User talk:Fistful of Questions

Welcome!

Hello, Fistful of Questions, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! feydey 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Film

I would say that a section for awards is unnecessary; for that, a separate section can cover it. Otherwise, this could get complicated, with, for example, Million Dollar Baby, which won at least 19 major awards. Ral315 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Westerner

With respect - I was in the process of doing the article for the third. Happy new year anyways - in the new year I'll sort it out SatuSuro 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder - I think I was about to make a mess so thanks for the help so far - the way things are going probably well after today it gets done! cheers! SatuSuro 02:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1960 in television

Per previous consensus, global events and births/deaths should stay in 1960 in television, but all American shows and events should indeed be moved to (currently non-existing) 1960 in American television. All other country-specific events/shows should be moved to corresponding country pages. By the way, may I ask you why you decided to start with 1960 at all? Just curious...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Like I said before, while I (and, mind you, "some others", as the guideline puts it) disagree with redirecting to other years in television from the date ranges, I just don't care all that much. What really bothers me is inconsistency. Changing the way years redirect in only one article in the middle of the series simply doesn't make sense. That's the only thing I tried to convey from the beginnig. If you are interested in working on the series and want to re-do the whole thing, that's alright, but don't just leave it a piece of it hanging out there as an eyesore, because it will get reverted eventually, and I won't be me who reverts it. Anyhoo, if I can be of any help in future, you know where to find me. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you encouraging vandalism?

I was surprised to see the statement "Please do vandalize" on a user talk page, a message you wrote. I assume you meant "Please don't vandalize." I have changed your message as such. However, to prevent this from happening again, there are many templates available so that spelling errors can be reduced. Or, more simply, you can use {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}} and {{test4}} for increasing levels of vandalism warnings. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you did mean "don't" ;). Also, I corrected the link (above) for the list of templates that are available for vandalism warnings. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:Films!

Welcome!

File:Transparent film reel and film.png

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for November has been published. December's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Supernumerary 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Standardizing" the notable roles field...

I've got news for you; I'm the one that started using the bold type for the character roles months ago--check my contribs. It did catch on, but lately they've been edited out by a few people, so I decided to oblige.

I always push the bio boxes as an added dimension to an article, but it seems every idea I embrace with them I am shot down--use of the flags, the height entry, yes or no for website, etc.

trezjr 11:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Yul Brynner.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Yul Brynner.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from 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 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 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox actor

I'm not vandalizing a template. I'm simply adding a legit subject of an actor's profile. Their weight. What is wrong with that? -- TrojanMan 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly

The point is that their notability is equal (or, at least, it is impossible to quantify which is 'more' notable), depending on context. I'm sure that you're correct in saying that Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is the one that '99.99% of people are familiar with' in the United States. But Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, not just an American one. Either way, this is an issue that has been debated before and there was no consensus to redirect Bill O'Reilly to Bill O'Reilly (commentator). --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe that George Washington should redirect to George Washington (disambiguation) -- for the simple reason that there is no other 'George Washington' with a Wikipedia article. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since they're named after George Washington, I don't have any problem with the current state of affairs: per our disambiguation guidelines, where 'there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase' it's acceptable to use that meaning as the main article, and this is clearly the case with George Washington all over the world. For Bill O'Reilly the situation is different: neither of the two are clearly more notable than the other. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you serious believe that my closure of that move discussion was an 'abuse of admin powers' then I suggest you open a request for comment on my behaviour. However, as the debate ran for a considerable amount of time without achieving any clear agreement (and there were certainly no complaints at the time about my judgement that it did not constitute consensus) I don't believe such an RFC would get very far. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly

Will you please stop moving the disambiguation page. There are two well-known people called "Bill O'Reilly", so the disambiguation needs to be at Bill O'Reilly not Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation). The subject has been canvassed at length on various talk pages - come and add to the discsussion if you like, but repeatedly undoing the reversion by several other editors is arguably being disruptive. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

On another matter entirely, I wonder if you could stop marking all your edits as minor? The 'minor edit' flag exists to mark truly superficial changes to an article, not the large content changes you have been making. See Help:Minor edit for more information. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Woody Allen.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Woody Allen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Chowbok ☠ 02:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marking images GFDL

Please stop marking images GFDL unless you own the copyright or have reason to believe that the copyright owner has done so. Thanks. —Chowbok ☠ 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's "stalking"... I saw that you mistakenly labeled an image GFDL, so I thought you may have made the same mistake in other places. Should I just pretend I hadn't noticed that? —Chowbok ☠ 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bill O'Reilly Forbes.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Bill O'Reilly Forbes.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bill O'Reilly Forbes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bill O'Reilly Forbes.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey what do you think of my work on the characters of The Good the Bad and the Ugly? I not only did that but started stubs on all of the actors as an expansion. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi. I note that you're still marking substantive edits as minor. Please read up on Help:Minor edit about when marking edits as minor is appropriate, or give me a shout on my talk page if you're confused. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block?

unblock|I have no idea what this block is about why have I been blocked for being a sockpuppet? No reason or explanation was given. Upon further investigation it looks like I was blocked because I happened to edit the buttocks article. I don't see how removing an image, which has been attempted to have been removed by dozens of other useres, makes me a socpuppet. I'm sorry that I tried to remove it, I got linked to it from a film article and I assumed that the image was vandalism and I tried to remove it, but I am not a sockpuppet and I think this is ridiculous.

You vandalized article by deleting images, uploaded copyvio pictures and several other things. pschemp | talk 03:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Years in film

Hi Fistful of Questions, I saw what you did on 1948. Sorry, but I will disgree strongly there. We need these lists in alphabetical order, not by release date. I hope you don't mind if I put them back in alphabetical and let dates in parenthesis after the title. Hoverfish Talk 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I didn't realize I was making a mistake, I was only trying to improve the article. By the way, can you do something about this ridiculous block I have received? Some admin thinks I am a sockpuppet of a user I've never heard of before. Fistful of Questions 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did the alphabetical, but it doesn't look good with the dates, so I will put then in parenthesis. The thing is these lists get edited a lot and I am patrolling constantly all the years. In listings by date it's very hard either to enter a film (how many know its release? - let alone that some take its US release as the date) and it's even harder to check on them. No problem, I have seen your concerns on films issues and I am very confident of your intents. Keep up the good work and don't worry about the block. I'll ask Cbrown to clear you asap. Hoverfish Talk 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just my keep my talk page on your watch list. Also, is it proper to use the US release or the first initial release? I always check imdb's release dates and go by the first one listed, even if its in UK or italy or something. For example, on The Good, the Bad and the Ugly I used the Italian release date for the category listing at the bottom. Fistful of Questions 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date is the original release, as per imdb. If the film is a US, it will be a US release, if a Frech, the French, etc Still, however, why should female buttock be ok for Wikipedia and not male ones? I mean to me female ones look more attractive since I am a male with no homosexual tendencies, but I am all for equal rights :) Hoverfish Talk 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that became the conensus. I guess I made the same mistake that dozens of other users had made in assuming it was vandalism and removing the image. Just looking at the talk page, it looks like there was controversy over the image's removal several different times. Fistful of Questions 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that this talk page should be kept in Wikipedia's fun archive. It fixed my moods. I'll go back to doing film infoboxes now. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]