User talk:Cop 663

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Cop 663, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages

On this edit of yours: yes, yes, the new name I gave it is really a posh name for "trivia". Or rather, it's a posh name for what I would call "trivia". However, what a number of other WP editors think of as "trivia" is something quite different: stuff that tells us nothing whatever about the movie, but instead something very small about "pop culture" (culture that's very commercial, or wants to be popular, or both) of recent memory. I thought my new title would deter people from adding stuff about how the word "rosebud" is uttered in this or that episode of The Simpsons etc. (Observe this craporamic earlier version of "Dorian Gray" to see teen obsessions unbridled.) -- Hoary 15:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but my real issue was wanting to add the 'too much trivia' tag as all these 'minor aspects' need to be integrated into the relevant sections (I'll have a go myself if I get time). Isn't it possible to create a 'pop culture references' section and then siphon it off into a separate page when it gets too big? Cop 633 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to Citizen Kane in other work was started over a year ago. I agree, there should be no list of unsorted addenda, even of interesting and worthwhile addenda. -- Hoary 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go. Anyway, I have restructured the article and integrated the trivia into appropriate places. Cop 633 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Just dropped by to mention the film infobox has been renewed and it's best to use the new one. It saves me some time in maintenance rounds at least. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Cop 633 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that got its own section because it used to be a completely separate article, and was dumped merged into the Life of Brian article. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably belongs in the synopsis really. Except the synopsis is short, so it would look odd. I'd expand the synopsis but I last saw the film ten years ago and would probably make stuff up... Cop 633 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you could categorize like I have adjusted on you rGerman film that would be terrific. You may want to help Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing East German Films -they can be stubbed first and then developed later. I don;t know though whether West german and East german films should go in a sepearttre category from German films - they are seperated on imdb Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know that much about German film, but I think most East German films are pretty hard to find these days so creating a separate category might be unnecessary.Cop 633 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cop 633

As you are interested in film articles, I would like to ask you to see the article that I am working on: Abbas Kiarostami. I would like to increase its quality and any comments from you would be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot for your time. Sangak 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a close look some time. It seems very impressive at first glance. Why does it have a NPOV tag, though? Cop 633 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some search in the literature and collected some info I thought they are useful. There were many praise in the literature about him. When I wrote the article, it looked naturally pov due to those praises (that were not mine). Here is the draft I wrote: [1] There have beem some changes by some users afterwards. However some poeple think the quality is decreasing while others think it is increasing. Any helps from Your side will be very welcome.Sangak 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not transfer material to Wikiquote or other Wikimedia projects, as you did for A Man for All Seasons (1966 film) (to q:A Man for All Seasons (1966 film)), without following the guidelines at Help:Transwiki on the target project. Simply copying and pasting material violates GFDL, as the editors who actually contributed the material are not given credit for its presence in the Wikimedia projects. If you have any questions after reading the material, feel free to ask me. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) (also Jeff Q on Wikiquote) 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea. Cop 633 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the tags were added to pages that had only three or four trivia notes. I'm sorry I did not have the time to look over and review each one individually, but I believed, as I was right, that other editors such as yourselves would reinstate if the tag did indeed make sense. However, when this ip address had more than a hundred edits all with the same tag, and all within a couple of minutes of each other, how can it be anything but disruptive. I'm not saying they were all out of place, but a good number were.TheGreenFaerae 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries friend; I'm an anti-trivia fascist who doesn't believe in trivia sections at all. I'd put the tag on a one-item trivia section! Best, Cop 633 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Do I really require an explanation with this particular one? TheGreenFaerae 04:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here: User talk:BillPP on categories.Sangak 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your recent edit on international release dates for Babel (film)

Just curious, where did you get these dates? According to the Japanese version of the official website (linked from ja:バベル (映画)), it is being released 28 April in Japan, not 3 March. —Tokek 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got them from the IMDB but I presume the Japanese website is more up to date so change it by all means. Cop 633 20:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following your request, I wrote a section about difficulties that Iranian filmmakers have encountered over the years. Please see here. It needs copyediting and perhaps shortenning. We had censorship before the revolution too, although after revolution we have had more restrictions. On the otherside, some other countries were also hostile to Iranian filmmakers. I wrote something. Just a starting point! Take care.Sangak 12:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyediting that section.Sangak 16:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cop 633 !

As you are also working on Iranian cinema:

Kiarostami is now featured article candidate. In case you have any comment, please let me know on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbas Kiarostami page. Any comments will be very much appreciated. I would like to get rid of all problems and make it a quality. Thanks. Sangak 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information, we use American English in this article. Thanks for your kind helps.Sangak 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment :-) Sangak 21:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, nice work. Please fix my English if it's wrong.Cop 633 21:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something I am not sure about. Do you think it is good to have the following sentence in the article?

Kiarostami often appears with his enigmatic sunglasses. He use them for medical reasons.^[1]

If yes, would you please help me with that? Where to put it and how? Thanks. Sangak 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that belongs in 'personal life'. I'll insert it there. Cop 633 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sangak 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your recent addition to The Life of Mammals, if you look at all the episode summaries within the David Attenborough "Life" series articles (as well as The Blue Planet and Planet Earth) on a 1280 x 1024 monitor, you will notice that each comprises exactly eight full lines of text. This didn't happen by accident. When I wrote them, I had the aim (probably a somewhat optimistic one) of ensuring that each episode had equal coverage and helped to create a nicely presented article. Out of necessity, this meant making some choices about which elements I included and those I omitted. Of course, given the nature of Wikipedia, I was probably being a bit foolish to hope that the summaries would stay that way forever, and I appreciate that it looks different on various sizes of monitor. However, most have had very few edits, except for punctuation and typos, etc., and now that Planet Earth is about to be unleashed on America, I'm resigned to it probably being 'open season' on that article for a while! I won't revert again, but I just wanted to explain the rationale. :-) Chris 42 16:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see, but other than looking nice I'm not sure what the benefit is of having equal length summaries. If you're having to make decisions about which scenes to include and which to leave out (keeping tamarins but banishing marmosets), that's a problem, because you're sacrificing accuracy for aesthetics. Anti-marmoset prejudice is not something likely to keep me awake at nights, but I just thought I'd explain my logic there...! Cop 633 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nonoffensive ("PC" if you wish) term is simply "deaf". See Deaf mute. Thank you. Ward3001 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the reason people are annoyed by your edit is that this is a synopsis, and it is important to the plot that the character is unable or unwilling to speak. This fact needs to be stated. 'Deaf' only means unable to hear. Is there any way the character in this film can be described as 'not speaking' (which is important to the plot) without causing offence? Cop 633 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with describing her communicating with hearing people by means of writing. The single word "mute" is not necessary, but a description of her behavior, if accurate, is appropriate. I personally don't consider her not speaking as a critical element once it is understood that she is deaf, but that is a matter of opinion. If you decide to revise, I would suggest describing her communication style without implying that she cannot speak. I'm certainly willing to cooperate with such edits as long as accurate and nonoffensive descriptions are used. Ward3001 03:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried this, which seems the most concise.[2]

The way you revised it is acceptable to me. Thanks for your sensitivity to this issue. Ward3001 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry if I got snippy.Cop 633 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. It was just a matter of discussing it and reaching a resolution. Ward3001 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mix in, but one option in some instances might be "deaf and mute." One of the objections many people have to "deaf-mute" is that it historically assumed that all deaf people were mute. It may not work for everyone, but at times it might be a solution.Lawikitejana 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Lawikitejana, but I would also object to "deaf and mute"; it's too close to deaf-mute. The objection by deaf people to "deaf-mute" is more than just the assumption that deaf people are mute. Historically, "deaf-mute" has had connotations of stupidity. See Deaf-mute. Ward3001 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cop633

I need to thank you for your kind assistance and support. The article would not come to FA status without your helps. Thanks and All the best. Sangak ^Talk 11:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was looking at the article on Who Are the DeBolts? And Where Did They Get Nineteen Kids? and that reminded me that I'd never said "thanks" for your creating it to begin with. I've added to it a few times and enjoyed being able to enlighten people further about one of my favorite documentaries of all time.Lawikitejana 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! (Never even seen it myself!) Cop 633 20:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've seen some of your work, no doubt you are a good copy editor, if not and excellent one. And, you also seem to feel you have to have the final say on articles. The last version of this is The Official Story. No Great Britain was not good enough, you had to change it to UK and mention some minor detail about the DVD in the lead section. Please, I mean this in good spirit, can you put away your ego (about having the last word, I mean). We Wiki editora write in good faith and if the work if acceptable, please do not change. I'm going to delete the DVD mention because it does not belong there. If your want to create a section on names fine.

I've been wanting to contact you for other Wiki items, such as capitalization of names on Spanish titles: is it Vida loca or Vida Loca? in order to build a concensus, but, depending how you take this note, I can contact you later. It is a brewing matter on Wiki as far as I'm concerned.

I also realize I can be accussed of the same thing. It's about that type "A" personality we both seem to share. Type A's need to learn to cooperate on Wiki. (A possible article for a magazine. That is, who contributes and how they get along.)

Well, best to you, Luigibob 19:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, I really meant no offense. I'm rather bewildered by your response. I wasn't trying to insult you or have the last word. I just wanted to clarify what the film's title was: if someone in the UK decided to look the film up in their local video store, they might have thought it was called Version, so I thought we should clarify that the DVD is called Story even in the UK.

I changed 'Great Britain' to 'UK' because 'Great Britain' technically excludes Northern Ireland. Pedantic, yes, but it's just a small thing that happens to bug me and I change it in a kind of pavlovian reflex.

I realize how this could have come across as me trying to keep 'proving you wrong', but that wasn't the intention; I honestly thought we were collaborating, and didn't realize it was a bloodthirsty battle to the death. ;)

Regarding Spanish names ... I don't speak Spanish, so I'm the wrong person to ask.

