, yes. Keep up the good work! (P.S. It is pretty difficult to gauge whether anyone on Knowledge may have connections to real-life subject matters regarding the articles they

1527:

In addition, Moni3 is right about the FA criteria taking precedence. If you read the top of the style guidelines, it's a standard for most editors to follow with the occasional exception. I think that many films can be in line with the style guidelines (and even so, sometimes there are tweaks to

985:

I think you've been reverted because for biographical articles, free images are highly preferred over non-free images. If you look at the image description pages of most Featured biographical articles, they use free images whenever possible. It's not always easy to find them -- you could look on

1849:

The only reason behind established usage in titles, dates and formats is for commonality and so that readers can see a standard style. That said, I have no problem in slight variants being in play, so "Production notes" is just as valid as "Production" (comme ci, comme ça to me). I'll write again

1632: 1456:

for example, and no explanation is added either. However you are right in that the latter still states 'winner' in some articles, so maybe I should've kept that in. I just thought it wasn't necessary and that most users could work it out but I maybe that was a bit presumptuous of me. I don't mind

1491:

Considering the nature of this film, the article may tend to be more focused on interpretation. The film was very critically acclaimed (90% on RT from Top Critics), so it may be easy to perceive the article as overly positive. Can you point out what sources don't seem appropriate? Nothing bad

1402:

will be premiering at the Tribeca Film Festival, so we can expect that "wave" of coverage about the film soon enough! :) I've put in a request to an editor that I believe will be attending the festival with a pass, so not only would we get coverage but pictures as well. Hope to see you around!

198:

Why not: they're well-written, sourced, go beyond just the cast and synopsis unlike so many film/book/music articles, and of course they provided at least one angle or factoid for writing a DYK "hook" that has chances of being selected. (Many excellent articles don't make it to DYK for lack of a

1967:

states that flags should not be put in biographical infoboxes. I have noticed that some editors of film pages have started removing them from film infoboxes too and I have gotten into that habit. I would not want to edit war over it and if you want to put them back in please feel free to do so.

1226:

IMDb's popularity is why it's included, in my opinion. It's not a perfect resource, but it's valuable enough to include. It lists all the cast and crew information indiscriminately, which wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedic article, but a database. And believe it or not, pre-release

1788:

to the "look", that may be a matter of choice because I adopted that table graphic after seeing a number of other editors using this format and seeing that it was not a "splashy" or pointless addition. I am not wedded to the format and have made some alterations to sizing when required, see

1523:

Thank you for outlining your concerns. First of all, I agree with you that a full analysis should be preceded by the credentials, though it is not necessary to reiterate them again in that passage. (I am not quite sure if it is necessary to mention them if the relevant detail is brief in a

369:

etc. I've been trying to build up a reference point for all of film history!!. Glad you like my Mike Myers type humor. -in a distorted Belgian accent/ constipated Budapest sounding accent with log up ass "Throw me a frickin bone here Scott. I'm the boss I need to info!! " !! Adios

860:

Hello. I was advised by an administrator that a reference linked to an article requiring a paid subscription to read should not be used because it's not available to the majority of readers, which is why I deleted the one you added to this article. Do you have access to the full

3883:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 630:

I believe the Davis/O'Brien image may be a publicity shot, simply because I don't recall seeing it in the film. I'll take another look, but it looks like a posed publicity shot, and if it came from geocities, it's hard to know where they got it from.

498:

When giving a GA review on a talk page, it is customary for new talk page subsections to go at the very bottom of the talk page, not the top. The actual GA-pass template thingy does go at the top. If you need to format your GA review, you can use

1171:

Don't get me wrong, though... there is very little information available about this film, so it can't be presented in the nicest-looking form. It'll be easier to rewrite when more information comes out, but I believe the content is appropriate.

