User talk:Erik/Archive 18 - Knowledge (XXG)

3814:, which will definitely build on commentary. The existing sections at that sub-article have some side commentary about masculinity, but if you look at the "Further reading" section, there is some coverage explicitly about masculinity that I plan to include. So my work is not quite done! I'd like to have the sub-article as an example of an analysis of a film from every side, although some of these articles are incredibly cerebral to read. I will probably dabble in some other stuff first, like 347:. Maybe I'm missing something, but his logic escapes me. He seems determined to combine facts pertaining to two different eras into one article, rather than leaving them in the individual articles in which I feel they belong. I'm not sure if I simply am not making my position clear, but it seems apparent he's not understanding what I'm trying to convey, i.e. details about pre-Code Hollywood belong in that article, details about developments that took place while the code was in effect belong in 3005:? I feel like I can continue to make changes every time I go through the article. I checked with the Guild of Copy Editors, but they seem so backlogged. I'm willing to review every so often (it's funny how there's always something new to discover each time). I admit I rushed the article a tad to FAC because I hoped to request it as a front page article for October 15, 2009, the film's 10th anniversary. Didn't realize my writing wasn't so solid! :P Any suggestions would be great. — 2622:

content. There's still half the month left though, so it's possible editors are still working on articles and waiting to nominate them. I just wanted to see if you wanted to recommend any changes to it or add an article of your own (if you wish). If not, no worries. Again, welcome back (although you didn't really leave! I'm still waiting for the day that I can go on vacation and not check my watchlist once, maybe I'd need to go to a deserted island...). --Happy editing!

4881:

clarify, this excludes film festivals right? On the WP:NCF talk page, another editor has also said "public release" is too confusing. Maybe a few additional sentences could be added to the guideline to clarify this. (eg. "The year of public release is the year in which the film is released in cinemas in any country. This excludes film festival screenings. Where a film does not screen outside of film festivals, use the year of its first festival screening.") Thanks. -

5081: 4721: 3361: 2486: 2278: 2027: 1890: 1784: 1305: 858: 402: 31: 528: 3321:

would be a non-noteworthy fact if there were a reference to you and your summer camp experience because you are not a famous and influential person. Furthermore, expanding on the bio of famous individuals only adds to the pool of information from which we draw, if we quash that information then where do we end. For example, millions of kids go to college every year so should we delete those references too??? --

1609:-- the latter has this description: "A critical reading of Christopher Nolan's The PRESTIGE about and structured as a staged magic trick, a device widely explored since stage magician Georges Méliès pioneered the idea of 'movie magic' in the early 20th century." That's what I was trying to suggest in regard to authority. However, if you feel that it is valuable enough, feel free to restore it. — 2136:. I won't be able to hunt down any of the sourcing for the most part until I get within close physical proximity of my library next term, but I'm working on it :) Anyhow, I was wondering if you would be up to pulling together another list of refs when you have the chance (there is in no way any sort of reasonable deadline to get this done, it's just when you do.) I really don't know which 2647:

up with some clever ones, like director's chair awards or Hollywood Star of Fame awards. (The latter may be better for WP:ACTOR, though, haha.) I'm about to head to bed, so let me review the improvement drive page tomorrow and share my thoughts. (It was kind of nice to get a break... a bigger one than I've ever had the past couple of years, really. Good to be back, though!) —

5405:

can't capture a video clip of the whole process; that would really significantly illustrate the context for readers. Film is a moving medium, after all! Just depends on if you feel like one of the two screenshots is enough or if the fair use rationale for a clip isn't that strong. There is not much precedent when it comes to video clips... I think

4979:'Red movie poster with "DOOMSDAY" over a montage shaped like the letters X and I superimposed. The montage includes a feral woman screaming, a sword, a beautiful woman with sword raised in defense, and the tattooed backside of a man with arms outstretched and a mohawk. Above is "MANKIND HAS AN EXPIRATION DATE".' 3251:

outside of the mainspace, I prefer to be a non-admin while I am involved as a lead coordinator for WikiProject Films. Not that I would wave the map, but I want to be able to accomplish goals without any possible stigma attached. Hope you understand my reasons, and again, appreciate the consideration! —

4347:

Ok thanks. Can I write the critical commentary or can't it be original research? If I find an image or use this one again do I have to find commentary already known about the scene? Or could someone use their knowledge of the scene to point something out worthy of going into an encyclopaedia and that

4118:

Yeah, I was just joking. As much as I don't like the bot messages, I still have to get the notifications because sometimes I miss the image being removed from an article (most likely due to vandalism) and have to readd it. I used to resize large images, but after getting multiple bot notices, I stick

4074:

Congrats on your first FA, hopefully we see some more from you down the line. It seems like the process went by pretty fast, so that's fortunate. We're actually seeing some articles being nominated for the July improvement drive, which is good. I've been working on National Film Registry to get it to

3711:

the other day; you can see my reason for declining at the link. Eventually, eventually... really, I'd rather not be deleting images 'cause I don't want to mess up like with Besos Brujos and exclude a perfectly good image. I know it's spammy, but at least you can catch the mistakes of this imperfect

3130:

was shot on a special Kodak experimental film stock, only to find out months later, when speaking to his cinematographer, that it was actually shot on what was (by the time of release) the most popular film stock in use. Leigh's confusion arose from the fact that his film was amongst the first to use

2646:

to FAC soon enough! About the article improvement drive, I think that the WikiProject still needs to grow together. I agree that awards could be useful. I shrugged them off some time ago, but it may be a source of pride for some editors to earn them. I'm sure with the theme of film, we could come

739:

Can you clarify what needs addressing at this point? I'm not clear what the dispute is. From what I gather, there are no articles for the source materials on which the film is based. If they were created, the characters in that medium could be represented in their own way. Readers can compare how

256:

No, it's no problem. The way I see it, it's a relay. :) I do a bit of theatrical run, you do a bit of production, I do a bit more of theatrical run... back and forth. I'm overdoing the "Theatrical run" section a bit because when we can cut down on it later on rather than going back to the archives

135:

I'm searching via LexisNexis Academic. I assume that this database is more stable than trying to search the archives through their website. It's always been tricky to search via their website, so I prefer to resort to LNA. FYI, the hundreds of articles are likely brief mentions of how the film was

5404:

I think Borgqueen.png is the better choice if you can get a new, clearer shot. It shows the body, and the background seems to have more up-close detail. (The other one's main subject feels more distant, so does the rest of the environment.) An extreme alternative to both of these is to see if you

5217:

I believe the conversation you leep removing is from a discussion approxiamately 1 week ago when we have a blowup regarding the use of the term Alternate Reality vs a Paralel Universe. if i'm wrong apologies however shouldn't that be left there so we can explain to people weve had that arguement and

4536:

I left a message on his talk page and also responded at the discussion at GAN. At this point it will be best if the reviews have a second opinion. If Writer continues to review GANs without responding to the discussion or his talk page, then further action can be taken. I also moved the article back

4322:

and add a textual description to it; that does not mean it is suddenly critical commentary. For non-free images to be included on Knowledge (XXG) articles, because Knowledge (XXG) strives to be a 💕 first and foremost, there must be a significant reason. The image must also not be replaceable by a

3894:

I read it, and thought it was a great story. For some reason, the most vivid part of it was the hurricane and the rabid dog, Teacake being conscribed to bury all the bodies. Before that, I somehow vaguely recall (it's been about 20 years since I read it) Teacake going to Jacksonville to go gambling,

3250:

Appreciate the offer to nominate me! :) I have considered becoming an administrator but do not want to do so yet for a couple of reasons: One, I do not have use for the tools at present; I'm becoming more and more involved with WikiProject Films, though, so tools may eventually come in handy. Two,

2429:

For what it's worth, I redirected the individual character articles back to the collective one. I explained on the talk page that the article of the main topic was heavily rewritten and that there was no so-called "underdevelopment" about the individual characters. Just not enough to warrant their

4984:

As for how a visually impaired reader would know that clicking would give them more info, perhaps we could append "Click for more.", but I expect it'd be better just to put it on the description page without the "Click for more", as the screen reader already tells you that you can click for more. A

4950:

The alt text you wrote is very good. The only suggestion I can make is "briefer". Although opinions differ about the proper length, our blind reader has said more than once that brief is good. One possibility that I haven't raised in the forum yet is to put the longer description on the image page,

3760:

This is not intended to be a suggestion for the article, and I certainly skipped my chance when I neglected FAC for several weeks, but the second time I watched the film I was simultaneously struck with how I identified with the characters' frustration about being trapped, yet had no concept of how

3688:

that if it's in public domain, it doesn't need to have a copyright license. I concede the matter with Besos Brujos; I probably thought, oh, it's after 1925, it's not a fitting non-free image. I try to keep my image review limited because I still want to find better alternatives, like the Creative

3648:

Hey amigo, sorry I didn't mean to be snappy, just have 100kb of bot notices on logging in is well..... You are right to remove the images, I agree which is why having my talk page spammed for images which you justifiably removed is a bit annoying, I can't save them if you can't LOL!!! SOmetimes the

3320:

Yes.. thousands of kids go to summer camp each year. But how many world famous entertainers, singers, actors, etc go to summer camp each year. Please undo your removal of the Camp Kawanhee For Boys reference in the Bryan Singer page. It is a noteworthy fact that he attended this summer camp. It

3087:

Hi Erik, I expected to start a new section, but I see a conversation has already begun. Thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. With your blessing, I will continue to tweak the prose, but I have added my support. Let's hope that no major issues are unearthed by my fellow FAC regulars. Graham.

2975:

No problem, and I appreciate your examples. Someone copy-edited it some time ago, but I had a feeling that it was not the most skilled performance. I will review the writing... a good tip is to read it out loud to yourself, isn't it? Easier to detect some of these weird phrases. :) I'm about to

2621:

Hope you had a great trip and are happy to return to the joys and pains of Knowledge (XXG). The July article improvement drive isn't going as expected, but I guess I did kind of rush it in at the last minute. Maybe awards need to be mentioned at the beginning to inspire members to work on improving

2381:

article since I stopped editing it (and I'm almost afraid to look, given how stressful it became near the end), but let me know if any particular problems have come up, or if you need to verify something I cited. I'm just curious as to how it's been holding up. Once again, it'll probably be a while

190:

Oh, I did not search prior to the film's premiere; I refined the results to be everything September 1999 and afterward. I can do the opposite and find out what was being reported early on. Let me do that, then... I can drop the information in the "Production" section, and you can interweave it as

4896:

I expanded the explanation at WP:NCF. The public release does mean festival screenings are excluded. This is the threshold because very, very few people get to see festival screenings, and even if a film gets screened at them, it does not always get a lot of press. The press steps up around the

3765:

in the first awful opening scene, I'm a bit squeamish to say (lest I be branded a sexist pig) that the thought hammered in my head, this brutality is what comes of putting men in charge of politics and defense, and men go joyfully and faithfully into battle and end up picking their limbs up from a

3733:

I agree, but you weren't to know about that anyway. Photographs become public domain in Argentina pre 1989 at the moment I believe its 20 years, not sure about film posters I, but judging by the number we have in the commons I'd say they are public domain too. A lot of Argentine posters and photos

2765:

Thanks a bunch. I've got access to JSTOR and LexisNexis, which is good enough for getting 75% of the stuff, but I need the bibliographic information for all the Cinefantastique/ et al that your databases have. I've got a good year or more's work left to finish up the remaining 6 articles, but this

764:

TW appeared upset by the edits made and some articles being merged in to this one. She hasn't responded in a while so I'm hoping this means she's content with my replies. I just felt as if I was repeating myself and continually having to justify all the fixes made to the article. We'll see what

4370:

Content in articles should mainly come from reliable, published secondary sources. The exception is providing a basic description of the primary source (the topic in question), like a plot summary for a film or the structure of a nonfiction book. I took a peek at the resources I can access, but