I don't consider myself to have a Type A personality, so if I ever act like I do, kick me hard. Cop 633 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from a type Z personality. Great job in film naming conventions. I am trying to find if there are more general conventions on foreign title capitalization (books, whatever), so I can understand where we stand and try to evaluate Luigibob's position. Without having done my homework, it sounds like it's correct to capitalize, like we do in English. If you know where I could look, especially any consensus discussions I would appreciate it. Hoverfish Talk 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm monoglot, so I'm not much help. My only brush with this was on Le Cercle rouge, where the rather odd-looking capitalization is in theory correct but in practice the French DVD covers are capitalized differently (see Talk:Le Cercle rouge). Yet I feel sure there must be clear rules about this somewhere. Have you tried asking people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain and other language WikiProjects for their input? That might help. Cop 633 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will ask. Hoverfish Talk 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cop. I will black out the redirects on the List of Arg to avoid confusion. But I am working on this gradually. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for two different images of same sequence: (a) Shows they are dancing, (b) it's Godardian, (c) otherwise, with one image, they could just be standing there, (d) if truly one of the most famous scenes in cinema history, then it should be properly presented. Pepso 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that your pic shows they're dancing better than the original did. Maybe get rid of the original pic but keep the caption? You're right about it being Godardian too... Could you try to 'unsquish' your picture, though; it made them all look slightly fat. Cop 633 14:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the "squish" you mention. I believe this is simply an optical illusion created by the fact that the two shots are cropped differently. Pepso 08:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cop check out my last 50 edits to show I am working on the lists. Gradually I'll remove the double directs but I hope enventually these will all have articles -I'tll take time. Also please categorize your Italian film properly. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! What was I doing wrong in the Italian films? Cop 633 14:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E.g 20 minutes ago List of Argentine films:1942 was emptyish with several dozen redirects. Although even now not perfect I wil be going through each year and filling it in like this. I have done 1935-1942 so far I still have 1943 -2006 to go so please be patient. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's no rush, it was just an observation! Relax! Cop 633 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add citations to the article. Otherwise it could be deleted. Thank you! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis of the film version was left unfinished by a more-than-normally feckless editor. I wrote the play synopsis and I can guarantee its accuracy since I have the Branaugh/Thompson performance on DVD. Any chance you could finish the film synopsis? El Ingles 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I haven't actually seen the film. I believe it's very close to the play so a synopsis is not really necessary, rather a section on any changes that were made. Cop 633 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've ordered it from Netflix so I'll be able to do the work myself. As usual in play adaptations, they tried to move the action out of that claustrophobic attic. Ma Tanner was an actual character rather than being merely referred to. Nigel Kneale even invented a part for good old George Devine. Cheers. El Ingles 16:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That's funny, maybe I should check it out for George. Cop 633 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun work on the List of Argentine films. Not only have I removed all double links now but I have merged all the articles by decade and am as far as the 1950s. Check out the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s lists they look great ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I like the pictures, gives you a glimpse into the past.Cop 633 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've put a 'fact' tag after the sentence "It implicitly suggests that Britain needs to 'fight dirty' in the face of such an evil enemy." How can you get a factual reference from an implicit suggestion? It's in the film. -- SteveCrook 07:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a published author who agrees that this is the film's implication, or alternatively you can explain why this is the implication so. A lot of Wikipedia film articles describe things as 'implied' that are in fact subjective interpretations. I haven't seen this film so I don't know whether that's the case here. Cop 633 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you have done there; I hope it was ok for me to edit it slightly. If not, edit it right back!--Guinnog 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Cop 633 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's much clearer all round now. Thanks! Man vyi 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, I sort of agree with you. The problem is, there are so many flags in film infoboxes now (for distributors, release dates, running times, etc) that I think the country needs a flag too. I did raise the flags issue on the Films project talk page but nobody seemed to be that bothered, although there was at least agreement that we don't need every release date in the infobox which does mean some of these can be deleted. JW 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been trying to straighten this out. My idea is that you don't really need a Brit flag next to the word 'UK' because it's superflous. But they are useful in narrow infoboxes to stop things like release dates overflowing onto two lines. But I realise it starts looking silly when there are flags next to everything in the box. There's a newish style guide on release dates at the Wikiproject, btw, just in case you haven't seen it. Anyway, I'm just trying to guage opinion, so thanks. Cop 633 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page you had at Cop 633/Flagcruft sensible draft/Babel to User:Cop 633/Flagcruft sensible draft/Babel, which I assume is what you originally intended (obviously sandbox pages shouldn't be in the article space). I've also restored and userified one of the other subpages; if you no longer need it, I'll be happy to re-delete it. Alai 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brilliant - sorry about the mistake. Cop 633 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about blanking you edit i was just trying to readd the sports section which i felt should of been included i didn't notice the other sections you added , once again sorry (Gnevin 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Re: [3]

If you have a reason why you think these things belong in the page, then it may very well make sense to replace them and explain on the talk page, but if you are just doing out of some notion of proper procedure, you are incorrect. Saying some action is "unilateral" is a misunderstanding of how consensus works. Edits are made based on reasons for the encyclopedia, and there does not need to be some referendum for every edit. Also, in this particular case you are ignoring the history of the matter. This page was entirely re-written—unilaterally—just a few days ago. If you want to revert changes that occur "unilaterally" and "without discussion" or "consensus", then the page would belong reverted to its state before the re-write. Wikipedia works by speaking directly to what is good and bad about a particular edit, which is what you need to do, not by referring to whatever procedural code you are thinking of. —Centrx→talk • 01:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to any policy, I was just asking you to be polite and helpful. We're trying to have a discussion about the ideas on this page, and it's annoying if the object of discussion suddenly vanishes. Regarding the recent unilateral rewrite, the author who did so invited anyone who disliked what he'd done to revert it. Nobody did. Now we're trying to sort out the blurry bits and grey areas. You've raised an interesting question about historical flags, which does indeed need to be discussed - but it would be nice to leave it in the article (with a 'disputed' tag) so that people can actually see what we're talking about.Cop 633 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While what you said about the hypothetical apearance of Gliese 581 c is technically true, it is a common practice for editors to add images of a hypothetical apprearence of an object that we do not know the true appearence of. Many articles on exosolar planets have artist's impressions, and no one complains about those ones. Why can't we speculate about things we are uncertian of? Also, just because an artist's impression is added to an article, it doesn't mean that it has to take away from the actual material of the article. In my opinion, such images, in fact, make the article seam less overwhelming and easier to understand. Fusion7 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if the art in question wasn't a copyright violation of original research by a non-notable artist. But it is. Cop 633 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bud, while I certainly feel the content dispute is indeed lame, the place to mention that is not within the article itself. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, that was a complete mistake. I'm not sure how it happened, but it was just an inadvertently saved typo, I wasn't meaning to insult anyone! I'm extremely embarassed. :( Cop 633 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Lord_of_the_Flies_1963_DVD.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cop 633. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Heroposter.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Cop 633/Flagcruft sensible draft/Herobox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my and other editors' removal of spoiler tags. In case you hadn't noticed, the majority of those removing these tags have been admins since long before you joined Wikipedia (your lack of experience may also e indicated by the image licensing warnings above), and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. Anybody who does not know the plot twist in Citizen Kane, for example, clearly has a very effective mechanism for avoiding it, since this is one of the most widely-discussed films in the world. If you don't want comprehensive information, don't go to an encyclopaedia, because that's what encyclopaedias provide. The remaining debate is whether 100% of spoiler tags are absurd or only 99%. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one argument. There are other arguments in favour of spoiler tags, however (for example, I'm sure a poll of average punters in the street would reveal that the vast majority know nothing at all about Citizen Kane). That is why there is a very interesting discussion going on about this, as well you know. Wouldn't it be polite to build a consensus before enacting it? They're not 'image license warnings', by the way, they're just notifications related to the recent purge of non-free images. And please don't 'pull rank', it's vulgar. Cop 633 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion looks to me to carry a pretty clear and well-informed majority in favour of not having them, especially for extremely well-known films and books. Like King Kong (the gorilla dies! shock horror!) and Citizen Kane. Having seen Kane eight or nine times I can confirm that knowing that Rosebud is a sled does not spoil it. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion looks to me like total chaos with obnoxious behaviour from both sides. I'm going to ignore it for a while for the sake of my blood pressure... Your problem is, unless the spoiler template gets deleted, people will keep adding it back, so you guys have got your work cut out for a long while. Cop 633 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're famous. —Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like giving these, and they are not used anywhere near enough.

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you, Cop 663 this Barnstar, for your good work on getting a consensus so quickly for images on English people. Alun 06:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I felt it was merely a demonstration of the innate tolerance and good manners of the English. Huzzah! Cop 663 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I happened to notice that Ashani Sanket was redirected to Distant Thunder (1973 film). The redirect occurred with no discussion, but only with the edit summary: "moved Ashani Sanket to Distant Thunder (1973 film): Moving to English release title for consistency with other foreign language film articles."

But several (if not all) of the articles related to Satyajit Ray's other films maintain the title in the original Bengali or Hindustani. So, if you want to maintain consistency, shouldn't the article be moved back? Or else you would have to redirect (probably) every other Satyajit Ray film article to the English title :-D --Kuaichik 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I think they do need moving to the English titles: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). I may start doing that in the near future. I'm not sure if you disagree with the conventions, but if so you should probably discuss them on the talk page there. Cop 663 15:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that page says (if I recall correctly) that if naming conventions differ between countries, it is best to stick with the original name of the film. In India (even as far away from West Bengal as Kerala), the convention is to name all films by their original names. --Kuaichik 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And considering that English is the lingua franca of India, I would guess that India counts as part of the English-speaking world...even though not everyone in India speaks English. --Kuaichik 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the page states that you only keep the original name if it differs between English-speaking countries; I wouldn't class India as part of the English-speaking world in the same way as Canada or Australia, since most Indians speak English as a second language and few Indian films are made (primarily) in English. I'll work on rewriting the page to make it less ambiguous - please feel free to discuss any changes on the talk page there. Cop 663 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case, good luck in redirecting! And thanks! (I probably should help, but I'm involved with other things in Wikipedia as well...) :) --Kuaichik 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Southern Comfort DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was uploaded by accident & can be deleted. Cop 663 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its meant to be short yes, but its also meant to be correct.--Vintagekits 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, clearly I can't please anyone - I'm being reverted by both Republicans and Unionists, so I'll leave you guys to fight it out amongst yourselves for another 1000 years... Cop 663 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty filant remark but a situation like that. This is about facts not POV and I dont wish to "fight" with anyone.--Vintagekits 01:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, haha, I just saw that (the Taiwan listing) on IMDB. I was going to change it myself, but you already beat me to it. Pandacomics 00:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Decline of the American Empire.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image is unneeded and can be deleted. Cop 663 19:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. If a request to delet it comes up I'll just have to give a good reason. - RedNeckIQ55