4324:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

881:

Thanks for all of your work on this and other films. The two DYK items listed above were both articles that I had nominated, in each case, adding sources to support claims made in the hook to ensure that the statement was accurate. In regard to

1824:

to stick to these areas in Knowledge articles that I write or edit. Generally, my edit comments are copied from a prepared list, so my terse, "more to come" note is indicative that after research, more revisions will be forthcoming. See:

986:

Creative Commons and try to find an image for Max Steiner or Jane Horrocks. I have to admit I don't have a lot of expertise on the matter, as I don't generally work on biographical articles. You may want to present your situation at

865:

article you cited? If so, does it specify Doris Day refused to play Helen Morgan when she was offered the role in 1950 for the reason I mentioned? Unless it does, it's not a valid reference backing up my statement, is it? Thank you.

1937:

That's alright, I only asked because I know how it would've felt if someone undid a lot of my work (I've put over an hour on some edits too) -- without thinking. I disagree though, about what you said about lists vs tables, I think

364:

Ah yes Meester. I see the Bette Davis connection above. Fabulous actress -amazed all the films aren't started yet. Hey as a future reference if you are starting a new American film could you add the title to the relevanrt year e.g

4063:

Because you participated in a previous discussion on the subject, I'm letting you know that a discussion has started about opneing a Request for Comments concerning "Bronx" versus "The Bronx" as the article title. You can find it

1468:, you're right about how little info there was for some weird reason. Just some random daytime serials from 2005 and 2006? haha. Anyway, good job on adding the 2008 awards. I'll try and update the other main winners from the 683:. I know that sometimes they don't seem useful at first glance for some dab pages, but they have been hashed out over a long time and have consensus, and we would like readers to encounter a consistent style on these pages. 1157:

basic cast and crew information, which we only do at the time of its release (due to that information being officially published). Presently, such information is from a mish-mash of sources, often incomplete and doubtful.

1764:, though, you could ask yourself if there is anything more that needs to be said about each actor and role besides the names. Talk with Bzuk and see if there is some sort of compromise to work out in terms of style. — 4328:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

1963:

have put all of the fair use rationales needed on the page for the picture. But I am willing to bet that you know more about that then I do with all of the good work that you are doing on the film pages. As to flags

2065: 6011:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 1502:, try to explain in more explicit terms what you think could be improved. (I think saying something like "Lynch fanzine" is a little off the mark, though.) Let me know specifically what you think are issues. — 199:

catchy one-liner angle, but then, there are also the "Good articles" and "Featured articles" processes.) Note that article writers (or stub expanders) are encouraged to self-nominate their recent articles at

6369: 3879:

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

6391:. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 5119: 1011:

Also, you may want to look at the page history for both articles -- the editor's explained his removals in the edit summaries, though I'm not sure about why the passage about theater was removed. —

2648:

help). In any event, the word of an administrator counts for no more than anybody else's in a content dispute like this. If discussion there seems to have stagnated, I'd suggest opening a

417:

and i can see the link "Italiano" under languages. Or do you mean that link don't go to italian articles? (maybe that article has been deleted meanwhile. Could you cite an example? Thanks

2732:. I haven't yet received feedback, but I would like to seek your guidance as to how I could improve the article and its DYK. Thank you for all your wonderful contributions to Knowledge. -- 5337: 6280: 4011: 2146: 6402:

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with

5673: 5318: 4287: 4203: 3560: 4515:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 4452:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 4389:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3224:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3152:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3080:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3008:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2936:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2864:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2792:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2408:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 2291:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 602:. At the time I replaced this image it was showing an "unfree" tag, so I thought perhaps it was a publicity photo rather than a screenshot. You've since changed the tag. The 6332: 6265: 5785: 5017:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 4855:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 3754: 2620:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 2593: 2581: 2559:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 1377:

I really enjoy reading the movie articles you write. They include all the information I hope to find and are very interesting. I hope you keep writing more. Thank you very much.

