User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Cbrown1023, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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!  Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Outsiders(book)cover.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Outsiders(book)cover.jpeg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of '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 lacking such an explanation 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - Cbrown1023 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:RonaldDMoore.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RonaldDMoore.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 there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AlistairMcMillan 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific about the source of this image? Where was it taken, when it was taken. The name of the photographer. 01:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Cbrown1023 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, first you said it was taken by you. Then you said it was taken by your father. And now you say it was taken by you. Which is it? AlistairMcMillan 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I deleted it while I was adding the extra information that you requested. I don't think it matters, but you see, we share a camera, so I wasn't sure who took it (but it shouldn't matter because technically, we share an account). Don't worry, I just changed it so it is correct (I removed the self-tag and changed it back) -- Cbrown1023 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Films Related

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

I noticed you gave the article I'd been working on for months a B-Class. If you'd be willing, could you give me a few suggestions to improve the article? It would be very welcomed. Wiki-newbie 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I think the article is better than B-class. I was just giving grades that seemed applicable at the time because there were a ton of unclassed film articles, but now I see it is probably A-class. I'm sorry if you feel I was under-rating you, it's just that there are very few A-class film articles, so I wouldn't have automatically given you A-class. The other two levels higher than B are GA & FA (Good Article and Featured Article respectively), and articles have to be voted upon to get that status. Cbrown1023 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the article cannot be nominated to A-Class unless it gets at least a GA-Class film rating, I suggest you find some way to nominate it for GA-Class or for a peer review. I am moving it back to a B-Class (not because of its content, but it can't be considered a A-Class until it gets GA-class status). Cbrown1023 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I nominated it for good article status. Just to let you know because you cannot pass or fail it since you are huge contributor to it. If it reaches Good Article status, you can list as A-Class on the grading scale (or GA-class, but A-class is higher). Cbrown1023 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Quick question then, it's nice and all with the nomination but to be frank what if it doesn't become a GA? Where can I comment? Wiki-newbie 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If it does not become GA for some reason, the editor will leave a list of reasons for failure and ways to improve it. You can then take it up with the editor or on the talk page. Cbrown1023 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
So where is the talk page? If I click on a candidate, it goes onto the article. Wiki-newbie 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The person who grades it will put suggestions on the page if fail and put pass if it passed. Then you can talk to the editor about it on the editor's (who we don't know yet) talk page or on the article's talk page. So if it fails, it will give suggestions for improvement on Talk:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Cbrown1023 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Yeah I've noticed that we've been stepping on each other's toes. I was working my way from the bottom up (reverse alphabetical order), but then I ran into some previously assessed so I switched directions. I used to worry about this and then dismiss the though since no one else was tagging.--Supernumerary 02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just thought of a way to solve this. I'll switch out all the done sections on the project page and let people sign up for the remaining sections. That will also show people that we're getting close.--Supernumerary 02:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Lucas' Dangerous Liaisons

I note that you tagged this article as a stub. In reviewing the assessment scale, I'd be more inclined to assess it at B-; there isn't that much more information that's available for the film itself. Do you have specific recommendations as to what further information is needed? I'm new to the "assessment" process. Thanks.Chidom talk  12:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have been covering the class-system page, that's only half of it, you also need to take into account the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Based on both of those, the article is probably no more than a start. It is most likey not B-Class (see Category:B-Class film articles). Cbrown1023 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Poltergeist (film series)

If the servers weren't so #%&*$%&*#$% slow today, I would have let you know earlier.

You did not use an edit summary explaining why you did what you did, and you had removed what looked like a huge amount of text, and therefore my snap judgment was "potential vandalism - better revert".

I later managed to review it again, and saw that I had been in error; however, things were going much too SLOWLY for me to be able to fix it myself.

I apologize. DS 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to put an edit summary because I was trying to handle an enormous amount of text and move it all without omitting anything. I did, however, post on the talk page. Cbrown1023 22:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

TV film categories

I just noticed you added Category:TV films and Category:Made-for-tv films to Love Among Thieves. Isn't it redundant to have 2 identical categories? Actually they're both showing up as redlinks.23skidoo 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is redundant, but you may have noticed those two categories don't exist. I was looking for the title of the category by trying different variations of the Categories. I must have accidentally forgotten to remove the wrong ones. I have been doing a lot of tagging and added a lot of categories (with the class assessment of film articles) and fogot to change it then. I removed it. Cbrown1023 00:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I figured as much. There should definitely be a TV movies category, I will agree. 23skidoo 03:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nearly there

Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not the final section. I didn't put all of them on the page because I didn't want to make it too cluttered. There are less than 3,000 films left and all of them are begin with the letter "T". I think I'll go remove all the section already done and replace them with a "Thanks to the following for helping out assess: " and a notice about how we're nearly done. --Supernumerary 02:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Soldier of Orange

Do you think the article Soldier of Orange is now a Start-class of B-class article? - Ilse@ 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it a cast section and then you can make it start, it is definately not B, though. Cbrown1023 18:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Silent Hill (film) failing

The article did have citations, but they weren't in the form of references, they were links inside the article... However, I did change them to references. Also, the trivia section is not that large and that is not a necassarily failing point of an article. I think you should state more reasons or re-evaluate the article. Cbrown1023

Okay, for one, you're not supposed to have a trivia sectiona at all, it is good that you've changed the citations to the proper way from links inside the article, but there are too few, the lead for instance says that the film was based mostly on the first game, with elements taken form the second, there is no proof in the current article to back that up.
†he Bread 01:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually it does show the relationship to the video games (see the Production section and the Relationship to the Video Games section). Also, where does it say there should be no trivia section at all? Cbrown1023 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Even that isn't sourced (probably doesn't need to be), I didn't want to do this but, WP:AVTRIV, WP:NOT, and the proposed WP:TRIVIA as say to try to avoid putting trivia sections in articles, also the article is mostly plot summary, it is best to try and keep plot summary to 50% or less. Look if you disagree with my verdict, re-nominate it, but i'm 95% sure that others will come to the same conclusion
†he Bread 01:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll re-nominate but just one comment, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines state that trivia sections can be a good addtion to the article but should not be long, and since that is the subject of the article in question, those guidelines should be followed. Cbrown1023 01:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just following WP guidelines not Wikiproject guidelines
†he Bread 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
(This is not necassarily relating to the article in question) That may be true, but when you are dealing with assessing articles, you need to deal with Project guidelines. The Wikipedia guidelines are just a blanket think for covering everything. The reason we have WikiProjects is to work on specific types of articles. If you are not familiar with the types of guidelines for those specific articles, you should become familiar or just not grade them. Cbrown1023 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance

I am indebted to you with your clarification as to what NA stands for. If I may assist with the wikimedia project on films in any way please let me know. My genres are films with the Salvation Army in and also black and white films about WW2 (preferably British!). Rhyddfrydol 18:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply on the Wikiproject:Films talk page. I hadn't seen the style guide, and it was very helpful. I'm hoping to get Three Kings from Start class to FA, and would love it if you had any suggestions for me. Anyway, thanks again for your help.

