User talk:P-Chan

This user may have left Wikipedia. P-Chan has not edited Wikipedia since 14 March 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I thought you might be interested in this.Endorse if you agree with the case. --ManiF 03:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite Mani, but I'll have to sit this one out. I agree with your side Mani, however, feel that both sides were abusive during the discussion. Cheers. --P-Chan 10:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please bookmark this page, for daily updates on the status of the Iran-related articles. Read notices posted by others or add your own notice by updating "Urgent view". --ManiF 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, actually. As you can see, all my edit did was change the template being used; the number of UN personnel killed was already in the article at that point. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. —Kirill Lokshin 14:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the tag from the Symbolism and Cultural Reference section and added sources. However, the section is still technically unsourced. Inline-citation requires each fact to be cited. Right now any user can add another bullet with no source but it appears to be somewhat justified because it might have come from one of the six links from the start of the section. (When you added those links, there were only two bullet points, now there are around five.) This is a sort of irrelevant article, but the citing is correct and relevant: The Office: Trivia. Does that make sense? Mrtea (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mrtrea,

thanks for the note.

I thought about your comments and took a look around at a few of the other movie articles to see if I could find a baseline. I've noticed that citations are usually *requested* whenever there is a *controversial statement* being made or one that there is no *obvious* source for. If you look at the The Matrix:Influences and interpretations & The Matrix series articles, you'll notice that there are many interpretation/influences that are not being referenced. I'll try to rearrange some of the points, and get rid of the weaker ones.

Also, you are correct. The references that I placed were only for the first few sentences (primarily surrounding Iraq/US administration, etc). They were not intended for the other points that people placed afterwards. I regret the fact that the people are just tagging on extra points under the original cited heading and will to find some way of resolve this.

Cheers.

--P-Chan 17:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Citations are often used to show that an edit isn't original research and to ensure that the content of articles is credible. (See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability.) I'm glad you understand why the links were a little iffy. Even if you don't know how to properly source something just add an inline link to the article ([http://source]) and someone will fix it for you. Weak points can stay, but only if they've got credible sources.

Regarding talk page etiquette, everyone's got their own preferences. I prefer to keep conversations in one place so they don't get disjointed and are easy to read. If you respond to a message left on your talk page below it, it might be nice to leave a note for the other user so they get the "You have messages" link. (Exactly what you did.) Users generally watch a page after they leave the comment there as well. See WP:TALK for more info. Hope you stick around, Mrtea (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Mrtea! I will do that.