5654: 4305: 4289: 4184: 3541: 3053: 2404:

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 "

2287:

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 "

236:. There's no category in the pull-down menu on the upload page that accurately describes this. How do I categorize it? Please respond on my talk page. Thank you for your help. 6317: 6228: 5766: 5013:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

4851:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

4511:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

4448:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

4385:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3735: 3366: 3220:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3148:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3076:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3004:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2932:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2860:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2837: 2788:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2616:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2555:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

5729: 4775: 4321: 3034: 2381: 2369: 2252: 495:, new entries go on top. They are sorted alphabetically within each topic section, but the short list at the very top of the page just lists recently listed good articles. 6433: 6213: 6176: 6120: 5953: 5897: 5058: 4900:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

4362: 3347: 3106: 2818: 2264: 1498:. Her FAC process for that article seemed to show that she received input from seasoned editors and was willing to hear more advice. If you think there is an issue with 2025:

Actually, disregard that last message. The editor who failed the first GAN just cancelled my new bid. Oh well, I'm sure there's a Brel-worthy song in that scenario! :)

1673:

The next time you get so obsessed with something you have to go nuts reading everything you can about it, let me know and I'll help you edit the article. We'll get you a

1195:

What Butchart doesn't hesitate to do, however, is set expectations high. "We wanted to make a horror film," he says, "in the tradition of The Shining or Rosemary's Baby."

5710: 5449: 5393: 5281: 4990: 4978: 4756: 4551: 2981: 1981: 220: 4053: 6157: 6101: 5934: 5878: 5841: 5262: 5039: 4343: 3463: 2520: 1874:

make edits to. It's best to avoid pestering them about it, and make sure the contributions they make are encyclopedia-worthy, and if not, deal with them accordingly).

5430: 5374: 4719: 4532: 4041:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 3924: 2962: 1988: 1347: 926:. That category has the description that says people who "were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with the city of Chicago", which makes sense. 6453: 5822: 5505: 5225: 4941: 4884: 4877: 4828: 4816: 4607: 3905: 3444: 3197: 2765: 2359: 449:, however I saw your notice on the talk page and went ahead and removed the three free-use images per your suggestion. Thanks for offering to do the GA review. 4700: 4425: 3869: 3860: 3269: 2203: 2064: 1198:

That makes the homes' starring role in this production, which the filmmakers hope to have ready in time for February's Sundance Film Festival, especially timely.

4338: 6438: 5486: 5206: 4922: 4588: 4488: 4038: 3657: 3178: 2746: 1168:, maybe there's a twist involved regarding the premise. If it is truly inconsequential, as we'll find out from the film's release, it can be removed entirely. 1071:

You note I didn't speedy her; but there are no cites in the article as currently written, other than to the sometimes-iffy IMDb and her own website (neither a

4504:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

4441:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

4378:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

4219:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

4116:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3940:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3770:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3673:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3576:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3479:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3382:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3285:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3213:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3141:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3069:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

2997:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

2925:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

2853:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

2781:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

1104:

Hey, no problem; we're all working towards the same goals here. Any chance you can squeeze cites out of the sources for the articles that redlinked to her? --

6556: 6064: 5617: 5369: 5169: 4844:

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 Knowledge (see

4663: 4406: 4100: 3250: 2609:

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 Knowledge (see

2548:

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 Knowledge (see

2397:

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 Knowledge (see

2280:

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 Knowledge (see

2110:

Obviously it took a lot of time to research this list, and it appears you did much of the work. Congratulations and thank you for doing such a terrific job.

2084: 1358:". Noticed that it was similar to this before and you changed it to the "...." format. Since I realized that I reverted your edit, I thought I'd explain. 688: 346: 5002:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4840:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4500:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4437:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4374:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4215:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4112:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3936:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3766:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3669:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3572:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3475:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3378:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3281:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3209:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3137:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3101: 3065:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2993:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2921:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2849:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2777:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2605:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2544:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2393:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2276:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 6551: 6505: 4469: 4282: 3846: 3638: 3633: 3173: 2885: 6312: 4811: 3841: 2637: 2001: 6045: 5705: 5598: 5561: 5150: 4644: 4583: 4401: 4081: 1293: 6364: 5817: 5006:

if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

3439: 3029: 6490: 5034: 4917: 4872: 2909: 2425: 2308: 1457:

leaving it as it is now, but I still think the use of repeated 'nominee' is a bit unnecessary, as it is meant to be a list of nominations anyway (with

1307: 6260: 5313: 5090: 4751: 1728:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 1595:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 823:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 763:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 317:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 6040: 5761: 5542: 4973: 4639: 3245: 2813: 1942:

tables are easier to read. However, like you said no one really owns the article, so I think I'll leave it the way it is, since you got to it first.

