User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Gore page

I agree about the VP section. Just trying to organize the page better. Your input is definitely appreciated. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jiffypopmetaltop - thanks! I appreciate the feedback on the Al Gore page. You've also done impressive work on the page. -Classicfilms 20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Where do you get the tobacco farm thing? Cite a source if you are going to revert my edit.

[1]"Steve Armistead, one of Gore's friends from Carthage, remembers working alongside Gore on the farm. "One year we did the tobacco, one year it looked like the hay was the emphasis and the next year it looked like the cows was the emphasis, that sort of thing," Armistead remembers."Jiffypopmetaltop 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jiffypopmetaltop - I did add the citation but it is further down on the page attached to section about his sister - he talks about the family tobacco farm in An Inconvenient Truth - this review references it:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/film-reviews/an-inconvenient-truth/2006/09/15/1157827139680.html

-Classicfilms 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You need a better source than a movie review. Wp:Bio Jiffypopmetaltop 05:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source from The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,386168,00.html

-Classicfilms 05:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the transcript.[2] Your first source is wrong. Your second source isn't primary either and may be from an editorial. Has Gore or his father ever referred to their farm that way? I think your second source is an example of sloppy reporting from Salon or paraphrasing by the author. I have a reliable source in the Washington Post (Gore's childhood friend/co-worker on the farm)article that contradicts your semi-reliable source.Jiffypopmetaltop 05:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This section in your reference does discuss it: "The Tobacco Industry".[3] -Classicfilms 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Really it doesnt. Please quote the text where Al Gore says "tobacco farm" Jiffypopmetaltop 05:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

Al Gore és Richard Branson 25 millió dollar co2 competition- I think we need to write about.--Tamás Kádár 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what this is referring to, but add it if your edit follows Wikipedia:Verifiability. -Classicfilms 21:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Classicfilms

Thanks for taking a look at those edits on the controversies page. Makes it look less like a fan blog and more encyclopedic. Jim732 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.-Classicfilms 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Great job

With the new page. It looks as good as any of the others. Do you think al gore and the environment should be the next split in the main? Turtlescrubber 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Turtlescrubber- Thanks for the feedback - sure, I think it sounds like a great idea. -Classicfilms 17:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image question

Hi Gamaliel - I wonder if I could seek a bit of advice from you concerning fair use of an image. This is in response to an ongoing discussion on the Al Gore talk page which you can read here about updating the infobox photo. You can read the entire discussion there, but essentially I am arguing that photos in infoboxes for former presidents and vps should be professional, official, portraits in order to maintain quality WP articles. Besides the free image currently in use in the article's infobox, there is another professional portrait online but it is WP:NONFREE. I find the rules concerning images and copyright a bit overwhelming, so I was wondering if you could take a look? Is there a way it can be used? Is permission needed?

• http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the rules is limited, but in this case I believe that we almost certainly could not use it because a free substitute is available. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. Is there a way to ask for permission to use it? To contact the photographer etc? -Classicfilms (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an issue of permission. On Wikipedia the preference is always for the freely usable image, so even if you had permission, the free image would still take priority. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Chris for your comments on Talk:Al Gore and for cleaning up the page. You've made great contributions in the past to the article. I'd like to push the article at some point towards GAC - if you have any time to edit or add suggestions, it would be great. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! I'll try to run over it again in full over the weekend if I can. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic - it will be nice to have an experienced editor tear up the article a bit - I think it is close to being ready for GAC - the areas for Congress and the VP need work and expansion, many of the references still need to be checked and formatted and the article could use copy editing and overall cleaning - but I do think it's in pretty good shape. This article is about 6 years old and it's time that it moved up to at least GA. Thanks - Classicfilms (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article?

Hi Chris - I'm wondering if you think Al Gore is ready for a WP:GAN and if so, if you would be interested in making the nomination? -Classicfilms (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. Never done a GAN before. I'll have a look into it over the next 24 hours. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Should sail through GAN. I'll review it later tonight if it is on the nomination page. Protonk (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's up. I agree that the current article is easily up to the standards expected from GA. It's testament to the amount of care taken on it that this nomination has been so long coming. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Great news! Thanks for taking the initiative. Since I've been editing the article quite a bit of late, I thought the GAN should come from other editors - thanks for nominating it. This is an article that should be FA- perhaps this will be a step in the right direction. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. got busy with other stuff. I'll try to tackle it tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore

Hi ThinkBlue,

Thanks so much for reviewing the Al Gore article. Your insights were very helpful. All of your suggestions seem to be an easy fix - it's just a matter of the time it takes to go through them. Rather than leaving a long trail on the Al Gore page, I'll just let you know when I've finished going through them. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A minor question

I do have one minor question. You had requested the references use the {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) format. I'm not certain what should be changed since they use this format - which is the vertical, rather than horizontal, version of {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help):

If you could clarify this suggestion, I would appreciate it. Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are some sources that do not have the cite web format, take like Reference 11, that's what I mean. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it - missed those references in the intro. Great, as long as the vertical format is ok, I'm going to go ahead and fix #11 and others that lack it. The rest seems clear, it's just a matter of doing it. I'll let you know when I'm done. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking through the article to see if their were any, until I found Reference 11. Just tell me when your done and I'll see if anything else is needed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