By the way, I noticed you removed the "endspoiler" tag from the end of the plot section. The talk page says to include one, should I not? —Nate Scheffey 09:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The {{endspoiler}} template is only for use to end spoiled text midsection, not at the end of the section. If one whole section is a spoiler, then you don't need an endspoiler to end it, i.e.
 The plot would go here...
would need no endspoiler because it is understanded that at the end of a section, there are no more spoilers, but if a spoiler tag covers more than one section, you can have separe tags (which is preferred by many users) or...
 The opening/un-spoiling themes are discussed here...
 more un-spoiling themes.
Do you get it? I'm not sure how to really explain, but if there is only one section that is spoiled, no end tag is needed, but if there is less than a section, yes. Cbrown1023 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Crystal clear. Thanks for the info. —Nate Scheffey 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for notifying me about that before I managed to do more damage. I don't know where I got the idea that directors should be tagged too. I guess it was some sort of auteur theory inside my head. Prolog 10:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite alright, but don't be discouraged from adding our tag to pages in the future... This is Wikipedia, if you make a mistake, another user will just fix it (and don't worry, you're not the only one to do it). If you only work on Biography artciles than I'm sure WP:BIOGRAPHY will be happy to have your help, but if you also work on film articles we (WP:FILMS) would also be grateful for any assisstance you may give. Cbrown1023 11:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Could you make sure that the new project banner that you proposed and designed is kept up to date with the current one. Cbrown1023 03:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposed template has not gotten it's makeover since I introduced it and no talking points were done. I will try to get to it sometime this week to update it so it's smaller and cleaner. No worries. Remind me in a few days. Shane (talk/contrib) 06:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You told me to remind you in a couple of days and I didn't want to forget... Cbrown1023 01:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Just thought I'd let you know that there is already a List-class in place for quickly identifying list articles during article assessment. No need to NA them! :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing that before I could tag even more articles. I added that class to our template ({{Film}}). All of them are being changed to |class=List right now. Cbrown1023 20:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No worries! Also, I noticed that you've been using the Template-class as well. I'm not certain if that's really useful or not, because ultimately the assessment is only designed to cover articles in the main namespace, not the Template: one. I'm working on the Filmmaking WikiProject a lot right now, and I've been looking to WikiProject Military history a lot for guidance. They usually organize their pages and associated templates and miscellany using categories for the WikiProject pages. Just an idea - also might save you a lot of unnecessary extra work. Good luck and keep up the excellent work! Girolamo Savonarola 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the Template-Class so that all the Templates related to WikiProject Films could be accessed from a central category, Category:Template-Class film articles. Cbrown1023 23:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I'm just saying that it may be more efficient and less byzantine to simply create a straightforward category such as Category:WikiProject Films templates and then tag the relevant templates. In any case, the general assessment work you're doing for the project is incredible - I don't know how you manage to assess so much so quickly! Girolamo Savonarola 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

NA class???

I see you tagged Shakespeare on screen, today. Thank you. However, I have a question. It says: "This article has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale." Yet there is no "NA" class on the linked assessment scale. Is it just "not applicable" (and if so, why)? Or does it mean something? AndyJones 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I reassed it as List-Class because it is a list. Cbrown1023 23:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Biographical Films

What do you think about bigoraphical film articles? I've been removing them because the banner says it is about articles related to films, but I was wondering what your policy is. Cbrown1023 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you mean articles about a person (director, actor, etc) that are tagged with the WikiProjectFilms template rather than films that are a biography of a person. I've just been assessing them the same as the biography project, but I wouldn't object to removing them. (I had very few edits before I started tagging films, so I chose the route that was least likely to mess things up.) --Supernumerary 02:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What about articles related to film characters? I've had a question about that... My policy is to remove them, but that may need to be changed... I think it probably works either way, but will change that dependent upon which you do. Basically, what about film characters? Cbrown1023 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I've only run across a couple, so I just tagged them at left it at that. With the discovery of the various gray areas, I'm beginning to think that the project needs to redefine just what is in its scope.--Supernumerary 00:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I aggree, we should adress that on the talk page or just write up a scope on the page and allow members to make changes by stating that on the talk page. Cbrown1023 00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment Types

It looks like you're getting a lot of comments from your recent tagging, which I appreciate your hard work. Just a few questions, you had a "NA" class and a "List" class. Are there any other classes besides the basic stub, start, B, A, GA, FA? For example how should Woman in the Red Dress or Wilson the Volleyball be tagged? I have also seen the {{FilmsWikiProject}} added to some actors/directors pages. Should that be removed from the talk page or should a "NA" be applied (or some other class I don't know about). And finally, should there be other classes added (ex. actor, fictional character, director, etc.). Any help with these questions would be appreciated. Keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 03:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Refering to the actors/directors pages, those are not a part of WikiProject Films. I was just wondering that and User:Supernumerary and I agreed that they were not included here. Most of your other questions about the classes can be answered here. But, about the film characters, I'll get back to you soon. Cbrown1023 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Film character pages should be kept tagged and assessed like normal articles. Cbrown1023 00:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kim Possible

Thanxs for adding the wikiproject film header to the Kim Possible pages. However, Kim Possible is not a movie, so I removed the headers. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Have fun editing! =D Jumping cheese Contact 23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there have been at least two Kim Possible movies relased, and WikiProject Films includes film characters. So the headers, should be re-added. So unless you have any more reasons why they should be removed, I'll let you re-add them, because I don't to make it seem like I'm breaching something like the Three Revert Rule. Cbrown1023 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. It might be going overboard with adding the wiki project tag to every character related to Kim Possible. The pages for the two movies already include the I believe that's sufficient. However, I'll wait for your reply before removing more film tags! =) Jumping cheese Contact 23:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you think. I'm adding the tag using AWB to most film characters because of a recent change in our policy that includes film characters also... I think you are right though, only the main characters, like Kim Possible, Ron Stoppable, Rufus, Wade, Doctor Drakken, and Shego should be tagged. I'll re-add those. Thank you, and if you have any more questions or whatever, feel free to contact me. Cbrown1023 23:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a perfect compromise. I'll remove the film tag from the other characters. ^_^ Jumping cheese Contact 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment about WikiProjectFilms

I just wanted to point out that several articles are tagged wrong. Many of the film tags (letters before T in the unassessed list) are TV character articles and others. They should be marked with the television wiki project, so people have been marking things with the wrong project tags. Television and movie articles are two different things, so obviously TV characters don't belong tagged as part of the film project. I hope this helped. RobJ1981 23:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that some of them are tagged wrong, but I'm adding them based on Category:Film characters using AWB, so some of them are going to be wrong. We will just change the tags when we grade them (we would appreciate if you could help with that). But thanks for the heads-up and any help you can give in grading or changing these tags. Cbrown1023 23:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I realize you're going through Category:Film characters with a script, but you've replaced the {{film}} tag on Talk:Exar Kun, as well as several other Star Wars novel/game/comic characters, multiple times now. Could you please do something to stop readding the tag when it's removed? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been ignoring most of the pages in the Expanded Universe and there is already a script that makes it so it ignores pages with {{Film already. But when you remove it, then the script does not matter anymore... Thanks for the heads-up, but it doesn't matter anymore because I just finished the Category:Star Wars characters and its sub-pages. So now you won't have to worry about them getting re-added when you remove them. Cbrown1023 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do be more careful in the future. Your accuracy rate going through that cat was less than 50%; you made more work to clean it up than you saved by adding those banners. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, while I grade the articles, if they do not apply to WP:FILMS then I will remove it and add the correct one (WP:STAR WARS, WP:TELEVISION...). This should also help the other projects in the long run, like what EVula said when their articles are not tagged. Cbrown1023 21:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, some of the time the tagging of incorrect articles occured because of mis-categorized material (this does not fit all, some errors are just my fault), the accuracy of which is supposed to be the jurisdiction of the Star Wars Project. Cbrown1023 19:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

You're using the AWB to add the {{film}} tag on articles that don't need it. Not only that, but you're doing it on articles that you've already edited and have been reverted.[1] EVula 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The tags are getting removed if they relate to the article from the books, comics, etc... (anything outside the movies) It is is just that AWB does not distinguish between articles that had the tag and it was just removed and articles that never had the tag. I just finished those articles, so you will not have to worry about AWB reverting those changes. Cbrown1023 15:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Groovy. EVula 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of good came from this; a lot of those articles didn't have {{StarWarsProject}} on them, so I've been stalking your edits and adding it where it is missing. Thanks for the indirect help. ;) EVula 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

AWB Films

The AWB is addng the WikiProject:Films template to a lot of Middle-earth related articles that it shouldn't. The most these articles to have a section devoted to the film(s) they appeared in, they are not related to the scope of WikiProject Films. Is there any way to fix this? --Ted87 20:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean they are not related to the scope of WikiProject Films? Like which articles? Cbrown1023 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Mostly characcter articles like Radagast (Middle-earth), Éomer, Ceorl‎, Gimli (Middle-earth), etc. You said that they are a part of WikiProject Films, but I just wanted to make sure that they weren't accidently being added. --Ted87 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
They weren't being accidentally added, but thank you for your concern. Cbrown1023 13:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Announcements number

Thanks for changing the number of articles, we must have overlooked that... ha-ha, I looked at your edit and was like "duh!" Cbrown1023 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no worries! I just saw that the unassessed percentage had jumped up considerably and figured that a lot of new articles must have been tagged... Girolamo Savonarola 21:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox film changes

I have posted my reasons in the template's discussion. Can you please restore the template, at least until P-Chan is back active? I am working hard in completing lists (by year) of past films, check for infoboxes, if they are old I set the new template, add data, etc. AMG has a very convenient way to do this and often info that IMDb misses. I had not seen the section in the template discussion earlier to take part. Hoverfish 13:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You should bring that up at the main discussion... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. I'm going to leave it out until there are more people who say it should be put back in (the general consensus was to remove it). Thanks for your input and I hope you contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#amg_id in .7B.7BInfobox Film.7D.7D. Cbrown1023 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the helpful notes on The Magic Christian film. I will soon start working on it. I also copied my request from the infobox talk to where you suggested. As I say, I have no objection if it is removed from the infobox, so long as it already exist somewhere else in each article that it was removed from. Missing it completely from some obvious place is a practical handicap, plus all the work of finding missing amg's and putting them in the article (infobox) is lost. And good luck becoming an Administrator. Hoverfish 20:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What? What about me being an administrator? I want to be one someday, but not right now... thanks, though, I guess. Cbrown1023 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


RPG Maker Links

You re-added the blatant advertising links that I removed from the RPG Maker article. Those links were removed due to wikipedia's own guidelines on external links. Thanks for ignoring the guidelines, and assisting in the further vandalism of the article. 03:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I actually said, if it was re-added in error please re-add (which you did not do, another user had to do it for you). When a large amount of text is removed, it is considered vanadalism, so as a protection of vandalism, I re-added it. That is not considered vandalism because you are supposed to Ignore all rules to try and better the article as a whole. You are probably not familiar with Wiki Policies since that is the only article you edit. Some of the Wikipedia policies that everyone knows (or should) that you yourself are breaking are The 3 Revert Rule, Don't be a dick and No personal attacks. Also, I suggest getting a user name, it gives you more privacy and crediblity (I would probably not have reverted you if you had been a registered user, because you are more trusting). You can reply on my talk page if you have any further questions. Thanks, Cbrown1023 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Related


Crystal personal.png

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

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

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

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! plange 19:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Time

Do you live in the west coast of the U.S. or something, cause every time I see you edit it's like 12:00 AM! (on the east coast of the US) Cbrown1023 03:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I live in the U.S. in the Central time zone. The reason I don't edit until late at night is that is just how things work out. I don't get done with school until 5:00 (and I don't get home until an hour later) and since I'm carrying three AP courses I have roughly three hours of homework a night. Add in working on college and scholarship applications, and it's easy to see why I edit Wikipedia when I do. --Supernumerary 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you have a lot to do, and yet you still find time to contribute greatly to Wikipedia. I'm impressed. Cbrown1023 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramones GA nomination

The criteria doesn't state that in-line citations are required (see the discusion at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates). But I did change them... if you have any more suggestions, you should put them there, or it should be passed. Cbrown1023 21:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are incorrect about that. The criteria does state that inline citations are required. Apparently there was widespead misunderstanding that plange's proposed change to the criteria was to make them stricter regarding citations. However, plange's suggestion was to actually make the criteria more lax regarding citations. It looks like most of the people who voted on the change did not understand this. Kaldari 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but was that it... because I changed them to citations. Cbrown1023 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't actually objecting to the style of the inline citations, I was objecting to the fact that most of the article lacks any inline citations. Any statement that could be controversial or contentious or seems outlandish or is a direct quote needs an inline citation. Here are some examples from the article:

  1. "Joey was also reported to have drug problems, and later admitted drinking heavily for much of the '80s.
  2. "...the Ramones disbanded, reportedly due to ongoing personality clashes and frustration at not achieving success commensurate with their influence."
  3. "According to Joey, he became a button manufacturer."
  4. "...the Ramones' names genesis offered by the band members is that New York was overloaded with teenage latin street gangs, and the name Ramone was an epithome for disorder and violence."
  5. "Dee Dee later said, "We didn't write a positive song until 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue'."
  6. "During the recording sessions, Spector reportedly pulled a gun on Dee Dee, and forced Johnny to play the opening chord to "Rock 'n' Roll High School" hundreds of times."
  7. "Marky Ramone was fired in early 1983 because of his alcoholism..."

If you can add inline citations for most of those, I think it will be up to GA standards. Kaldari 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay Cbrown1023 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Breakfast Club

There are two different versions, the one at the beginning and the one at the end. One version has the extra words that you edited and I put back. Maybe if you check out this website and think before you call something vandalism again. (Quentin X 10:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC))

I didn't mean to call it vandalism and didn't think of it as that, my computer did that by accident when I reverted it. Sorry. Cbrown1023 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice

Thank you for your welcoming message - this was really much appreciated. Since then, I've been updating sites for a few Belgian towns (Ronse, Tournai, Ath, Mons). Since those are large expansions, especially on the history side (summary of 3 or 4 sources), and before I go much further, may I ask you to review and comment? My major concern is in the area of copyrights (I think I'm OK but you never know...). Thanks a lot LVan 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So far, you have made very good contributions. You have added a lot and the articles look nice.
References are normally needed only for direct-copies (or very close copies) from other sources and for controvesial statements. If a user feels that a statement is unsourced or a copy, then they will probably just remove it or, hopefully, put a {{fact}} next to it. For example, the text: "Many people do not like to visit Ronse{{fact}}", yeilds "Many people do not like to visit Ronse[citation needed]".
I should also inform you that Wikipedia:Peer Review reviews articles and gives you pointers on how to expand. That may be more helpful than I am because I do not know much about geographic articles (my speciality is films, novels, and people). Cbrown1023 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers and encouragement LVan 16:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem, keep up the good work and don't hesitate to ask me anything else. Cbrown1023 16:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for quick the help on WP:CFD. KP Botany 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dickson Experimental Sound Film

Fellow WikiProject:Films member, you seem to have made an incorrect assessment of this article. According to the relevant official description, a B-class article

has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR.

Could you please identify such elements as are listed above that you find in the article if you believe the B-class assessment should stand? One must observe that your comment in the discussion that "there seems to be no more information" is blatantly incorrect, as there is considerable new information in terms of article content (positively identifying the musician, positively identifying the music, identifying the place of production, correcting an erroneous description of the audio found on the cylinder, discussion of interpretation of the film, etc.), the addition of an image, amplifying notes, and references since the Start-class tag was applied two months ago. Perhaps you did not actually read the article in its current state?

I must also note that your edit summary pertaining to the assessment contains the comment "to shut him up." As an experienced Wikipedia editor, I'm sure you know such comments have absolutely no place in the edit summary, at any time. They also tend to be v-e-r-y counterproductive. Let's try to keep cool and concentrate on what's most important: making the article as good as it can be. Best, Dan—DCGeist 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You mis-understood me. I was talking about no new information that can be added in its current state. For example, an article is not really a stub if it cannot be expanded any further, so I meant that it is B-Class (the highest rating that can be given arbitrarily) because it cannot be expanded any more. The reason I rated it as B-Class is because I cannot rate it higher class (GA, A, or FA) as those are give through official Wikipedia channels (such as Wikipedia:Good article candidates and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates). Also, in the future, do not be alarmed or upset by a class, there are no failing grades and they are just constructive. (That is not meant to discourage you from asking for constructive critism, like WP:PR, or to ask for reasons on the rating.)
I do apologize for my rude edit summary. You see, I had been trying to class the articles and you kept just removing the class, making it appear as unassessed again and again. It was especially concering that you just removed the rating instead of, perhaps, taking it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films as to tell us that it should be re-classed or by doing it yourself.
I do hope I get a chance to work with you in the future. Cbrown1023 23:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, in particular for making clear what was meant by "no more information." And, while I may not concur with your assessment philosophy (I think WikiProject:Filmmaking/Girolamo Savonarola's is more useful), it's absolutely defensible. You're clearly a serious editor and I, too, look forward to working with you in the future. Best, Dan—DCGeist 02:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


The answer is, becase arbcom allows it. Go ask ANI. pschemp | talk 01:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I've written something about my feelings about how you handled yourself as an administrator. It is just a steam letter (in case you are not familiar with that term, it is a letter that is written to blow of steam when in a rage with no intention of being sent to anyone, including the subject), but can be accessed at User talk:Cbrown1023/pschemp. Cbrown1023 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk pages

Greetings! Pschemp wanted a second opinion on this. Yes, users are allowed to remove comments from their talk pages if they would like to; no one is under any obligation to respond to comments or to leave them on the page; all comments are available in the history, in any case. (Though certainly in most cases people will prefer to respond, and in most situations this is desirable!) If she does not wish to continue the conversation any further, she's not obligated to; if you're afraid someone is violating policy there are other places to seek answers, but in general users have a fair bit of leeway with how their user pages are used unless they are actively disrupting the site, which I do not believe is the case here. And please also respect Essjay's desire to say what he wishes on his talk page; I know you were simply trying to help, but he'd prefer to say things differently to present his own picture of the situation. Thanks, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


thanks for the help. I have a question concerning reliable sources. in the Alpha Phi Alpha Article, "60% of black doctors, 75% of black lawyers, 65% of black dentists, and close to 90% of black college presidents in the United States." If a fraternity website states that 75% of black lawyers are members of Alpha Phi Alpha [2] (which brings into question reliability [3] and the American Bar Association states that about 55% of black lawyers are male and 45% are female [4] . How do you account for the 20% of black lawyers who aren't male? This in light of the fact that Alpha Phi Alpha is exclusively male. The article is the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. I am on the talk section and the user:MrDarcy says that they meant to say black male lawyers. Which isn't what the reference stated. I was simply asking for another source such as a government agency, independent newspaper, or poll result that can support these claims. With numbers like 65%, 75%, and 90% i'm assuming some kind of poll was taken at some point in time. It just seems to be rather dubious especially in calls into question reliability. [5] "Partisan and extremist websites The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although bias is not in itself a reason to declare a source unreliable. Organizations or individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist — such as Stormfront or the Socialist Workers Party — should not be used as sources, except in articles about themselves; that is, they may be used as primary sources but not as secondary ones. They should be used with caution and should be supported by other sources. Company and organization websites Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one." Should this statement continue to stay in the article if it can't be supported except by it's own organizational website and part of it continue to stay if it has been disproven? User:MrDarcy doesn't seem to want to really discuss this issue on outside of lecturing me about being new to the site. [6] . Thank you for any and all help. GreatChimp 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You give a very convincing argument, but I think that the state should stand. The article in question is a featured article. Featured articles represent some of the past Wikipedia pages and go under intense scrutiny and editing before becoming one. I checked and the statement was there when it became a FA, so they were oviously okay with it.
I don't think that Mr. Darcy was lecturing you about being new to the site. He was just commenting that it takes a long time and a lot of editing and exposure to the policies for one to understand them and to be able to apply them correctly.
If you have any more questions or concerns the following users maintain that page and should be able to give you further help: Ccson and Robotam. Cbrown1023 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Cbrown, I encourage you to read the article's associated talk page and check the archives. That article and several associated with it have had problems with a persistent POV vandal, User:Mykungfu (now indef-blocked), whose primary tactics included forum-shopping among admins and trying to manipulate Wikipedia policies to remove positive content from the articles. It seems we have something very similar going on here. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! | Mr. Darcy talk 00:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Cbrown1023/pschemp

Is there any way you would consider marking that page for deletion, please? Pschemp is my friend, and Essjay is my friend, and I don't think it's helping either of them (or me or you) by having it around. The page is up for deletion right now, but you could short-circuit all the problems very quickly by tagging it with {{db-author}} and letting bygones be bygones.

Please? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


A big thanks for your help on my userpage. In the end I edited the Wikidefcon template to manually add some <*br /> tags. Stupid IE... Anyway, thanks a lot :) -- lucasbfr talk 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


I made that edit 3 months ago as a Wikinoob. I actually dont recall making that edit. Usually I dont sub templates or c+p code.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP-ME banner

Hi there. I noticed you are using AWB to add the WP-ME banner to lots of places. Thanks for doing this. Could I possible ask if you could tweak your addition to include the right stuff for category and template pages regarding the assessment bit of the template? If you aren't sure what I mean by this, I can look it up. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to put |class=Cat or |class=Template when applicable? Cbrown1023 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. If that works. I remember having to put class=NA for one of them, so I'm not sure if Cat and Template work. If they do, fine, and please do use that. It would be nice to tweak the template to support Template and Cat parameters, but I don't know how to do that. Carcharoth 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't work right now, but I can add that if you want. I was thinking about it but wasn't sure. Cbrown1023 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Would be good. I like your user page. Nicely organised! :-) Carcharoth 00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :). I added the two fields to the template, you add |class=Cat or |class=Template. Cbrown1023 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not quite working yet. I think you can continue adding the templates, but the code still needs tweaking cos it is currently showing the "Category" (or Template) status as a rating. Compare the results of class=NA with class=Cat and class=Template. Also, do you think you could cover the articles and categories under Category:Tolkien? Those fall under WP-ME as well. Thanks again for this. I really should look into AWB, as it seems very useful. Carcharoth 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm done... I added the tag to about 523 articles, but it skipped like 900 (because they already had the tag). I don't know what to tell you about the template (importance) except that you won't have to change anything except the syntax on {{ME-project}}... sorry... g'night! Cbrown1023 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it questionable to simply slap templates by category. That makes the template completely redundant (it is just equivalent to the cateogry). It is an even worse idea to do this automatically, you added your template blindly to anything in "Tolkien" categories, it would seem, without checking if the article had any connection to Middle-earth or the legendarium in particular. I am a bit peeved because this isn't the first time I see this happen, another editor used a bot to slap a template on all articles in sub-categories of Category:India, with absurd results. These Wikiproject templates should be added manually, to show the article has been reviewed by a human. They are not for navigating by topic, we have categories for that. dab () 07:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this, and looking at it, I agree that more care was probably needed in this case. I suggest it is discussed at the WikiProject talk page (an initial post already exists). I also remembered, too late, that Template:ME-category already exists for labelling categories. See also Category:WikiProject_Middle-earth_templates. Looking at the newly created and populated Category:Tolkien categories, I agree that this is totally redundant to the structure existing under Category:Tolkien and Category:Middle-earth. Carcharoth 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, you said that they should be added manually to "show the article has been reviewed by a human." That's what the assessments are for (the classes).
Second of all, when you said "They are not for navigating by topic, we have categories for that," I definately have to disagree. It is the custom of every (or almost every) WikiProject to add their template to categories within their scope. If you find something wrong with that, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject.
Third of all, I was asked by User:Carcharoth to add the articles from Category:Tolkien because they "fall under WP-ME as well". I took his word for it (as he was better with the scope of the project) and added them to most (but not all, because they weren't connected) of the pages in the category.
If you have a problem with anything else or would like to reply to this comment (such as pointing out inaccuracies) you can contact me on my talk page. Cbrown1023 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you also state examples of mistakes made? Cbrown1023 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, part of the problem is I'm still not sure how Category:Tolkien categories got populated. I think it was when you added a class=Cat parameter to Template:ME-project. I just want the assessment bit of the template to say the page was a category, not to actually have a category like this suddenly springing up. Having thought about it a bit though, I don't really object to this (after all, it only categorises the talk pages), but the name of the category is wrong (it should be Category:Category talk pages using the WikiProject Middle-earth template, if you see what I mean!). In general, seeing as we were both unsure of the template coding, I think it might have been better to wait a bit and discuss this with others. As I say above, the coding still needs tweaking to get what we want (if it is even clear anymore what we are trying to achieve)! Carcharoth 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No... I was the one who added the parameters to populate that category (and if you wanted to rename it, it would be Category:WikiProject Middle-earth categories, because talk places are the generic places for banners). But right now I'm in the middle of changing all the categories in Category:Tolkien categories that use the {{ME-project}} to {{ME-category}} as requested. I'm going to remove the Template and Cat fields.Cbrown1023 22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

More banner templates stuff

I've just created a banner template at Template:ME-template for the template talk pages. Do you think you could go through the pages at Category:WikiProject Middle-earth templates and put the template on the talk pages? The templates themselves are already categorised using "noinclude" tags around the category tags, and this template will add the talk pages to the category. If there seems little point in having both the templates and their talk pages categorised, the category bit of Template:ME-template can always just be yanked out. The important thing is to have that banner up on the template talk page, the category talk pages, and the article talk pages. The category names and structure can be sorted later! Thanks! Carcharoth 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And I've just remembered that putting these templates on talk pages is not always the standard way to do things. Putting the ME-project banner/assessment template on article talk pages makes sense, as does putting them on template talk pages. But if you look at Category:Tolkien categories, or if you look at "what links here" for Template:ME-category, you can see that the banner already exists on the category page (rather than the category talk page), for lots of categories. If you want to have them all on category talk pages, you probably need to remove them from the front page of the category. ie. I think category talk pages is the best place to put the template, but it might be best to talk to User:Mirlen who did a lot of work adding category templates to the front page of the categories. Carcharoth 23:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've tidied this up now. See Template:ME-category, Template:ME-template, and Template:ME-project. Do you think there is anything more we can do to tidy things up? I'm still not sure how to handle the template/template talk page thing. Carcharoth 13:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you have in mind? Cbrown1023 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Organising Category:WikiProject_Middle-earth_templates so that the talk pages and template pages appear in the right places. Currently, the template pages are not pipesorted properly (a lot appear under 'T'), and ideally the talk pages would appear in a different category (best) or be clearly separate from the template pages. Can you think of an easy way to do this. I think creating a new category for the talk pages would be best, but please let's discuss the name first. Carcharoth 01:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC) PS. Take a look here to see some results of your template adding! At least for articles. Carcharoth 01:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean about categorising both being redundant. But look at Category:Wikipedia_templates and Category:WikiProject_templates. There seems to be a general trend that categorising the templates themselves is desirable, for whatever reason. I think maybe having the banner on the talk page, but having the category tag on the template page, would be OK. I did find Category:WikiProject_Star_Wars_Templates, which only categorises the talk pages. I'm wondering where is the best place to discuss this with a wider group? I'm going to ask at the Wikipedia assessment group whether they intended for templates and categories to be included in the "class" structure, or whether separate categorisation systems (ie. using different banners) are OK. I have also worked at populating Category:Middle-earth_redirects, and was wondering if there is any point in creating a separate banner for those (probably not) or for the pages in "Wikipedia" space (ie. Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth and all its subpages). Carcharoth 11:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, having category tags on the template page allows sub-categorisation. eg. Category:WikiProject Middle-earth family tree templates. I don't think this can be done with the talk page templates, unless you keep adding lots of parameters, which seems a bit silly. I think keep the talk page category tag as a way to add a template to Category:WikiProject Middle-earth templates, but then use category tags on the main template page to sub-categorise the templates within that main category. Does that sound reasonable? Carcharoth 11:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that they should be categorised on the template page. But when they are categorised that way, there is no banner, only a category surrounded by <noinlude></noinclude> tags. It is funny that you brought up Category:WikiProject Star Wars Templates because I populated that category myself when tagging articles and templates for WP:STARWARS. There is definately no point in creating a seperate banner as that category is not even needed, some people just find it useful (I don't know how). You shouldn't have a banner for the Wikipedia space and its subpages, that is what the NA rating is for. Cbrown1023 14:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm now thinking that it might even be better to incorporate an "page type" assessment into the WikiProject banner parameters. That would make the separate templates I've been creating redundant, but would avoid the confusion over having the "type" stuff mixed up with the "quality" scale. What I am thinking of here is that the page types are: articles, lists, disambiguation pages, redirects, categories, templates, Wikipedia space pages. Of these, only lists and articles need rating, and the other "types" would get NA for the rating class. This is because something can be a type (eg. a list or article), but still need rating on the scale (which should include a featured list class as well). There might also be a case for a few subdivisions of the "article" type, as articles can vary from single-topic articles about something very specific, to broad, overview, summary-style articles. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Assessment#Page_types. Does this seem helpful, or is it not needed? PS. Thanks for the comment about archiving my talk page. I'm still trying to decide whether to go the move or cut-and-paste route. Carcharoth 14:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You may want to check out Category:Class templates (they changed it) Category:Wikipedia editorial validation (for class templates), {{Film}} (the template I work with most), and {{Film Grading scheme}} to get more ideas... Cbrown1023 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like it would be pretty helpful, but would also need complicated syntax (not necassarily, but hard for us who aren't good with it to do) and may be complicated for the users who put in effect. But, then again, if it is easier for you (and the other project participants) then do it. You should put it to a vote on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth (but I think you kinda already did). Cbrown1023 03:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You should combine Article with Overview and List with Timeline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment#Page types. Cbrown1023 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Using markers to highlight a problem