6395:

is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Knowledge policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an

6208: 6152: 5985: 5929: 4464: 4003: 3536: 2576: 5481: 5425: 4527: 3900: 2890: 2137: 2119: 1292:

selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please

5873: 5257: 4695: 152: 137: 5095: 3342: 2090: 1283: 934: 6485: 5593: 5537: 5143: 3730: 2729: 2487: 5201: 4179: 2957: 4520: 4457: 4394: 3884: 3229: 3157: 3085: 3013: 2941: 2869: 2797: 2413: 2296: 2238:

Regarding the school I removed the alumni list because it needed to be referenced. I'm working on adding a gallery to the school right now...

1951: 705:

You make a very good point about the redundancy. I had another go at it, reducing the duplication I had introduced, but still sticking to the

6096: 5649: 6537: 2354:

primary source from 1964, which said it premiered in an hour-long format. Feel free to correct or supplement the article as appropriate.

465:

Thanks! I moved the GA review down from the top of the talk page, into its own subsection at the bottom of the page, I hope that's okay.

2034: 2020: 1116: 904: 614:

screenshots taken from the film. They are tagged as such and are listed in Commons with full details. Why do you think they are not?

395:

Thanks for fixing that, I saw that after I added the box, but I wasn't sure how to fix it either. I figured someone would know how. —

208: 189: 2471: 1802:) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) BTW, a bulleted list moved into a cast list graphic with no additional information is a minor change. FWiW 717: 274: 6392: 3873: 2174: 2164: 122: 35:. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. 174: 5022: 4860: 4310: 2625: 2564: 1256:

I agree with you that it's 2002. Film festivals aren't considered completely public. Limited releases would be trickier -- I think

2228: 1367: 687:

of the page was adhering to the guidelines; maybe you would be so kind as to revert back to that? Feel free to ask any questions at

652:

by Gene Ringgold. I'm 99% sure it's a publicity shot, but I'll have a look through the film tonight when I have more time. Cheers

2247: 1289: 699: 245: 6525: 6473: 6403: 6352: 6300: 6248: 6196: 6140: 6084: 5973: 5917: 5861: 5805: 5749: 5693: 5637: 5581: 5525: 5469: 5413: 5357: 5301: 5245: 5189: 5078: 4961: 4795: 4739: 4683: 4627: 4571: 1481: 661: 639: 6396: 6387:. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Knowledge may not meet the criteria required by 3868:

but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge constitutes fair use. Please go to

2211: 1337: 2741: 2652:

in order to solicit the views of other editors to try to achieve some consensus. Please let me know if you have any questions.

432: 5990: 875: 69: 1859: 1811: 1552: 1218: 1187: 1058: 1026: 570: 518: 474: 2457: 2103: 1423: 1386: 672: 6399:; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. 6036: 5132: 2719: 424: 380: 359: 2435:

I'm glad you liked the expansion of the Farley Granger article and I appreciate your taking the time to send me an award!

6407: 4905: 4076: 3888: 2710: 2511: 2448: 2363: 2233: 2191: 1378: 2664: 6023:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

5014: 4852: 3880: 2617: 2556: 2405: 2355: 2288: 1128: 975: 219: 6509:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 6457:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 6336:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 6284:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 6232:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 6180:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 6124:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 6068:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5957:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5901:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5845:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5789:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5733:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5677:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5621:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5565:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5509:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5453:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5397:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5341:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5285:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5229:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5173:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5062:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4945:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4779:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4723:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4667:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4611:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4555:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4492:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4429:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4366:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4207:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4104:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3928:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3758:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3661:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3564:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3467:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3370:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3273:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3201:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3129:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3057:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2985:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2913:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2841:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2769:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1005: 2452: 1517: 1452: 1087: 2095:

I revised this article on October 2, 2007. Please feel free to add comments or suggestions on this Talk Page or on

1885: 549:

Cut and paste the above version of the template (or the Fail or Hold versions) into a new subsection of the article.

