User talk:BillDeanCarter

This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

FAC

Hi Bill. I've been doing great, thanks; I'll have a look at Bruno Maddox as soon as I can. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I've read the article, and have left some comments for you at FAC. Thanks for the note. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Maddox

I don't really know anything about the man, but I can look it over for tone, style, grammar etc? Katharineamy 11:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't been able to do this yet - I did look at the article, but I couldn't see any specific problems with it I could comment on. I'll have another try this weekend. Katharineamy 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Maddox FAC comments

Please be aware that I'm not a native speaker (although I have a good grasp of the language), so I refrain from copy-editing this article directly. Instead I'll list my comments below. (FYI, I have never heard of this journalist and I am unbiased towards him, his work and the article alike.)

"intro": novelist and journalist, best known for - sounds better if you add "who is"
copyedited by Outriggr.
Then reworded several times and finally settled on "Bruno Maddox (born 1969) is a British novelist and journalist, who is best known for his critically lauded novel My Little Blue Dress (2001) and for his satirical magazine essays." as a first sentence. Seems to work?-BillDeanCarter 08:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"intro": over the years 1999-2001 - maybe rather write "between 1999 and 2000" or "from 1999 till 2001"; if not, have a look at WP:MOS regarding the use of dashes
I see minor edits here and there about dashes. Never understood it. I'll look this up.
Ahh, tackled by Outriggr.-BillDeanCarter 12:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
intro jumps between too many tenses (simple past, present perfect, simple present) without making clear where in time the reader currently is
"early years" - first sentence somehow sounds like he was the child of his parents plus the people his mother wrote biographies about
I don't really see that.
"early years" - can you specify why (exactly) he moved around so much? Having odd jobs does usually not mean much intercontinental traveling.
Actually intercontinental travel is pretty usual when you're young. You get internships here and there, study abroad, job here/there, career travel, etc.
"early years" - Maddox's writing career began in 1994 sounds strange to me. As the previous paragraph stated, he already wrote for a student newspaper. Then he had odd jobs, then he started writing. Why? I mean the facts are fine, just the causal relationships are constructed a little weird.
copyedited by Outriggr.
"Editorship of SPY magazine" - the subsentence only two months after Sussex Publishers... is too long, and it almost feels like you forgot to add a comma there somewhere in the back of the sentence (no comma belongs there, but its the unusual length of that subsentence that makes it somewhat awkward)
"My Little Blue Dress" - is there some material talking about the creation of this novel before it was sold to the publisher, e.g. why he wrote about this topic? Also it reads like he sold the rights to his novel before he even started really working on it (for the most part)? Unusual.
It happens and that's why I started off about the 5-page proposal. The idea came first, then the writing came second.
"My Little Blue Dress" - overall, it is hard for the reader to get into this section if he doesn't know anything about the book. Maybe move some of the plot and inspiration info to the front so that the reader has more context when he gets to the publishing facts.
"Recent essays" - no manuscript has been forthcoming as yet - rather write "as of August 2007"
I think if the manuscript ever comes about then someone will edit the article. It's pretty evident that the novel is dead in the water which is what "forthcoming as yet" conveys.
"Recent essays" - a year after 9/11 - link 9/11 of find other ways to address this date; some other countries/languages do not refer to this day/event as 9/11 and it might not be immediately clear what you're referring to.
done.
"Recent essays" - Another characteristic example is "Literary Terrorism", his 2003 profile of Karl Wenclas, leader of the Underground Literary Alliance, for the fashion magazine BlackBook. - reads like yadda-comma-yadda-comma-yadda-comma-yadda-stop - can be improved
"Genre" - the "Popular science" section feels completely tagged on to this article. What about dropping the sub-headlines and just have the two paragraphs be there? The "Popular science" stub should IMO be reworded either way.