There seems to be an awful lot of talk about who V really is, and it doesn't seem to show-up on the main page. I think this partly due to the fact that the theories and information on V's identity span both the Comic and the movie or it's own page... or maybe it's way too speculative. In anycase, I think it's interesting and deserves a home. Cheers! --P-Chan 19:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you have a cool username, where does it come from? Yuckfoo 21:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I put it through a peer review, here. Thought I would let you know since your one of the main contributers, cheers. Cvene64 06:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man for message, Cvene64, as it is good to hear from you. You have made some good contributions yourself. In regards to the review, I guess this means that we had better clean the house quick before the guest arrive! Is there any way to delay this for a day or so, so we can get the finishing touches done? I'm relatively new so I'm not sure what's entirely involved in a peer review. Cheers. --P-Chan 09:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can resubmit as many times as we like, and it is a long-ish process, so people will add their comments here and there over a fortnite or so. But don't worry, It won't do any harm, just give us more perspective on what else we need to do. Its the Feature Article Review that articles should be top-notch before submission, whereas a Peer Review, you can submit anytime. So hopefully we can just get some more ideas. Cheers Cvene64 16:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cvene64. Agreed. This would be a valuable process for gaining different points of view, and for getting solutions to long standing issues. I highly recommend that we take these comments, though, with a grain of salt, and in the context of the peer review. In particular, comments that recommend major changes should be discussed in the talkpage and have some time to sit, before they are generally consumed. That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I am impressed by your dedication to the constantly changing V for Vendetta (film) article. I personally have done minor edits here and there just to be snowballed over by the on-slot of the multitude of IP users. Each time I go to the site I see your name all over the place helping to keep the mass chaos as controlled as possible. You even created a "To-do list" for the film to help keep the contributions focused. Thanks for the dedication UKPhoenix79 10:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Your dedication and guidance to the constantly changing V for Vendetta (film) it is truly appreciated. Each time I go to the site I see your name everywhere trying to keep the chaos as controlled as possible. You even created a "To-do list" for the film to help keep the contributions focused. Great Job! UKPhoenix79 10:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UKPhoenix79, your comments are so nice that I don't know what to say... except of course thanks a ton. This is just a for fun thing for me. I like whole collaborative aspect of these articles (especially the V for Vendetta (film) one) as they have the ability to create articles that are better in quality than professionally done ones. Just hope that the comments and changes I make help to improve the qualtiy. Best Regards,--P-Chan 02:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I was only surprised that you didn't get one earlier! I know it can really raise people's spirits once they know that their work is noticed and appreciated by others. -- UKPhoenix79 00:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - have popped an answer on my talk page. Regards, --Oscarthecat 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a user mistakenly placed their sig in the middle of the template [1], so it no longer appeared in the list. It's back now. Sarge Baldy 07:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right. No problems. Cheers mate. Cvene64 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, and maybe it wasn't necessary to point out, but I figured if it was focusing on issues of censorship that that, or similar issues, might warrant mention. If not, no harm no foul. Said- Radicaladz

Sounds good then. (Please remember to use a sig).--P-Chan 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dude. Multitasking and recall need some work.

Radical AdZ

Hey man, you can try reintroducing your comments into the second section (other non-us symbols). I think they may fit better there. --P-Chan 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is making good progress now. Here are my main issues at the moment:

• The whole article still needs a thorough copyedit and I remain willing to do that, once it has settled down in other respects - there's no point refining prose which is about to get rewritten anyway.
• The plot synopsis is far, far too long. I've dealt with this exact issue before on the Perfect Dark article: compare the old version and the new. The idea of a synopsis is to draw out the most major themes and storylines - if the reader wants to know the full story then they should see the film! I realise that deleting a large amount of text, especially if you've written it yourself, is quite painful but here it's very much necessary for the good of the artile.
• The cast list section is quite nice, although the FA crew are sometimes a bit touchy about tables. We'll see how that goes; it's easy to rework as a list if necessary.
• The "citation needed" labels need to be replaced with, well, citations! But I guess you know that already.
• The filming section is good but you need to be careful with phrases like "X is said to have Y". The main text needs to mention who made this claim. There's a citation here so that should be no problem to fix.
• The marketing and release section is very under-sourced. There are lots of places that need citations in addition to those that have been marked.
• The summary of the novelization is rather short to have a section to itself; this is presumably a result of the article itself being rather short. If there's not enough material for a separate article then I suggest merging the novelization's article back into the film article.
• A lot of the "Symbolism and cultural references" section still smacks of original research. It is this section that needs the most work. It's difficult for me to give specific ideas because the problems with it are quite deep-rooted. I might have a go at this section myself as that's probably easier than articulating my issues with it.
• The "Critical" section has the unfortunate air of an article trying a bit too hard to be balanced. I think at least one more negative review is needed here, as the section seems very imbalanced overall. I realise this is tough in this case because the critical review has indeed been overwhelming positive, but you can mention that external bias without including it yourself. This is tricky to do right!
• The "Political" section again has citation and original research issues. It's quite a short section but it does need significant work.
• The "Trivia" section still needs to be merged in elsewhere. I think it was mentioned in the peer review that if facts are not important enough to be incorporated smoothly into the article then it's best just to leave them out. Again tough editorial decisions need to be made here.