542: 530:{{subst:PGAN |well written = |accuracy = |thorough = |NPOV = |stability = |images = |closing comments = }}— ~~~~ 458: 6383: 1976: 1931: 1278: 2683: 2048: 1779: 1396:...for your kind support of me as a coordinator! I hope you have been well. Also, I wanted to let you know that 679:

Hey there MMadness. You may not have come across them so far in your Wiki adventures, but there is a whole set of

403: 6032: 5128: 5115: 4999: 4837: 4012: 2714: 2602: 2541: 2390: 2059: 2466:

still? The last AFD was 2 1/2 years ago, and that was an unsourced article. This version has plenty of sources.

2327: 1446: 957: 4994:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4832:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2597:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2536:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2515: 2385:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2268:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1826: 1465: 851: 758: 684: 623: 599: 232: 107:

When you contribute to a talk page, please sign your name using four tildes: ~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces.

6514: 6462: 6341: 6289: 6237: 6185: 6129: 6073: 5962: 5906: 5850: 5794: 5738: 5682: 5626: 5570: 5514: 5458: 5402: 5346: 5290: 5234: 5178: 5067: 5007: 4950: 4845: 4784: 4728: 4672: 4616: 4560: 4505: 4442: 4379: 4220: 4117: 3941: 3771: 3674: 3577: 3480: 3383: 3286: 3214: 3142: 3070: 2998: 2926: 2854: 2782: 2610: 2549: 2398: 2281: 1332: 929:

If you believe people in that category shouldn't have the project's banner by default, please discuss it with

1686: 1418: 1303: 980: 951: 673: 408: 255: 27: 1251: 1246: 1146: 846: 786: 4901: 4037:. I do not think that this article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at 3125: 2152: 1664: 1486: 1346:

page and noticed the cast listing looked a little odd. I looked up the Knowledge style guideline listing (

923: 74: 54: 42: 2318:

Many thanks for the Barnstar (my first!) and your kind words. I appreciate your taking the time to write.

6028: 4049: 2133: 2096: 2080: 1372: 968: 533:(Or the relevant Fail or Hold review templates). And add your comments next to each pre-created point. 438: 586: 6510: 6388: 1906: 1775: 1729: 1596: 1548: 1513: 1414: 1274: 1242: 1214: 1183: 1142: 1054: 1022: 1001: 824: 764: 709:

guidelines about piping, italicization, and one blue link per entry. Thanks for your response. Best, --

558:

Click "Show preview", before saving, to see how it displays and check if you have anything else to add.

318: 64: 1747: 1614: 555:

saving your new subsection on the talk page, write your comments on each point after each equals sign.

335: 4314: 4034: 1752: 79: 114: 2642: 2532: 2332: 2128:

You're welcome ... and thank you for both the comment and the compliment ... much appreciated ... (

1299: 428: 388: 45:

to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

4512: 4449: 4386: 4072: 4058: 3221: 3149: 3077: 3005: 2933: 2861: 2789: 2725: 2706: 2507: 2444: 2323: 1868: 1651: 1382: 1153: 371: 350: 5114:

or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a

2167:

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

971:. You wouldn't be the first - there are at least two other discussions on the subject there. -- 591: 4045: 4030: 4016: 2216: 2129: 2100: 2076: 1947: 1927: 1228: 1075:

as to notability). The article needs better sources attesting to her notability, that's all. --

1066: 884: 853: 818: 366: 148: 133: 49: 4309:

is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to

2342: 1700: 1567: 795: 735: 289: 6420:-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the 5108: 4579: 2679: 2657: 2243: 1957: 1716: 1583: 1494: 962: 811: 751: 305: 1904:

very difficult to read. I've created tables for award sections in a few movie articles like