3199:

seems to support "Notes" for footnotes. "References" are for a source that has "a significant amount of the material" used in the article (books and periodicals whose coverage is multi-paged). "Bibliography" is mentioned at the page as apart from referencing for the article body; it's more of a

2734:

make its way to FAC soon, you definitely have put a lot of work into it. I don't really know if other editors have their own projects they are working on (I've mostly been focusing on Sweeps this month as I'm trying to conclude my last ~50 or so reviews and move on to other things). I had figured

2180:

When I get back to the States, I will put lists of references for all these films on their articles' talk pages. :) Partially because since I am done with school, I think access to university resources expires by this fall. Since this is the case, you can ask about lists of references for other

1431:

I wish to create a sandbox for this film to be used for the actual article when filming begins. Where is the best place to create one (my userpage or somewhere else) for all of the project members and other wikipedians to contribute to it? Also where should I post links to it so that they may be

5431:

Thanks for the opinion. I hadn't thought about a video, but I might as well try it. I've certainly got a lot more elements that can be discussed (Borg queen, integration sequence, Borgified set design, "sexy" character that's the subject of critical reception) than the U2 one. (You can see it in

4567:

of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk

4199:

P.S., oh did I nominate fight club for an FA, I can't remember I thought I didm because well, it has bene an FA for ages, you still had something to add right? that is very odd, I thought I nominated Fight Club about two weeks ago!! Either way I'm gald you did and it is now an FA. Congrats. I am

3934:

was banned in my school district? When I wanted to do a book report on it I had to get signed permission from my mom--who had purchased the book for me. I guess it's true that books are so much better when you read them on your own than being assigned to read them. All the poor children who hate

3548:

This film is from 1937. Public domain in Argentina, Please get your facts straight before you start claim non free fair use. I've logged in this morning and found my talk page spammed, I'm not happy with the way you've removed images and left them all orphaned. If they don't qualify as fair use,

3125:

Did some minor tweaking and a bit of repositioning - while post-production and lab work may seem to be a visual effect in the literal sense, anything involving the overall "look" of the film is traditionally considered cinematography; the job doesn't stop at production. I've also clarified a few

2725:

before), and nominate them. However, since it seems like there will not be that many articles, it's probably fine to have any article included that reached a higher level. At some point, based on how we see the results of this and other goals we have, we can officially start a contest-like drive

2464:

1741:

1573:

I don't know anything about who was soliciting what opinions or for what reason, nor do I particularly care. When that happens, we generally sanction the editor not the source. The so-called "critics of highest authority" are probably no more qualified or notable to review the film than Howard

5263:

formed that this is to be avoided? If so, could you please provide a link to the discussion? If not, then I respectfully request that you cease removing boldface on these grounds and instead start a discussion to establish consensus on the issue. (And if, indeed, consensus supports removing the

2720:

I'm sure developing more dedicated awards or offering them at the beginning would have been beneficial. The goal of this, at least for me (I knew I should have brought this up to the coordinator page to fine tune it first), was to see if people were willing/able to start working on article in a

1672:

Information is placed online effortlessly compared to placing information in print, which is why I said what I did. Sounds like the review will suffice, based on your explanation of the publication's history. Like I said, I focused on removing contributions related to Lawrence Person since it

4880:

has been moving some articles of films from the year of theatrical release to the year of its first festival screening (eg. Fanboys (2009 film) → Fanboys (2008 film)) Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (films) is a little vague and just says use "the year of its first public release". Just to

4692:

so it's a solid sub-article for people to visit after seeing the main article. My main concern about requesting the film article for the front page on that date, though, is that it's not going to score a ton of points in terms of importance. All I can do is hope that there are not many more

1596:

I operated under the assumption that its addition was tainted by a conflict of interest and thus removed it. Film articles also gravitate toward print sources, so an online review does not have the greatest merit. (They're more tolerable for films that are direct-to-DVD type, where you'd be

3494:

I have deleted the above page as you requested. In the future, however, please refrain from tagging userboxes you've made for speedy deletion if they are transcluded by other users. This causes widespread disruption because every userpage transcluding the userbox is also nominated for speedy

4075:

FL, so hopefully I can get that in as a nomination before the end of the month. I'm currently visiting family with slower Internet and less time, so I'll finish working on that and look more into the T&A drive later this week. By the way, thanks for removing those screenshots from that

3649:

images up for deletion are occasionally valid though. vandalism or something, but Nehrams idea sounds good! WHat I would do, is work through whatever list you are doing in a session, then afterwards pleace all of the images at images for deletion and say why they are all failing criteria.

261:

part well; a lot of what I added is new. Not even sure if I will cite the foreign total in the article. I'm going to see if I can get Xeroxed copies of the books' chapters... I've only begun to realize the last few months how decent my university is in terms of film literature, sigh.

3761:

to relate to their expression of it with violence. The film seemed hypermasculine to me and I did not see any discussion in the article about this specifically, although Norton's character being emasculated and the homoerotic overtones were covered. This also struck me while watching

5455:

with its Nazi march scene. Can you explain the steps you took to create the video clip? I've been considering a multimedia department to outline the technical steps to take screenshots and to capture clips like these... I really want to see how FAC reviewers receive the clip! :)

503:

This article already has support from myself and (seemingly) MelicansMatkin, and your concerns seem to have been more or less dealt with. Unless you have any specific objections, I intend to close the review and pass the article for A-Class in the next few days or so. Regards.

2230:

are the only other articles that I really feel I'll need access to a print database for; once I'm done with those, I very much doubt I'll ever want to work on another film article ever again, so if you have the time (and the access) a list for those guys would be appreciated.

2735:

most editing in our project would take place in the summer when people have more vacation days and school's out. We'll see if anything else happens with the drive. If not, we can rearrange the details, provide better guidance, or try something different. --Happy editing!

5383:

films so I've been adding better quality copies. I had a question about image choice, however. I want a picture of the Borg queen doing her disembodied floaty thing, but I'm trying to cram in more elements for the FUR if possible. Do you think a shot along the lines of

4843:

on the talk page about bold formatting. The primary editor cited WP:FILMCAST and examples of FAs that use bold formatting. My big concern in making this change resistance from editors who are used to bold formatting. While there's a healthy amount of discussion at

2894:

for GA Sweeps and found a few issues that need to be addressed. I wanted to alert you to the review since you're one of the main contributors. If the other issues are addressed, I can help with the dead links. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing!

4097:

Sigh! :) You and Dr. Blofeld both! Let me know if you really do have a problem with the removal (I sense a joking tone underneath, but I could be wrong). But I was not sure if there was a way to remove images without the botspam. Just plop them down at WP:FFD?

973:, it's right now heavily dependent on one source and I am going to work on adding more, but I was hoping you could take a look at what's there now and let me provide me some feedback as to whether this is the correct direction I should be heading in. Thank you! — 5282:

identifies a "few special uses" for bold formatting in the article body. Bolding names is not one of them. WikiProject Films may have used them for a long time, but tradition is not a good reason when the MOS is already clear about how to use such formatting.

2641:

Thanks for the welcome mat! :) The return has had a few more pains than joys, but hopefully it will clear up. I still need to get back into a communal mentality, especially with the circle of coordinators. Just wanted to take care of my pet projects first!

2258:. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, 115:

cites? I intended to throw the film's name into their search engine, sort by date, find the earliest mention of the film and work back from there to build a comprehensive "Development" section. This has worked exceedingly well for me for other films, but since

4835:. We can also review Good and Featured Articles (for which I plan to pursue alternate text, too, anyway) to remove such formatting. Editors are pretty good about following the guidelines for film articles and the examples of reviewed articles. For example, 5258:

and I don't think that bolding actor & character names, when they're followed by several lines of prose, goes against the MoS in any way. It's been our standard practice for a long time, and a majority of film FAs use this format. Has there been some new

1650:). Simply dismissing these online reviews as not having the "greatest merit" strikes me as off the mark. Ok, you don't know who Gary Westfahl (science fiction scholar) and Howard Waldrop (science fiction author) are, but actual scholars and authors writing 3293:

I should have some extra time later today or tomorrow! I am a guest at a friend's house and without my own computer, so my access is touch-and-go. I'll try to find a time slot soon so I can read through the very comprehensive article and respond to it. :)

4375:

is not a major enough film to get extensive coverage. Do you have any access to German resources that cover the film in detail? You could use such resources to strengthen the article body, and if a passage is best illustrated by a non-free image (review

2865:

OK, I have finished addressing your additional concerns, but I'm somewhat skeptical with my work on the alternative text. Because this is my first time using alt text, you should probably check to see if it's OK. Otherwise, I think this article is ready.

4848:, a good portion of editors don't discuss very much and may like the traditional approach. I've considered a RfC for opinions of editors not so involved with film articles. Think we need to go this far, or should I just make an internal push first? — 723:

about the edits made. Can you see if there's a better way to communicate with her, or if I'm completely off base here? I don't know how else to explain it, and I'm growing tired of dealing with it. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated.

4240:

would be in "1999 American film" or "1999 English-language film"? I'm not familiar enough with categories to determine if the "2008 films" category needs to be sub-categorized or not. It may warrant wider discussion with others? Also, regarding

4235:

I'm not clear on what you want to do. What's wrong with having the lists of 2008 films from different territories in that category? Also, are you talking about further categorizing the entirety of the 2008 films by country and/or language? Like

1718:

next, but will probably have to wait until I get access to my university library again. I would knock old FAs, but I'm painfully aware some of my old video game articles are rather middling and I have to go back and spruce them up at some point :)

1641:

has followed this story for a long time, beginning with two published reviews of Priest's book (Nov 1995, Apr 1997), a published interview with the author who talks about the (then upcoming) film, (June 2006), and two online reviews of the film

3770:

appealed so much to men that women did not review the film in terms of feminist art; after all, Brad Pitt with his shirt off, to women, seems the equivalent to advertising dictating your life. Why ask questions when Brad Pitt is half naked?

3200:"Further reading" section. I will probably revise my write-up to be in line with this, though it's not something we should crack down on. If you have any thoughts about my write-up so far, feel free to share. :) And thanks for catching the 3103:

Any help you can provide in improving the article's prose is very much welcomed! The focus on copy-editing certainly tells me in the future to try to get more work done in that field for other articles before I bring them up for review. :)

4591:

Congratulations on passing FA with this article. I hope you know that I've regarded it as a quality article for some time and I'm glad you took the time to jump through the hoops!! Not realizing it had passed is, of course, the fault of

3230:

Greetings - I wonder if you have ever considered becoming an administrator? Or, more to the point, if you would have any use for the tools? I'd consider nominating you. I'm going to approach Steve as well. Let me know and we'll chat.

3146:

Thank you very much for the changes! Admittedly, I have no technical expertise, and I tried to interpret the material the best I could. I appreciate your fixing the errors involved. Let me know if you need access to something like

4455:, the film will get its share of coverage because of Clooney as well as the director. Let me know if you want to collaborate on improving the article in terms of style and content. It could use a lead section, for one thing. :) — 4302:

under the image it said "Depiction of one of the characters of the short film Tag 26 looking at photographs of a dead couple." Doesn't that count as a commentary on the image? Can the image go back on the article if something is

3756:

Congratulations on your FA. I just read it and it's quite good. I saw the film on TV the other day for the second/third time: one of those deals where I couldn't watch the entire thing, but it showed again a couple nights later.

3126:

things - feel free to copy edit, of course, but I changed phrasing that I considered blatantly inaccurate. Unfortunately directors often talk a lot of tripe that they may genuinely believe. I recall hearing Mike Leigh claim that

2667:

How certain do you feel that there are editors out there who are working on articles that could wind up on the list? I know Wildroot has to be up to something, being the ridiculously prolific GA editor he is. :) I can nominate

4323:

free image or by descriptive text. I'm not familiar with the film, but one possible screenshot that could be used is a more direct look at the biohazard suits and critical commentary from secondary sources about their design. —

120:

changed their website it isn't working properly. I can get as far back as 2002, but going beyond page 30 or so leads to nothing but a blank results page, despite it telling me there are hundreds of articles yet to be displayed.