– sgeureka ^t•c 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tackled this last one first but I still might have to fix that last sentence. Thanks for the comments. I'll get to them as soon as I can wrap my head around them.-BillDeanCarter 08:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BillDeanCarter. I'll help a bit with this as well. One thing that bugs me: is there a particular reason for capitalizing SPY and GEAR magazines? Their own articles don't do so! –Outriggr ♠ 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outriggr, I saw your copyedits. Thanks. I'll have to see if it solves some of the comments above. As for the capitalization it's the way I've seen it done by the right publications. Maddox's biography at Penguin, obviously vetted by the former editor-in-chief of SPY capitalizes SPY and Discover magazine, whose owner also previously owned GEAR, capitalizes GEAR. I saw it done here and there, different ways, but by those who would actually be more responsible it seems to be capitalized. By responsible I mean that news wires are just going to write it however unless they know better.-BillDeanCarter 08:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outriggr, I moved this discussion to the talk pages of Bruno Maddox. It's a good question and will probably be asked again so mind as well settle it there on the talk pages.-BillDeanCarter 12:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Maddox

Hi BillDeanCarter, nice to meet you. I'm kinda busy in RL right now, but may have time next week. Ling.Nut 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the article, and left a couple of suggestions on the FA page. Nothing big, though. Cheers, Mad Jack 08:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the sentence beginning with "Maddox described his "book reviewing style [as] pretty vicious..." kind of summed up "scathing", but I could be wrong... Mad Jack 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BillDeanCarter, I'll be away from Wikipedia for the next few days. I'll try and have a look when I get back. :-) Chris 42 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Writer

In response to your comment on my talk page:

The confusion is probably because the current implementation of {{Infobox Writer}} has a parameter named relations which is displayed with the label of Parents. I can fix this, but first want to finish another project related to some of my prior edits there that had caused a problem (see #Infobox Writer above). And while {{Infobox Person}} does provide more fields for relatives, you'd lose use the writer-specific fields found in {{Infobox Writer}} (such as the debut_works field that you are using in the Bruno Maddox article). -- Zyxw 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk deletion

See this guideline for information regarding User talk deletion. Generally, the rule is that unless there is a compelling reason to delete a user talk page (e.g., libel, personal information, etc.), then it should just remain. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if it's your own page, archived. --Rodhullandemu 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Week

You're welcome. Just be careful not to overstep OR boundaries, as you said yourself. It might be a good idea (if you can't get your hands on a published source soon, of course) to leave that information out of the article until you can source it definitively and expand a bit. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work getting a source, and fast :) Just link the date like this. Could you also please go through the article and italicize paper/magazine titles? I just noticed none of the refs have them formatted. Since you noted the articles were accessed through LexisNexis, you probably don't want to change |publisher= to |work= because that would italicize the whole sentence. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the LexisNexis ones. I've got a few Lexis articles elsewhere I'll have to fix too. As well the mags/papers are now italicized. Thanks for the help.-BillDeanCarter 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Nice work on getting Bruno Maddox to FA. I kept an eye on the nom, and you worked for hard for that star; you deserve it. Congratulations! Mike Christie (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! When you need anything, you know where to reach me. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

You wrote "I'm flying out to Mzoli's Meats tonight to do an interview, take some pictures, and establish the notability of this supposed butchery-restaurant-and-nightclub establishment. I think we may have a scandal on our hands here and I want to make sure we at least have certain basic facts correct.-BillDeanCarter 08:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)"

What kind of scandal do you think we have on our hands?--Jimbo Wales 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decide whether this "scandal" will be Walesgate or Meatgate, so I propose Whales-meatgate. Admins will need to refer people to WP:Moby. --Dweller 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute scandal. After all its in Africa and really we would rather not do Africa but focus our attention on unnotable American establishments instead, SqueakBox 17:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Bruno-Heller.jpg

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 12:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

I've deleted your user page as you requested. I suggest that you create a redirect from your user page to your talk page, so that your signature won't be just a redlink. --bainer (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Just a point of clarification then. Does this mean that you "Support" Pageant becoming a Featured Article? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- No worries, thanks for the help you've given so far, I like the way the article starts out now with the qualifier. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

LoW

Sure, I'll see what I can do. Nice hearing from you. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a mistake—sorry about that! I can't believe I didn't catch it. Dashes are very easy to mix up, especially since they look the same in the edit window; don't worry about it :) I haven't added anything else to the review yet because most of the stuff I found was just not major enough; congratulations. There are a couple of run-on sentences I'd like you to have a look at, though. I'll leave them at the PR page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And they're gone with your rewrite. Nice work—I'll go over the page again and see if I missed anything. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Taibbi

Could we discuss the links, here. Thanks. — Rudget _{contributions} 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:List of works by William Monahan