6429: 6019:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5589: 4969: 4913: 4868: 4805: 4747: 4691: 4635: 4334: 3896: 3239: 3167: 3095: 3023: 2951: 2879: 2807: 2199: 2055: 2030: 2016: 1997: 1391: 1111: 1082: 987: 910: 420: 340: 8: 6024: 2430: 1973: 1790: 1258: 1122: 439: 413:

Hello, i dont' understand what do you mean exactly. I've right now added an interwiki in

101: 90: 4068: 4065: 3865: 2700: 2669: 2501: 2438: 2319: 2224: 2042: 1986:...I would like to thank you for your edits and updates to the article I created about 1890: 1881: 1477: 1398: 1363: 1328: 972: 900: 890: 94: 59: 4892:

status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the

1444:), or uses bold format to represent the wins, out of the list of nominations, such as 6421: 6000: 5991: 5365: 5309: 5253: 5197: 5138: 5086: 5030: 4278: 4265: 4175: 4162: 3999: 3986: 3837: 3824: 3726: 3629: 3532: 3435: 3338: 2737: 2479: 2111: 2011:

consideration. If it snags it, I would like to share that honour with you. Thanks!

1943: 1923: 1723: 1647: 1619: 1312: 947: 867: 237: 181: 4239:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

4136:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

3960:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

3792:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

147:, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of 132:, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of 6020: 6004: 4575: 4497: 4434: 4371: 4212: 4109: 3933: 3763: 3666: 3569: 3472: 3375: 3278: 3206: 3134: 3062: 2990: 2918: 2846: 2774: 2675: 2653: 2338: 2273: 2239: 1590: 1469: 657: 635: 619: 389: 270: 1203:

Let me know if you want to see any other parts of the article for clarification. —

6533: 6481: 6425: 6360: 6308: 6256: 6204: 6148: 6092: 5981: 5925: 5869: 5813: 5757: 5701: 5645: 5585: 5533: 5477: 5421: 4965: 4909: 4864: 4799: 4743: 4687: 4631: 4524: 4461: 4398: 4330: 4261: 4158: 3982: 3892: 3820: 3233: 3161: 3089: 3017: 2945: 2873: 2801: 2688: 2633: 2572: 2421: 2304: 2195: 2187: 2051: 2026: 2012: 1993: 1682: 1660: 1492:

stood out when I skimmed it. Also, Moni3 put together an excellent article with

1433: 1343: 1105: 1076: 930: 834: 774: 648:

Actually... I knew I'd seen that Davis/O'Brien image before and I've found it in

582:

Thanks, that's awesome! Guess it proves that unsourced Knowledge isn't accurate.

262: 163: 6417: 6016: 6008: 5122:. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing! 5003: 4841: 4501: 4438: 4375: 4216: 4191: 4113: 4088: 3937: 3912: 3767: 3742: 3670: 3645: 3573: 3548: 3476: 3451: 3379: 3354: 3282: 3257: 3210: 3185: 3138: 3113: 3066: 3041: 2994: 2969: 2922: 2897: 2850: 2825: 2778: 2753: 2606: 2545: 2394: 2313: 2277: 2160: 1969: 1964: 1855: 1807: 1799: 1771: 1743: 1610: 1544: 1509: 1410: 1270: 1238: 1210: 1179: 1138: 1050: 1018: 997: 710: 692: 577: 566: 538: 514: 470: 454: 414: 180:

Thank you very much. I'm flattered you thought they were worthy of nomination.

129: 86: 1440: 6545: 6012: 4233: 4130: 3954: 3784: 3687: 3590: 3493: 3396: 3299: 2649: 2493: 2220: 2163:. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an 2156: 2008: 1876: 1691: 1558: 1473: 1359: 1318: 1040: 1036: 896: 726: 607: 503: 446: 200: 111: 4888:. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the 940:

Hope that helps - let me know if I can provide any further info or help! --

561:

Save, and it should display the template with your comments appropriately.

