User talk:Sugar Bear/Archive01

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 24 August 2005 and 5 January 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Ibaranoff24/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. (Ibaranoff24 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

---

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello, Sugar Bear/Archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Journalist (talk · contribs) 03:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Bakshi's LOTR

Nice work on The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)! The article is looking much better than it did only a few days ago. Good work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The anon editor who's been causing problems over the last few days put a personal attack against you in an image caption, claiming that you faked the "Part 1" subtitle on the The Lord of the Rings Part 1 poster you recently added. I've removed the attack, but thought you might like to know. Also, for the record, you probably ought to state on the article's talk page that you didn't fake it. (Your word will be enough for me.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:The Lord of the Rings

It is considered misbehaving to delete the comments of others from talk pages (See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable_on_Wikipedia). Furthermore, it is deceitful to label the deletion of an entire section as a "minor edit". Dystopos 05:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lord of the Rings Part 1(a).jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Lord of the Rings Part 1(a).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I put the image on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion because it appears to be an altered version of this. I don't really understand Wikipedia's image policy, but this seems problematic to me. It's also entirely possible that this was an honest mistake, but as it is it looks like the image shouldn't be on Wikipedia. (If you can replace it with an unaltered version without the copyright text over it — say, an actual scan of the physical poster — I think that would be fine.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of comments

As Dystopos mentioned above, it's considered bad form to remove another user's comments. Please do not remove my comments from Talk:The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) again. Also, you should familiarize yourself with the three-revert rule, which I think you've violated on the talk page in your effort to remove the comments made by Mr. Bruun. I understand that there is bad blood between you and Mr. Bruun, and his behaviour hasn't been spotless either — but that doesn't justify the removal of his remarks. If this continues, I'll report both of you for edit warring and 3RR violation. Let's work this out in a civilized fashion, without the removal of comments or the name-calling. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:King Kong (early colorized version).jpg

For what reason did you put Image:King Kong (early colorized version).jpg up for speedy delete? Please use the {{db|insert reason here}} tag in the future, so as to aid administrators. Enochlau 02:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded a more famous image from the colorized version of the movie into the "film colorization" article, so I felt I didn't need that other image. (Ibaranoff24 02:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

Sources for Sleeping Beauty (album)

Hello, good work on Sleeping Beauty (album), and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Sleeping Beauty (album)? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 04:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings Infobox

Help people instead of insulting them, huh? If you could, please revisit your December 10 [1] comments and see who started the personal attacks. Also, please read the comments I have left in the Infobox talk page. I am not and don't pretend to be high and mighty, as you so sarcastically put it. However, if you insist on resorting to purile and personal jibes, I seriously hope you don't expect me to sit around and take that kind of nonsense from you. If you, on the other hand, seriously want to improve the quality of the infobox, I will help you any way I can. As I have said in the infobox talk page, I you have the necessary information on the LoTR animated films, please pass that along to me and I will help you put them in the infobox. AreJay 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Crimbo!

Have a Proper and Merry Crimbo. File:Pressie.gif, in fact here is a pressie from the Doctor to you. Ho. Ho. Ho! File:Unclecrimbo.gif Dr. McCrimbo 22:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

One FAC at a time is suggested

Perhaps you missed it, but there's a bit at the top of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates that says "Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice." Based on that, I'd suggest picking one and withdrawing the rest for now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sir, I appreciate your support for my nomination of the Wellington article but, not be intruding or eavesdropping, I must agree with "Bunchofgrapes."--Anglius 05:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Just curious

Hey,

Just wounder, are you from jeresy? Some of your recent updates/nominations are topics a friend of mine has been mentioning to me latly. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Florida. (Ibaranoff24 06:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

FAC voting

Please keep in mind while voting for articles that you must state a reason along with your Object or Support. I have seen you have been supporting several articles that do not fit the FA criteria. All articles are tested against the criteria to become featured, so if you vote Support without a valid reason to do so your vote will not be counted. Thanks — Wackymacs 01:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Umm I'm not too sure wether you understood me or not - Just saying 'Good article.' is not a reason, thats a statement - You need to say why you think it is a good article and make sure this complies with the FA criteria. Thanks! — Wackymacs 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Handschiegel Color sources

Thanks for cleaning up the Handschiegel_Color_Process page. Obviously, I've been researching the process for some time, so each title has its own source. If you're puzzled on a certain title, please let me know and I will cite the source for it. Thephotoplayer 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Artists films

You've added this twice to Dr. No and I've now reverted you twice because it's redundant. Category:James Bond films is already a subcategory of Category:United Artists films. Hope you understand. K1Bond007 01:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Links seeem spammy

I've seen you make a number of edits adding links to Movie Tome and Legend Films... Considering your contribution history I can only wonder if these links are being made for self-promotional purposes or what. You seem to have contributed good information on these topics, otherwise these kinds of actions (lots of link dropping) would have lead me to immediately undo your edits as spam. At this point I am only asking why your edits seem to be so one-sided at this time. DreamGuy 02:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I never intended any of my links for spam purposes, nor do I intend my edits to be one-sided. If you see any Legend Films links that seem grevious, go ahead and delete them (but if the company does release a colorized version of a certain film, it should at least be mentioned in the article). But I don't think that the Movie Tome links should be deleted -- it would be one-sided to link to the Internet Movie Database page and not to Movie Tome, in my opinion. (Ibaranoff24 02:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