4897:

time it is available to the public. Also, even if a film is released at a festival in 2007, it may not make itself truly known until 2008, and critics list it as "one of the best films of 2008" for that reason. For example,

2726:

where editors do work together/independently to develop better articles. Maybe we need to start with a collaboration of the week/two weeks/month first and then go from there. With a quick glance, I don't see any issues with

5233:

I added the off topic template. I do agree with you in practice a talk page shouldn't be I liked this or that and one or two of those comments could've been edited out sompletely but either way hopefully the template helps

3913:(particularly the bit about how the white men acquitted the black women, but the white women would have condemned her). I've got plenty of time to waste reading, so I'll probably grab the article myself before I dive into 2815:". In this case, you are not passing judgement on either source, you are simply describing what they say. However, to say one or the other is inaccurate (done in this case in the very title of the article), I think you 1548:

would attract reviews from critics of highest authority (major newspapers, film journals, etc), so Person's review seemed out of place there. Its removal was part of a series of such edits, including a similar one at

1462:

would be the most appropriate venues, or you could contact editors with whom you have worked in the past who you feel would be interested in helping you maintain the page as new information is released. All the best,

5101: 2827:

That said... looking back through the NORN discussion, I don't think a firm consensus was reached. This is why I suggest you raise the issue at the main NOR talk page. I think the issue needs further discussion.

1819: 4380:

first), an image can be added. Believe me, I know how nicer articles can be with images... problem is that so many films are copyrighted, so we have to have very specific reasons for non-free screenshots. See

1325: 3895:

and Janie not getting along with her mother. Now I have to re-read it... I have access to Newsweek. I'm in the middle of three other things, and need to get around to reading it. Thanks for offering, though. --

890: 2616: 1535:

I removed the review that was co-penned by Lawrence Person because I had reason to believe that his opinions were being solicited across Knowledge (XXG) as if they were of great importance. (His article was

2819:

need a third reliable source that notes the difference and reaches that conclusion. (and my final opinion was that I thought the entire article was little more than one giant WP:TRIVIA violation... We don't

3939:

because Mrs. Stevenson was such a whore who sent them to detention for throwing spitballs at Kevin. Harper Lee doesn't deserve it, but I bet it's part of the reason why she tells reporters to sit and spin.

3864:

If you're really interested, Moni, I could probably fetch the Newsweek article for your perusal. Not sure if it's along your relative path, but as long as we're talking out loud the occasionally-hyperbolic

168:

articles tend to be useful for early cast and crew information, who joined on what date, who was considered for a particular role—the kind of thing that the in-depth articles after release tend to neglect.

5119: 4753: 3432: 2524: 2316: 2071: 1943: 1837: 1355: 914: 446: 970: 5125: 4759: 3438: 3426: 2530: 2518: 2328: 2083: 1955: 1931: 1849: 1367: 1343: 908: 458: 440: 4009:—the ending always bothered me. The protagonist stepping off the ledge and plunging to what seems to be his death, and he lands in his own party where guests laugh gaily? It never sat right for me. 1092:

Thanks for the support on that, should be easy at this point. Seemed the easiest way to clean things up. Also seems to me there had been more there a few months ago, did it get speedied at some point?

4765: 3701:

could have a clip of the march scene (with lots of critical commentary focused on the scene). I'm sure there are other examples we could pursue for best practice, like the lightsaber choreography in

3444: 3420: 3402: 2322: 2310: 2077: 2065: 1949: 1937: 1843: 1361: 1349: 920: 452: 5172:

has insisted on including a difference that doesn't have a reliable source and will not talk to me about it. I don't want to edit war, but he doesn't seem to be responding to me. Could you help out?

3396: 3390: 3381: 1804: 878: 4563: 2460: 5107: 4741: 3408: 2506: 2298: 2053: 1919: 1825: 1331: 896: 884: 422: 136:

nominated or won so-and-so awards, especially around 1999-2000. Any in-depth articles other than what I've included are already shared with you (up to March 2000). I still need to go through

3684:

I will need to be more careful with articles of somewhat older films... I think I found some of your images that had both public domain and copyright licenses, which kind of confused me... I

2401:, but I'm not sure how important it is to have its own section. Additionally, it looks like there has been reverts to plot-bloated character articles (instead of the previous compression to 1737: 3278: 5113: 4747: 3414: 2512: 2304: 2059: 1925: 1910: 1831: 1810: 1337: 902: 428: 1224:

that's it, but I would've sworn it was long ago, not a week. been a busy horrible week for me at the job though, so there ya go. We shoudl probably nom that too, as at best it would be

352: 3689:

Commons discussion I pointed to. I even had an idea to pursue video clips in film articles; I think it's been technically difficult to do so, which is why they haven't been around.

434: 5015:. I have been consistent in finding this film a 2008 film, and Inurhead continually reverts me. S/He hasn't responded to the talk page before reverting and he has a serious case of 2047: 4651:

about her "peaceful aura" and "If she can get through puberty with that aura undisturbed, she could become an important actress." Geez, I hope no one thinks I found it from there!

4318:

Critical commentary can be something like commenting on how the specific shot was structured or how something in the specific shot was designed. We could take any screenshot from

1056: 4596:, whose GA status I've been trying to retain by bringing it up to 2009 standards from 2006. I hope Scarlett appreciates the effort, it's driving me to distraction (obviously). 1999: 2721:

month's time and bring it up to one of the higher classes. The initial goal was to have editors start working on a new article this month (for example, I had never worked on

2577:

too. Still willing to give it another try, but my patience is running out. When someone tells me I am wrong about a policy I helped write it is hard to assume good faith.

4831:, which is by now the oldest part of the guidelines, is in order. In a rewrite, we can say to exclude bold formatting because it cannot be applied for "Cast" sections per 1637:

has been active on the internet since 1997 and is also an important digital resource for this topic, and their writers are professionals in their field. More importantly,

4673:

On getting Fight club up to FA status! I'm very impressed. I hope you are going to try to get it on the main page for its 10 year anniversay release (October 15, 2009).

4428:. Someone else just created the article. I've held off on creating the article since there is very information available on the film. The PR focuses almost exclusively on 1537: 1506:

nor the least bit concerned with its deletion from the article, but I am curious about your rationale of "unreliable reviews". I mean, how do you get more reliable than

3909:

I think they fed us so much "african american experience" literature in high school that I ended up developing a distaste for it in general, though I did enjoy parts of

806:

Thanks for the heads-up! I meant to get to it, but the past few weeks have been too busy for such follow-up. I removed the template from where I added it, and I added

3026:

Well, any more these days all you can really do is ask around. I can help out with the copy editing if you'd like. I don't claim to catch everything but I'm not bad. --

2782:

Saw your questions on my talk page... You are definitely on the right track when it comes to discribing historical inaccuracies in films ... Suggest you raise this at

2596:

Sorry I got you wrong on that one, Erik. I was obviously convinced you were making a mistake but I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. Thanks for hanging in there. --

497: 1765:

Girolama already messaged me about that, and I see my error now. I'll read the page you linked though; I've never heard of that before, so thanks. Happy editing.

3793:

Masculinity is definitely a huge part of the film; I may look into re-including a review touching on it. You may be interested in the review by feminist author

2377:

for the past few months. I'm still not ready to come back to full editing status on Knowledge (XXG), but maybe sometime soon, who knows. I haven't looked at the

1601:

was hard-up for additional opinions, having quite a few already. Looking at the British Film Institute's Film Index International, there are better articles at

5492:

2theora app that's cross-platform as well and output some slightly cleaner custom settings. I tried the OGG conversion through VLC but it came out smashed. --

2397:

I just reverted some unnecessary changes to the article, and I don't think much has changed. An editor added a "Parody" section about a comic that parodied

164:

Don't worry about it; the kinds of things I was looking for was more the mortar of the section rather than anything more weighty. The early, pre-production

5142: 4782: 3461: 2547: 2345: 2100: 1972: 1866: 1384: 1146:

No, I mean... I recall some months back turning a Thor film page into a redirect. I thought it was that one, and wondered if it was at some point deleted.

937: 475: 4643:

Thanks! There are some things I can definitely use from there. It's interesting. I hadn't seen that, but I actually had used part of the same quote for

4518: 2957:

I'm unfortunately opposing because the prose isn't ready. But, I'd like to work with you to get it up to par within the timeframe of the nomination. --

3799: 2255: 793:

discussion. Does this mean you don't mind/want to template to be deleted? It still is in use on some articles although I was tempted to remove it. :)

378:

Sorry, I am kind of touch-and-go this weekend. I will try to help in the next day or two, but no promises. Hope you can still work something out! —

5138: 4778: 3497:

would be one way to circumvent the problem. However, it would be much more considerate to either migrate your userbox to another userspace (such as

3457: 3044:

Your help would be greatly appreciated! GrahamColm provided a new list of fixes that I carried out, so obviously there's more work to be done. :) —

2543: 2341: 2096: 1968: 1862: 1380: 933: 471: 3807:

on October 19, 1999. I had the review in the "Critical reception" section, but I excluded it to make the section more concise. I plan to work on

2824:

a work of fiction to be historically accurate (if it were historically accurate we would call it a documentary), so it is trivial to mention them.

1180:, do you? (Wasn't sure since you edited it May 11.) The "WhatLinksHere" page doesn't seem to show anything else, though the disambiguation page 4870: 3571:

What is the best way to "delete" them? I'm not an admin, and unfortunately, the bot will always inform the uploaders when images are removed. —

191:

you see fit. Any big articles I come across, I can share with you. Just trying to take advantage of resources to which I have better access. —

2783: 2672:

as a Good Article; most of my remaining concerns are to make the article comprehensive, where it's pretty broad for GA status at this point.

2405:). If you come back and want to undo this, let me know, and I'll support the deed. Otherwise, though, the article has been just fine. :) — 1673:

seemed to me that there was a conflict of interest going on. As an objective party to this, you can restore the review as you see fit. :) —

1029: 1024: 4273:

LOL of course I don't want to change categories like that. All I asked is if you could just place the lists in a sub category. Never mind.

4193: 4189: 1265:

I suggest bypassing RfD in this case and asking an admin to delete it since it's a completely implausible phrase to enter, as opposed to

1033: 670: 368: 5191:. I'll keep an eye on the film article, but I think that the consensus is against him regarding trivial differences. Happy editing! — 2015: 3177:

Yes, I've always been a bit confused by the two different headings. I think references is more apt, and looks more encyclopedic too.

5133: 4773: 4577: 4546: 4136: 4088: 3452: 2904: 2744: 2631: 2538: 2474: 2336: 2091: 1963: 1857: 1751: 1375: 1016: 988: 928: 596: 466: 223:

Thanks! Sorry, it seems like you've been doing all the leg work on this one so far. For now, I think I'll go take a look at a those

4901:

was first screened in 2006, but it's well-known as a 2007 film because it made its major splash in March 2007, not December 2006. —

5480:

to gather more input. Since I'm on a Mac, it was a tad painful to do, but I figured it out :) I ripped the scene from my DVD with

1454:

to the previous location. Links inviting comment or contributions may be posted anywhere in Knowledge (XXG) talk space; perhaps

5019:. I may be wrong in my reasoning, but there isn't anyway to get him/her to discuss. Any help you could provide would be great. 4479:

Erik, Thank you for your offer to help. I will flesh out the article and get back with you as I need guidance. In contrast to

297: 4840: 4348:

would qualify the image to be in the article? I want to make it work because the article looks a lot nicer with the image :)

622: 618: 575: 5264:

boldface, then I suggest employing a bot to do it as there are probably hundreds of articles that will need to be fixed.) --

5389: 4184:

Hello! Can you go through the categories and remove the film lists from cluttering the top of the main year categories e.g

5365: 4689: 4246: 3808: 3498: 3136: 2574: 5360:

Sent a big one your way - let me know if you don't receive it shortly. Otherwise, I'll expect to hear from you there! :)

4245:, the archives show that you asked why it wasn't a FA yet, and I said I had more work to do. (I still do, sort of, with 1055:

for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

5080: 4720: 4124: 3867: 3360: 2485: 2277: 2026: 1889: 1783: 1304: 857: 401: 4295:"Removed non-free image from article per WP:FILMNFI since it lacks backing of critical commentary to justify fair use" 2918:

My all-time favorite book, and one of my favorite films. Glad to see it at FAC and I look forward to reviewing it. --

1447: 1074:

Damn twinkle seems borked, it didn';t list. I'll try again,. because it's a 2011 film, no need for the 2010 listing.