6458: 6337: 6285: 6233: 6181: 6125: 6069: 5958: 5902: 5846: 5790: 5734: 5678: 5622: 5566: 5510: 5454: 5398: 5361: 5342: 5305: 5286: 5249: 5230: 5193: 5174: 5082: 5063: 5026: 4995: 4946: 4833: 4780: 4724: 4668: 4612: 4556: 4493: 4430: 4367: 4274: 4208: 4171: 4105: 3995: 3929: 3833: 3759: 3722: 3662: 3625: 3565: 3528: 3468: 3431: 3371: 3334: 3274: 3202: 3130: 3058: 2986: 2914: 2842: 2770: 2733: 2598: 2537: 2386: 2269: 1760: 1674: 1072: 942: 919: 492: 204: 170: 2349:

for the content you added. I've add an infobox and numerous details from

1968:

Thanks again for all of your work improving film pages here at wikipedia.

1912: 2463: 653: 631: 615: 603: 329: 296: 280: 266: 203:, provided they follow the guidelines and provide a good hook. Cheers, — 2180:

That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

6529: 6477: 6356: 6304: 6252: 6200: 6144: 6088: 5977: 5921: 5865: 5809: 5753: 5697: 5641: 5529: 5473: 5417: 2629: 2568: 2417: 2300: 1922:. It would of course be a lot of work and I would be willing to do it. 1918: 1892: 1678: 1656: 1096: 802: 742: 583: 398: 312: 144: 3695:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

3598:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

3501:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

3404:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

3307:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

2177:

on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.

1348:

Knowledge:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information

4889: 3864:. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under 2587: 2526: 2375: 2258: 2159:, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets 1916:

and I was wondering what you'd think about using the same format for

1851: 1803: 1795: 1765: 1739: 1606: 1538: 1503: 1404: 1264: 1232: 1204: 1173: 1132: 1044: 1012: 991: 562: 534: 510: 466: 450: 153:

Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded on November 21

138:

Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded on November 21

6370:

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:ReturnToPeytonPlaceFilm.JPG

3851: 2693:

I appreciate your Barnstar. I was amazed the various adaptations of

2347:

The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows 1946 - Present

1631: 4044:

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

4023: 2498:

Thanks for yet another award! I'm glad to see you're still around.

1707: 1677:

in due time. Thank you for not only indulging me, but assisting. --

2155:. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of 1650:, for jumping in to help a project in need. For all your help on 20: 6007:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

1574: 706: 680: 4246:

the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click

4143:

the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click

3967:

the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click

3801:

the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click

3787:, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions. 3704:

the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click

3690:, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions. 3607:

the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click

3593:, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions. 3510:

the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click

3496:, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions. 3413:

the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click

3399:, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions. 3316:

the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click

3302:, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions. 261:. You will also need a non-free use rationale, as described in 4322:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Film & TV Music Awards

2674:

Thanks for the quick review! I liked your ALT1, flows nicely.

2047:

You might want to take a look at this interesting discussion:

4260:

If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off

4157:

If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off

3981:

If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off

3819:

If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off

1830:

which from a stub, I refined into approximately 2000 words.

1711: 1578: 806: 746: 300: 4236:, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. 4133:, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. 3957:, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. 2147:

Image copyright problem with Image:MiracleWorkerPoster.JPG

5319:

Orphaned non-free image File:FiniansRainbowScreenshot.JPG

1989:

Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film)

1317:

No, I thought I had removed it. Thanks for telling me.

227: 6266:

Orphaned non-free image File:TheScientificCardplayer.jpg

2582:

Orphaned non-free media (File:BetteDavisAnniversary.JPG)

1152:

With articles about upcoming films, we avoid citing the

1035:

I doubt that the image is free. You may want to review

230:

issued in conjunction with the release of the 1969 film

5655:

Orphaned non-free image File:MoonlightAndValentino2.jpg

4185:

Orphaned non-free image File:BureauOfMissingPersons.jpg

3542:

Orphaned non-free image File:QueensSisterScreenshot.jpg

2462:

Just curious, how do you think this doesn't fall under

6318:

Orphaned non-free image File:AChangeOfSeasonsVideo.jpg

6195: