User talk:Cliff smith/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cliff smith. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dear Cliff smith: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

... to sign your posts on talk pages by typing Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC). If you don't, some people will get rather pissy! Cool. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for cleaning that up! It looks SO much more organized now! BigD527 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It was bugging me that it was just a table, so after I learned about WP:LOE, I decided to change it. It all took about 1½ hours, but I think it was worth it. And thank you for your feedback. --Cliff smith 04:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for your work on improving the list of Soprano episodes. Your additions have been invaluable, and here's hoping it makes FL status. And additional praise for the quick work on the spoiler free version, even though its future is, eugh, uncertain at best. Qjuad 07:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks :) it is very much appreciated. Cliff smith 17:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, the page wouldn't be featured if it wasn't for your help and the other three. Good work! Sfufan2005 00:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats all round. Qjuad 10:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Cliff, your hard work has paid off with the LOE making featured episodes.--Opark 77 13:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cliff; next time you get a redirect error like that, check for a "double redirect" - essentially your redirect was pointing at logarithms which then redirects to logarithm. The software can't follow that chain (partly to avoid getting caught in an a→b→c→a loop). I fixed your redirect to point to the actual article instead of deleting it, hope that's okay. -- nae'blis 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Thanks for your help; I understand redirects better now. :] —Cliff smith 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cliff smith/Archive 1,

Thanks for joining WikiProject Degrassi. We appreciate all volunteers. Cheers. :) --theblueflamingo^Squawk 02:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I'm trying to promote this to a Featured List, but pretty much all alone in managing it. If you have any knowledge of the show or are interested in helping me out with expanding summaries, I would appreciate it. If not, that's OK, too. Thanks for your support. – Zone46 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put a link to the IMDB episode listings for the show on the talk page for the LOE (list of episodes). I hope that the short summaries there can help with adding to those here. Cliff smith 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Casino Royale (2006 film).Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

This is an automated notice by BrownBot 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been imporving Casino Royale. I really think its almost ready now for a FA. The special effects details really asserts that we know what we are tlaking about using inside information released in the documentraies. Give it a week with a bit of copy editing and I am going to propose it for an FA ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely looking good. As I've suggested before, I strongly recommend a peer review once the collaboration week is over. If not the peer review, we could copy/paste the FA criteria on the talk page and strike each criterion as we verify that Casino Royale meets it. Cliff smith 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your changes to the citations part, and I agree. Thanks. However, did you just delete an enormous part of the article? All of the sudden the entire beginning section to Reformers and Conservatives is missing, and has been merged accidentally with Relations with the Liao.

Is there a way to retrieve all of that info? I hope it is not lost.

--PericlesofAthens 03:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, nope; I only changed all of the notes. But don't worry because nothing can really be lost. Check the little "history" tab at the top of the article and you'll see the logs of each and every edit ever made (for any article). Hope this helps =) Cliff smith 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just checked the last changes in the history tab, and it looks as if you made a little goof there. The last change before yours was by User:AQu01rius, and looking at his changes to the page it looks fine. But when I look at the very last edit to the page, yours, the page itself shows the part I was asking about as missing. It's ok, I'll copy and paste and find the couple of ref's from the Ebrey book that were lost.

--PericlesofAthens 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap, I'm sorry about that. But that just makes me more thankful for those history logs. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll have to make sure I don't do that again. Good luck on the FAC, it's a good article. Cliff smith 03:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, hold on, maybe it's something you can fix. When I go to edit the page, the missing info is there! It just doesn't show up when you look at the article normally. This is the chunk that is missing visually:

After students passed the often difficult, bureaucratic, and heavily-demanding Imperial Exams, as they became officials, they did not always see eye to eye with others that had passed the same examination. Even though they were fully-fledged graduates ready for government service, there was always the factor of competition with other officials. Promotion to a higher post, higher salary, additional honors, and selection for choice assignment responsibilities were often uncertain, as young new officials often needed higher-ranking officials to recommend them for their services. Once an official would rise to the upper echelons of central administration based in the capital, they would often compete with others over influence of the emperor's official adoption of state policies. Officials with different opinions on how to approach administrative affairs often sought out other officials for support, leading to pacts of rivaling officials lining up political allies at court to sway the emperor against the faction they disagreed with.