Overall, I should say the volume of my criticism of this article is actually a reflection of its high quality! It is close to the high standard required of Featured Articles, and it just needs some difficult work to push it over the top. It is generally easier to criticise than to correct, but I hope you can rise to the challenge. Good luck and keep me posted, I'll be watching the article with interest. Soo 00:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the talk page, I feel the article is messy because too many users are trying to do different things. I feel the article is not making progress towards FA status, something I wanted to work towards long before the film was released. But I feel the article is going backwards...just my opinion. Cvene64 07:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend that you elaborate what your opinions are on the film talk page. I think that's the only way we're all going to get through this... if we have some common plan or goal. --P-Chan 07:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so. But Iam in the minority over the splitting of pages/images/a lot of content and so on. But thanks. Cvene64 08:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. I'll get back to you later with some ideas. Cvene64 08:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to read over it sometime in the next few days and I'll leave my comments on the talk page rather than making major changes (I'll probably only directly fix small things like grammar). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries ^_^ Thanks for the headsup. Argyrios 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

What is wrong with that monologue? This should be the correct one. It looks like it got changed some time ago and only recenty became noticed. -- UKPhoenix79 04:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messaged you on your talk.--P-Chan 04:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were the person who originally posted the monologue a long time ago. Where did you originally find the monologue? Was it from a site or did you make it yourself?--P-Chan 04:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is actually correct. I am surprised that you can recall that after all this time and the multitude of users adding info to the article. I got it from the IMDB site originally and by searching around the web to see what the consensus was. This was what everyone agreed upon and what looked correct to me after seeing the movie. So I do believe that this is the correct quote. What is you reason for thinking otherwise? -- UKPhoenix79 04:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only remember because I was one of the original people who commented on it when you first posted it. Please check the V for Vendetta (film) talk page. There is a link there, you should review regarding this topic.--P-Chan 04:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah... and I also remember because you were the first person I spoke to in the VFV(film):talkpage.--P-Chan 07:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea this was my one remaining claim to fame when it comes to this article. I was thrilled when you managed to find a place for this monologue when the troublesome trivia section (that I believe I also created) got removed. I'm surprised that I was the 1st person to talk to you since you were so active on this page even before I came upon the scene. I still think that you have done a great job with this page and deserve props for essentially becoming the voluntary administrator for this article. Talk to you later. -- UKPhoenix79 08:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing V monologue related conversation here.

I'm going to delete that talk conversation we had over on the V for Vendetta page concerning the 55 words, because we wondered into topics like obtaining low quality versions of the film and the site yourtube. We want people to watch the film right?  :) You and I were the only participants, so I'm guessing no one would mind if that topic disappeared.... And go watch the film still! I'm going to do that one last time (on IMAX) before it leaves theaters. Cheers!! --P-Chan 08:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't remove the convo entirely and I'll remove the extraneous comment I made... I do hope for other to become involved... especially since the convo has only been up for a couple of hours it might be best to let others to become involved! -- UKPhoenix79 08:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I got your message, I already cut off chunks of it. If I removed anything important by accident, feel free to just reverse it.--P-Chan 08:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok I thought that you were going to remove the entire convo... You must have just pressed save before I did since when I tried save my changes it told me that there was an edit conflict. But, I looked at what you did and it looks just fine. -- UKPhoenix79 08:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I though tit might have just been taken off by mistake or something.Cvene64 05:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ring Around A Rosies Relating to the Biological Attack> Read Here For More Info! Ring a Ring O'Roses#Appearances in popular culture Empty2005 04:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No problemo Empty2005 05:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with Jonathan Ross, he's a well known critic and has a clear passion for films. Hope this helps! --Oscarthecat 10:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, P-Chan. I'm afraid that the honest answer to your question is "I don't know." I looked around some relevant policy pages, and couldn't find anything addressing the subject. My feeling is that discussion of P2P movie downloading shouldn't be encouraged, if for no other reason than that it's off-topic from the purpose of the talk page, creating an encyclopedia article. However, I don't think it's exactly forbidden either. The law on the subject is still a bit fuzzy in places, more so when you consider the international nature of Wikipedia. I didn't look through the history of Talk:V for Vendetta (film), but I don't think that the mere mention of bootleg copies of the film on the talk page is problematic. If I saw people asking how to download a copy of the film, I'd probably say that this isn't the best place to discuss such things and encourage them not to discuss it here, but I don't think that we need to worry about it too much.

Of course, IANAL, etc. You may get a more definitive answer somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Copyright issues. Sorry I couldn't be more help! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me clarify that the good article and featured article processes are very different. For a GA, you may make as many good faith nominations as you wish provided that the the objections of the previous nomination have been addressed (which may not necessarily mean that the suggestions were made). For a FA, the nomination process is more complex. Because it requires a vote rather than a pass/fail, generally FA nominations must be spaced out (in addition to addressing the previous objections). Neither of these should be construed as a "penalty" per se. If I haven't adequately answered your questions, let me know. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA comments are just on the talk pages. If memeory serves me rightly,I failed VFV because of the lack of references. I haven't checked if that situation has improved, but more than one editor has told me that they plan on improving the article in that respect. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P-Chan, might I suggest that you consider the more frequent use of edit summaries? I was alarmed when you blanked a large section of Talk:V for Vendetta (film). It was not immeidately clear that you were creating an archive page, and I almost reverted you. Just a gentle reminder; carry on with your good work. Isopropyl 04:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Isopropyl,

The advice is appreciated, as I didn't think people actually read the Talk edit summaries, (for anything else other than knowing when the last posts were.) I'll remember to do this whenever I'm archiving the talk pages. Interestingly, I was just thinking about you Isopropyl when I got your message... because I had just finished archiving that one message you had on the talk. Coincidence? Maybe. But of course there are no such thing as coincidences.  :) Is there software or a html tool out there that allows users to monitor the status of their posts? Purely out of curiosity. This could be just a big coincidence. --P-Chan 05:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to watch the V for Vendetta (film) page; I'm not aware of any tools to monitor the status of individual posts on talk pages. You've been doing very good work for the article on the movie, which is why I didn't revert right away. Keep it up, it's looking great. Isopropyl 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good dude. (I'll put away my silly hat). Thanks  :) --P-Chan 05:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the advice P-Chan! Cvene64 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's good enough for FA status at this point. The worst that can happen is you'll collect more good feedback on how to improve the article. So I'd say go for it. Sarge Baldy 04:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto - I've done some very minor edits to help it along. Best of luck! --Oscarthecat 07:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't have time to make any major edits right now, I'm right in the middle of university exams. Sorry. Soo 10:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vdaggers2VforVendetta.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a misupload. I'm not sure how to delete that file. Please feel free to delete the file from Wikipedia.--P-Chan 17:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've (hopefully) addressed your concerns about wikilinked dates, more info on the v for v talk page. Regards, --Oscarthecat 21:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the V for Vendetta article achieving Featured Article. Any plans on which article is going to get the P-Chan treatment next?

--Oscarthecat 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure do, my friend. I do surf through some articles randomly now and then besides editing, and was really stunned to see the quality of this article. Anyway, you guys deserve every bit of the honour for the effort. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 10:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Vendetta8comiccover.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rory096 17:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propsed the move you suggested. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot I wrote that. (Just so you know, I may or may not enter the frey). --P-Chan 05:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd actually noticed that. I'm just very busy winding things up with school so will have to get to that later on. Sarge Baldy 21:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, P-Chan. You'd mentioned that at the page above that Refences should "try to contain only inline citations." I don't see that on Wiki policy posted verbatim below. Wikipedia has got so many policies; could you let me know the one about references only containing inline citations? Thanks. Here's what I found:

Hi, all. The reason I've changed "External links" to "References" comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!

1)

Complete citations in a "References" section

Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work.

2)

External links/Further reading

The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Where there is a references section, editors may prefer to call the external links section "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further reading section may contain items that are not online.

So from what I understand of the above, sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. I'll hold off on changing things back to the above policy for a day or so till I hear from you. Thanks, — Tenebrae 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! This was in reference to the edit of "03:18, 5 June 2006 P-Chan" with edit summar "(→Development - Changed reference format. (Please try to use full in-line citation references))."

The edit removed the first four citations (including the official site plus a site, The Numbers, used for box-office figures) that were used as references sources for the article. They were placed under "External links," although, as direct article references, they would normally be listed under "References." Thanks again for your response, P-Chan! -- Tenebrae 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits on X-Men: The Last Stand. I like your work. --Facto 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just recommded your recent plot-summary edit to User:ChrisGriswold and User:Bignole on their respective talk pages. I haven't slogged too carefully through the lonnnnnng blocks of comments back and forth, but I think you've written an accurate and workable sentence.

On another issue, I've asked editors to weigh in on including the one mainstream film critic who's also a comics writer. Please see just above Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#The_Connection_between_the_comic_and_the_film, and, if you want, let anyone else know who's been involved in the page. Tenebrae 01:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt this particular post, but it seemed to be the best place to post a comment without starting a new section. But, were you reading Tene's talk page, or do we just think alike? (in regards to the better flow for the PLOT section). Bignole 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it's funny because ChrisGriswold and I were having an argument about that particular sentence, and I had just suggested that it say "reluctantly killed her with his claws" when I noticed you had changed it. Well, atleast it is corrected now, and has better flow. Bignole 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree with your more. I was glad to see that someone else was seeing the issue, who was outside of the argument. Anyway, good editing. Bignole 07:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I offered a concrete and I think fair compromise just now at Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#Discussion_of_straw_poll. I urge you and other editors to weigh in so that maybe we can stop this back-and-forth battle. -- Tenebrae 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some major edits to fix Watchmen. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Hopefully, it won't need a major copy edit now. Tombseye 06:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the thing is that most people felt the themes section was too short. The majority of reviewers kept asking that's it? So I added more to it. Subsections were also objected to as most wanted just one section with paragraphs. So basically, me and DC, were working through concensus. Tombseye 06:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For getting V for Vendetta (film) to featured status. Your contributions were top class and you really made it a quality article. Good work! Cvene64 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Has it been listed at Todays Featured Article? What are the plans? Cvene64 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I see your working on the new X Men film, good luck with that. Cheers. Cvene64 08:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello P-Chan, I don't know if you've noticed but I've revised the article based on your suggestion and was wondering if you have any other comments? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your fast response! I would suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Adding to the lists of subjects. I think for a project of broad scope like Films, the bot would be very useful. Setting things up for the bot is surprisingly easy (see what you think), the main work is going through the article talk pages adding templates such as {{WP:Film|class=B|importance=High}} and the like. The military history folks have tagged 4000 articles in only a month or two, though! Let us know what you think, we'd love to have a more comprehensive coverage of films. By the way, I'm the picky b*****d who complained about the English in Gremlins 2 at FAC (see previous posting!). Cheers, Walkerma 07:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you linked me to the WikiProject Films' discussion on creating a WikiProject Filmmakers. I'm sorry but is there a reason why you sent this to me? The Filmaker 02:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You didn't spam, I was just confused on why you had asked me to take a look. ;) The Filmaker 03:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a bot or something does go through all of the articles and changes things. Don't worry overmuch about it. Let's just get the name changed. Please support the name change of Disaster movies to Disaster films.