I'm not sure what your experiment is, but many template transclusions depend on the shortname alias value of "Yugoslavia". Changing it would have broken all of them. What are you trying to do? Andrwsc 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I had a problem with a user who didn't understand that the flag was for the Fed. Rep. of Yugoslavia (1992-2003), rather than the pre-1992 former Yugoslavia. This would be clarified if the Wikilink read "FR Yugoslavia", not just "Yugoslavia". Perhaps I could respectfully ask you to fix it, since the templates are so complicated!! Cop 663 01:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's so complicated; the template documentation page shows you exactly what you get. If you want  FR Yugoslavia you use {{flag|FR Yugoslavia}}. If you want  Yugoslavia you use {{flagcountry|FR Yugoslavia}}. Both wikilink display forms are available with the standard templates as they currently exist. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 01:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - must be early senility. The problem was that the template {{FR-YUG}} links to the 'flagcountry' template not the 'flag' one, so it misses the 'FR' from the wikilink. Maybe that could be fixed, but anyway I've fixed the particular page that was causing issues, so thanks for your help. Cop 663 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah. I'm not a big fan of those "shortcut" templates, preferring to use {{flag}} with all the flexibility it has. Anyway, glad you found a solution! Andrwsc 02:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cop. I'm tracking down people who have recently worked on the Titan article. It's just been nominated for FAC and any input would be appreciated. Cheers, Marskell 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your note about my "ref" tag problem. Thanks. Must be a very recent change, though, as I was using one--actually two, but at the same time, both concerning deleted scenes--I did for King Kong (1933 film) on August 31 as a guide. They work with just "</ref>" at the end. Ted Watson 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Oops! Should've tried it before I expressed gratitude. Unless by "at the bottom" you mean something other than "at the end of the note," and I have no idea what that might be, your way doesn't work either. Ted Watson 19:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, by "at the bottom", I mean you must write <references /> at the bottom of the page. They work on King Kong (1933 film) because someone has already done this (in the "Notes" section). Cop 663 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just found the two you did for me at the movies "Creation" and "Kong", and realized that the footnote section itself needed to be set up (when they worked, I went into the edit mode to see just what all was there). Just did all that for the article on an old MGM cartoon character, Barney Bear, and it worked like a charm! Thanks, and I mean it this time! Ted Watson 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC) "Kong" should have been "Most Dangerous Game" (the film) of course. Sorry. I've been making a lot of those kind of goofs on board discussions lately. Jeez. Ted Watson 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you need a break from cheesy sci-fi! ;) Cop 663 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:3 Colours White DVD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You as someone who participated in the editing of English people article might be interested in taking part in this discussion. Feel free to state your opinion. M.V.E.i. 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing great job on the film's article. Cheers. dfg 05:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! Hope you do the same for Michael Palin's other trips. --RenniePet 23:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! but I'll have to find the other DVDs first ... could be tricky, this continent sucks...! Cop 663 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the programs is the most enjoyable way of travelling with Michael Palin, but it should be possible to make maps based on the books, or just by looking at his web site [4]. Hope you feel like doing it. :-) --RenniePet 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that website is actually more convenient than the DVD!! Cop 663 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		You've deserved this for your excellent work in cleaning up the Inland Empire article. ( Lugnuts 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I haven't even started the section entitled 'What It All Means'...! Cop 663 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Summertime.jpg‎. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to Image:Summertime.jpg|the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If 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 non-free media 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. Keysuc7 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Cop 663 11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cop 663 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Cop 663 13:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on English people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I warned him... so I kinda need to warn you too. Gscshoyru 03:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cop 663 12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can't be sure why, but you seemed interested in copyediting Carnivàle, and you are doing a great job. Mythology of Carnivàle and Characters of Carnivàle are current GA candidates and are the only missing pieces to make Carnivàle a Featured Topic. I have put much effort into these articles and would love to take all of them to FA someday, but since I am only a near-native speaker, I am very reliant on native speakers to copyedit my prose (it's good but unfortunately not brilliant) before I submit the articles at FAC. If you have too much time on your hands, would you consider copyediting the Characters (and/or the Mythology) article? I've finally pretty much exhausted all my secondary sources and believe to have found the right layout/sectioning for the articles now, so I don't expect any further additions or structure changes. I am still straightening out what seems like slightly-awkward prose to me, here and there each day, but I always appreciate copyedits more than copyeditors are normally aware of. (Don't feel pressured into doing something you don't want to do. The articles are already far better than I could ever have hoped for, and the Mythology&Characters articles being/becoming GA is fortunately enough for FT.) Greetings, – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go some time! Cop 663 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Take your time. The GA review will probably take two or more weeks. After that, the FT will take about two weeks, and I don't think that I'll take both GAs for FAC during the FT candidacy. Thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Are you interested in expanding No Country for Old Men (film)? I could put together a list of headlines to help you out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, although I might be slow, as I'm an irregular contributor. Cop 663 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; you're not expected to crank out a Good Article on the spot. ;) I'll pull together the headlines from my respective sources (RSS feeds and Google Alerts) and put them on the talk page. I figure this particular film is going to have a lot of recognition during award season, so I think it'd be a good move on the part of WikiProject Films to have that film and similar films look substantial. I'll drop the headlines on the talk page, so if you have the urge to utilize them, they'll be there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to say "the city's destruction" or the "the towns' destruction" refering to the Medway Towns, thus including 'Chatham'. It is a matter of some local importance! Greetings from Frindsbury.ClemRutter (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I don't think the film is that specific - it just says 'Rochester'! I'm afraid I don't know anything more! Cop 663 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

including revealing the ending or plot twists. or

including the ending or plot twists.

You removed "revealing" as redundant. I'm not sure I agree, but didn't want to revert without discussion. How strongly do you feel about that? I think in the context of the sentence revealing makes a bit stonger statement and may placate those who are missing the spoiler template. I don't have strong feelings here, but am looking for something that address the concerns of a broader group. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings either but "including revealing" is not grammatical in that context. How about "and may reveal the ending..." - would that work? Cop 663 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about Shadows (film)? It's all sourced to Ray Carney, who appears to be an involved party. Is he a reliable source? I see you removed some related material last Spring.[5] Is the incident getting the appropriate weight? If you're not interested I can ask over on the Film noticeboard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Carney is a reliable source - if you look him up on Amazon.com you'll find that he's written numerous books on Cassavetes, all published by reputable publishers. Having said that, he clearly has some tensions with the Cassavetes estate, and while his findings about Shadows are deserving of mention, the stuff about hostility from Gena Rowlands doesn't seem relevant to the film itself IMHO. Cop 663 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll trim a line abuot the "hostility". There's also a bunch in the Gena Rowlands article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

Thanks for taking time out to tackle this huge issue of "X British" people articles. It is a massive task it seems.

Can I suggest we go through the list you provided and put an asterix next to those articles that are completely unsourced?

I would provisionally like to see Jamaican British redirected to British African-Caribbean community, and South African-British, Zimbabwean British, Nigerian British, British Somalis, African British, Ghanaian British and Kenyan British to Black British.