Please don't post editor's messages (information hidden in <!-- -->) on talk pages when the information you are posting is actually post worthy and is not some kind of reminder notice such as "do not post above this line". I am, as pointed out by the title of this post, referring to your contribution to User talk:Essjay (seen here). In reference to your post, I would like to inform you that all of is not working (so the link I have posted will probably not work). Cbrown1023 22:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Posted to User:Mike33

At the time of writing MY comment there was a redirection to a WORKING version. I thought it would be petty to mention it in a very hard working wikipedia editor's discussion page. so i added my comments and a mirror descrpition in my edit comments. Using my watchlist the editor would have seen what i had done and not seen bad faith. like you bad manners disgust me, but presuming the worst before checking the facts, leaves me seriously doubtful about how you judge good faith. Mike33 01:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when you wrote the comment there was a redirection to a verstion that WASN'T WORKING (to mirror your format).
Some comments:
  1. Editor's messages are used in articles because that is where things are edited. When you post an editor's message to a talk page the average editors, especially ones who use the + sign to add discussions, will not see it. This is especially important because when Essjay's edit counter was not working, then there were many posts on his page and there would have been many more if the users posted them as editor's messages.
  2. It also would not be petty to mention something of importance on a "very hard working wikipedia editor's discussion page" for the same reason that it is not to post anything else. Especially since the user in question is taking an indefinate wikibreak (but has not "abandoned" the site).
  3. How can another user use your watchlist and why would they want to? I'm assuming that you did not mean to say that and actually meant to say your edit summary.
  4. I did not assume the worst by posting that message, I just informed you that editor's messages are not supposed to be used for talk pages and talked about what I was referring to.
You seem to be the one giving bad faith by yelling at me about posting a constructive comment on your talk page and my "bad manners" that disgust you, but I, being a user who uses good faith, do not think you are meaning to show "bad faith". It also seems that you are the one not checking your wikipedia facts or facts about the history of Essjay's page. I do hope you can dispute whatever I just stated as incorrect so that I may adjust my edits to show more good faith. Cbrown1023 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
My humblest greatest apologies. I think I must have drank too much coffee when I wrote that passage. WP:Good Faith isn't something I would normally question any editor on, and my spiel was very bad. please accept my apologies. It was stupid to add an hidden editorial remark. In my good faith I thought it might help, lots of other editors watch this page and I mirrored my comment in the edit summary. But mea culpa mea culpa, I apologise so much.

Thanks for updating my user page to the new edit counter. I think you are great. I will stay far away from coffee before I edit wikipedia again. Kind regards, Michael Mike33 03:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was just something like that, I really didn't think that you were like that all the time (and am glad that I now know that you aren't) because you seemed a little more upset than I would have thought. I am also sorry for beating that argument to the death with my long response, I get a little carried away with illustrating my point (a flaw for me sometimes...). I'm glad we could solve this peacefully and move on. I look forward to an opportunity to work with you in the future. Cbrown1023 13:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and really glad that you weren't offended so much. Likewise happy editing and thank you for your very graceful approach to my rant and raves. your friend Michael x x x Mike33 13:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling even more guilty now. Just re-reading what I wrote. When i wrote "like you bad manners disgust me," I didn't mean You were bad mannered or that you disgusted me - The sentence sould have read "like you, bad manners disgust me," An insult needs a preposition before it - People, Guys, Editors etc. But I can understand how I insulted you lots and lots more than I thought. I hope my explaination helps :-) Mike33 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
lol... thanks for the explanation. Cbrown1023 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, filmmeister....

If you get a moment, take a look at The Hurricane (1999 film). I've done some extensive editing and added film project tags (strange that nobody had found it before). It has potential, I think, to become an excellent article, but right now it seems (to me) to be too much about the controversy, and not enough about the film itself. I'm not quite sure what can be done about this. TheMadBaron 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would add a section on Critical reaction and Box office as sub-topics of Reception (Awards should be a sub of it too). I would also add a section about the movie's production entitled Production (kinda obvious). That section may include information such as development of the script, casting changes, etc... The Storyline section could be expanded (and entitled Plot if it is expanded). The Controversy section should be totally converted to prose and Trivia should be moved to other sections, such as Produciton. Images could be added to help illustrate the plot or production (cast shots, books it was based on, images of filming...). Anything else I can help you with? Cbrown1023 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think that could keep me busy for a while. Thanks for such a prompt and detailed response. TheMadBaron 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you need anything else, don't hesitate to drop a line on my talk page. Cbrown1023 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


        Smiley head happy.png       Cbrown1023, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --plange 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Admin mop.PNG


Thanks for the heads-up. It is much easier to remember. (Emperor 00:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

