User talk:Steve/Archive 9

Prose help

1968 Illinois earthquake has been a bit of a hassle for me. Initially thinking I could take it only to GA, I didn't pay much attention to prose. Upon finding more sources, I've now been able to expand it to an FA standard. It failed an FAC a while ago, because of this wordy prose. I've had a couple copyedits, but I don't think that's the right way to go. Would you mind providing feedback and leaving comments at the article's talk page? If you can't, don't hesitate to give me a shout. ceranthor 15:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. After the weekend though. That OK? Steve ^T • C 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. ceranthor 01:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit late, but done and done. Steve ^T • C 08:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, do you think the article is now ready for FAC? I fixed all your concerns, I believe. ceranthor 13:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that would have kept you busy for a lot longer. :-) It looks like you've tackled every issue I put on the talk page; I'll have another read through to see if they were obscuring any other prose oddities and let you know (probably this evening, maybe tomorrow morning). Steve ^T • C 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! ceranthor 14:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you get to the article tonight, could you ping me? I'm going out, but will probably be back just after 24:00 UTC. ceranthor 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

←Hi. The only bit I can see that still reads clumsily is:

Consisting of fallen chimneys, foundation cracks, collapsed parapets, and overturned tombstones, the damage cracked interior walls, plaster, and chimneys in the home of one family in Dale, Illinois, near Tuckers Corners and southwest of McLeansboro.

The problem lies with trying to join the two statements ("Consisting of ..." and "[it] cracked interior walls"). As a connector, you're using the same subject—damage—but that doesn't work for the action in the second statement, as "cracked interior walls ..." etc. is damage, not the result of it. Essentially, you're saying, "The damage caused damage". The rest of the article looks more or less fine though. All I will say is that you shouldn't take my word for it alone. Take this to FAC and other reviewers will spot issues—and that's fine. We all have different areas of expertise. I'm good at fixing ambiguities, grammar, redundancies and problems with logical flow. But while that makes it functional, grammatical, satisfactory even, I'm less good at turning adequate prose into something genuinely engaging or brilliant. That said, I think it's sturdy enough now that what prose issues do arise should be resolvable within a normal FAC timeframe. Good luck, Steve ^T • C 07:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol @ Tony's talk. I guess I was exaggerating just a little. ceranthor 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I don't know if you like recognition in this form, but 1968 Illinois earthquake passed its FAC. Since you helped me with the prose so much, I'd like to recognize your contribution. Congrats to both of us for an FA. ceranthor 12:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In case you're bored/don't have enough to do...

There's a bunch of old film GAs that need to be re-reviewed to make sure they still meet criteria as part of the GA project quality task force sweeps. It's been going on for almost a solid two years now, and we're just approaching the end but we all desperately want to get this done. The list is here but you can do anything that floats your boat as well, it's just I thought of you when I saw them all, be flattered! Besides, content review is better than that dreary admin work anyhow! Embrace my example by getting the mop and then promptly do nothing with it! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally familiar with where GA's shifting goalposts are right now, but I'll brush up a little and see if I can find time to tackle a couple of those. Cheers, Steve ^T • C 08:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Samlesbury witches FAC

Thanks very much for your very helpful comments at the "witches" FAC. I'm in two minds at the moment as to how to respond to your reasonable comment that much of the material about Potts' Wonderfull Discoverie is duplicated in the Pendle witch trials. I'm not feeling comfortable about referring back to a subsection in the Pendle witches, so I'm thinking about creating a new article just about Potts' book. I think it probably deserves one anyway, as it's a pretty unique account of a 17th-century witch trial.

Would you be satisfied if I created an AfD-proof stub as the main article to which the Samlesbury witches (and the Pendle witches) referred? I think there's lots to say about Potts' book, more than enough for a pretty good article in its own right, but I just wanted to sound you out first. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Spinning-off an article about Wonderfull Discoverie, to which both articles can refer, is an excellent idea; I'd go for it. Incidentally, I haven't replied to any of your responses over at the FAC page yet because everything seemed well in hand and I agreed with your solutions or rebuttals. Though I see you've added a couple of more since I last looked in, so I'll mosey over there shortly for another look. Steve ^T • C 08:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your encouraging comments, and of course for your support. I'd been in two minds about this FAC, as I only ever intended to take the article to GA, but hopefully the exercise has been worth it thanks to the comments made by you and others. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; sorry I couldn't be as thorough as I originally intended, something came up IRL, but the other big review you got more than made up for it, so I was happy to support its promotion. I look forward to seeing it on the main page; witches don't make an appearance often enough and it'll make a nice change from all the hurricane and bridge articles. Steve ^T • C 08:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

Even though the last FAC has ended, please try to get ahold of Unfiltered and make the changes required. I will attempt to place a hold on my own library's copy of the book to make some changes. I would like to nominate the article again. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Hi. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate a copy at the weekend, though it probably doesn't matter; my concerns were more about the over-reliance on the book, at the potential expense of other good sources—it seems like there are sources from the period that haven't been tapped for information. I strongly suggest some kind of newspaper archive or academic database search, even if it's only to make sure the comprehensiveness requirement has been met. Still, if I have a more pressing suggestion, it's not to rush into a ninth FAC. See what other outstanding issues there were and work through them methodically first. FAC #8 was a bit of a mess by the end, so it might be a little difficult to discern exactly which issues were resolved, ignored or successfully rebutted. I know you and he haven't seen eye-to-eye, but DocKino—if given a friendly nudge—might be able to help you make sense of it to produce a short list of those issues he still considers open. I assume he'll be participating at the next FAC, so you might as well see what you can do to pre-empt his concerns. Steve ^T • C 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On another note

Haha, it feels weird to ping you about administrative things, but... User:Sanquin. ceranthor 13:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. G12, unambiguous copyvio of this page; the site indicates that its text may be reproduced, but only on a non-commercial basis. Steve ^T • C 13:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I knew that. I just wanted to let you know, since I saw you had deleted Sanquin (the article), which I tagged. ceranthor 13:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I knew that you knew that. :p Just wanted to create a chain of reasoning should the deletion be questioned. Hey, I'm new at this, so I'm being careful. :-) Steve ^T • C 13:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Offliner/Estonia

User:Offliner/Estonia was just an outline for a possible article. The text was just a placeholder for now. The info itself comes from reliable sources (for example: [1]), but I didn't add the sources yet, because it's (like I said) just an outline so far. Can I continue working on it now? Offliner (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's up to you. :-) I just declined the speedy deletion as I didn't see it as an attack page, but one that perhaps would make a legitimate topic—though NPOV should of course be followed really closely on something as potentially controversial as this. All I thought was that if the editor in question wants to see it deleted, he/she should take it to MfD rather than hit it with a speedy tag. Good luck, Steve ^T • C 08:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But why did you blank the page? Offliner (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't, it was already blanked. I just removed the speedy tag and left it up to you to put the content back at your leisure as I didn't know what you wanted to do with it. As an addition to what I said above, you should also be aware that even though seemingly-reliable sources have discussed "criticism of Estonia's attitude towards nazism", that doesn't necessarily mean that the topic warrants its own article. I make no judgements one way or the other, as I'm not familiar with the topic or the number of sources available, but I imagine that you should be prepared to defend its existence once you move it to the mainspace, as some editors will feel that to have a separate article on the subject would place undue weight upon it. In particular, pay heed to this arbitration remedy, which warns against such articles. All the best, Steve ^T • C 09:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted the ArbCom remedy you quoted. It warns editors against making such accusations. But where the heck do you see me making such accusations? I have never voiced my personal opinion on the issue, and will never do so. If people are not allowed to insert info from reliable sources about criticism presented by respected Jewish organizations into an article, then seriously, how is Wikipedia supposed to work? Also, most of this material has already been present in other articles. The reason I'm thinking of creating this article is because some of the info really doesn't fit into the other articles, as some if it is outside their scope. Offliner (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I said explicitly that I offered "no judgements one way or the other"; I'm not familiar enough with the subject and the history of the dispute on Wikipedia to do so. I was just giving you a friendly suggestion to be careful when crafting an article like this, as others who are more familiar with it might have something to say. Steve ^T • C 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Steve, "Criticism of Estonia's attitude towards nazism" -borderline legitimate topic? How can one in all seriousness label the whole country's "attitude towards nazism" and call it a legitimate topic? Editors involved have been through this too many times, this topic is a chapter from Estonia–Russia_relations#Accusations_of_fascism. I hope you reconsider your decision or restore the deletion tag. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Few citations on the topic (that's called the eSStonia campaign) for your convenience: According to Economist: What really annoys the Kremlin is that Estonians regarded the arrival of the Red Army in 1944-45 as the exchange of one ghastly occupation for another instead of a liberation.The truth about eSStonia at economist.com The Estonian Education Minister Tõnis Lukas has said "We do not glorify the Nazis in any way, but Moscow seems very upset that Estonia considers the Nazi era and Stalinism as equally evil and criminal regimes."Tonis Lukas at eubusiness.com--Termer (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here, let me explain: #1 I declined the speedy deletion of this work-in-progress userfied article because it wasn't, in that state, an out-and-out attack page. #2 This is not to say that it couldn't become one in the future. #3 This is also not to say that the subject is one that would survive an AfD due to potential undue weight, NPOV or content forking concerns. #4 Discussions were ongoing as to its suitability; because of that, and because it was a userfied article, with little content at that time, I felt MfD would be a more appropriate place for it, where its merits or otherwise—under this name or a more appropriate one—could be discussed in a centralised location. Steve ^T • C 14:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A page that labels the whole country having a "Nazi past that gets considerably glorified according to organization X" etc. is not an out-and-out attack page? OK, first of all what nazi past and who glorifies it? And lets say if you call a person Nazi, is it an attack? but if the whole country gets labeled so, it's not? Not that I'd expect you to change your opinion, just that the reasons you're giving don't make any sense to me.--Termer (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll say this for the last time. This is the version that you attached the speedy to. Very little content and in userspace. As such, I saw no harm in letting it remain until Offliner could expand it further, to potentially offer justification through reliable sources of the article's existence, and most importantly, context for the "glorification" statement. In no way am I saying that this is what I expect to happen, but I was willing to extend good faith towards the user. If you feel that strongly about it, I suggest taking it to MfD. Steve ^T • C 07:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time Termer has done disruptive nominations. For example, he recently nominated this: [2]. Everyone voted "speedy keep" in that discussion. About my userpage: it's a damn userpage, it is not article (although Steve seems to refer to it as such above); it does not have to be balanced, it does not have to be perfect, it's an outline, intended for only purpose: to make collaboration between me and another user easier. I really don't understand what the fuss is all about. But fine, I will continue working on the possible article outline offline - the userpage can be deleted. Offliner (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the page is gone but I still had to comment on that one: Very little content and in userspace. As such, I saw no harm in letting it remain until Offliner could expand it further. Expand? Did you ever click on those articles I listed above? The only thing that was going on in this user-space, things were cherry-picked from the articles on Wikipedia where the whole story about the "glorification" is laid out in utmost detail vs. unlike what was going on in the user-space were things were presented as facts.--Termer (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The topic is one that has been covered in a couple of ostensibly reliable sources. Now, by saying that I am in no way endorsing the article's existence; for a start, if ever moved to the mainspace, it's likely to run into undue weight and content forking POV issues. Still, I reckoned that if you wanted to see it deleted, it warranted more discussion—through MfD—than a speedy offered. That's it. That's all. I don't know how many ways I have left of saying the same thing, but please let me know and I'll try to come up with some more. Steve ^T • C 06:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Poster for Up in the Air (film)

Steve, when is it appropriate to include a poster for a film? The poster for Up in the Air (film) just became available on the IMDb, Empire on Line and about a dozen other sources. When it is appropriate, I will load the image and update the article page.--Dan Dassow (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dan. I see no problem with uploading the poster as soon as it becomes available. Are you familiar with the process? Let me know if you need a hand. For the fair-use rationale and licensing, it's probably best to nab the details from a like image, such as File:Changeling poster.jpg. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. I planned to use File:Changeling poster.jpg as an example. I believe I got it right with the image File:Up in the Air Poster.jpg and the article Up in the Air (film). ... It's hard to go wrong when you copy from the best. :-) --Dan Dassow (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PDF

Click on "PDF version" in the toolbox at Changeling (film). What's generated is a really neat format that feels like a chapter out of a book! I think it gives the content more weight to be outside the Wikipedia framework. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's really quite cool; makes me want to print it out and show it to people. :-) Cheers, Steve ^T • C 20:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! People are going to have way too much fun with the article when it's on the front page... —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Better if the IP had done it in just-off-white text or wrapped it in a {{hidden}} template. :-) On the main page thing, you should get the proposed blurb written up reasonably soon, to make sure you list it at WP:TFA/R as soon as it's eligible (30 days before the due date, so that would be September 15). You don't want anyone else getting in there with something film-related for October before you do; Raul won't run two like articles so close together. Steve ^T • C 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and that "anyone else" could quite easily have been me before I remembered that you called dibs on October long before I did, probably by a couple of years. :-) Steve ^T • C 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Freeeee! Thanks for the fix, allows me to get my fix... :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

← Thought you might be interested in reading this. I'm curious to run this tool through my primary contributions... :P Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a nifty little feature, I have no doubt I'll be enabling it when they roll it out :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"PDF" is the new "Miscellaneous". :) Have you ever changed the colors of your links? I recalled that Tony1 encouraged darker blue links and found the CSS coding needed to do this. If you're curious, copy my stuff at User:Erik/monobook.css. At first, it's weird, but it kind of grows on you. (Not sure if the red color is a huge difference, though.) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User Lida Vorig

Hello, I would like to ask advise from you as user named user:Lida Vorig flags all Azerbaijani articles due she is armenian and her anti-Azerbaijanism hate. Where I can complain?--NovaSkola (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at a random sampling of the user's contributions, there are some edits I might disagree with, but which could be taken in good faith. My advice is simple for now: politely, conversationally even, ask the user on his/her talk page about those you feel are pushing a particular POV. Use one of the Azerbaijani articles you mention as an example, a sort of test case ("Hey there, I noticed you tagged this article with suchandsuch; I disagree, because of blahblahblah. I'd appreciate your input.") See where it leads, and no matter what, keep the high ground and comment on the edits, not the editor at all times. Sorry for the delay in replying, and the brevity of my answer; I was (and still am) taking a break when you posted your question. All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My proposals

Hello Steve. I've got a couple of proposals up over on the strategy wiki. I'd be very grateful for your input. This is the main one and then there's a less ambitious one. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

On the "ambitious" proposal, I think my initial concern still stands; raising the profile of editors so that contributing to Wikipedia is something that we'd be proud to put on our CVs might attract those with something useful to contribute and make the rest of us raise our games, but wouldn't it mean that truly disruptive editors are unlikely to be reined in just because they've contributed positively in other areas? That the community is split even now on what to do with editors perceived to fall into that category leads me to think if taken up your proposal would only feed into the DRAMA. As for the rewards—some kind of certificate of contributorship for our best editors—that might work if the process could be 99% automated as you say, but I'm not sure in practise that could be done; for the reasons you touch upon, edit count is not a good arbiter of experience or quality as the advent of tools such as Huggle and Twinkle has made editcountitis redundant. If you want to take this forward, it should instead be linked to properly audited content contributions, such as those to FAC. I don't know if those editors with dozens of featured articles to their name feel the same way, but I got a definite positive buzz after my one featured article was promoted. The problem arises in the "Request for Assessment" you posit; in no way am I denigrating those editors that build featured articles such as Tropical Storm Erick (2007), but it's impossible to compare the amount of research and work and time and POV-fighting that went into five articles like that with one-offs such as Intelligent design, General relativity or Major depressive disorder. The process would almost certainly have to be more hands on than you think, and I don't think we have the manpower to pull it off while preventing its becoming another fertile ground for the drama mongers. So my advice, simplify: the PDF thread above makes me wonder if it would engender more active article-building if the foundation were to somehow reward the writers of our (supposedly) best articles with being published. Maybe they could publish in physical form each featured article that has appeared on the main page in a given year—one volume per year containing all that year's TFAs. If it became popular, that might be something to which editors might aspire, and attract the "right sort". It's probably unworkable—it could be another breeding ground for drama, reward the perceived "lesser" topics and TFA would have to become more stringent—but it's something that you could consider and improve upon. All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a detailed assessment. Bit too tired to take it all in right now, so I shall come back to your comments early next week. The publishing idea is definitely interesting. --79.72.61.252 (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice request

Hey there. Since you did a sterling job on the Silent Alarm FAC, I was wondering if you'd like to help out with the A Weekend in the City FAC. All the concerns have been tackled but one user wants a third party to have a look at the prose. I'd appreciate your efforts. Thanks. Rafablu88 13:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the kind words. I'm on holiday right now, so only really popping in here to check my messages; if the article is still at FAC when I'm back—and if the prose still appears to be a concern—I'll be happy to take a look at it. All the best, Steve ^T • C 19:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I think the AWITC FAC will close as a promotion as it's had extensive positive feedback. I'd appreciate one of your thorough reviews on Intimacy, which is the new nom. Thanks, RB88 (T) 15:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get around to A Weekend in the City in time; I'll not make the same promise this time, but will look at Intimacy if I get the time. Steve ^T • C 07:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Film copyright

Actually I think since it's pre 1923, it's in the public domain anyhow...[3] --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Booga booga

Whenever your world's pressing matters bid you a minor dalliance, could you check up on Star Trek: First Contact and see if you think there are any issues I might not be thinking of? Yeah, yeah, a copyedit could always be in order, but anything else. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; I don't think there will be too many issues on top of those I listed at the PR, but I'll take another look this week. Steve ^T • C 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, it's at FAC now, and suffering from a lack of reviews (io and some newbie have supported, but there's not much weight there methinks.) if you've got room on your docket, can you take a look? (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek: First Contact/archive1) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, never got around to this did I. YES. YES I WILL. Honest, guv'. Steve ^T • C 07:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. That also reminded me that I said I'd get back to expanding Star Trek: The Motion Picture's "Themes" section, I guess now that I'm back at university I better make good on my word :) Say now, when are we going to see another FAC from you anyhow :P Slow down on them reviews and write :D --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of throwing together a "Back to basics challenge", in which participating editors voluntarily prohibit themselves from making any edits to pages other than article, article talk or user talk for a period of one month (with the promise of some kind of shiny as a reward), in the hopes of encouraging article expansion from otherwise fine content editors who are too caught up with Wikipedia: The MMORPG right now, myself included (if only as an observer). Think it could have legs? Regardless, Erik and I have been expanding American Beauty in intermittent spurts over the last few months; that's the most likely candidate for either of our next FAC noms (though E does have Apt Pupil on the boil as a solo effort). I really need to clear a space to finish Beauty off at some point soon... Cheers, Steve ^T • C 00:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ach, Beauty? Well, at least it's not a David Lynch film :P I personally couldn't manage to stick to a single page, if only because I've got too many niche FAs that it seems like only I watchlist (plus all them Halo articles attract the worst types of "OMG L33T" vandals. Then there's the GA Sweeps, which I just want to be over... I've also been limiting myself to ~15 edits a day just so I do something else with my free time... with all the vandal reverts that leaves little time for my upcoming projects. (And there I go kvetching again). Well, you know the extent of my somewhat limited talents... if you need any assistance, holla'. Thanks again, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI FYI

I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Inurhead continued incivility and edit warring at The Hurt Locker regarding the issues at The Hurt Locker and with Inurhead. FYI in case you wish to add any comments about the situation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Steve

Thank you very much for your note. It came at a time when I'm in need of some encouragement in general, so it means more to me than you possibly can know. At the moment, I'm dealing with some personal issues I hope will be resolved ASAP, but at the present time I don't feel comfortable nominating myself for a position that requires an amount of time I ultimately might not be able to give it. I greatly appreciate the fact you feel I'm capable of being a coordinator and I hope the next time elections are held I will be in a better position to consider running. Again, many thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Changeling

Hi Steve!

Since you reverted the placement of the lede template, you may also want to voice your opinion on the article's talk page. Apologies if you are already in the progress of doing so. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tropic Thunder

Hello, hope you are doing well. Since your recent FA didn't seem to have too many issues, I was wondering if you would be interested in helping copyedit Tropic Thunder. I'm planning to take it to FAC in the next few weeks and want to resolve any prose/citation issues before heading there. I'm asking a few editors to take a look, so if you can't or aren't interested, no worries. I already appreciate you weighing in at the A-class review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

SexTon (band)

The creator siad that he wants it deleted and that he will work on the article in his sandbox (he means user page) in the AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that you took care of it. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; I just noticed his/her comment in the AfD and was on my way back to delete it. Steve ^T • C 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BEAMES Deletion

Hi - you deleted my page BEAMES about Bath University Engineering Society, but don't seem to have looked at my argument that Durham University Engineering Society still happily exists. Also, is there any way I can get my content back?Welshgolfer (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I only deleted it the first time. After you recreated it—but with the argument on the talk page that something could be made of the article—I decided not to do so again right away to give you time to perhaps assert its notability. In the meantime it has been deleted by ThaddeusB. Perhaps it would be best to create the page at User:Welshgolfer/BEAMES instead, where you can work on it at your leisure until you think it's ready to appear? It probably won't meet our notability guidelines, but at least there you won't see it deleted right away, and there's always a chance that reliable, third-party coverage could be found. Steve ^T • C 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Psycho plot

Hello Steve. We recently collaborated on the Psycho (1960 film) article. Despite our efforts, someone has seen fit to do a 'tag and run' with the plot tag. I've trimmed it a little more, but... even before, I think the plot tag is a little harsh. I've left a message at the tagger's page User_talk:DreamGuy#Psycho. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a running sore for this editor, and while I sympathise—even agree with—his stance on some inclusion-related subjects, this is one area in which we've clashed before. It doesn't look like he's going to edit war over this, so hopefully that's an end to it, but I'll keep an eye out and contribute to the discussion if it seems necessary. Steve ^T • C 14:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I kind of know what you mean about agreeing with him; he would be more justified in his actions if he targeted articles that have very little of anything else. It's kind of like the reflexive approach of adding poster images to film infoboxes regardless of lack of critical commentary. We can certainly cut back on plot detail if it does not complement much in the article, but it's a better approach to just expand the article with real-world context. Cannot really see anyone taking the time to cut back if they can just use that time to boost articles. In any case, the word range is a tolerable given regardless of the rest of the article... it's a little more than plot detail in a review, minus the flavor. BTW, Psycho will have its 50th anniversary in 2010. I'm considering pursuing Featured Article status, but need to figure out room with all my other pet projects. Still getting squared away at my new place, though. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The all-important comma

It would have been fine if people had paid attention to the comma, but they probably wouldn't have, and therein lay the problem. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

singer-songwriter

Well, it's not an opposition or a movement or direction to or from. I'd be inclined to use a hyphen. I've looked at many pop music articles, and they're all, 100%, hyphenated. The "and" in the MoS concerns elements that are in some kind of opposition ("blood–brain barrier"), rather than simply a joining of two words. What I do dislike is the linking of "singer-songwriter", "musician", "producer", etc. I remove those links. Tony (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User page barnstar

		The Excellent User Page Award
		I congratulate, Steve, for his very nice and creative user/talk page, which inspired me to be a bit more creative with my own. ATC . Talk 23:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I had a couple of questions: 1) How do you add a "User status" sign on a user page, notably mine?; 2) How do you get the images next to the tabs: "User page . Talk page . [etc.]" to appear on mine? Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 23:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker response) Steve's status message is updated at User:Steve/Status; for the images he uses {{click}}, although you're supposed to use Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Link syntax now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for telling me! I really like that html look that Steve has. Happy editing! ATC ^{. Talk} 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

H.L. Boulton

You deleted H.L. Boulton as csd-a7. I didn't create the article, but I came across it as I was good through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. On the basis of the company's listing on the Caracas Stock Exchange http://www.caracasstock.com/esp/productos/dinamica/operaciones-light.jsp?symbol=HLB

and various newspaper articles found on this Google News archive search, I think the company is probably notable, and I would encourage you to restore the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't feel the article asserted the company's notability, despite the Caracas listing, but I'm happy to admit I was a little hasty. I'll restore it shortly—though I encourage the addition of additional sources lest it be tagged or prodded by other editors. All the best, Steve ^T • C 01:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Goya

Hi. I'm following Tony1's general advice re an artice I want to take back to FAC - Disasters of War. His advice is to call in the heavies to help. That would be you. If you are preoccupied, grand; though I can hardly think of a better copyeditor. Either way is fine. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I'm flattered you thought of me (I wouldn't be even close to my first choice). I am ...preoccupied, let's say ... but you've caught me just as I was looking for something to break through the ennui. Off-Wiki last week, I even offered to copyedit the first responder's article of choice, but to my surprise no-one had anything. So I guess you're it. :-) I'll be happy to take a look in the next day or three. All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! No hurry and thank you.....Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really happy with your work on the page - really. Its great to see my muddy logic made clear and so polished! Likely the article will be expanded before returned to FAC, i will probably be back here again, cap in hand, before that happens. If thats ok. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And it's absolutely not a problem if you want me to revisit post-expansion; sometimes copyediting can be a chore, but I enjoyed reading this article and the associated background a lot. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bakshi's back

Ibaranoff24 has brought Ralph Bakshi back to FAC for a record-endangering ninth time. I've weighed in, but am uncertain I have a clear enough perspective on the article at this point. I know dealing with this particular item can be exhausting, but given your past familiarity with the topic, it would be great if you could look it over once more and provide your input. Regards, DocKino (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I glanced over the FAC list a few days ago, but didn't spot that, otherwise I might have taken a look sooner. Access is very limited at the moment, so I can only really concentrate on one thing at a time. I'm currently helping to polish The Disasters of War, but as soon as that's taken care of I'll make the Bakshi FAC a priority. All the best, Steve ^T • C 08:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your comments and attempted to address the issues brought up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

• I am just reminding you that you have not commented on the article in three days. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Tender Mercies

Hi Steve, it's Hunter Kahn. I don't know if you remember me, but you provided some extremely helpful information during my old FAC nomination for the Tender Mercies film entry. Specifically, you told me the article was lacking a comprehensive "Themes" section and scholarly sources. I think your feedback has directly led me to some serious improvements on that article. I would have nominated it again long ago, but I got bogged down with some real-life matters, as well as the fact that it took me a particularly long time to track down one particular journal article I wanted. That being said, I think Tender Mercies is ready now and I've once again nominated it for FAC. You indicated back then that you would be willing to take revisit this once the outstanding issues were resolved, and I'm very much hoping you'll weigh in on the new FAC page. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply to your message sooner; I wanted to get The Disasters of War and Ralph Bakshi out of the way first and didn't want to promise a review I'd be unable to follow through with. Now they're (largely) out of the way, I should be able to take a look at Tender Mercies in the next day or two. All the best, Steve ^T • C 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The mission, should you choose to accept it

...is any comment you're willing to give at Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek III: The Search for Spock/archive1. The only thing I know isn't done is the themes bit, but doubtless there are other issues I do not see :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No guarantees, but I'll see what I can do; I promised myself I'd spend this week incorporating a recently-acquired (after months of searching) article into American Beauty, but I got sidetracked by a couple of FAC returns (and, if I'm honest, Modern Warfare). As soon as I'm finished with those, I'll try to take a look. All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No hurries. If I didn't have animation projects to do I'd be frittering away my time in WarCraft III custom games anyhow :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Bakshi proposal

Could you please enter your thoughts here? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

List of citations

I don't have any use for citations that I don't have access to. How did you get ahold of them? I can't afford to buy old magazines off of eBay or pay for archived newspaper articles. If you can look into any of these and pull useful material from them, that's fine, but I can't access any of the citations you listed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Re: Video clips then

I'm using a Mac, which doesn't affect anything in my process save that I used Quicktime Pro as my go-to conversion solution, which costs money. Anyhow, for the videos in First Contact and Search for Spock I ripped the relevant chapter I wanted at the best possible quality using HandBrake (crossplatform, free). I then reduced the duration to the <30 second clip and reduced the size to 204p via Quicktime 7 (the newer versions and non-pro have stripped out much of the export abilities, but I haven't messed with the most recent version so I'm not sure if such trimming and exports are still possible with the free copy.) Anyhow for the final conversion to OGG I used a command-line app, FFmpeg2theora. From there I just jiggered settings until I got something that worked. I believe the final outputs were a video quality of 7 or 8 and an audio quality of 8 or 9 (the video quality ends up at around 1000KBps, but given the size the high bit rate isn't an issue in the NFC department I would think.) Really just keep the quality as high as you can until you get to the theora conversion, and then you can mess around until you get the right settings.

As for the justification for the length, the rationales spell it out pretty much. I used <30 seconds as the benchmark because that's the de facto maximum length for non-free audio clips; to show minimal usage I calculated out the total number of frames (for a 2 hour movie 30 seconds is only around .02-.04%). Conceivably you could get away with a longer clip, but obviously it should be as short as possible (I admit to some artistic cutting for my clips—I wasn't going to cut the Borg Queen off in the middle of her dialogue :) Hope that's a help, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! :) Erik (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And it only took six days to get it right. :-) Free, open standard container formats might get a bit more traction if it were actually easy to convert files to said format. In the end, I bit the bullet and reinstalled Ubuntu just so I could use OggConvert (couldn't get it running in Vista). David's suggested method of ffmpeg2theora probably works OK for most people, but for me produced too many syncing issues. Still, now I know it can be done, next time should be a lot easier. Cheers, Steve ^T • C 09:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hurrah for mastering the learning curve! Does using Ubuntu mean that you didn't bother with QuickTime Pro? I think it would be worthwhile to write a technical guideline for making such video clips for WP:FILM and beyond. Erik (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A technical guide is definitely a good idea. The one at Commons:Help:Converting video isn't the clearest, by dint of its having to cover all the bases. I'll list what I did, and the problems I encountered, for posterity and to perhaps go towards such a guide should we ever get around to creating one. I used Handbrake (after decrypting with DVD Shrink) to extract the relevant chapter as an M4V file; attempts to extract at "best possible quality" failed, so went for about 70%. Then I used QuickTime Pro to trim the file to the one-minute portion I needed and export as a MOV. Converting this to an Ogg video through ffmpeg2theora thwarted me, as for some reason the video ended up at 2 x normal speed while retaining normal-speed audio. After a couple of days' cocking about with several converters that claimed Ogg-conversion capability (with similar results), I realised it was because the original Handbrake extraction contained two audio streams. I re-extracted, this time deselecting the unneeded stream, and when this was passed through ffmpeg2theora (via the excellent Firefogg), it produced an Ogg that seemed to be the right speed. The problem this time was with the a/v sync, which was about one second out by the end of the video. Nothing I did could resolve it—be it altering the frame rate or extracting separate video and audio Oggs and merging them back together—until I tried converting the unmodified M4V file (i.e. the entire chapter). For some reason it worked with no syncing issues, so I spent the next couple of days trying to find an Ogg editor to trim the clip to the one minute I needed, with no success. Then I installed the Ubuntu partition after seeing a couple of programs that claimed this capability. They lied. Finally tried OggConvert, which I couldn't get running in Vista, and that did the trick, although it lacked the ability to adjust the bitrate or resolution. After running through the process again, this time stipulating the resolution in the original Handbrake rip, I finally ended up with the file you see today! To sum up, here's the process that definitely works:

In Vista

1. Use DVD Shrink to rip entire film to VOB.

2. Get Handbrake to create M4V of relevant chapter, setting all resolution and quality settings at this stage.

3. Use Quicktime Pro to trim file to relevant length and save as MOV.

In Ubuntu

4. Run the file through OggConvert.

5. ???

6. Profit.

For most people, simply running a high-quality MOV through Firefogg (adjusting the quality and resolution settings at this stage) may work OK; I suspect it was just a quirk of my machine that produced the syncing issues. Steve ^T • C 14:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Help needed regarding rewrite tag

Steve, in revision 333012628 by 92.156.50.80 (talk), the user added the {{rewrite}} template to Up in the Air (film) without providing a reason. If you see a reason that this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, please state it in Talk:Up in the Air (film)#Justification for rewrite tag. I would appreciate it if you or someone from the American cinema task force would determine whether the {{rewrite}} is justified and to remove the tag if it is not. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied yon. Steve ^T • C 14:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve, thank you for you quick response. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)