I was hoping to wait and see what others would say. Right now the page is pretty much overrun with tumbleweeds... The reduced Lighthouse section is great-looking. I'm ambiguous regarding the hidden Critical reception section, as it isvery unusual to use it with content (at least on en:, it's quite common on fr:). Circeus (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an annotated bibliography. It is most definitely a list of works. What is going on here? Awadewit | talk 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your FAC points

I addressed your points from the "Thriving Cult" FAC. Thanks for the positive feedback and kind words about the article, much appreciated after the work put into it. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Punctuation in quotes

Regarding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The World Without Us, I need clarification on how to write periods with quotes. If the quote was at the end of a sentence in the source, then I retained it in the quotation mark in the article. If not, I placed the period outside the quotation marks. Now, if I'm reading WP:PUNC correctly it says that we should only place a period within the quotation marks if the quote itself begins and ends the sentence.

So, could you clarify two examples? Which is correct (also note the capitalization, is it correct?):

Source: "Weisman is just thinking long and hard about what it means for humans to be here in the first place. Sometimes an obituary is the best biography."

Article1: Tom Spears of the CanWest News Service concludes "it's more a portrait of ourselves, taken through an odd lens" and "sometimes an obituary is the best biography."

This one is right. And possibly an additional thing is to quote it like this "[s]ometimes an obituary is the best biography." just because the big S got small.

Article2: Tom Spears of the CanWest News Service concludes "it's more a portrait of ourselves, taken through an odd lens" and "sometimes an obituary is the best biography".

Source: ""The World Without Us" gradually reveals itself to be one of the most satisfying environmental books of recent memory, one devoid of self-righteousness, alarmism or tiresome doomsaying."

Article1: Alternatively, Chauncey Mabe of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel calls the book "one of the most satisfying environmental books of recent memory, one devoid of self-righteousness, alarmism or tiresome doomsaying."

Article2: Alternatively, Chauncey Mabe of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel calls the book "one of the most satisfying environmental books of recent memory, one devoid of self-righteousness, alarmism or tiresome doomsaying".

This one is right.

--maclean 23:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are Wikipedia's rules, but you'll see different practices all over the place.BillDeanCarter (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light House: A Trifle — GA nomination passed

Congratulations on Light House: A Trifle: your GA nomination passed! I found this article to be very well written, informative and organized. Sourcing was excellent, although the Lexis-Nexis mentions should be removed since there is registration/fee required to use the service (just leave the detailed ref info). The Plot summary should be summarized even further (per WikiProject Novels guidelines on plot summaries), but does not prevent GA status. I'm uncomfortable with the location of the Original serialization and Editions lists, so maybe something could be done with this. An immediate task should be to add a section on Themes if information can be located. Nice job.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on the ULA

Not sure if this is going to you or not:

Thanks for the advice on "King" Wenclas. I'd read the article you suggested, but I can't find it. And I'm not more than only superfically interested.

A bit of background: I used to run a very small, very local writers' group that produced a 'zine that got a lot of local attention. I somehow found ULA and tried to form a strategic partnership with them, to which "King" Wenclas responded with an attack over me and my group being "overdogs" and "establishment", etc. None of his attacks made any sense or were based in reality (or even in rational perception), so I decided that since this guy is clearly unhinged and thinks he and his cause are greater than they are, I decided to tweak his nose and watch his reponses.

There have been some fun ones...

Now, will this go to you?-Jookyo

Re: List of works by William Monahan

You really shouldn't read the Mythology article if you plan on watching the show, as that spoils everything. :-D Although you'll probably not "get" the article by reading it only once either. Surely I'll give you a review. If it is again just a lot of minor issues that I notice, then I'll make the review private like before; if that's not the case, I'll comment in your FAC directly (could take one or two days). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it became a longer list. I'm not saying that any of this has to be done to make the article FA, but it certainly hints at some room for improvement, probably depending on what the reader is used to. Here it goes:

The article (IMO not list) looks comprehensive, but what do I know. :-) The only MOS issues I saw were punctuation, which is listed below. The main problem with the article was that sooooo many articles start with a time reference, instead of putting it at the end of some sentences, or mid-sentence etc. There are also many run-on sentences, which often change the focus with all the relative clauses; don't try to include too much info in a sentence, rather split it up into a couple of shorter sentences, and have a mix of longer and shorter sentences.