296:

Hello, I noticed that you removed the soundtrack listing from the article. Please help me understand how it violates

4688:

Thank you, and I plan to try my best to request its presentation for the anniversary! :) I want to keep developing

5467: 5422: 5318: 5294: 5239: 5223: 5202: 5068: 4912: 4859: 4708: 4630: 4466: 4400: 4334: 4263: 4109: 4065: 4032: 3837: 3723: 3639: 3606: 3582: 3531: 3305: 3262: 3215: 3162: 3115: 3055: 3016: 2987: 2948: 2711: 2687: 2658: 2441: 2416: 2192: 1684: 1620: 1564: 1280: 1195: 1125: 827: 751: 700: 644: 579: 389: 273: 202: 151: 38: 4836: 3064:

It's already looking vastly improved—I will follow up at the nomination page either today or tomorrow. Thanks! --

790: 94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 783: 5433: 5361: 5340: 4969: 4953: 4508: 3475: 3132: 2162:

the one where they search for the fountain of youth and come up against some mean plastic surgery-crazed aliens

2132: 1766: 1714: 1485: 1437: 1406: 340: 1455: 1225: 674: 4656: 4601: 2009: 1575: 1177: 583: 364: 344: 1020: 666: 258: 4537:

to its prior name and fixed the double redirects. Let me know if there is anything else. --Happy editing!

4041:

Nice work! A long road traveled on this one, but worth the patience you showed in waiting to nominate it.

3816: 3510: 2402: 837: 5411:

has a video clip, but I personally don't find the rationale to be very solid. (Just food for thought!) —

5260: 4845: 3592: 1459: 715:

Perhaps you can help me. I feel like I'm going around in circles with another user named Taran Wanderer

355:

went into effect belongs in that article. If you care to weigh in, please feel free to do so. Thank you!

5385: 5347: 5235: 5219: 4573: 4542: 4526: 4132: 4084: 3990: 3822: 3520:

I was not aware that other editors transcluded it; I should have checked. Thanks for letting me know. —

3239: 3072: 3034: 2976:

turn in, so I will take a look at your suggestions then the article tomorrow. Thanks for weighing in! —

2965: 2926: 2900: 2740: 2627: 2601: 2470: 2387: 2263: 1747: 980: 5477: 5255: 4828: 2003: 1647: 4451:

of Clooney's involvement, so I think it can be tolerated. Can't foresee deletion of any sort here...

3666:

P.S. I am amazed you aren't an admin. If ever you want to go for adminship, I'd happily support you...

3501:), or to subst: the transclusions. If you need help with this task, please follow the instructions at 1266: 1012: 1004: 5484:(cross platform), then cropped it to the 30 second clip, reduced the size and exported it again from 5038:

4 pages you requested to be deleted as the author of these pages have been deleted. Happy editing! —

4494: 4437: 4425: 4415: 3628:

template to avoid botspam; review the documentation, and your talk page can be happily bot-free. :) —

3095: 770: 729: 305: 2700:

qualifies as a GAN? It's been mostly complete before July; I added a few more details this month. —

5451:! :) That was definitely what I had in mind about video clips. I want to do something similar at 5269: 4990: 4936: 4886: 4185: 3468: 3322: 1663: 1587: 1525: 1481: 1433: 716: 549: 300:

so that I may avoid doing this again to film articles that do not have a seperate soundtrack page.

5254:

Hi, I notice you've been on a bit of a crusade to remove bolding from casting sections. I've read

2305:

Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Knowledge (XXG), Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson

1643: 5173: 5020: 4877: 4678: 4652: 4597: 4593: 4017:

about the films of David Fincher, so there will be details all around and perhaps a bit more for

3774:

I wonder what a woman's expression of frustration would be like. An International Coffee Moment?

3703: 3326: 2871: 2853: 2833: 2799: 2790:. By the way... we recently had some discussion on a similar issue at the NOR Noticeboard (see: 2582: 844: 810: 797: 611: 571: 358: 326: 257:

to fill any gaps we may perceive. I was a bit surprised at how Box Office Mojo didn't cover the

555: 659:

Hi Erik,I'm researching films and their wikis and I'd like to talk with the contributors. E.g:

4951:

and a shorter precis in the alt text. Maybe this sort of thing could be done with images like

4481: 4447:

Hi, Dan! The article seems to be acceptable. I imagine that the film is able to get coverage

4386: 4382: 3915: 3506: 3349: 3186: 1550: 1232: 1151: 1097: 1079: 1064: 720: 4377: 3196: 2791: 2787: 2168:(I'm leaving the reboot to Alientraveller and those chaps.) Pick one, if you wish! Cheers, -- 1451: 5493: 5452: 5437: 5393: 5344: 5153: 5045: 4928: 4793: 4569: 4538: 4522: 4319: 4299: 4274: 4218: 4201: 4156: 4128: 4080: 3983: 3920: 3872: 3735: 3697: 3667: 3650: 3554: 3282: 3232: 3065: 3027: 2958: 2919: 2896: 2767: 2736: 2669: 2623: 2597: 2558: 2466: 2383: 2356: 2259: 2232: 2169: 2111: 1983: 1877: 1743: 1720: 1516: 1395: 975: 948: 486: 5016: 4452: 3502: 3287: 1633:

has been in print for 42 years, and is a key, reliable source in science fiction studies.

5336: 5011: 4816: 4490: 4433: 4353: 4308: 3972: 3945: 3900: 3855: 3783: 3089: 766: 725: 301: 140:, too. If you want me to search for anything specific, let me know, and I take a look. — 1579: 5463: 5418: 5314: 5290: 5265: 5198: 5169: 5064: 4986: 4958: 4932: 4908: 4882: 4855: 4704: 4626: 4462: 4429: 4396: 4330: 4259: 4105: 4061: 4028: 3833: 3719: 3635: 3602: 3578: 3527: 3301: 3258: 3211: 3158: 3111: 3051: 3012: 2983: 2944: 2707: 2683: 2654: 2437: 2412: 2251: 2188: 1771: 1680: 1659: 1616: 1583: 1560: 1521: 1507: 1417: 1276: 1191: 1121: 966: 959: 823: 747: 696: 640: 509: 385: 269: 198: 147: 47: 17: 4196:

etc. so all of the films linked in the year templates go neatly under one category.

3778:? Please. At any rate, this is a stream of consciousness. Well done on the article. -- 1654:

a science fiction film based on a science fiction book in the print/online version of

969:

FAC. As per some of the discussion there, I've started a Themes and Analyses section.

627: 527: 5485: 5006: 4674: 4149: 3622: 2867: 2849: 2829: 2795: 2578: 2220: 2202: 2157: 2145: 2130:, I'm working on the nitty-gritty painful exploits of writing critical reception for 841: 794: 686: 606: 566: 5488:(Windows/Mac, costs money though). For the Theora conversion I used a command-line 3978: 3930:

Does it date me more to say I read Hurston's book 20 years ago or to announce that

3794: 3542: 3342: 3179: 2890: 2226: 2208: 2161: 2149: 1658:, are considered far more reliable (authoritative and relevant) than film critics. 1450:

would probably be the best spot. When the film becomes a reality, this can then be

1228: 1147: 1093: 1075: 1060: 1544:, I had doubt that Person's review was added in an objective manner. A film like 1050: 740:

the book(s) describe the characters with how the film describes the characters. —

689:

and have watchlisted the page. We can talk about research for the topic there. —

5149: 5039: 4789: 2554: 2352: 2214: 2165: 2153: 2107: 1979: 1873: 1705: 1511: 1391: 1181: 944: 482: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5498: 5471: 5442: 5426: 5398: 5369: 5350: 5322: 5298: 5273: 5243: 5227: 5206: 5181: 5157: 5072: 5051: 5028: 4994: 4961: 4940: 4916: 4890: 4863: 4821: 4797: 4712: 4682: 4660: 4634: 4605: 4581: 4550: 4530: 4498: 4470: 4441: 4404: 4357: 4338: 4312: 4285: 4267: 4229: 4212: 4161: 4140: 4113: 4092: 4069: 4049: 4036: 4021:, too. It wasn't available at any library, so I just decided to buy it used. — 3995: 3949: 3925: 3904: 3877: 3859: 3841: 3787: 3746: 3727: 3678: 3661: 3643: 3610: 3586: 3565: 3535: 3514: 3483: 3353: 3330: 3309: 3266: 3244: 3219: 3190: 3166: 3140: 3119: 3097: 3077: 3059: 3039: 3020: 2991: 2970: 2952: 2931: 2908: 2875: 2857: 2837: 2803: 2772: 2748: 2715: 2691: 2662: 2635: 2605: 2586: 2562: 2478: 2445: 2420: 2391: 2360: 2270: 2237: 2196: 2174: 2115: 2019: 1987: 1881: 1776: 1755: 1725: 1688: 1667: 1624: 1591: 1582:, I'm finding it difficult to think of a more reliable source on this subject. 1568: 1529: 1489: 1471: 1441: 1421: 1399: 1284: 1236: 1199: 1155: 1129: 1101: 1083: 1068: 997: 952: 847: 831: 800: 774: 755: 733: 704: 678: 648: 513: 490: 393: 372: 309: 277: 235: 206: 177: 155: 129: 4985:

visually impaired reader's opinion would count for more than mine, of course.

4809: 4349: 4304: 4042: 3941: 3896: 3851: 3779: 3001:

Since I am new to the FAC process, what is your suggestion about copy-editing

1464: 228: 170: 122: 1998:

Sorry it took me so long, but I have finally replied to your last message at

5481: 5457: 5412: 5308: 5284: 5192: 5058: 4902: 4849: 4698: 4620: 4456: 4390: 4324: 4253: 4099: 4079:

article, now I'm getting those annoying bot spam messages! --Happy editing!

4055: 4022: 3827: 3713: 3629: 3596: 3572: 3521: 3295: 3252: 3205: 3152: 3105: 3045: 3006: 2977: 2938: 2701: 2677: 2648: 2431: 2406: 2182: 2127: 1826:

Picture of the Year, Knowledge (XXG)'s first logo, Board elections, and more

1674: 1610: 1554: 1413: 1270: 1185: 1115: 817: 741: 690: 634: 537: 505: 379: 348: 336: 263: 192: 141: 4827:

We have WikiProject guidelines for writing film articles, and a rewrite of

2813:

you are doing is stating "the film depicts X occuring <cite to film: -->

2676:

could wind up on the list; depends on how long the FAC process will take. —

2382:

before I come back to that article, so I appreciate all that you've done.

1269:, which could be argued to be ignored for its "cheapness" as a redirect. — 5279: 4832: 3970:

Congrats on the article passing FAC. It is well-deserved. Now can you do

2373: 1114:

Not sure what you mean by "more there"? Do you mean similar redirects? —

4145:

If anyone's getting annoying bot messages you can squelch them with the

4013:, on the other hand... wicked good. I'm actually getting a book called 3403:

Volunteers lead Knowledge (XXG) Academy at National Institutes of Health

1574:

Waldrop and Lawrence Person, and considering their role in the field of

3734:

though are incorrectly licensed as fair use, especially the older ones.

1480:

Thanks for the info, I just got it started. Feel free to contribute. -

836:

Thanks, the template is deleted. Also, you might be interested in this

5489: 4839:

was on the front page, and leading up to its presentation, there was

2937:

Awesome to hear that! :) Hope you can help do the article justice. —

2617:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Films/July 2009 article improvement drive

1597:

hard-pressed to find authoritative reviews in print.) It's not like

3340:

Thanks for the heads up - I'll take a look and reply with comments.

3277:

If you're bored or have some extra time, I'd love your comments on

5407: 3707:-- a screenshot can't capture that! And adminship, ah... someone 3691: 2000:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#New layout

789:

Hi, I was going to nominate this template for deletion when I saw

4611:

Do you need more information for it or not? She has an entry at

2181:

films. I will probably be able to do all this around mid-July. —

4742:

WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more

4054:

Thanks! :) Now I'm hoping for some face time on October 15... —

2814:, while RS says X did not occur <cite to reliable source: --> 5102:

Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community

4616: 2507:

Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more

1920:

License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing

660: 351:, and whatever transpired after the code was abolished and the 25: 5392:(which shows more of the "Borg hell" engineering section)? -- 4619:

for your usage. Information for citing it should be there. —

3279:

Knowledge (XXG):Peer review/Star Trek: First Contact/archive1

897:

Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more

891:

Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages

4298:

what do you mean by critical commentary? Within the article

2848:

I addressed your concerns and I think the article is ready.

2060:

Knowledge (XXG) impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging

1820:

End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage

526: 3871:

is basically all about female frustration, worth a read. --

3850:

Indeed. Articles are never done. Thanks for humoring me. --

2573:

Thanks. Yeah... I am beginning to think this is a case of

2254:. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned 2250:

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to

663:

I will come back to this page. Thank you; and good night.

661:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Cat_Soup#Nekojiru-sou_and_wiki

3397:

Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York

3391:

Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats

1832:

Tamil Knowledge (XXG), Internet Watch Foundation, and more

1332:

New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews

903:

Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines

885:

WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration

2792:

Knowledge (XXG):NORN#Factual accuracy of The Great Escape

2371:

Hey Erik. Just wanted to say thanks to keeping an eye on

353:

Motion Picture Association of America film rating system

5388:

is better (shows more of the effect) or something like

5188: 5108:

Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more

4389:, for example. Let me know if you have any questions! — 3550: 2809:

Not quite... what I said was that it was ok as long as

2166:

the one that broke the odd-numbered curse, in a bad way

1503: 1046: 1042: 1038: 595:

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see

227:

articles, see if I can pull my weight a bit better. :)

3131:

it when they were in production. These things happen.

2730:

so feel free to nominate it. It would be great to see

4119:

to just deleting old revisions. If you want to catch

2144:, so I'm offering the selecting task to you; there's 1629:

I'm going to strongly disagree with you here, Erik.

423:

Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more

4808:

How do you propose to proceed on this matter, Erik?

4519:

WT:Good article nominations#User:World Cinema Writer

1926:

In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more

1913:

Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes

1520:? I must be missing something. If so, what is it? 1412:

Your comments on this proposal would be welcome! :)

429:

Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more

5343:asks for a copyedit on tense use problems. Thanks. 4200:Jack's raging bile duct.. Or maybe Jill's nipple? 4194:

Category:Lists of 1975 films by country or language

4190:

Category:Lists of 2008 films by country or language

1326:

Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed

3593:WT:FILM#Film studios and Creative Commons licenses 3421:Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations 2311:Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations 2066:Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations 1938:Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations 1350:Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations 498:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Films/Assessment/U2 3D 3803:-- not available online, but it was published in 2513:Knowledge (XXG) and kidnapping, new comedy series 5168:I know you have weighed in this subject before. 4967:Here's a quick cut at trimming (and adding to!) 4424:I promised to tell you when I would be creating 329:since the article is about American filmmaking 2888:I wanted to let you know that I just reviewed 4521:which is the forum for such concerns. Thank. 4121:Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Spam Bots 3549:PLEASE delete them to avoid spamming people. 3382:Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the 1184:may have been the source of some shuffling? — 319:On April 4, I removed a few paragraphs about 8: 4766:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 4748:Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more 4485:, there is remarkably little information on 3553:is not want you want to see when logging in. 3445:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 2323:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 2078:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 1950:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 1844:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 1362:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 921:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 453:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 5335:Are you too busy or can you take a look at 3591:By the way, do you have any thoughts about 3409:Things that happened in the Wikimedia world 560:enjoy being the star of the day, dear Erik! 298:WikiProject Albums' Track listing guideline 4871:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (films) 4188:. Then can you create new categories e.g 3800:Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man 3415:Assorted news coverage of Knowledge (XXG) 3316:Camp Kawanhee for Boys & Bryan Singer 435:WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone 5114:Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more 2154:the one that almost killed the franchise 5379:I finally got my DVD collection of the 1553:. Does this clarify anything at all? — 4557:WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter 2454:WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter 2299:Jackson's death, new data center, more 356: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5390:File:S08-first contact borg queen.png 1731:WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter 548:so I've officially declared today as 7: 4693:significant articles that may knock 604: 5307:I've raised the issue at WT:FILM. — 4804:Bolding in main text: film articles 2246:Proposed community ban of NYScholar 2158:the one Ronald Moore apologized for 2054:Wikizine, video editing, milestones 1502:I'm neither the original author of 1407:Template talk:Future film#Rewording 5005:I am having a difficult time with 4001:Thanks! :) I've considered doing 3618:← Nehrams2020 above mentioned the 3495:deletion. Using <noinclude: --> 2126:Aside from a regression back into 2122:Choose your own sourcing adventure 1578:and the combined expertise of the 1338:Knowledge (XXG): threat or menace? 24: 4923:Film series numbering controversy 2048:Study of vandalism survival times 1712:Thanks a bunch. I hope to tackle 597:User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day! 554:For your indispensable work with 339:. These changes were reverted by 5434:Star Trek: First Contact#Effects 5126:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 5079: 4760:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 4719: 4697:out of the running in October! — 3439:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 3359: 2531:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 2484: 2329:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 2276: 2084:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 2025: 1956:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 1888: 1850:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 1782: 1368:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 1303: 989: 965:Hey, it's Hunter Kahn, from the 856: 459:The Report on Lengthy Litigation 400: 29: 4929:Talk:Film_series#Requested_move 4927:You may like to comment here: 4517:I have started a discussion at 1448:User:TriiipleThreat/Thor (film) 981: 976: 3991: 3984: 3776:How Stella Got Her Groove Back 3708: 3490:User:Erik/Future film follower 3240: 3233: 2884:Spider-Man 3 GA Sweeps on hold 2794:) results were inconclusive. 2766:goes a long way to helping. -- 2128:the dilliances of video gaming 612: 343:, for reasons he has cited on 1: 5112:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 4746:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 4690:Interpretations of Fight Club 4613:Current Biography Illustrated 3695:has a clip, and I think that 3499:User:UBX/Future film follower 3413:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 2778:Advice with films and reality 2511:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 2303:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 2140:film I want to work on after 2058:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 1924:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 1830:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 1336:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 901:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 427:Knowledge (XXG) in the news: 3911:Their Eyes were Watching God 3868:Their Eyes Were Watching God 2268:(formerly Sarcasticidealist) 607: 5499:03:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 5472:03:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 5443:02:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 5427:19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 5399:15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 5370:03:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 5351:02:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 5323:21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 5299:21:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 5274:21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 5244:13:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 5228:13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 5207:14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 5182:04:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 5158:03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 816:to it to have it deleted. — 441:WikiProject Michael Jackson 5521: 5134:Read this Signpost in full 5073:12:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 5052:05:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 5029:00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 4995:20:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 4962:20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 4941:14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 4917:13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 4891:10:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 4864:19:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 4822:16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 4798:04:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 4774:Read this Signpost in full 4713:19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC) 4683:17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC) 4661:18:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC) 4635:03:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 4606:01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 4582:00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 4551:18:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC) 4531:15:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC) 4005:, but I'm less sure about 3453:Read this Signpost in full 2614: 2539:Read this Signpost in full 2519:WikiProject Food and Drink 2337:Read this Signpost in full 2092:Read this Signpost in full 1964:Read this Signpost in full 1858:Read this Signpost in full 1813:The Future of the Internet 1432:aware of its existence? - 1376:Read this Signpost in full 929:Read this Signpost in full 784:Template:Future films list 541:has been identified as an 467:Read this Signpost in full 107:How are you searching the 5495:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 5439:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 5395:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 4837:Alien vs. Predator (film) 4647:from Mick LaSalle at the 4499:17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 4471:14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 4442:11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 4405:14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 4358:22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 4339:16:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 4313:16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 4286:21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 4268:19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 4230:17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 4213:20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 4162:14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 4158:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 4141:23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 4114:14:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 4093:05:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 4070:00:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 4050:22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 4037:22:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 3996:22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 3950:20:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3926:19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3922:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3905:19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3878:19:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3874:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3860:19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3842:19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3788:19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3747:15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3728:14:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3679:14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3662:14:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3644:14:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3611:14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3587:14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3566:08:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3536:00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 3515:23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 3484:09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 3401:Knowledge (XXG) Academy: 3354:14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC) 3331:15:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 3310:14:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC) 3288:21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 3284:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3272: 3267:19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 3245:19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 3220:18:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 3191:18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 3167:15:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 3141:10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 3120:18:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3098:18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3078:19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3060:16:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3040:01:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3021:00:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 2992:05:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2971:22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2953:18:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2932:18:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2909:00:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 2876:23:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 2858:20:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 2838:02:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2804:22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2773:19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2769:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 2749:20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2716:17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2692:16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2663:05:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2636:02:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2606:00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2587:00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2361:01:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2271:07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 2238:19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC) 2234:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 2197:18:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC) 2175:02:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 2171:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 2116:02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2020:02:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 1988:11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1722:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 633:Thank you very much! :) — 5250:Bolding in cast sections 5218:don't need to repeat it. 5164:Harry Potter and the HBP 5086:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 4970:File:Doomsday_poster.jpg 4954:File:Doomsday poster.jpg 4726:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 4615:. I pasted the content 4509:User:World Cinema Writer 3366:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 3336:re: Tag and assess drive 3173:re: Notes and References 2563:02:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC) 2491:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 2479:08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC) 2446:13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 2421:13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 2392:07:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC) 2283:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 2133:Star Trek: First Contact 2032:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 1895:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 1882:22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 1789:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 1777:19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 1756:23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1726:14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1715:Star Trek: First Contact 1689:18:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 1668:11:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 1625:00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 1592:23:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1569:14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1530:12:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1504:the material you removed 1490:16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 1472:14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 1442:14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 1422:23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 1400:03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 1344:WikiProject LGBT studies 1310:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 1285:03:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 1237:03:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 1200:02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 1156:02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 1130:02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 1102:02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 1084:23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 1069:23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 998:18:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 953:12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 863:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 848:22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 832:22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 801:20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 775:20:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 756:20:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 734:00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 705:20:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 679:08:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 649:21:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 628:00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 514:18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 491:21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 407:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost 335:to the inception of the 225:American Cinematographer 5187:Looks like the problem 4649:San Francisco Chronicle 4568:page. --Happy editing! 