(from Talk:Al Gore/GA1)

After reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Classicfilms for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrific! Thank you ThinkBlue for your hard work on this article. Regards -Classicfilms (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One more request

Hi ThinkBlue,

I wonder if you could help with one more thing - I am having difficulty combining the article history template for Al Gore with the GA template - I wonder if I could ask you to do so and to update the article history with the GA status? Thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't do that. User:GimmeBot is in charge of updating the status of the template. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it an automatic change or do I need to contact this person? -Classicfilms (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Its an automatic change, he's in charge of that. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, and you're welcome on the review. If you want to put it up for FA, I suggest adding a peer review first, before anything happens. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've placed a peer review request. Thanks for the suggestion. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to help. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

PR of AG

Al Gore is currently a Good Article and is undergoing peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Al Gore/archive2. Your advice and feedback would be appreciated. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd love to help out with that article, but I'm afraid I'm too busy at the time. Good luck with it! Scartol • Tok 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for letting me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Preview and edit summaries

First and most importantly, thank you for your significant work on the Al Gore article. I just wanted to make a friendly request that you consider using the preview function when making your changes, instead of making a series of small changes within minutes of each other, and also use edit summaries. This avoids clogging the page history and recent changes report. For those of us who rely heavily on the page history, a series of 35 consecutive edits by the same user can be pretty daunting to sift through, especially without an summaries on those edits. Thanks for considering, and most importantly, thanks for your contributions. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Hey CF, I'm getting up to speed at the talk page there and just wanted to mention that the NYT and Boston Globe are published by the same company. It's a small nit to pick and I don't disagree with your viewpoint or comments there, other than your statement that if something is in both the NYT and GB it qualifies it as Five Pillars, etc. - I would choose two different papers, maybe the NYT and WSJ or Washington Post or something, see? Best regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kaisershatner - You are right - thanks for pointing this out. It's actually been referenced by a number of news organizations, so if the current references had to be tweaked, I would say to remove the NY Times article which simply mentions it and to replace it with ABC News

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/02/2353379.htm

which also mentions it in passing. There is also this article from The Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/13009.html

Take a look and see what you think and I can make a note on the talk page. I always appreciate feedback so thanks again for your comment. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah palin/library controversy

Hi ThaddeusB - first of all, great work on the now 3 short paragraph section. Can I ask that we hold off on having the section put on the main page for a little bit? The Frontiersman has just republished the original Dec. 18, 1996 article that is being referenced. It is the actual primary source and should be the first place of reference. I don't think it will change too much but it may help to create material that can remain static. I'll also post it on the talk pages. http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/06/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt#blogcomments -Classicfilms (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank for the heads-up. I will withdarw the request until people have had a chance to digest the new material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just sorry it happened after your request. You've done great work - none of us could have known it would have just been posted. Anyway, I think we can quickly make the changes. Thanks so much for your great help. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional heads-ups

I simply copied the cite from the current version of the article, which did not have that URL. Thanks for providing it. Also, thanks for making a new 2nd paragraph draft. I am going to let this sit for additional comment until tomorrow morning and then make a new proposed version to officially seek approval on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - whatever is easiest. And please feel free to tweak my edit. I am debating whether or not to extend Palin's quote as there is more material towards the end of the article but the paragraph seemed to be getting long. Feel free to add it if you think it helps. Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked the my draft of the paragraph a bit more. I thought that it would be useful for this section to add the source and extend the quotes- there was also a small typo. See what you think -Classicfilms (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

re:Sarah Palin

Thanks for the new library version - I just wasn't certain how to put the rewrite together and I think you did a great job. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Classicfilms, Thanks for the note. It's been a great experience actually seeing people with different points of view come together on this. Knock on wood. Your attention and contributions have been much appreciated.Like.liberation 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice words. I agree with you - the collaborative effort of so many has really paid off. Cheers, -Classicfilms (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

There is now a new page Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. The material that you restored is, I believe, now on that page. There is a discussion of this move on the S.P. bio talk page, you might want to have your say there. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you just did! :) T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL :-) Sorry, I didn't see that section before and literally just posted as you posted to my talk page... Subarticles are common to the WP but in this case, there should be discussion and consensus before material is moved from the main article first. So I think we should keep the material on the main page while there is discussion on the topic. Let's see how the consensus pans out. Thanks for the alert though - eyes are a bit foggy in the morning :-). -Classicfilms (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Civility Award
		For your part in reaching the excellent consensus version of "the library controversy" I give you this Barnstar. The way we all came to consensus on this contentious event was truly Wikipedia at its best. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise! Thank you so much for the barnstar! I really believe that the WP offers an extraordinary environment - the chance for numerous individuals from different backgrounds and different perspectives to collaborate, share opinions, sometimes differing ones, and then reach middle ground. I think that many people contributed to this experience and I'm glad to have been able to help out. Thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pauline Tompkins