Factional strife at court first became apparent during the 1040s AD, with a new state reform initiated by Fan Zhongyan. Fan was a capable military leader (with successful battles in his record against the Tanguts of Xi-Xia) but as a minister of state he was known as an idealist, once saying that a well-minded official should be one that was "first in worrying about the world's troubles and last in enjoying its pleasures".^[1] When Fan rose to the seat of Chancellor, there was a growing opposition to him within the older and more conservative crowd. They disliked his pushing for reforms for the recruitment system, higher pay for minor local officials to discourage against corruption, and wider sponsorship programs to ensure that officials were drafted more on the basis of their intellect and character. However, his reforms were cancelled within a year's time (with Fan replaced as Chancellor), since many older officials who were halfway through their careers were not keen on making changes that could affect their comfortably-set positions.^[1]

Did you accidentally write a reference wrong in there? So that this would disappear from sight of the article? I'm no expert on this ref stuff.

--PericlesofAthens 03:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please change this soon, or I will undo your edits. I don't want this missing from the article.

--PericlesofAthens 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Chill. I'll try fix it. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem now, it was just a simple backslash that you forgot in one of the Ebrey refs (I cannot believe I just spotted that!). I was getting antsy because other people were starting to review the article now, and it would have made it look pretty awkward.

--PericlesofAthens 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I had signed off and I couldn't check it out. Again, I apologize for the error. Cliff smith 15:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering what the problem is with the ratings box? My good amigo User:Luigibob spent some time adding information for the rtings in each country but it was reverted within seconds? What is the objection to the ratings box> It exists in thousands of articles some of which are FA so how can providing rleease information and classification be a crime. That Casino Royale page is like DFort KNox -I'm worried someone is going to delete my special effects work too ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If the ratings box was WP:NOT I really don't think the template for the box would be allowed to exist ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think too. Cliff smith 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And about the awards I fully agree the full information shuld be written concisely into the paragraph and it does repeat itself in places. I also added an image of the DVD if noone objects friend!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the picture. It's just that it has a watermark in the lower right corner. Cliff smith 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I added te better official dvd poster before displaying the release which looked tidy and was appropriate but it got reverted. I had added this but it got removed

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well this poster picture looks fine, but I think just a picture of the front of the DVD would be good. Cliff smith 16:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly mate its like facing a brick wall!!! The only quality image I found of the cover was on www.mI6 but it had their site logo in the corner. Maybe see if there a any good ones on amazon or ebay or something ? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking; they tend to have quality photos that would be ideal for this. Cliff smith 16:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Done it replaced it but I would really prefer this image ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. Just seen that it too has a watermark. Can't we just keep this image? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, as long as the fair use rationale is accounted for, it should be okay. Cliff smith 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All the plain dvd covers have watermarks that I have found I just looked ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a Google search that led me to the Circuit City website, which has a picture without watermark here. I've got to go, but I hope we get this sorted out. HTH.
Cliff smith 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the addition and the vote, but there are two things that need attention. First, we don't fair use rationales for all those DVD covers (which is ok, because I can fix that as soon as I finish this message), but the other is that all 5 seasons haven't been released. Season 5 in Region 4 isn't released till April. Now, your template says April 1, but from individuals whom I've spoken with that live in that region, they say it isn't getting released till April 4. If it's April 1, that's ok, because it's April 1 somewhere right about now, but if it's the 4th, then we need to make the page respresent that until the 4th arrives.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't catch that. Hah, and I'm presently at a loss as to how I didn't catch that. Well, we could either list the date as TBA or put the date you know of. Simple fix. TYVM for pointing that out. Cliff smith 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We're all squared away now. If you think it's right, we can copy the references for the DVDs, on Smallville (TV series), and put them on that DVD list on the LOE page. I had those nice gents from region 4 find all the references for the release dates for that section (region 4 is hard to verify sometimes). Either way, they are on the main Smallville page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. You've done a great job with the LOE. I hope it gets to FL, and I have a feeling it will (hope that wasn't a jinx lol). Cliff smith 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I just need a fair use rationale for the title screen in the infobox (which I'll do later, I'm about to vacate my domicile for a bit), then I guess I'll nominate it for FA. If it doesn't pass, at least I know I'll get some good feedback for improvement.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It souldn't be. We have like 5 or 6 supports (can't remember w/out looking), and it's been on there for almost 10 days. I think the only thing that is left is for an admin to come by and archive the candidacy and give it the FA stamp of approval. I hope it works out, because I'm working a list of Incredible Hulk episodes in the same format, but I'm going to add plots for those because there doesn't really seem to be a demand for in dividual episode articles for that show (thank god...sorry, but I personally hate individual episode articles because there are usually riddled with junk. I think there is a reason only the House pilot is FA). Although, I did work on Aquaman (TV program), we have it at GA, but I'd like to get it to FA. Do you have any suggestions for that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You've done a good job on it; and I agree that there's a serious lack of quality as far as episode articles go. As long as there's no problems with the pictures, this looks like it's just about ready for FAC. Cliff smith 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I finally finished the work on the season page. Take a look and tell me what you think. It needs a good copyedit for wordiness and word choices, but that's easy to find if the page is implented into the mainspace.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes as you can see I have considerably altered the article today. I hope everyone likes it its does read more professionally now I think. I am proposing it for an FA on Tuesday. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I hope the FAC will go well. Cliff smith 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Unfortunately even the dvd cover was deleted. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 09:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for your hard work on Leet. U |2 73h 1337!!!!11111 bibliomaniac15 03:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your idea, but admins don't really like to do permanent semi-protects. It's best to protect as it gets overwhelming. However, I do see how we might be able to point to the consistent protects and try to achieve it. bibliomaniac15 04:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't really suggesting a full protection. Just that it remain semi-protected for a good while longer. Cliff smith 04:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think that permanent semi-protect would be good. Perhaps after the cleanup and a peer review or GA. Cliff smith 04:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You do know that to be an FA, it has to be unprotected, right? bibliomaniac15 22:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh darn, I forgot about that. Hmm . . . well then we could shoot for A-Class instead of FA. I'll work more on this when I have more time, perhaps tomorrow. Cliff smith 22:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Do you think the NBC writing staff made this all up or is it feasible enough for being considered as a reference? Thanks. Pedrovsk 11:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Youtube is generally not recommended to be used as a reference, and since the program (Kidnapped) is of fiction it's highly unlikely that what they say is true.
Cliff smith 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered putting Leet up for GA? I saw you tried for FA, but GA is often a nice stepping stone between cleanup and FA. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 12:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so. I think that it's ready. Would you happen to know who might be reviewing it? Cliff smith 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated it here. If I may make a suggestion, you should have some inline citations present in the introduction. I'll look over it again and see if anything else needs work, but it is very well done. I never thought this article could be improved so much. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn. I was about 5 minutes from rating it for GA. I was going to put it on hold. Oh, well. No big deal. We'll work on it and renominate it. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 06:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the Barnstar Award, very cool. Oh, and about that Huizong pic. I wasn't the one to download it, but it is a contemporary portrait of Huizong during his reign. I don't think the 1000 year old anonymous dead Chinese artist would mind if we used his painting. Lol. Therefore, I believe it warrants PD-old tag, for artwork of artists that died more than 100 years ago. Objections to this tag?--PericlesofAthens 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just let me know when the tag is taken care of, and I'll complete the GA review. Cliff smith 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, like at your talk page, thanks for getting the tag fixed. Cliff smith 01:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi; I just wanted to call your attention to the correct usage of the {{ArticleHistory}} template. You altered Talk:Shen Kuo and Talk:James Bond so that articlehistory no longer reflected their correct status, after GimmeBot correctly set them up as GAs with failed facs. Just wanted to let you know. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh darn, well thanks for bringing this to my attention. Cliff smith 02:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. I've been working on a new format for the Smallville season pages, and I wanted to get your opinion. Currently this is how the page actually looks. This is what I've been doing in my sandbox. It's a little rough right now because I haven't even come close to finishing it, and some of the info I have is probably going to be trimmed so that it isn't so redundant with the main page, but I would appreciate your thoughts on it. It's kind of a combination of the way The Simpsons season pages are, and on how a film page is. It keeps all the plots nice and neat in a table, but allows for a production and reception section also. I figure not only will this help to cut down on the large plots that have plagued the latter season pages, but also keep individual episode pages from being created too soon. I have the Smallville Season 1 companion, and I'll have enough information to develop the "Pilot" episode into its own article (see User:Bignole/Small sand), and probably "Metamorphosis" (the second episode), and "Tempest" the last episode. The other 18 episodes are really bare in information, and I think it would be best if they were merged into the season article with what info I can scrape out of the book placed in the "Production" section. Sorry this is so long, I just wanted to fully explain my thinking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, your work in progress is far better than what is presently there. The only things that I would change are these:

• Save the guest starring list for the character page but keep the [more relevant] recurring roles as they are
• Maybe a little more info for Reception