More ME-project template stuff

Hi. While going through some of the Middle-earth stuff not yet rated for importance, I found that another editer User:Kaobear has been adding the same template using AWB, but sometimes at the bottom of the talk pages, and your addition (in the right place) resulted in TWO templates! :-) Would you have time to check your additions to see where this happened (see here for an example)? Would you also have time to drop a note by Kaobear's page? Thanks. I'll try to drop by your editor review later. Carcharoth 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. The sad thing was, that one was added by hand for some reason. AWB is better than me sometimes, it checks the whole page to make sure the tag is not there. I just check the top, thinking an editor would put it there and I must have been in a hurry grading articles.
Funny you should ask me to post a note on his talk page, as I did write after I clicked on the link.
On a more personal note, you really seem to be getting busy lately with all the stuff you are doing for WP:Me. You are doing some good work and thanks for the future input on my edior review! Cbrown1023 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I did the same - adding the template at the top without checking the bottom. Unfortunately I can't remember which ones... I'll find them eventually when the 1000+ articles in "Unknown importance Tolkien" category get cleaned out. Speaking of which, would you be able to use AWB to help out with a list of redirects that I want to put into Category:Middle-earth redirects? They are all hobbits, and are listed at User:Carcharoth/Hobbit_redirects. Would you be able to put those into Category:Middle-earth redirects? Carcharoth 01:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be placed on the talk page or the user page and does anything other than [[Category:Middle-earth redirects]] need to be placed on the page? Cbrown1023 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just on the article page. I think it needs to go on a new line after the redirect bit, as putting on the same line might mess up the redirect. Nothing should go on the talk page. I've been removing any template I find on the talk page of redirects, as having the template there puts them in "non rated" categories for the assessment bit. Not very helpful, as redirects don't need assessing. Just the category will be enough to keep track of redirects, at least for now! Carcharoth 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, WP:AWB does not allow the posting of messages (it is considered a message) on non-talk pages... I wish I could have done it. :( :'( ... Cbrown1023 02:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ooh... I thought of a savy way of doing it. It will will probably only work for some, but if they all redirect to List of Hobbits, then we can put it as find and replace... it would find:
#REDIRECT List of Hobbits

and replace it with:

#REDIRECT List of Hobbits
Category:Middle-earth redirects
I hope it works... 02:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at WP:AWB#User_manual, and it says "Specify what to do to each page: Clean it up, unicodify it, add a category, etc." - surely you just ask it to add the category to each page on the list I provided? Maybe it is a problem if the pages are redirects, because it might load the page it is redirected to. The list I provided is of links using "redirect=no" (click edit to see the full URLs). Hope this helps. I might have a look at AWB myself, as it does look increasingly tempting. Especially the "list WhatLinksHere" feature. Though what I want to do is list "WhatLinksHere" for ALL the Tolkien/Middle-earth pages, and then pick out the ones labelled "redirect". But AWB might not keep that labelling of redirects in its list. Hmm. Carcharoth 02:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just typing this message up as you posted yours.
It wasn't working because AWB kept redirecting to List of Hobbits. I explored the options and found that Bypass redirects was checked and I unchecked it. I also saw the Categorisation button and I clicked add catgory and type Middle-earth redirects. It is now running smoothly. You can see what is being added Special:Contributions/Cbrown1023. Cbrown1023 02:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like its working! You are up to Daisy, I think! :-) Carcharoth 02:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!! :-) I'm coming very close to breaking my self-imposed ban on barnstars! Don't forget to re-tick the "bypass redirects" box - don't want future edits to be messed up! You wouldn't have any ideas on how to take a long (1000+) list of articles and find all the redirects pointing to articles on that list, would you? Carcharoth 02:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but...

  • If you are using AWB you could probably ask User:Kingboyk or post your question at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser.
  • If it is just a regular list... for something like List of Hobbits, you can click on the What links here button and in the Address bar add the following to the URL to get a list of 5000 pages (or change that number to get whatever you want)
which should give you a listing of 5,000 or less pages that link to that page. Then, in whatever internet browser you have, access the find tool (on internet explorer it is Ctrl F) and type in redirect. This will give highlight the pages that redirect to the certain page and the pages that link to that below them... does that kinda make sense?
I probably won't respond that soon as I have classess tomorrow and am going to bed, so sorry in advance for my lack of promptness in responding to your next post (if there is one). Cbrown1023 02:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Done, final total was 238. I'm glad to see that you asked Kingboyk, he is a very good editor and helper and is works very well with the technology behind Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, thanks so much for that. Really happy with that. :-) Do nag me if I forget to review your contributions and add to your editor review. I'll be away over the weekend, but will try to find time tomorrow. Carcharoth 03:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Film Template

Thanks for your note about the WP:FILMS template. Actually, I was aware that I could use {{Film}} instead of {{FilmsWikiProject}}, though I was under the impression that the former redirected to the latter. I work from a list of templates, categories, URLs etc in my notepad, and copy and paste as required rather than (mis)typing stuff in manually, so it makes little difference to me which I use; the longer version is probably a little easier to find on my (very messy) list.

I wasn't aware that you could use tl| to stop a template from appearing on a page, however, so your note taught me something. What's tl|, then? TheMadBaron 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You can show templates on a talk page two ways other than transclusion (the usual way of posting with the template name surrounded by {{ }}, i.e. {{Film}}). Using Template:Film as an example:
  1. [[Template:Film]] which yields Template:Film
  2. {{tl|Film}} which yields {{Film}}
Also a category, for example Category:Unassessed film articles, can be shown in two ways:
  1. [[:Category:Unassessed film articles]] which yields Category:Unassessed film articles
  2. {{cl|Unassessed film articles}} which yields Category:Unassessed film articles
Cbrown1023 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sound film

Hi. It's unclear on what basis this article has been judged B-class. The fact that it hasn't gone through the Good Article process, as referenced in the edit summary, is irrelevant per Category:Film articles by quality and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. How does the article fall short of A-class from your perspective as a WikiProjects Film member? Or is there a mechanism to the process you're employing that has not been made explicit? Best, Dan—DCGeist 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember we discussed an almost identical matter? Well if you don't, please visit User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 1#Dickson Experimental Sound Film for an archive of the discussion. If, after you review that, you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page again. Cbrown1023 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. It is also sitting on your talk page. (see User talk:DCGeist#Dickson Expermiental Sound Film). Cbrown1023 21:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course I remember. The issue there concerned a conflict over a Good Article rating, where the WikiProject Filmmaking leader applied a process he described in detail, and you applied the traditional ground rules of official Good Article nomination and review. This is a very different case--an article whose subject matter is of sufficient depth and importance to make it a plausible FAC: (1) the GA process is commonly not engaged in for such articles and (2) WikiProject assessment is the official process for A-class categorization in most cases. Please look at the links I provided and let me know if you have any basis for a different understanding.—DCGeist 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying I did not agree with you that it was A-class, but by Category:Film articles by quality's statement that "You should not assign any article GA, A, or FA grades arbitrarily. These grades must pass through official Wikipedia channels." I chose not to rate it as that. That statement, by being presented at the beginning, implies that it one of the statements to be followed.
I have a question of your statement that "the GA process is commonly not engaged in for such articles". What is it you mean by that statement? WP:GA is supposed to rate all articles.
If you disagree with our guidelines, please take them up with at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films as I would also like to see the outcome of this argument. It would greatly affect our rating process. I'll change it to A because I do believe it as A, because you gave a good argument and it is currently nominated for FA. Cbrown1023 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
We could also solve this right now. If you give me a verbal response (in this case I guess signed text post) that you want to nominate it for GA, then I will review it and add the GA automatically (or give suggestions). Cbrown1023 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Much appreciated. Meanwhile, I'll think how to formulate the whole A-class issue for discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. As you note, there is that cryptic declaration about A grades, like GA and FA, having to "pass through official Wikipedia channels," without a clear description of what those channels are in the case of the A grade. It takes a little digging, but it seems unquestionable that we as a WikiProject are "officially" authorized to apply A grades, without going through the GA process, to articles that meet the criteria. If you go to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, it says that the new official system "is based on the system used at WP:Chem for their worklist, and it has proved to be very flexible but useful for regular assessments on a list of 380 articles." Going to WP:Chem, it becomes clear that they do their own assessing and application of A grades. Go to the summary on the project's talk page (statistics) and it becomes clear that they essentially skip the whole GA process. I'm not saying the last is necesarily desirable in all cases, but it's clear we can give appropriate A grades without it. Now, those guys (and gals!) are chemists, so we can trust them to responsible. I have faith that, with sufficient dedication and seriousness, we can trust ourselves...Best, Dan—DCGeist 22:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the Category:Film articles by quality page to reflect our discussion on A-class also. If it is not liked when you suggest it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, then it will just be reverted. Cbrown1023 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Web operating system/archive1