2784:WT:No original research 2465:page. --Happy editing! 2150:the one with the whales 1742:page. --Happy editing! 1576:Science fiction studies 1427:Sandbox for Thor (film) 1226:Thor (live-action film) 1178:Thor live-action (film) 394:14:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 373:17:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 310:04:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 278:21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 236:21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 207:21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 178:21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 156:21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 130:21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 3766:bloody beach. Perhaps 2403:Characters of Watchmen 1994:New Layout at MoS Film 531: 138:The Hollywood Reporter 5118:Features and admins: 4752:Features and admins: 3937:To Kill a Mockingbird 3431:Features and admins: 2523:Features and admins: 2315:Features and admins: 2070:Features and admins: 1942:Features and admins: 1932:WikiProject Chemistry 1836:Features and admins: 1805:Browsing the archives 1354:Features and admins: 913:Features and admins: 530: 445:Features and admins: 42:of past discussions. 5124:Arbitration report: 4758:Arbitration report: 4432:being in the film.-- 4426:Up in the Air (film) 4416:Up in the Air (film) 4291:Tag 26 image removed 4123:see the archives of 3437:Arbitration report: 3425:WikiProject report: 3323:You Talkin' to Me??? 2529:Arbitration report: 2517:WikiProject report: 2327:Arbitration report: 2146:the metaphysical one 2082:Arbitration report: 1954:Arbitration report: 1930:WikiProject report: 1848:Arbitration report: 1540:.) For a film like 1514:, Gary Westfahl and 1366:Arbitration report: 1342:WikiProject report: 971:As I said in the FAC 907:WikiProject report: 518: 457:Arbitration report: 439:WikiProject report: 5362:Girolamo Savonarola 5189:took care of itself 4764:Technology report: 4247:Interpretations of 4186:Category:2008 films 4127:. --Happy editing! 3809:Interpretations of 3763:Saving Private Ryan 3496:</noinclude: --> 3443:Technology report: 3419:Discussion report: 3133:Girolamo Savonarola 2321:Technology report: 2309:Discussion report: 2076:Technology report: 2064:Discussion report: 1948:Technology report: 1936:Discussion report: 1842:Technology report: 1360:Technology report: 1348:Discussion report: 1057:the discussion page 919:Technology report: 451:Technology report: 5386:File:Borgqueen.png 5120:Approved this week 5017:owning the article 4754:Approved this week 4594:Scarlett Johansson 4453:ignoring all rules 4125:Grandpafootsoldier 3704:The Phantom Menace 3433:Approved this week 3427:WikiProject Oregon 3273:If you've got time 2575:WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT 2525:Approved this week 2317:Approved this week 2072:Approved this week 1944:Approved this week 1838:Approved this week 1356:Approved this week 1003:RfD nomination of 915:Approved this week 721:Talk: The Rescuers 655:Film+wiki research 601: 544:Awesome Wikipedian 532: 447:Approved this week 327:Pre-Code Hollywood 111:website for those 5176: 5160: 5023: 4800: 4482:Changeling (film) 4387:Changeling (film) 4383:Fight Club (film) 3966:Fight Club, redux 3916:The Mother Tongue 3486: 3395:Wiki-Conference: 3389:Board elections: 3380:From the editor: 2565: 2363: 2269: 2118: 1990: 1884: 1803:From the editor: 1607:Sight & Sound 1551:Clover (creature) 1402: 1010:I have nominated 995: 955: 909:WikiProject Opera 877:From the editor: 669:comment added by 600: 593: 592: 591: 519:Happy Erik's Day! 493: 325:-Code films from 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5512: 5496: 5460: 5453:Apt Pupil (film) 5440: 5415: 5396: 5311: 5287: 5236:Hell In A Bucket 5220:Hell In A Bucket 5195: 5174: 5147: 5106:News and notes: 5094: 5088: 5083: 5061: 5048: 5042: 5021: 4975: 4905: 4852: 4819: 4814: 4787: 4740:News and notes: 4734: 4728: 4723: 4701: 4623: 4587:Fight Club redux 4459: 4393: 4327: 4283: 4282: 4256: 4227: 4226: 4210: 4209: 4159: 4154: 4148: 4102: 4058: 4047: 4025: 3993: 3988: 3932:The Color Purple 3923: 3875: 3830: 3744: 3743: 3716: 3676: 3675: 3659: 3658: 3632: 3627: 3621: 3599: 3575: 3563: 3562: 3524: 3505:. Best regards, 3467:Delivered by -- 3466: 3407:News and notes: 3374: 3368: 3363: 3345: 3298: 3285: 3255: 3242: 3237: 3208: 3182: 3155: 3108: 3093: 3075: 3070: 3048: 3037: 3032: 3009: 2980: 2968: 2963: 2941: 2929: 2924: 2770: 2704: 2680: 2670:Apt Pupil (film) 2651: 2552: 2505:News and notes: 2499: 2493: 2488: 2434: 2409: 2350: 2297:News and notes: 2291: 2285: 2280: 2267: 2235: 2185: 2172: 2105: 2052:News and notes: 2040: 2034: 2029: 2006: 1977: 1918:News and notes: 1903: 1897: 1892: 1871: 1824:News and notes: 1797: 1791: 1786: 1723: 1677: 1613: 1557: 1498:Re: The Prestige 1469: 1389: 1330:News and notes: 1324:License update: 1318: 1312: 1307: 1273: 1267:Thor (2010 film) 1188: 1118: 1054: 1036: 1013:Thor (2010 film) 1005:Thor (2010 film) 991: 985: 983: 978: 942: 895:News and notes: 889:Special report: 883:Special report: 871: 865: 860: 820: 815: 809: 744: 693: 681: 637: 626: 614: 609: 594: 523: 522: 480: 421:News and notes: 415: 409: 404: 382: 362: 292:Apollo 13 (film) 266: 233: 195: 175: 144: 127: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5520: 5519: 5515: 5514: 5513: 5511: 5510: 5509: 5494: 5476:I've posted at 5458: 5438: 5413: 5394: 5377: 5358: 5337:Watchmen (film) 5333: 5309: 5285: 5252: 5215: 5193: 5166: 5145: 5130: 5100:Special story: 5096: 5089: 5084: 5059: 5046: 5040: 5036: 5012:The Hurt Locker 5009:and content in 5003: 4973: 4948: 4925: 4903: 4874: 4850: 4817: 4810: 4806: 4785: 4770: 4736: 4729: 4724: 4699: 4671: 4669:Congratulations 4621: 4589: 4564:July 2009 issue 4559: 4512: 4457: 4420: 4418:article created 4391: 4325: 4293: 4276: 4275: 4254: 4220: 4219: 4203: 4202: 4182: 4157: 4152: 4146: 4100: 4056: 4043: 4023: 3968: 3921: 3873: 3828: 3820:with Steve and 3817:American Beauty 3754: 3737: 3736: 3714: 3669: 3668: 3652: 3651: 3630: 3625: 3619: 3597: 3573: 3556: 3555: 3546: 3522: 3492: 3464: 3449: 3376: 3369: 3364: 3343: 3338: 3318: 3296: 3283: 3275: 3253: 3228: 3206: 3180: 3175: 3153: 3106: 3091: 3073: 3066: 3046: 3035: 3028: 3007: 2978: 2966: 2959: 2939: 2927: 2920: 2916: 2886: 2846: 2780: 2768: 2763: 2702: 2678: 2649: 2619: 2613: 2594: 2571: 2550: 2535: 2501: 2494: 2489: 2461:June 2009 issue 2456: 2432: 2407: 2369: 2348: 2333: 2293: 2286: 2281: 2248: 2233: 2183: 2170: 2124: 2103: 2088: 2046:Special report: 2042: 2035: 2030: 2004: 1996: 1975: 1960: 1905: 1898: 1893: 1869: 1854: 1799: 1792: 1787: 1775: 1763: 1761:Re. Banlieue 13 1733: 1721: 1710: 1675: 1648:23 October 2006 1644:22 October 2006 1611: 1580:editorial staff 1555: 1500: 1465: 1429: 1410: 1387: 1372: 1320: 1313: 1308: 1271: 1186: 1176:You don't mean 1116: 1027: 1011: 1008: 994: 963: 940: 925: 873: 866: 861: 818: 813: 807: 787: 742: 713: 691: 685:I responded at 664: 657: 635: 625: 521: 501: 478: 463: 417: 410: 405: 380: 317: 294: 264: 229: 193: 171: 142: 123: 113:American Beauty 105: 103:American Beauty 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5518: 5516: 5508: 5507: 5506: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5501: 5376: 5375:Image question 5373: 5357: 5354: 5332: 5329: 5328: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5302: 5301: 5251: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5214: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5170:User:Kevin5593 5165: 5162: 5131: 5129: 5128: 5122: 5116: 5110: 5104: 5097: 5095: 5092:10 August 2009 5077: 5076: 5075: 5035: 5032: 5002: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4947: 4944: 4924: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4873: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4805: 4802: 4771: 4769: 4768: 4762: 4756: 4750: 4744: 4737: 4735: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4670: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4645:Manny & Lo 4638: 4637: 4588: 4585: 4558: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4511: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4474: 4473: 4430:George Clooney 4423: 4419: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4342: 4341: 4292: 4289: 4271: 4270: 4181: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 3967: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3845: 3844: 3753: 3750: 3731: 3730: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3545: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3491: 3488: 3479: 3472: 3450: 3448: 3447: 3441: 3435: 3429: 3423: 3417: 3411: 3405: 3399: 3393: 3387: 3377: 3375: 3357: 3337: 3334: 3317: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3274: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3227: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3174: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3123: 3122: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2915: 2912: 2885: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2845: 2844:Lemony Snicket 2842: 2841: 2840: 2825: 2779: 2776: 2762: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2612: 2609: 2593: 2590: 2570: 2569:PSTS and films 2567: 2536: 2534: 2533: 2527: 2521: 2515: 2509: 2502: 2500: 2482: 2455: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2424: 2423: 2368: 2365: 2334: 2332: 2331: 2325: 2319: 2313: 2307: 2301: 2294: 2292: 2274: 2252:User:NYScholar 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2123: 2120: 2089: 2087: 2086: 2080: 2074: 2068: 2062: 2056: 2050: 2043: 2041: 2023: 1995: 1992: 1961: 1959: 1958: 1952: 1946: 1940: 1934: 1928: 1922: 1916: 1906: 1904: 1886: 1855: 1853: 1852: 1846: 1840: 1834: 1828: 1822: 1816: 1807: 1800: 1798: 1780: 1769: 1762: 1759: 1738:May 2009 issue 1732: 1729: 1709: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1631:Locus Magazine 1508:Howard Waldrop 1499: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1482:TriiipleThreat 1475: 1474: 1434:TriiipleThreat 1428: 1425: 1409: 1404: 1373: 1371: 1370: 1364: 1358: 1352: 1346: 1340: 1334: 1328: 1321: 1319: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1087: 1086: 1007: 1001: 986: 967:Tender Mercies 962: 960:Tender Mercies 957: 926: 924: 923: 917: 911: 905: 899: 893: 887: 881: 879:Writers needed 874: 872: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 786: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 759: 758: 712: 709: 708: 707: 656: 653: 652: 651: 617: 590: 589: 564: 562: 561: 559: 553: 547: 533: 520: 517: 500: 495: 464: 462: 461: 455: 449: 443: 437: 431: 425: 418: 416: 398: 397: 396: 316: 313: 293: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 183: 182: 181: 180: 159: 158: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 18:User talk:Erik 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5517: 5500: 5497: 5491: 5487: 5486:QuickTime Pro 5483: 5479: 5475: 5474: 5473: 5469: 5465: 5461: 5454: 5450: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5441: 5435: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5416: 5410: 5409: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5400: 5397: 5391: 5387: 5382: 5374: 5372: 5371: 5367: 5363: 5355: 5353: 5352: 5349: 5346: 5342: 5341:The GA review 5338: 5330: 5324: 5320: 5316: 5312: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5281: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5271: 5267: 5262: 5257: 5249: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5225: 5221: 5212: 5208: 5204: 5200: 5196: 5190: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5180: 5179: 5171: 5163: 5161: 5159: 5155: 5151: 5148:Delivered by 5144: 5140: 5136: 5135: 5127: 5123: 5121: 5117: 5115: 5111: 5109: 5105: 5103: 5099: 5098: 5093: 5087: 5082: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5066: 5062: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5049: 5043: 5034:Pages Deleted 5033: 5031: 5030: 5027: 5026: 5018: 5014: 5013: 5008: 5001:User:Inurhead 5000: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4983: 4978: 4977: 4972: 4971: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4960: 4956: 4955: 4946:Alt text help 4945: 4943: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4906: 4900: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4879: 4878:Bovineboy2008 4872: 4869: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4853: 4847: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4820: 4815: 4813: 4803: 4801: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4788:Delivered by 4784: 4780: 4776: 4775: 4767: 4763: 4761: 4757: 4755: 4751: 4749: 4745: 4743: 4739: 4738: 4733: 4732:3 August 2009 4727: 4722: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4696: 4691: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4680: 4676: 4668: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4653:Wildhartlivie 4650: 4646: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4636: 4632: 4628: 4624: 4618: 4614: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4603: 4599: 4598:Wildhartlivie 4595: 4586: 4584: 4583: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4566: 4565: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4515: 4510: 4507:Your note re 4506: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4487:Up in the Air 4484: 4483: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4472: 4468: 4464: 4460: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4417: 4414: 4406: 4402: 4398: 4394: 4388: 4384: 4379: 4374: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4321: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4301: 4296: 4290: 4288: 4287: 4284: 4281: 4280: 4269: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4251: 4250: 4244: 4239: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4228: 4225: 4224: 4215: 4214: 4211: 4208: 4207: 4197: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4179: 4163: 4160: 4151: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4048: 4046: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3994: 3989: 3987: 3981: 3980: 3975: 3974: 3965: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3938: 3933: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3924: 3918: 3917: 3912: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3879: 3876: 3870: 3869: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3825: 3824: 3819: 3818: 3813: 3812: 3806: 3802: 3801: 3796: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3772: 3769: 3764: 3758: 3751: 3749: 3748: 3745: 3742: 3741: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3712:individual. — 3710: 3709:approached me 3706: 3705: 3700: 3699: 3694: 3693: 3687: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3677: 3674: 3673: 3664: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3656: 3646: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3624: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3594: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3564: 3561: 3560: 3552: 3544: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3489: 3487: 3485: 3481: 3480: 3477: 3474: 3473: 3470: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3454: 3446: 3442: 3440: 3436: 3434: 3430: 3428: 3424: 3422: 3418: 3416: 3412: 3410: 3406: 3404: 3400: 3398: 3394: 3392: 3388: 3386: 3385: 3379: 3378: 3373: 3367: 3362: 3358: 3356: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3346: 3335: 3333: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3286: 3280: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3243: 3238: 3236: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3203: 