Beyond that, you should apply your rewrite ASAP. I personally think that beyond the little quibbles I mentioned, the setup you've been working on is FL material, like some of The Simpsons season pages (specifically season 8, since I had a hand in its FL promotion). Impressive work. Cliff smith 23:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the season page I have some more "reviews" (4 of them are in that companion book), but I'm having trouble finding "bad" reviews...you know, to keep the neutrality. The pilot episode that I'm working on as well, that's hard to find reviews for. I've found that finding review for single episodes is rather difficult. What do you think about my idea to merge the episodes that won't really have that much info? Should I wait till I finish season 1, or should I go ahead and merge and then just recreate them if it turns out that there is enough to support them?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to an old conversation a few months ago, it's recommended that you start with a base article that sums up each episode. Then, if there's enough support and info, you would spin off each episode to its own article. So I would probably just merge them. Cliff smith 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll put the tags up just in case. I'm not going to put 40 tags up, I'm just going to put up two or three, because I think whoever is watching one or two of those pages is probably watching all. Then I'll just make it known that the merge is for all of them, except the pilot, because I already have enough for that article in my sandbox. The pilot info is kind of a rehash of what is on the main page, and the season 1 page, but I felt that what they did for the pilot, namely all the casting information, affect not only season 1, but the entire series....so I thought it was ok to kind of have the same casting info there. Though, I'm trying to cut and add things to each article that is more specific, like something that was primarily done for just the pilot, but changed afterward. Don't know if you are watching any Smallville pages, but I'll let you know when I put the mergers up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cliff smith 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I proposed it Here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think after some good c/e it will be well on its way. I'm trying to go through it now and tweak the text, but I may need to just step back for a day or so and try again with fresh eyes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Check out the new picture of Shen Kuo! Wikimachine did a great job.--PericlesofAthens 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks great. The article's turning out wonderful, mainly thanks to you. Cliff smith 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Qjuad 17:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight The collaboration has returned!! THE COLLABORATION OF THE FORTNIGHT (6 September 2011 - 20 September 2011) is Production of the James Bond films edit this Please contribute by editing this article, in an attempt to get it to good article status For more information see the page here or contact SpecialWindler. Get in and Participate

^Special_Windler 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is really necassary at the moment. Most of the Production/Search for JB/Filming sections can be referenced from "Inside Dr. No Documentry" from the Special/Ultimate DVD Special Features. I will watch this during the week and add sources, and if there are any unsourced statements after that, add a {{fact}} (which outputs citation needed)

^Special_Windler 21:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Cliff, I just nominated List of Lost episodes for Featured List status again and was hoping you could support or comment on the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 07:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hiya. I took a look at some of your suggestions (cited season four episodes and modified the colors). What do you think? -- Wikipedical 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for personally requesting my involvement with the LOE, I really appreciate it. Cliff smith 17:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

The new collaboration for this fortnight is (June 30, 2007 - July 14, 2007) is Live and Let Die (novel) Please contribute by editing this article, in an attempt to get it to good article status For more information see the page here or contact SpecialWindler. CHECK OUT THE TALK PAGE, FOR THINGS YOU CAN DO ON Live and Let Die (novel) Dr. No (film) failed for GA status, mainly due to little contribution to the article.

SpecialWindler talk 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated this for the WikiProject Novels, Colloboration of the Month so that with ours we can get this up to GA status. It needs a few votes, but I don't think it will get it within a day, but I'm trying. SpecialWindler talk 07:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Heres the link:Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration

You supported Live and Let Die (novel), which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I know!!! I'm sorry!!! I haven't read the book since Freshman year!!! But, I am reading some character info. I don't know if that would help!!! Can you help? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:34, 06 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give you a hand. Also, check out the novel articles that are already FA class – those are examples to follow with LALD. Cliff smith 17:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. The image deletionists are out in force, so we have to be careful about completely acceptable and valuable images going down the drain because some distant requirement in some distant galaxy wasn't met. Casey Abell 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Well, I'll be sure to keep a closer eye on images in the articles I'm working on then. And thanks for that heads up. Also, just because, I suppose, as a memeber of Wikiproject James Bond, I'd like to invite your input into what will be our latest Collaboration of the Fortnight: Goldfinger (film). As a pre-collaboration effort, I've taken the article from what it was on July 9 to its current state. I tried to incorporate, while condensing, the Mythbusters investigations, but there was nowhere to incorporate the "In pop culture" trivia so it was removed. Someone didn't seem to take to this very well, as you might see at its talk page, but I hardly removed anything – and I added a whole lot more, including proper section division.
But enough talking about that lol. You could just check it out if you've got the time. The collaborations are supposed to get the particular article up to GA-status, but I think I'll open up a peer review once the collaboration is complete. Thanks, Cliff smith 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

The new collaboration for this fortnight is (July 14, 2007 - July 28, 2007) is Goldfinger (film) passed to GA status early. While you are free to work on this article because it still is out Collaboration May I suggest you work on Dr. No (film) Which was out first collaboration but has yet to make GA Status.