Thanks for the review. I have already made some of the recommended changes and I hope to make a few of the others as well.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and played guitar in a local band called the Slags. - relevance?

In the intro I introduce the writer by summarizing his life. So you learn he's a musician.

the whole article but especially the intro is very date/timeline/timestamp-driven, but I can't tell whether the topic of the article actually makes this necessary

It's a chronological list, and the dates are very necessary so you can see when he was a journalist, when he was a novelist, and when he was finally a screenwriter.

I don't know whether this is some kind of American versus British thing, but I learned in school that sentences beginning with two or more words of time reference should be split with a comma from the rest of the sentence.

I have no preference, but it is up to the editor. I have noticed over time this style will switch back and forth in certain articles.

You mention Light House in three consecutive sentences three times in the intro

I removed one of them, so I now mention Light House and then Light House: A Trifle

He currently resides on the North Shore of Massachusetts with his wife and two children. - seems like random information

It tells about the writer. It's for the intro to help explain who he is before going into his bibliography.

Light House: A Trifle is a satirical novel by American screenwriter William Monahan (his first, published in 2000) - sounds awkward because obviously, this book was written by him since that's the topic of the article. Maybe consider something like, "The first book by WM was was LH, a satirical novel published in 2001. And the next sentence again mentions the word "novel", which is a little redundant.

Made the copyedit.

The novel is modeled after the life... - run on sentence

Fixed

The novel was delayed for a couple of years in order to release it alongside - sentence focus: ...to be released...

did a copyedit... Penguin Putnam delayed publishing the novel for two years in order to release it concurrent with the anticipated film release, however the film would never be produced.

Several years later, in an interview with Collider.com, Monahan confided that - Several years later, Monahan confided in an interview with Collider.com that

Did your copedit.

As part of the publicity for the paperback release - paragraph has two "also"s in it (awkward also-itis)
While attending the University of Massachusetts at Amherst - this time, mentioning/repeating the year would be fine
section New York Press (1995, vol. 8) - the use of "would" is a little awkward
This provoked a deluge of letters from incensed readers - run-on sentence
the Pope, Catholic education, etc..". - punctuation

That's actually correct punctuation. I've been following WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a reader who had been adopted as a child - run-on sentence, and the word "finally" is IMO used improperly, as this reader was neither the last one to say something nor was he the one to tip off a major event
In the first week, countering the many readers - run-on sentence with awkward use of verbs ending in -ing (gerund?)
The week after The New York Times published A. M. Rosenthal's - run-on sentence
Finally, a couple of weeks later a New York Press reader pointed out - again the "finally" issue
Several months after the Unabomber's letter to The New York Times - run-on sentence
Middle English sense of the word 'wood.' ". - punctuation

That's straight out of the article, so I'm preserving the newspaper's punctuation style.

section Reception - uses IMO too many quotes. The essence of some quotes could be summarized in your own words to give a little variety for the reader

I think the quotes are the best way to illustrate the controversy, considering that the readers' discussion is actually mentioned later on, so you have an idea of what they said in brief. In a peer review this change was made.

section Hamptons magazine - consider repeating Monahan's name for a second time

made one more mention of his name.

Monahan's only contribution to the magazine; an essay - don't use a semicolon but a comma

Fixed, but I think you mean use a colon instead of a semicolon, which is the change I made.

addressed usually to Henry but occasionally addressed to others - consider revising. It is easy to confuse this subsentence with an awkward Past tense when it is in fact a Past Participle
The New York Post, mentioning an upcoming book party for Light House - too many thoughts and commas make this sentence awkward

Fixed the beginning. The rest of the grammar belongs to the Post so I can't touch it. In a brief mention of an upcoming book party for Light House in New York City, The New York Post jested that the "[hosts are] hoping Monahan's nemesis, Aristocrat magazine scribe Claude La Badarian, who's been baiting him in the New York Press, doesn't cause a scene".