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pauline Tompkins, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Alphageekpa (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell

My only concern with putting the Palin part first, is that it makes it sound like this was one of the main reasons he is voting for him, while if you listen to the actual endorsement, this was only a very minor reason. This seems like undue weight to me. Khoikhoi 20:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that - tweak as you see fit. I was reverting a different edit which removed quite a bit of information that should be there. We just need to make certain the section doesn't fall into undo weight. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was thinking we could just quote a snippet of his conclusion: "because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president". Or is that too long? Khoikhoi 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I'm wondering if the way to handle undo issues is to move this to a new section such as Obama endorsement - this is quite a significant endorsement and that way, in a new section the issue of undo becomes remote. If you agree that would be the way to handle it. Here is a useful link.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=6066689&page=1 -Classicfilms (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that this is an article about Powell's biography and thus it is undue in the context of all the events of his life. If we were talking about one of the campaign articles it would probably be different IMO. It is indeed very significant, but not when it comes to Powell's biography. Khoikhoi 21:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I think we could just include a single paragraph or two stating the main reasons why he endorsed Obama, and not go into detail about Palin or the soldier. Khoikhoi 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I can go either way about specific information concerning the soldier or Palin. I do think, however, that the other existing quotes are relevant for the long run of the article and are not recentism or undo since they talk to long term issues concerning the campaign. Does that answer your question? Thanks for your feedback by the way, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. I'm still thinking about how to re-work the information, and whether we should keep the thing about Palin or not. Khoikhoi 22:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not just add an introductory sentence that offers the themes you feel are missing? If the Palin comment is really a problem, remove it. It was really a minor point and if you feel it complicates the paragraph then I don't think it will change much. How's that? -Classicfilms (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll make the necessary changes. Khoikhoi 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe use this TIME article - it establishes notability for this section along with the ABC article above:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851832,00.html

Let me know if I can help in the rewrite. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Barber-Scotia College

Hi Orlady, Thanks for restoring the archived sites on the Barber-Scotia College page - I usually just remove bad links, but you were smart to investigate further. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you continuing to pay attention to this article. It's on my watchlist, but I admit that I don't think about it unless someone has edited it. I would not normally replace a defunct external link with the archive.org version, but considering the situation of this school, I figured that the link to their former(?) website was a valuable part of the article. --Orlady (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Your edits to the article are right on target. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Since you are interested in Pomona College you might want to check out this AfD of a professor's bio: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added my comment. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice for Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

I have nominated Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cirt - Sure, I'd be happy to take a look. Thanks for asking me. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Invite

I've seen your work on Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000. I would like to know if you are interested in joining WP:USPE, a project that concerns this kind of article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi William S. Saturn (talk) - Sure, I just signed up. Thanks for asking and for letting me know. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Current women's universities and colleges in the Southern United States

Template:Current women's universities and colleges in the Southern United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Masonpatriot (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Gates arrest

Just wanted to say well done on that article, it was looking quite a mess when i last saw it (Friday afternoon); multiple sections and subsections made it practically unreadable!. Its more concise now and flows well. :) Zaq12wsx (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi User talk:Zaq12wsx, how nice of you! Thanks for the feedback and thanks for your contributions as well. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - July 2009

The July 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16(talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher Mott

A tag has been placed on Christopher Mott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your username.

I've noticed this, and it seems that it could represent a company. So why don't you try changing your username?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 06:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain what this is referring to. I am a person, not a company and I have had this username for a number of years due to my interest in films and the fact that I work on many film articles. Thanks for the suggestion though. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok...--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 08:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

How have you been my friend... it's been a while! :) As you know, my dream is to see Kareena Kapoor's article become a FA. Whenever you get the chance, would you be able to comment on this? I would greatly appreciate it! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. The Kareena Kapoor article looks great, seems like all of the right suggestions have been made. Let me know when the voting begins, I'll be happy to support it. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. The voting has already begun; Kapoor's article is going through a FAC. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 07:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hey how are you? Where are you busy nowadays? We had some plans (on improving articles) for the centenary year of Indian cinema, however, those are not going as wished. We are hoping to bring Mother India to FA status, but not sure. Also, 59th National Film Awards, which failed couple of FLCs, is at peer review, with a goal of another FLC soon. In case you have not noticed, Vidya Balan became an FA! --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dwai! Good to hear from you. I did notice that Vidya Balan's article moved to FA - congrats!! Looks like the FA team is very busy. I'll try to take a look over the weeks to come, though at the moment Real Life is bearing down on me with deadlines and work. Glad to see, however, that there is a great deal of activity to improve the Indian cinema articles. Will try when I have time to go through some of these. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GrapedApe (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Kung Fu Book of Caine: The Complete Guide to TV's First Mystical Eastern Western for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Kung Fu Book of Caine: The Complete Guide to TV's First Mystical Eastern Western is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kung Fu Book of Caine: The Complete Guide to TV's First Mystical Eastern Western until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Arjun Singh Sethi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arjun Singh Sethi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Singh Sethi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 2015 Chapel Hill shooting

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)