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 08:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I was wondering, what can I help with? I have followed the work you have been doing to organize the worklist and split off the new WikiProjects, but I'm having a hard time determining where I can jump in. Is there anything you can think of? Thanks, Aguerriero (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment for the candidate article Goldfish. I was just wondering how many inline citations would be adequate for an article of this size. QuizQuick 01:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I seen from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Eastern_Solomons, there are so many references. Is it necessary to have that many even if most say the same thing?QuizQuick 01:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I thought I'd let you know that after extensive work, all of your concerns regarding this article were fixed, and I was wondering if you'd give it another Good Article look when you get a chance. :) Judgesurreal777 16:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Renominated :) Judgesurreal777 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a query about the prologue text on this page in it's respective talk page. Well, the text in question is not spoken by anyone, rather it is just titles that are presented on the screen giving the backstory and explanation for the film. So...how should I handle that? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the help. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 08:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Richard III (1955 film) is up for FA. If you could lend your comments to the FAC page, it would be much appreciated. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your objections yet again. Are you sure it still needs more copyediting? I mean, you seem to have done most of it yourself! ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 10:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Many of the characters don't do much, so some of the summary's are very short. Very Short. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copyediting of the article. It's much appreciated. And thanks for finding other people to help too. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 23:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It's looking pretty damn spiffy now. Once again, thanks. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! Of course, people will think Wikipedia has some kind of bias in favour of Halloween and Gremlins movies, but who cares. :P CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment has been addressed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cornell University/archive1. Please see the substantial copyediting and revisions at Cornell University and consider supporting its FAC. —mercuryboard^talk 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your change to the opening of the synopsis. It was close to that before today, but I'd changed it to that so it would sound more out-of-universe than in-universe.....plange 02:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed fair-use rationale on Image:Serenity Cast.jpg. Much appreciated! --Yamla 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gifted storyline did involve a "cure" that'd been discovered for genetic mutation. A good site to look at is www.uncannyxmen.net. Look under the issue summaries then click on the Astonishing X-Men, the current title. There've been a couple of mini-series in the past called Astonishing X-Men so don't let that confuse you. All of the issues of the comic, including the ones with the gifted storyline, are included. In fact, the gifted storyline begins with the very first issue of the series. The summaries are very detailed and it should provide you with everything you need. Odin's Beard 00:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the FAC for Mars. I knew I didn't do something quite right, but I was having a hard time figuring out just what it was. I realized it at the same time you fixed the nomination. Tuvas 17:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chan, I'm good, how about yourself? I didn't see that Richard III request on my talk, I must have read new messages when there was more than one, and skipped it. Anyway, I'll check it out. Nice hearing from you. Cvene64 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an FA! Thanks so much for all your help, I'd give you a barnstar, but I guess I jumped the gun on that one. Once again, thanks. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being used for requests for film pictures, there are currently ten requests there. It seemed appropriate to have the link from the Films project to there, I had only reverted a previous removal of the link which siad it was unnecassary but at that time there was requests there. There wasnt any discussion on the talk page about either its insertion or removal it just seem logical for this page to known and available to the project. Gnangarra 07:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It and the project benefit from page being linked it doesnt matter where on the page what ever best suits the project. Gnangarra 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement! I've actually posted another comment since the last one, saying that I basically don't see the point of changing the template at all. As you said, "We should strive for a fuctional template, as opposed to a very flashy one." This discussion seems to be getting pretty long and escalating rather quickly, and I think some of your insight would definitely be appreciated (when you have the time). Thanks! --Gpollock 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your just not on that much or if you didn't see my reply, but I replied on my talk page if thats ok... but I can reply here if you'd prefer! Hope to talk to you soon! -- UKPhoenix79 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you have don't usually work on Bose related pages but I was hoping that I could get you involved with the discussion here! Thanks :) -- UKPhoenix79 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you did such a fantastic work on old Dickie the Third (1955, mind you) that I was just wondering if you could give Empire the once over. Thanks, ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 03:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P-Chan. Good to see you're keeping busy. Had a peek at your talk page, wondered if it's time for an archive? --Oscarthecat 19:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some friends of mine have set this up, ready for FA, but I was wondering if you would be able to give it a copyediting first? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember discussing the idea that we should not list every single character in the article? An editor has begun to re-add Arclight and all the other minor characters, and he wants to know why he shouldn't add them. I told him we had previously come to a concensus against that, but all I've found so far is an edit summary or two in which we mention not adding minor characters. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That editor would be me. And it's not accurate to say that I want to list "every single character". I think that characters of significant interest to readers should be listed. A character is of significant interest if they: (a) have a lot of onscreen time, (b) appear prominently in key scenes, and/or (c) are major comics characters. I don't see why Chris thinks this is unreasonable. —Steven G. Johnson 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: I did exaggerate; I apologize. It wasn't intended to be taken at face value because He and I both did a lot of work to try and not only get the article into shape but to maintain, and you may be only the first editor who wanted to give a reason for such an addition. For that, I do appreciate your intentions. As an editor that primarily works on comics-related articles, I do approach these from the perspective of a comics fan, but I do also try to keep the mainstream reader in mind. I just feel that to make notations with regard to the comics beyond what is already in the article is excessive. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was working lately on improving (as film) a mixed novel-film article (The Magic Christian), which had, since years, started to lean on the film side. Then another user asked me to start a separate stub on the novel. Not having done any of this before, I created The Magic Christian (novel) stub (including an old version when it was still in the novel phase), which is currently being worked on. Then I created The Magic Christian (film) where I placed the developing film article. The original page is now the disambiguation page, which also contains the past edit history of the original article. I still haven't figured out the exact way and consequences of changing the main title of an article, redirecting, etc. The original article had in its discussion page a template for film w/ "Stub" status. Without knowing that it is only for the assesment team to do this, I added "Start" status in the film's discussion page. I think that the article may actually be of "B" status now. If I am addressing the right person, can you please make a reassesment, or let me know to whom I should make the request? Hoverfish 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. I hope everything is going better now. I'm glad that you saw that V for Vendetta is now Today featured article for Guy Fawkes day. Congrats :) I don't know if you noticed but some people have been removing The letter V and the number 5. I have been trying to give more external sources. But as some have pointed out it was a part of the article when it became featured. I was hoping that you could help since I will not have much time today. Thanks & I hope to see you around again -- UKPhoenix79 20:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked to is more about Li Ao's use of the V for Vendetta mask in a recent episode in the ROC Legislative Yuan... I'm not sure if it would actually fit into the article. -- ran (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at the talk page and it might seem like I'm yelling at you, but I'm not, I'm talking about the Badlydrawn user (that's username, I'm not calling him badlydrawn). I agree with you. Cbrown1023 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:VdaggersVforVendetta.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta (film) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you're a significiant contributor, I thought it'd be best to c.c. the note here. Perhaps you may have the best interests in mind on how to go around with this. - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Somehow I have a bad feeling about this - there seems to be no further discussion on ressolving this, which probably could mean it could well be heading towards the subsequent straw vote. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P-Chan! I am trying to get Serial Experiments Lain through FAC at the moment, and as I saw the work you did of V for Vandetta, I was wondering if you could give me a hand on that. The main objection standing is the text quality. Would you have a minute to copyedit, or point some weaknesses? If not, maybe you know of someone who might? Thanks in advance, --SidiLemine 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks P-Chan. I will close the FAC now as I just received some fresh material to include, and had good input from Monocrat on how to arrange it better. Just the time to find out how.... And I'll probably re-submit it in two weeks or so.--SidiLemine 15:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the way I saw it, we should put in the people who are top billed (in either opening or closing credits). Etheridge does have only two scenes where he speaks, but he is billed in the first part of the closing credits. Earlier, I had Heyer on there, pretty much because he is played by an actor who is pretty big in England.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. - JustPhil 20:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Could you possibly upload some images of Etheridge, Lilliman, Parliament exploding, etc. from the DVD? I tried uploaded some by screen-capturing from videos on YouTube, but I think there can be better ones. For some reason, it won't work on my computer's DVD player.