Those that are articles about people from an ex-British colony (such as British Pakistani, redirected to Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day) and all others to Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom. How does that sound for an attempt at cleaning this up? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a smart plan. Most of the articles are short and crappy and don't deserve to be separate from others; maybe they could be split off again if they actually get some real content. But some are borderline - Polish British is poorly sourced, but full of interesting content, and needs a bit of work rather than merging, I feel. Cop 663 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having just had a quick look at these, every one I've looked at is completely unsourced! I'll put my proposal to the UK noticeboard to see if there are any objections. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued this issue further at the UK noticeboard having come across some new "British X" articles. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Flag_depicts_international_allegiance.2C_not_necessarily_country_of_birth_.28as_per_normal_wiki_practice_throughout_sports.29 and let us know what you think Gnevin (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you have made some changes to the Best Actor and Best Actress Nationality Tables. Are you planning likewise for the Best Supporting Actor and Actress? I am just curious. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes I am planning to. Is that good? Cop 663 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, that's good. I had just noticed that you did 2 articles (leading actor/actress), and not the other 2 (supporting actor/actress). So, I was wondering if you had planned to not finish the job ... or if you just had not yet gotten around to it. I assumed it was the latter, and not the former, but I wanted to ask just to be sure. Also, if it were indeed the former, I would have probably made it a priority myself to complete the other 2 -- just for the consistency of the 4 articles. It looks fine. I am glad that you have decided to "fix" it up bit. Thanks. By the way ... just out of curiosity ... where are you getting the info / data of where each actor was in terms of nationality status, at the time of the award win? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm just reading their Wikipedia articles, which is why I'm occasionally adding invisible comments when things seem uncertain. Obviously some may need better verification later. Cop 663 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I see that you have been revising all these Nationality Charts --- good job --- thanks! I do have several questions for you, as you seem to know a lot about this --- the flags and the nationalities and all that. I was wondering if I may ask you a few questions? Please let me know. As a preliminary question, are you going to do a similar chart for Best Director? That was on my "to do" list. And has since been buried among other projects. Please let me know if you have any plans for Best Director ... and also let me know if I may ask you some substantive questions about the flags, nationalities, etc. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page ... or else, I will never see it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, well, as I said before, I'm not 100% convinced that these charts are actually a good idea, so I don't think I'll bother with creating a Director one until I've been convinced of that. But feel free to ask me questions. Cop 663 (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a preliminary matter -- for consistency of the articles, I will create a Best Director one. As I said, it has been on my "to do" list for quite some time. After I create it, perhaps you can go in and "clean it up" much like you did with these other four. I am on the run at the moment ... so I will pose my questions to you at some later point. Perhaps later today ... or in the next day or so. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I just added a basic template for the Nationality Table on to the Best Director page. All of the info in there should be correct (names, dates, etc.). The only thing I did not add was the actual Nationality (the final column). If you want, please go ahead and clean this table up. Otherwise, I will get to it at some point. I checked and double-checked everything ... but, if you see any mistakes, please feel free to correct them. Thank you very much. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I see that you finished up the Best Director Nationalities Table that I started. Thanks. I shall get back to you with my questions in a day or so, when I get some free time. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. I just read your edit / comment about the use of flag icons in the Nationalities chart of the Academy Award for Best Actress article. Are you saying that the name of the country should replace the flag icon ... or that the name of the country should accompany the flag icon? In other words, we should keep the flag and add the name together with it ... or we should eliminate the flag altogether and add the name instead? I scanned WP:Flags quickly, and I was not sure about all of this. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

WP:FLAGS says that flags are OK in lists, as they can be useful navigational aids, but they should be attached to the country name. You can do this quite easily with various templates, e.g. {{USA}} produces  United States and {{SWE}} produces  Sweden. Cop 663 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see what you're saying ... and that makes sense. Where on Wikipedia can I find a comprehensive list (for all countries) of the templates you described above ... such as {{USA}} produces  United States and {{SWE}} produces  Sweden ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Try here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, although they seem to use a different system. To be honest, trial and error normally works fine! While I'm here, I may as well mention that I find the 'nationality of actors' tables a bit simplistic. First, you should use  United Kingdom instead of  England since English isn't a legal nationality and not all people can be easily classified as English, Scottish, etc.. And you should figure out a way of acknowledging multiple nationalities - for example Jessica Tandy had been an American citizen for nearly 40 years when she won the Oscar, and a resident for even longer, so is this really a 'win for England'? Seems a bit unsophisticated. I'm sure there's a solution, although I'm not sure what it is... Cop 663 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am back and, as promised, I would get back to you with some more questions that I had for you. Above is a discussion that you and I started several months ago. I have been meaning to follow up on this with you, but never had the time. So, for now, I have these two questions for you.

(1) An actor's nationality can have many different definitions (or standards) ... where they were born ... where they were raised ... where they gained prominence and fame ... where they maintained citizenship ... etc., etc., etc. In all of those Academy Award Tables, I am just curious as to why you chose the standard that you did (their nationality at the time the Award was given)? I am just curious about that. Also, where / how would one know that information? To me, I think it would just be easier to say "where they were born" --- because that is probably much easier to find out and harder to dispute. It's very black-and-white, as to where a person was born. So, I am just curious why you did not take that route instead?