– sgeureka ^t•c 01:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to improve Wikipedia articles (and lists!) on contemporary writers and filmmakers, despite the constant hurdles erected in your way, I award you this barnstar. Your carefully-researched contributions are much appreciated. Awadewit \| talk 07:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike

Hi, BillDeanCarter. Wikipedia article talk pages have a very specific function. They're where editors go to discuss improvements to an article and resolve disputes over edits made to an article. They're not there discuss the subject the article covers. If you want to propose a Wikimedia Foundation intervention in the Writer's Guild strike, you might try clicking the "Contact Wikipedia" link you see on the left-hand side of every page. There you will find information you need to communicate your proposal appropriately. (There might be other good places to bring it up as well, but the article talk page is not the place for it.) Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tse

Hi, Bill. I've generally edited film articles, but I've begun work on an article about a screenwriter, Alex Tse. There is a bit more history to the Sucker Free City start, but I wanted to get your input on if the format is OK for a screenwriter article thus far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! I wasn't sure about including the scripts in development. The older scripts like 87 Fleer and the other two prior to Watchmen may not be on his table anymore. I guess my thinking was that "Credits" would be for scripts that go on to be produced because from my work with upcoming film articles, I've noticed quite a few changes in writers. The writers' strike is hampering quite a few projects in the last few months. I don't know what Snyder will do next, as he's mentioned both The Illustrated Man and Army of the Dead -- if it's the latter, Tse won't be scripting for that one. I appreciate what you've noticed of my contributions. I used to be more attached to superhero/sci-fi films, but I've kind of grown toward those that are likely to be reputable. (I suppose this happened after all my work with Spider-Man 3 and not liking the film very much.) For unproduced scripts to be listed in the article, should they be under Credits or as something that covers the past and potential future? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

In the last month, you have created a new WP:FL. From what I can tell, this is your first one. Congratulations! You may not be aware of WP:LOTD. We are experimenting with selecting Lists of the Day so similar to the current WP:TFA and WP:POTD features that run on the main page. I invite you to participate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe FAC

Hey, thanks for your comments and amended vote to support on the FAC for Edgar Allan Poe. Just wanted to follow up - I didn't ignore those couple suggestions you made, especially those regarding The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket. It's hard to qualify that novel as much other than an anomaly in Poe's career and didn't want to give it much weight in the lead. As I learn more about how much money it made (likely very little) and how many copies were printed, I'll add it to the article on the novel (a couple editors have been picking at it since the summer). Anyway, thanks for all your helpful observations. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedit request

On 15 August 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit of Bruno Maddox. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A source?

For this edit. [1] You have a source?

I saw this [2] but that's Wikia, not Wikipedia. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagination FAC restarted

Bill, the FAC for Imagination (magazine), which you commented on, has been restarted. Would you mind commenting again on the new page? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alan Moore Hypothetical Lizard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alan Moore Hypothetical Lizard.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) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

How do you start a WikiProject page? Creamy3 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenwriters project

I was wondering if anyone is still working on the Screenwriter's project? I have been doing extensive rewrites to neglected screenwriter articles - but it seems that the Screenwriters project has been abandoned. EraserGirl (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Stock Photo of Light House by William Monahan.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Stock Photo of Light House by William Monahan.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Portrait of Claude La Badarian by Antony Zito.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Portrait of Claude La Badarian by Antony Zito.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying of featured article review of William Monahan

I have nominated William Monahan 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. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Andy Iona in the Royal Hawaiian Steel Guitar Hall of Fame and Museum.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Andy Iona in the Royal Hawaiian Steel Guitar Hall of Fame and Museum.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Old Crow Review Issue 6.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Old Crow Review Issue 6.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sorkin

I noticed this note you had placed in Aaron Sorkin archive a few years back under “Reliable sources?”. That article is still at http://www.popentertainment.com/krause.htm and has been running on an ongoing basis since 1999. I’m not sure why you got it as a dead link, but the article where Peter Krause discusses meeting Aaron Sorkin working at the Palace Theater is absolutely there.

· http://www.popentertainment.com This article was cited solely to show that Peter Krause and Sorkin worked together at the Palace theatre. It was taken from Krause's dialogue in the interview. It's an important detail, but unfortunately several months later the article is dead. Peter Krause first met Sorkin at the Palace theatre. I use it to show that Sorkin worked at the Palace theatre.-BillDeanCarter 03:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.103.135 (talk)

File:My Little Blue Dress front cover.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:My Little Blue Dress front cover.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]