SpecialWindler talk 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your work to Goldfinger (film) before the actual Collaboration started. SpecialWindler talk 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You may think of this as awarded a second time by me. But actually I dropped by to notify you that I (cautiously) reformulated the Reception section, introducing and correcting internal links. I thought maybe you'd want to take a glance. —AldeBaer (c) 08:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I made the section name Release and Reception because those tend to be two different sections on some other film articles, but thanks for taking care of all of the links. It looks much better now. Cliff smith 17:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You obviously would like the article to go to FA status, it still needs work. But be bold. If you would like a peer review, open one. If you would like to nominate it at the WP:FILMS Collaboration, OK. I give my support (if you ask me, because I won't now it has). However you may need to make a little more comprehensive. But I'd help if you need it. I did award you the barnstar (above) for your good contributions to the article. SpecialWindler talk 06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate that award very much. The sole purpose of the CCOTW or a peer review would be to improve it, because I know it's not ready for FAC. Cliff smith 16:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not that I don't go by Zerorules677; but I've had my eye on having my signature be "ThinkBlue". I'd be happy to go with the idea that you suggested. Oh, and thanks for fixing the web citation on the "Awards", I was gonna fix it, but I had some business I had to handle. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work on Golfinger I might say -it was a mess before. Great. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I really appreciate it!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw your message on Bignole's talk page and wasn't sure if you've ever used Google News. They have these results, though they may be mostly reviews of the episodes that have come out recently. If you want my $0.02, the article looks like it's in great shape -- structured well, cited well, written well! Can I suggest starting a list or table of Mad Men episodes, with the episode titles and air date and any other useful information? I'm sure Bignole can advise you about how to write about individual episodes, if he hasn't shared his knowledge with you about that already. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good for a show that just started. Based on the size of the article, I don't think you need an LOE "page" at the moment. I'd just have that in the TV series article. Maybe look for some reception on the pilot of the series, and how it faired ratings wise. Might want to "cite episode" for the Cast and character's information. Might want to get a cite for all the actors as well. Based on the GAC I had with Smallville (season 1), you're best bet is to cite it all. I'll need to go through Smallville (TV series) and do that for places that are missing it. All in all, it's a great start to a fresh television show. That's what's great about new shows, just like with movies, we have a chance to catch them when they start the articles and get them all snug in goodness before they are over run with trivia and uncited material. Keep up the great work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd propose a merger based on the idea that the main article is only 12kb large (that isn't readable prose, which would make it much less). You could reasonably keep a LOE table on the main page for a season or two, or until the main article because a little too large to need an LOE page. Right now it's just the basics. I don't see an issue with keep it on the main page. You could have a few sentences describing the episode, coupled with a "cite episode" citation when the ep airs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't say you didn't help!

Just to let you know, Goldfinger's peer review has been responded to. I only let you know because you haven't edited the article since the review was posted. SpecialWindler talk 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks great at first glance, let me do a run through it and see if I have any suggestions. jengod 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond:Collaboration of the fortnight (two weeks)

The new collaboration for this fortnight is (July 28, 2007 - August 11, 2007]]) is From Russia with Love (film) Please contribute by editing this article, in an attempt to get it to good article status For more information see the page here or contact SpecialWindler. CHECK OUT THE TALK PAGE, FOR THINGS YOU CAN DO ON Goldfinger (film) Goldfinger (film) passed GA status. Well Done.

If you would like not to recieve these messages please add your name to this page

SpecialWindler talk 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've watched every episode :) - what did you want to know? •97198 talk 03:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, a good question... My theory is that he possibly hired those men to kill him, after his failed suicide attempt in the previous episode - or otherwise he hired them to break him out, but they were paid by someone else to kill him instead (??? - just a theory!). But knowing Prison Break, whatever the plan was he probably wouldn't have died, and there'll be some bizarre twist no one was expecting? What are your thoughts? •97198 talk 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's also a major possibility, I suppose I completely skipped that thought since most Prison Break storylines tend not to be so simple! - but I guess we'll have to wait till season 3, as I'm sure there are millions of theories we could come up with! •97198 talk 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I was wondering if you would vote for this film as the next James Bond Collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond/Collaboration of the fortnight.

The film is increasingly viewed as an epic, comic, satire of the whole James Bond genre.

Thanks

Tovojolo 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done the Major Characters in James Bond formats. I'm waiting to see if the film is adopted as the collaboration project before dealing with the minor characters.

Thanks for your vote.

Tovojolo 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Do not arbitrarily remove images from featured articles, especially free ones that are clearly relevant to the article
2. Do not change template:WikiProjectBanners to template:WikiProjectBannerShell [1][2] Raul654 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)