3198: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3183: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3150: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3129: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3096: 3094: 3079: 3076: 3071: 3069: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3038: 3033: 3031: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3004: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2969: 2964: 2962: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2930: 2925: 2923: 2913: 2911: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2893: 2892: 2883: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2826: 2823: 2818: 2812: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2777: 2775: 2774: 2771: 2760: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2733: 2729: 2724: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2699: 2696:Do you think 2695: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2675: 2671: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2645: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2618: 2610: 2608: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2591: 2589: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2568: 2566: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2553:Delivered by 2549: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2532: 2528: 2526: 2522: 2520: 2516: 2514: 2510: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2498: 2492: 2487: 2483: 2481: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2463: 2462: 2453: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2366: 2364: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2351:Delivered by 2347: 2343: 2339: 2338: 2330: 2326: 2324: 2320: 2318: 2314: 2312: 2308: 2306: 2302: 2300: 2296: 2295: 2290: 2284: 2279: 2275: 2273: 2272: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2245: 2239: 2236: 2229: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2221:Star Trek VII 2217: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2205: 2204: 2203:Star Trek III 2200: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2142:First Contact 2139: 2135: 2134: 2129: 2121: 2119: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2106:Delivered by 2102: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2085: 2081: 2079: 2075: 2073: 2069: 2067: 2063: 2061: 2057: 2055: 2051: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2039: 2033: 2028: 2024: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2014: 2011: 2007: 2001: 1993: 1991: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1978:Delivered by 1974: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1957: 1953: 1951: 1947: 1945: 1941: 1939: 1935: 1933: 1929: 1927: 1923: 1921: 1917: 1915: 1914: 1909:Book review : 1908: 1907: 1902: 1896: 1891: 1887: 1885: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1872:Delivered by 1868: 1864: 1860: 1859: 1851: 1847: 1845: 1841: 1839: 1835: 1833: 1829: 1827: 1823: 1821: 1818:Scientology: 1817: 1815: 1814: 1809:Book review: 1808: 1806: 1802: 1801: 1796: 1790: 1785: 1781: 1779: 1778: 1773: 1768: 1760: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1740: 1739: 1730: 1728: 1727: 1724: 1717: 1716: 1708: 1707: 1702: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1552: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1518: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1497: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1470: 1468: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1426: 1424: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1408: 1405: 1403: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1390:Delivered by 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1369: 1365: 1363: 1359: 1357: 1353: 1351: 1347: 1345: 1341: 1339: 1335: 1333: 1329: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1317: 1311: 1306: 1302: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1059:. Thank you. 1058: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1006: 1002: 1000: 999: 996: 992: 984: 979: 972: 968: 961: 958: 956: 954: 950: 946: 943:Delivered by 939: 935: 931: 930: 922: 918: 916: 912: 910: 906: 904: 900: 898: 894: 892: 888: 886: 882: 880: 876: 875: 870: 864: 859: 855: 849: 846: 843: 839: 835: 834: 833: 829: 825: 821: 812: 805: 804: 803: 802: 799: 796: 792: 785: 782: 776: 772: 768: 763: 762: 761: 760: 757: 753: 749: 745: 738: 737: 736: 735: 731: 727: 722: 718: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 688: 687:Talk:Cat Soup 684: 683: 682: 680: 676: 672: 671:71.134.252.62 668: 662: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 632: 631: 630: 629: 624: 620: 616: 615: 610: 598: 588: 587: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 568: 557: 551: 545: 540: 539: 534: 529: 525: 524: 516: 515: 511: 507: 499: 496: 494: 492: 488: 484: 481:Delivered by 477: 473: 469: 468: 460: 456: 454: 450: 448: 444: 442: 438: 436: 432: 430: 426: 424: 420: 419: 414: 408: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 377: 376: 375: 374: 370: 366: 361: 360: 359:LiteraryMaven 354: 350: 346: 342: 338: 334: 333: 328: 324: 323: 314: 312: 311: 307: 303: 299: 291: 279: 275: 271: 267: 260: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 237: 234: 232: 226: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 208: 204: 200: 196: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 179: 176: 174: 167: 163: 162: 161: 160: 157: 153: 149: 145: 139: 134: 133: 132: 131: 128: 126: 119: 114: 110: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5448: 5406: 5380: 5378: 5359: 5334: 5253: 5216: 5177: 5167: 5146: 5132: 5091: 5085: 5057:Thanks! :) — 5037: 5024: 5010: 5004: 4976:s alt text: 4968: 4952: 4949: 4926: 4898: 4875: 4841:a discussion 4811: 4807: 4786: 4772: 4731: 4725: 4694: 4672: 4648: 4644: 4612: 4590: 4562: 4560: 4516: 4513: 4486: 4480: 4448: 4421: 4372: 4297: 4294: 4278: 4277: 4272: 4248: 4242: 4237: 4222: 4221: 4216: 4205: 4204: 4198: 4183: 4155:template. -- 4120: 4076: 4044: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3985: 3982:? Thanks. -- 3977: 3971: 3969: 3936: 3931: 3914: 3910: 3866: 3826:on my own. — 3821: 3815: 3810: 3804: 3798: 3797:, who wrote 3795:Susan Faludi 3775: 3773: 3767: 3762: 3759: 3755: 3739: 3738: 3732: 3702: 3696: 3690: 3685: 3671: 3670: 3665: 3654: 3653: 3647: 3617: 3558: 3557: 3547: 3543:Besos Brujos 3507:IronGargoyle 3493: 3478:Cherian BOT 3476: 3469: 3465: 3451: 3383: 3372:27 July 2009 3371: 3365: 3341: 3339: 3319: 3276: 3234: 3229: 3204:slip-up... — 3201: 3178: 3176: 3148: 3127: 3124: 3086: 3067: 3029: 3002: 3000: 2960: 2921: 2917: 2891:Spider-Man 3 2889: 2887: 2847: 2821: 2816: 2810: 2781: 2764: 2731: 2727: 2723:Forrest Gump 2722: 2697: 2673: 2643: 2620: 2611:Welcome back 2595: 2572: 2551: 2537: 2496: 2490: 2459: 2457: 2430:own pages. — 2398: 2378: 2372: 2370: 2349: 2335: 2289:29 June 2009 2288: 2282: 2249: 2227:Star Trek IX 2225: 2219: 2213: 2209:Star Trek IV 2207: 2201: 2141: 2137: 2131: 2125: 2104: 2090: 2038:22 June 2009 2037: 2031: 2012: 2005:Collectonian 1997: 1976: 1962: 1912: 1901:15 June 2009 1900: 1894: 1870: 1856: 1812: 1794: 1788: 1764: 1736: 1734: 1713: 1711: 1704: 1655: 1651: 1638: 1635:Locus Online 1634: 1630: 1606: 1602: 1599:The Prestige 1598: 1546:The Prestige 1545: 1542:The Prestige 1541: 1515: 1501: 1466: 1430: 1411: 1388: 1374: 1315: 1309: 1009: 974: 964: 941: 927: 868: 862: 788: 714: 658: 605: 602: 565: 543: 542: 536: 535: 502: 479: 465: 433:Dispatches: 412: 406: 357: 345:my talk page 331: 330: 321: 320: 318: 295: 230: 224: 172: 165: 137: 124: 117: 112: 108: 106: 75: 43: 37: 5345:igordebraga 5256:WP:BOLDFACE 5143:Unsubscribe 5139:Single-page 4829:WP:FILMCAST 4783:Unsubscribe 4779:Single-page 4570:Nehrams2020 4539:Nehrams2020 4523:Jezhotwells 4279:Dr. Blofeld 4223:Dr. Blofeld 4206:Dr. Blofeld 4129:Nehrams2020 4081:Nehrams2020 3740:Dr. Blofeld 3672:Dr. Blofeld 3655:Dr. Blofeld 3559:Dr. Blofeld 3462:Unsubscribe 3458:Single-page 3068:Laser brain 3030:Laser brain 2961:Laser brain 2922:Laser brain 2897:Nehrams2020 2761:Many thanks 2737:Nehrams2020 2624:Nehrams2020 2615:Main page: 2598:Ring Cinema 2548:Unsubscribe 2544:Single-page 2497:6 July 2009 2467:Nehrams2020 2384:WesleyDodds 2367:Checking in 2346:Unsubscribe 2342:Single-page 2260:Steve Smith 2215:Star Trek V 2101:Unsubscribe 2097:Single-page 1973:Unsubscribe 1969:Single-page 1867:Unsubscribe 1863:Single-page 1795:1 June 2009 1744:Nehrams2020 1603:Film Review 1512:Neil Gaiman 1385:Unsubscribe 1381:Single-page 1316:25 May 2009 1182:Thor (film) 938:Unsubscribe 934:Single-page 869:18 May 2009 665:—Preceding 476:Unsubscribe 472:Single-page 413:11 May 2009 315:Hello, Erik 36:This is an 5432:action in 4876:Hey Erik, 4695:Fight Club 4491:Dan Dassow 4434:Dan Dassow 4249:Fight Club 4243:Fight Club 4238:Fight Club 4077:Care Bears 4019:Fight Club 3986:Andy Walsh 3811:Fight Club 3768:Fight Club 3752:Fight Club 3235:Andy Walsh 3128:Vera Drake 3003:Fight Club 2914:Fight Club 2732:Fight Club 2674:Fight Club 2644:Fight Club 1911:Review of 1811:Review of 767:Cactusjump 765:happens. 726:Cactusjump 550:Erik's Day 302:DrNegative 95:Archive 25 87:Archive 20 82:Archive 19 76:Archive 18 70:Archive 17 65:Archive 16 60:Archive 15 5482:HandBrake 5449:fantastic 5381:Star Trek 5266:IllaZilla 5261:consensus 5213:Star Trek 5175:BOVINEBOY 5022:BOVINEBOY 4987:Eubulides 4959:Eubulides 4933:Robsinden 4883:kollision 4180:A request 3823:Dark City 3698:Apt Pupil 3226:Adminship 2728:Apt Pupil 2698:Apt Pupil 2138:Star Trek 1660:Viriditas 1584:Viriditas 1522:Viriditas 1456:WT:COMICS 811:db-author 349:Hays Code 337:Hays Code 5447:That is 5436:now!) -- 5331:Watchmen 5280:MOS:BOLD 5007:Inurhead 4833:MOS:BOLD 4675:Remember 4015:Dark Eye 4007:The Game 3973:The Game 3805:Newsweek 3384:Signpost 2868:Wildroot 2850:Wildroot 2830:Blueboar 2796:Blueboar 2579:Blueboar 2399:Watchmen 2379:Watchmen 2374:Watchmen 2016:contribs 990:contribs 842:Garion96 795:Garion96 667:unsigned 556:WP:FILMS 5468:contrib 5423:contrib 5319:contrib 5295:contrib 5203:contrib 5069:contrib 4913:contrib 4860:contrib 4846:WT:FILM 4709:contrib 4631:contrib 4578:contrib 4547:contrib 4467:contrib 4449:because 4401:contrib 4378:WP:NFCC 4335:contrib 4264:contrib 4137:contrib 4110:contrib 4089:contrib 4066:contrib 4033:contrib 3838:contrib 3724:contrib 3640:contrib 3607:contrib 3583:contrib 3532:contrib 3344:Lugnuts 3306:contrib 3263:contrib 3216:contrib 3197:WP:CITE 3181:Lugnuts 3163:contrib 3149:Cinefex 3116:contrib 3090:Graham 3056:contrib 3017:contrib 2988:contrib 2949:contrib 2905:contrib 2788:WP:NORN 2745:contrib 2712:contrib 2688:contrib 2659:contrib 2632:contrib 2475:contrib 2442:contrib 2417:contrib 2193:contrib 1752:contrib 1685:contrib 1621:contrib 1565:contrib 1538:deleted 1460:WT:FILM 1281:contrib 1229:ThuranX 1196:contrib 1148:ThuranX 1126:contrib 1094:ThuranX 1076:ThuranX 1061:ThuranX 1030:protect 1025:history 828:contrib 752:contrib 701:contrib 645:contrib 623:Toolbox 619:Efforts 563:Signed, 390:contrib 369:contrib 274:contrib 259:foreign 203:contrib 166:Variety 152:contrib 118:Variety 109:Variety 39:archive 5490:FFmpeg 5478:WT:FAC 5150:SoxBot 5041:JamesR 4818:(talk) 4790:SoxBot 4373:Tag 26 4320:Tag 26 4303:added? 4300:Tag 26 3992:(talk) 3503:WP:UBM 3241:(talk) 3074:(talk) 3036:(talk) 2967:(talk) 2928:(talk) 2822:expect 2786:or at 2555:SoxBot 2353:SoxBot 2164:, and 2108:SoxBot 1980:SoxBot 1874:SoxBot 1706:ST:TMP 1392:SoxBot 1034:delete 977:Hunter 945:SoxBot 845:(talk) 798:(talk) 483:SoxBot 5408:U2 3D 5356:Email 5156:) at 4796:) at 4422:Erik, 4350:Fegor 4305:Fegor 4217:Well? 4045:Steve 4011:Seven 4003:Seven 3979:Seven 3942:Moni3 3897:Moni3 3852:Moni3 3780:Moni3 3692:U2 3D 3686:think 2592:Sorry 2561:) at 2359:) at 2114:) at 1986:) at 1880:) at 1772:βǃʘʘɱ 1656:Locus 1652:about 1639:Locus 1517:Locus 1467:Steve 1452:moved 1398:) at 1051:views 1043:watch 1039:links 951:) at 711:Help? 608:Dylan 567:Dylan 489:) at 341:User: 332:prior 231:Steve 173:Steve 125:Steve 16:< 5464:talk 5459:Erik 5419:talk 5414:Erik 5366:talk 5315:talk 5310:Erik 5291:talk 5286:Erik 5270:talk 5240:talk 5234:out. 5224:talk 5199:talk 5194:Erik 5178:2008 5154:talk 5065:talk 5060:Erik 5047:talk 5025:2008 4991:talk 4937:talk 4909:talk 4904:Erik 4887:talk 4856:talk 4851:Erik 4812:Tony 4794:talk 4705:talk 4700:Erik 4679:talk 4657:talk 4627:talk 4622:Erik 4617:here 4602:talk 4574:talk 4561:The 4543:talk 4527:talk 4514:Hi, 4495:talk 4463:talk 4458:Erik 4438:talk 4397:talk 4392:Erik 4385:and 4354:talk 4331:talk 4326:Erik 4309:talk 4260:talk 4255:Erik 4252:.) — 4150:bots 4133:talk 4106:talk 4101:Erik 4085:talk 4062:talk 4057:Erik 4029:talk 4024:Erik 3976:and 3946:talk 3919:. -- 3901:talk 3856:talk 3834:talk 3829:Erik 3784:talk 3720:talk 3715:Erik 3636:talk 3631:Erik 3623:bots 3603:talk 3598:Erik 3579:talk 3574:Erik 3551:This 3528:talk 3523:Erik 3511:talk 3471:Tinu 3350:talk 3327:talk 3302:talk 3297:Erik 3281:. -- 3259:talk 3254:Erik 3212:talk 3207:Erik 3187:talk 3159:talk 3154:Erik 3137:talk 3112:talk 3107:Erik 3092:Colm 3052:talk 3047:Erik 3013:talk 3008:Erik 2984:talk 2979:Erik 2945:talk 2940:Erik 2901:talk 2872:talk 2854:talk 2834:talk 2800:talk 2741:talk 2708:talk 2703:Erik 2684:talk 2679:Erik 2655:talk 2650:Erik 2628:talk 2602:talk 2583:talk 2559:talk 2471:talk 2458:The 2438:talk 2433:Erik 2413:talk 2408:Erik 2388:talk 2357:talk 2264:talk 2256:here 2189:talk 2184:Erik 2112:talk 2010:talk 1984:talk 1878:talk 1748:talk 1735:The 1703:Re: 1681:talk 1676:Erik 1664:talk 1617:talk 1612:Erik 1605:and 1588:talk 1561:talk 1556:Erik 1526:talk 1486:talk 1458:and 1438:talk 1418:talk 1414:PC78 1396:talk 1277:talk 1272:Erik 1233:talk 1192:talk 1187:Erik 1152:talk 1122:talk 1117:Erik 1098:talk 1080:talk 1065:talk 1047:logs 1021:talk 1017:edit 982:Kahn 949:talk 824:talk 819:Erik 791:this 771:talk 748:talk 743:Erik 730:talk 717:T.W. 697:talk 692:Erik 675:talk 641:talk 636:Erik 584:sign 580:ping 576:work 572:chat 538:Erik 510:talk 506:PC78 487:talk 386:talk 381:Erik 365:talk 322:post 306:talk 270:talk 265:Erik 199:talk 194:Erik 148:talk 143:Erik 4899:300 4489:.-- 3595:? — 3202:AVP 3151:. — 2811:all 2002:-- 1767:Lәo 838:RFC 719:at 613:620 5470:) 5466:• 5425:) 5421:• 5368:) 5339:? 5321:) 5317:• 5297:) 5293:• 5272:) 5242:) 5226:) 5205:) 5201:• 5141:· 5137:· 5090:: 5071:) 5067:• 5050:) 4993:) 4957:? 4939:) 4931:- 4915:) 4911:• 4889:) 4862:) 4858:• 4781:· 4777:· 4730:: 4711:) 4707:• 4681:) 4659:) 4633:) 4629:• 4604:) 4580:) 4576:• 4549:) 4545:• 4529:) 4497:) 4469:) 4465:• 4440:) 4403:) 4399:• 4356:) 4337:) 4333:• 4311:) 4266:) 4262:• 4192:, 4153:}} 4147:{{ 4139:) 4135:• 4112:) 4108:• 4091:) 4087:• 4068:) 4064:• 4035:) 4031:• 3948:) 3940:-- 3903:) 3858:) 3840:) 3836:• 3786:) 3726:) 3722:• 3642:) 3638:• 3626:}} 3620:{{ 3609:) 3605:• 3585:) 3581:• 3534:) 3530:• 3513:) 3482:- 3460:· 3456:· 3370:: 3352:) 3329:) 3308:) 3304:• 3265:) 3261:• 3231:-- 3218:) 3214:• 3189:) 3165:) 3161:• 3139:) 3118:) 3114:• 3058:) 3054:• 3019:) 3015:• 2990:) 2986:• 2951:) 2947:• 2907:) 2903:• 2874:) 2856:) 2836:) 2817:do 2802:) 2747:) 2743:• 2714:) 2710:• 2690:) 2686:• 2661:) 2657:• 2634:) 2630:• 2604:) 2585:) 2546:· 2542:· 2495:: 2477:) 2473:• 2444:) 2440:• 2419:) 2415:• 2390:) 2344:· 2340:· 2287:: 2266:) 2231:-- 2224:, 2218:, 2212:, 2206:, 2195:) 2191:• 2160:, 2156:, 2152:, 2148:, 2099:· 2095:· 2036:: 2018:) 1971:· 1967:· 1899:: 1865:· 1861:· 1793:: 1754:) 1750:• 1719:-- 1687:) 1683:• 1666:) 1646:, 1623:) 1619:• 1590:) 1567:) 1563:• 1528:) 1510:, 1488:) 1440:) 1420:) 1383:· 1379:· 1314:: 1283:) 1279:• 1235:) 1198:) 1194:• 1154:) 1128:) 1124:• 1100:) 1082:) 1067:) 1049:| 1045:| 1041:| 1037:| 1032:| 1028:| 1023:| 1019:| 936:· 932:· 867:: 840:. 830:) 826:• 814:}} 808:{{ 773:) 754:) 750:• 732:) 703:) 699:• 677:) 647:) 643:• 621:· 603:-- 582:, 578:, 574:, 512:) 474:· 470:· 411:: 392:) 388:• 371:) 367:• 308:) 276:) 272:• 205:) 201:• 154:) 150:• 91:→ 5462:( 5456:— 5417:( 5364:( 5348:≠ 5313:( 5289:( 5283:— 5268:( 5238:( 5222:( 5197:( 5152:( 5063:( 5044:( 4989:( 4974:' 4935:( 4907:( 4885:( 4854:( 4792:( 4703:( 4677:( 4655:( 4625:( 4600:( 4572:( 4541:( 4525:( 4493:( 4461:( 4436:( 4395:( 4352:( 4329:( 4307:( 4258:( 4131:( 4104:( 4098:— 4083:( 4060:( 4027:( 3944:( 3899:( 3854:( 3832:( 3782:( 3718:( 3634:( 3601:( 3577:( 3526:( 3509:( 3348:( 3325:( 3300:( 3294:— 3257:( 3210:( 3185:( 3157:( 3135:( 3110:( 3104:— 3050:( 3011:( 2982:( 2943:( 2899:( 2870:( 2852:( 2832:( 2798:( 2739:( 2706:( 2682:( 2653:( 2626:( 2600:( 2581:( 2557:( 2469:( 2436:( 2411:( 2386:( 2355:( 2262:( 2187:( 2110:( 2013:· 2008:( 1982:( 1876:( 1774:) 1770:( 1746:( 1679:( 1662:( 1642:( 1615:( 1586:( 1559:( 1524:( 1484:( 1436:( 1416:( 1394:( 1275:( 1231:( 1190:( 1150:( 1120:( 1096:( 1078:( 1063:( 1053:) 1015:( 993:) 987:( 947:( 822:( 769:( 746:( 728:( 695:( 673:( 639:( 599:. 586:) 570:( 558:, 552:! 546:, 508:( 485:( 384:( 363:( 304:( 268:( 262:— 197:( 146:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.