(2) For the life of me, I do not understand all these different flags for United Kingdom, England, Great Britain, etc. etc. etc. What on earth is that all about? Before you went in and fixed these charts, some actors had flags for Great Britain, some for England, and some for United Kingdom. (I recall Helen Mirren and Jessica Tandy, for example.) How does one distinguish between these different flags ... what is the difference ... what do they all mean? And, what's the difference between saying someone is English versus British versus United Kingdom? I am totally confused. Please offer your insight. Thanks. Please reply at My Talk Page. You seem to know a lot about this -- certainly, more than I do. Thanks a lot! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(1) Well, as I said before, I think the whole premise of the tables is specious. But I think nationality at birth is simply less meaningful to the subject. Frank Capra was born in Italy and moved to America aged 5. What does it mean to call his Oscar some kind of 'win for Italy'? Capra was an American citizen, spoke English without an Italian accent and made movies that are quintessentially American. So who cares if he was born in Italy? You could say the same for Billy Wilder or Michael Curtiz, they also made all-American films, and Wilder even changed his named to appear more American. It's not the same as Roberto Benigni or Peter Jackson's wins, since those people are very closely associated with their home countries. Basically, birth nationality is more likely to be misleading.

(2) OK, here's a primer on British politics - are you ready?

• United Kingdom - This is the country that I am from. My passport says I am a citizen of the United Kingdom.
  • Britain shorthand term for United Kingdom
  • British - means 'from the United Kingdom'
• But...
• The United Kingdom was formed by uniting four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each of those four is (nowadays) semi-self-governing, and they have cultural differences like accents and food and so on. So British people often describe themselves as 'English' or 'Scottish' rather than 'British', because they more closely associate with those semi-countries. In fact, there are independence movements in all 4 countries, e.g. Sean Connery is a famous Scottish Nationalist.
• Trouble is, not everyone is easy to pin down. Read Tony Blair's biography and tell me whether he's English or Scottish. It's impossible. And there's no way of 'proving' it one way or another. That's why using 'British' is easier in simplistic lists like these. Plus, if you separate the Welsh and Scottish from the English, it makes Britain's contribution look smaller than it really is, which is again misleading; when Catherine Zeta Jones won her Oscar, people in London were cheering just as loudly as people in Cardiff.

So there you go!!! Cop 663 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. As far as Point # 1 above, yes, I agree. The nationality at award time is more meaningful and relevant than what nation a person was born in. I agree with that. My only point was that birth place is indisputable, noncontroversial, and easier to research. That's all. But, your points make sense with regard to which nationality to list in an Academy Award article. Point #2. OK. I see what you are saying and it (kind of / sort of) makes sense. Let me clarify, though. You are saying that United Kingdom/Britain/British is a global all-encompassing umbrella term to generally or generically describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Correct? So, a person who is English (specifically) is British (generally). A person who is Scottish (specifically) is British (generally). And so on, for all four semi-nations. So, first, let me know if I understood all of that correctly? If so, this leads to two more clarifying questions. If we know that (say) Helen Mirren is Scottish (as a hypothetical example) isn't it more correct to list her specifically as Scottish rather than generically as British ... no? I don't know. I am just curious and just asking. Another question, when did this unification of all four nations occur? Was it like hundreds of years ago? Or was it within the lifetime of the Academy Awards, such that some of the "older" winners could justifiably be labeled as English, Scottish, etc.? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi,