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:Peer review/Web operating system/archive1. - JohnPritchard 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Grading

OK, I understand your responses on removing the templates for Thomas Edison (I knew he was not a fictional character by the way, and also I think it was there because of the multiple early films he created). I also see why Actors/directors/movie studios shouldn't have one as well. However, there are still dozens of fictional characters that do appear in films that still have the template on their talk page. Again, some better examples would be Wilson the Volleyball (sorry used that example again), Riddick, Saida (James Bond), Tim (Robots), and Tony Montana. Would these use the classes of Stub, Start, B, etc. or can a fictional class be created for them? I have been removing the template from characters that are only linked to novels or TV shows, but for the time being have left the film characters. Other than these, I have no problems grading the films.--Nehrams2020 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The grading process leaves a lot of room for interpretation right now. We just need a quick assessment on the stance of the article. The main question is normally, can it be expanded? Articles that use a stub template are almost always a stub but can sometimes be start (I know you know that). The rest are up for interpretation on how much can be expanded, like Riddick I would probably give a B because it is pretty long and has a lot of information (for a character). It also appears that it can't be further expanded that much.
You are removing the template from non-film-character pages, that is very good and is the same thing that Supernumerary and I are doing (so it is :) ).
Saida and Tim would be stubs (but it doesn't matter because they will be merged soon anyway) and Tony and Wilson would probably be start or stub.
Just remember... right now it is basically whatever you think, use your best judgement on how much it can be expanded. Cbrown1023 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. So I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and we'll finish these last batch of films hopefully within this week!Nehrams2020 00:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


No problem. Done. :) NCurse work 06:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

James Bond hanchman

Why did you merge all the pages?????????????? 10:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't yet, but am currently doing it. Please see Talk:James Bond for more information. Cbrown1023 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm sure this has been discussed, but I got confused.... should lists like Hopalong Cassidy films be tagged with {{Film}}? Tagged with something else? Totally Ignored? TheMadBaron 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that this may be a little late, but I just got home. Yes, lists should be tagged and be assessed as List Class (Random Background Story: not to make you feel stupid, I started to NA (non-article) them until another user told me there was a list class! Yay, I was happy... I just had to add it to the template... but now it works... so you can do it).
The syntax is...
They both put it into Category:List-Class film articles. Cbrown1023 03:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review

I have finished your review here. Hope it is of help. Jcam 23:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


How was the American Continent vandalism or nonsense?

I was going to add all about the landmass and the major cities and all that. PLEASE!

THIS IRGHT HERE IS NONSENSE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyBoi969 (talkcontribs)

That articles would just carry redundant information of the other articles that are still here. It was nonsense at the times with that short line and now that you have explained your reasons, it will not add anything to the encyclopedia.
The only thing your article should serve as is a redirect to the Americas. Please check to see if the article you are creating exists in another place, with a different name. Cbrown1023 13:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Please also sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~. Cbrown1023 13:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:James Bond characters

Sort out Template:James Bond characters. Somebody has vandalised it by removing all of the bond henchman of the 1960s. What is going on? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, we are currently trying to merge all the pages onto a few lists because the character pages are so small and the template is getting huge. Cbrown1023 14:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi yes but the ammendments and merger has made it all higgledy-piggledy. Only henchman from 1962-1971 have been merged and the articles are difficult to find in the list without looking at the contents. If you insist on merging them all, merge ALL of the henchman into the list, and I strongly suggest you put them all in chronological order by Bond film starting with Dr No rather than alpahbet- for example a 1997 character Stamper could be followed by Dr No's photographer from 1962. THis is not right. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

I understand that, but I said we are we are currently trying to merge all the pages onto a few lists (emphasis added). So it may take a while for us merge them all. We will be merging all the Henchmen onto one page... and then have a sub-header for each movie and do the same for villian, allies, girls, etc. If you have a better idea, I will be glad to here it. Cbrown1023 14:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to start organising the characters by film rather than alphabet. Book characters that don't appear in the films can be in a different section at the bottom. It is far more concise and understandable for Bond history and its charactersfor the reader this way.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Before you do anything, please post your proposed changes at Talk:James Bond. Cbrown1023 14:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You are doing really well, it looks really good. Cbrown1023 16:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I know thanks I love Bond and this is like the Bond archives. My format must be kept though it looks far better this way -it is now nicely organized. THanks for your encouragement Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Editor Review:Cbrown1023

Glad to have helped a little bit. As for the font, I am an old fashioned guy. Give me fixed font size, and I am happy. :-) Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Flowers For Algernon

Hey, Cbrown1023. For the second time, I've removed your "list to prose" tag on Flowers_For_Algernon. I don't think it is needed. Please note that Macbeth and Hamlet have bulleted lists without prose, so for consistency, I don't see why FFA should have prose. On the other hand, if you want to turn it into prose, I don't think anyone would object, but since you seem to be the only one who wants it, I don't think the tag is appropriate. Cheers, Doctormatt 04:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome back! I did have a nice weekend, thanks. I've also popped over to your editor review, and I agree with what has been said there, so I don't have much to add. Try out different areas of Wikipedia would be my main reccommendation. It can be easy to get focussed on doing massive amounts of maintenance work in a single area, but it is important to keep up-to-date with the bigger picture (I'm terrible at doing this) and try and dip into many different areas (even if only for a few days or weeks), as it is best to have some experience in those areas before trying for RfA. Wikipedia is very, very large, and also things can change quite quickly, so obviously it is not possible to be experienced or up-to-date in all areas, but it is something to aim for. Carcharoth 11:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Class criteria

It's about Talk:The Colditz Story. Is this really class start? Just a while ago I demoted another one like this to stub. Before I go on with such actions, I would like to know by what criteria you assessed it to start. Hoverfish 23:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it is definately a stub. I classed it as that at the beginning of the month (October 1st) when I was not clear on the whole criteria. I have changed it to stub. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Cbrown1023 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, a lot of stub articles are going to be classed as start, as there is a small gap between the two. Cbrown1023 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)