One more thing, it is cited from a website that Dascombe (I'm not sure if there is an "e" or not) is the propaganda guy. It is clearly stated in the film, just watch the first cabinet scene.- JustPhil 17:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Eddie Marsan is in the top billing in the end credits. And, could you please upload DVD images from the other characters and Parliament exploding?- JustPhil 12:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas -- UKPhoenix79 25 December 2006

Hi P-Chan, thanks for the xmas greets. Happy new year, good to see you keeping busy on the V for Vendetta page. Any new projects/articles on your horizon for the new year?? --Oscarthecat 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Natalie Portman at Comic Con5 2005b.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have the communication on FARC if it still opens. — Indon (reply) — 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sourcing is certainly sufficient. Good work tracking things down for this!

I must make one simple point regarding original research (I'm not saying you were guilty of the following on this article, but it was problem with it). If the main social or cultural subject (the film, in this case) has A, and some other subject also has A, which predates it and closely resembles it, it is actually OR to mention the last unless another reliable source has already linked the two. For instance, even if it's as obvious as the nose on your face that "V for..." borrowed from a well-known subject like the Count of Monte Cristo, you can't say so here unless Rogert Ebert or somebody else has said it elsewhere. This is broadly what it means to be a tertiary source.

I know you already grasp this, given your work eliminating OR on this page. I just wanted to repeat it because it's a problem on our pop culture articles and it never hurts to remind people! Cheers, Marskell 20:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure when I was looking at this initially I saw an interview with Alan Moore in which he was talking about the origin, and mentioned the connection to V for Victory. I thought maybe it was in the back of the book, but it doesn't mention it there. I'll have a hunt around. Yomangani^talk 11:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either I imagined it or I can't find it. That link you sent me looks good though: Moore states that the original idea came from Skinn in his essay in the back of the book (p271 ISBN 1-85286-291-2), so a statement from him as to its origins should be fine. I'll have a look in on the FARC later. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been clearer about the request for references for the differences between the novel and film. The statements that I think require references are opinions about the motives and feelings of the characters (which are now either cited or have been removed), not differences in the story, locations, or actions. Finding citations for the very obvious physical differences is pointless (worse even than the demand for film specific references that I've been arguing against). Sorry, if there was any confusion about that - I'm happy with that section now. Yomangani^talk 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stephen Rea section is OK now. For the Count of Monte Cristo reference you could add something that makes it clear for people who haven't seen the film (since that's at least part of the audience for the article). Maybe just what you added on my talk page in the form of a reference, like: <ref>V and Evey watch the film together and discuss why it is his favorite film. At the end of the film Evey refers to V as Edmund Dantes.</ref> Well done for sticking with it through FARC though and congratulations on saving it. Yomangani^talk 09:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vforvendettabushyoura.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The January 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. Nehrams2020 06:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Big Brother is Watching You... with VandalProof. ^>^ I noticed that somebody was messin' around with an atheism category, and I was keeping an eye on it to make sure the changes were legit (I'm a bit of an evangelical atheist myself). And while I was there I thought I'd might as well lend a hand.

And BTW... turn the camera back on... I was enjoying the show. >D - Big Brother 1984 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I'm a bit skeptical about this category. I feel that it might be a matter of philosophy and personal opinion if a film fits this category. Also, it could possibly mean some inflammatory PoV debates whether a film has a religious message or not. Has this category been discussed on Films project?. I might have missed it and if so I apologize. Cheers -- TexMurphy 12:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how interested you are in copyediting. But I'm desperate for people to copyedit The Empire Strikes Back. If you could look it over, I'd really appreciate it. The Filmaker 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The March 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 Cbrown1023 talk 00:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason for your username? Merely curious... -- Cat ^chi? 10:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The June 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. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 08:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The July 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 delivery by BrownBot 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The August 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 delivery by BrownBot 12:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An automatic notification by BrownBot 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Serenity_Cast.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Serenity_Cast.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vforvendettapanel.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]