• First question: yes, British is all-encompassing. So I am both English and British. Sean Connery is both Scottish and British.
• Second question: is it more correct to call someone Scottish than British? It depends and this is a very controversial question that causes edit wars! My personal belief is that on a page about one person, it would be more accurate, but in long lists like the Academy Awards ones, it's easier to be consistent if you stick to 'British', as there are various complications. But not everyone would agree.
  • The first complication is, Brits have different attitudes. Sean Connery is a passionately patriotic Scot who would never call himself British; others may prefer to be called British (I imagine this is how Tony Blair feels, and there are lots of people in Northern Ireland who are passionately British for political reasons.
  • The second complication is that many people can't be pinned down as one or the other. Christian Bale is a Hollywood example.
  • Relatedly, when there is uncertainty, ones 'subnation' is unverifiable. Nobody has a bit of paper labelling them Welsh or English. England and Scotland have different laws, but you follow those laws according to where you live rather than where you were born; you aren't 'born Scottish' in any legal sense.
• Third question: Wales unified with England in medieval times, Scotland in 1707, the Irish situation is too complicated too explain but basically, it's not relevant to the Academy Awards. Having said that, the independence movements in the countries have become more important in recent years, so people in 1929 may have been more likely to say 'British' than today. Cop 663 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps, Cop 663 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I never realized how complicated the whole situation was! Thanks for the thorough explanations, though. Yes, it all makes perfect sense now. I agree also -- using nationality at the time of the award win makes the most sense ... and using "British" as a generic nationality also makes the most sense. Thanks again for your patience and for your explanations. Much appreciated! I learned a lot! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your help with this draft would be most welcome! Dreadstar † 08:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helping hand. Do you happen to know where Scott MacLeod wrote the conception allegory material? I've been trying to find a source, but to no avail. Dreadstar † 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm pretty sure it's mentioned somewhere in Wheat's incredibly stupid book, but since I threw that book across the room in anger at its inanity, I'm not sure I can bear to go hunt for the reference! Cop 663 (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Thanks..I needed a laugh! So MacLeod's views are mentioned in Wheat's book..well, ok, then that's all I need..I think..;) I won't cause you further pain by making you browse through it again.. :D Dreadstar † 09:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tee-hee! POV will slip out, will it not? Glad someone said it (even tho I've not read the book). Bill Wwheaton (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your input. I just left the following post at the Talk Page for Best Actor --> Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor#Someone is trying to ruin this article. Just so that you know, I am still working on finishing up / cleaning up the new sortable list. It should be ready very soon. And, I do agree with you that the old list was elegant and simple ... and that it has its place for Wikipedia readers. Thanks! This (below) is the posting that I just left at the Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. Thanks to all of you for your input. I really do appreciate it. I have given this a great deal of thought, and I think that I have come up with a solution that should please everyone. All of you have made some valid points. All of which, I have taken under consideration. I can see the desire to keep the old format list, as it is aesthetic and simple and easy to reference. I can also see the desire to keep the new format (sortable) list, as it allows for greater functionality and use. Essentially, I think that Wikipedia is big enough to allow us to have both lists available. There is no reason that we need to choose one over the other. The old format list can stay here, where it has always been. And the new format (sortable) list can be placed separately on a new page (or, less desirable, separately in a new section of this page). I had originally thought that a new separate page just for the list of winners and nominees would elicit a deletion proposal. Then, I noticed that Wikipedia actually already has several similar articles / lists as separate pages. For example, on the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor page, I noticed the following statement: For a list sorted by actor names, please see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees. For a list sorted by film titles, please see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films). Similarly, on the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress page, I noticed the following statement: For a list sorted by actress names, please see List of Best Supporting Actress nominees. For a list sorted by film titles, please see List of Best Supporting Actress nominees (films). Thus, in effect, I am creating the exact same list for the Academy Award for Best Actor. After I complete the new format (sortable) list for Best Actors, I will create a new article page on Wikipedia entitled List of Academy Award for Best Actor winners and nominees. And, at that point, I will include a statement on this Best Actor page that will refer readers to the new article page, if they want to see or use the new format (sortable) list. Thanks for your input. I think – and hope – that this solution addresses everyone's concerns. Please let me know what you guys think. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hello again. I have a quick question about Daniel Day-Lewis, with regard to his nationality. I saw that you made/edited some information about his nationality in the Best Actor article. For Day-Lewis' nationality, the article had previously listed only "British" ... and now, it lists dual "British / Irish". You made an edit summary to the effect that Day-Lewis has dual citizenship, and you even included a linked article. My question is: several weeks ago, you and I had a discussion about the distinctions between British, English, UK, etc., --- when we were talking about nationalities and flag icons. See above on your Talk Page --> User talk:Cop 663#Flag icons. I thought that "British" was a generic umbrella term that covers four nationalities: English, Welsh, Scotch, and Irish. No? Do I have that wrong? If I have that correct, why list Day-Lewis as dual British/Irish ... when British is just another (albeit more general) word that really means Irish? Our previous conversation had gotten me un-confused ... but now I am afraid that I am back to being confused. Please help! Thanks. Please reply at My Talk Page, so that I will be sure to see it. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Joseph, the island of Ireland is divided into the Republic of Ireland, which achieved independence from the UK after a long and bloody struggle, and Northern Ireland, which remains part of the UK despite a long and bloody struggle by a minority of its population. I suggest you read this and repeat it three times before breakfast, or you'll get into terrible trouble if you ever go there! Cop 663 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that the draft has been put into the mainspace: Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Groupthink has disputed the sources and content, so your input would be welcome in that discussion. Preliminary details on the dispute are in the section above.Dreadstar † 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was a little confused about your response on the talk page just now, whether to merge or not to merge. I really think I just read it carelessly at first glance, and it is clear enough, and against the merge proposal. But I guess I need to check to make sure. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. I was just inattentive, but I think others might have misunderstood too. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see they brought in the "big editing guns" to edit the article. Not doubt you are a super editor. All the best. Luigibob (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your recent edits in Bicycle Thieves. I was surpriced to see you place the cast list after the awards section. You are the one that got me to look at Wiki policy/guideines last year when the issue of flags came up. Anyway, after many readings of MOS:FILM, although awards is not mentioned, cast comes very soon after plot. So, when you get a chance, let me know what you think? I think that awards should come next to last in the article, right before references. On another matter. Did you see the edits made to The Motorcycle Diaries (film)? There is now a lots of "bells and whistles." The article does look nice, however. Have a good day -- ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 02:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I always think if the cast list is literally just a list, then I place it at the bottom because it makes the article look ugly. If it's a proper 'cast' section with actual writing, then I leave it. But that's just me, I have no styleguide to justify it!

Re: Motorycle Diaries it's kinda looking good, but those blue boxy quotes are annoying me. And soon, they will die... ;) Cop 663 (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. Then what I'll do is expand the cast list with prose. I saw the film few weeks back, for the third time (well, since 1989 when I first saw it). What a film. Since I'm a social Democrat, you can imagine why I like these types of movies. I look forward to seeing any changes in Motorcycle Diaries. It does looks nice, but... I don't know. Something about all the "bell and whistles" in the article. And, that sucker took out the link to Che!. There was no reason for that, in my opinion.

So, hey where did you get your college degree? (Call it a hunch that you have one.) Best -- Luigibob (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the bit in Bicycle Thieves where the fortune telling lady tells the little sad man that he's too ugly to get married. One of the great tragic moments in cinema. The stuff with the bike pales before it. PS I ain't got no collij degree; der ain't no collij in teh Hood. Cop 663 (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way, not buying it! Luigibob (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To: Redthoreau
Re The Motorcycle Diaries edits: Well, nice edits. however, I STRONGLY suggest you add captions to the images you included. Thanks. Luigi BCC Cop633. Luigibob (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So look over my current edits and please correct. Thanks. Luigibob (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice...Mister clean-up! Now that sucker can be submitted for whatever! Your amigo, -- Luigibob (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong? Best -- Luigibob (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you're planning to aim for it being a GA? It needs a production section, I reckon. Cop 663 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hell no. Listen, no. And the comments section is not a dialogue, but still, this guy/gal was all over the place, hence, my note to you, and others! Please give me a break! Luigibob (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K! :) Cop 663 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)