Also, I do not work for Legend Films, if that is what you are inquiring. (Ibaranoff24 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia Project

Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:JackBuetelinTheOutlaw.jpg

Hi, I don't understand why you would list this image for deletion because it's incorrectly tagged, when you could easily correct the tag. I have changed the tag to film-screenshot which is the same tag as thousands of other acceptable images. Could you now please remove this from images for deletion. thanks Rossrs 20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Revenge of the Old Queen

Please see WP:EL and WP:RS to help determine what are and are not appropriate links to include in an article. Also, please familiarize yourself with WP:VAND before you again accuse someone of vandalism. -- Krash (Talk) 05:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

From WP:EL: "External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page." Also:"Links to normally avoid...A website that you own or maintain..." I'm not suggesting that this is your website; I contend that geocities/angelfire/forums/etc are unencyclopedic and unreliable links to include. -- Krash (Talk) 05:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the link, but I do not consider Geocities/Angelfire websites to be unencyclopedic. Forum links can be unencyclopedic, but there are exceptions to this rule, such as if the info is from an official forum, and directly from the mouth of an official person (such as the director of a film). (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

A reasoning behind that is due to the fact that a lot of individuals who create those pages tend to use hearsay and conjecture and attempt to pass it off as factual content. It is often hard to gauge whether or not the information on such sites is based in solid fact or mixed with rumours and other such things. 63.233.87.189 07:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

Quite simply, I didn't know Category:People who worked with David Lynch existed. Powers 12:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

userboxes

I noticed you created some cool userboxes...how do you do that?Osbus 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I copied the code from some other userboxes, added in my own text, changed the colors around, and sometimes, added pictures that I felt were appropriate. In the case of the anti-colorization userbox, I took a free-licensed image of a rainbow, removed the color, and re-uploaded the image under a separate name using the same license. (Ibaranoff24 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Image:36th Chamber of Shaolin VHS cover.gif

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:36th Chamber of Shaolin VHS cover.gif for speedy deletion with the reason "The cover for a completely different movie than which the uploader previously uploaded it as". However, "The cover for a completely different movie than which the uploader previously uploaded it as" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! In this case, you can alternatively use WP:IFD. Stifle 20:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism

Stop accusing other people of vandalism when it's really a content dispute.--Prosfilaes 00:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken this conversation to my talk page; however, I have reported your 3RR violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.--Prosfilaes 00:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

Regarding article Wizards (film) :

• Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think many who would take our side against the menace of censorship do not know about this poll. If you have some time to spare, would you mind posting a short message on their talk page (like mine) to let them know of this poll and invite them to voice their opinions? By involving more people, a larger portion of the Wikipedia community can have their say, for or against the policy. Some places you can go for a list of users are Wikipedia_talk:Censorship#Support, Category:Wikipedians_against_censorship and Category:Wikipedians_opposed_to_censorship_of_the_human_body as well as any friends you might have. Please check that I've not already posted a message with the heading Wikipedia_talk:Censorship in their talk page to avoid double-postings. If you don't have the time, feel free to ignore this request. Thank you.Loom91 09:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Robert Crumb.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Robert Crumb.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

User:P-Chan 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Please join us in discussing a topic concerning a Rotten Tomatoes % in the Wikifilm infobox. Your opinions would be appreciated.

Template_talk:Infobox_Film#Rottentomato_meter_rating--P-Chan 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to join CAUBXD?

Hello, Sugar Bear/Archive01, do you want to join CAUBXD?

CAUBXD is a "campaign" against the deletion of userboxes. It is not an official policy, and will probably never be. What it is, though, is a campaign to oppose the mass deletion of userboxes and unfarities resulting from userbox deletion votes (see here and here; these two are examples of everyone saying Keep and admins deciding Subst.

Please consider.

Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 16:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Emergency!

Cyde is attempting to get into CAUBXD! Go to the CAUBXD page and click on the last "e" in User:Fredil Yupigo/Signature! Hurry! Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 18:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Horror/Collaboration of the month

Hi! I noticed your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror membership list and am writing to all members who have not voted for the Collaboration of the month. Today is the designated selection day to choose the collaboration, but we currently have a tie between the two articles receiving the most votes, John Carpenter and Dario Argento. I am hoping to remedy this by drumming up a few more votes. Note that by voting for any nominated article (not limited to these two) you are indicating your "commitment to support and aid in collaborating on that specific article if it is chosen," so please feel absolutely free to ignore this message if for any reason you don't wish or would not be able to participate.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

HCOTM

We have a winner!

You showed support for the horror collaboration of the month. This month John Carpenter was selected to be improved to good article or featured article status. We hope you can contribute.

--Fuhghettaboutit 12:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cult films

Shalom, Isaac. Help save the cult films page! It's become madness. Jonathan F 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Three Sources?

Three sources confirming the point of the game is to kill anyone who does not convert to Christianity? List them. And prove they know what they are talking about. The secular reviews by people who have played the game completely contradict the nonsence espoused by Talk2Action. Check them out here:

Some quotes from gamers who have played the game:

• Players aren't competing to kill the enemy army -- rather, they're trying to save them, and each person killed represents a failure rather than a success. "We found that adhering closely to Biblical philosophies made the game more interesting rather than less," Lyndon said. "One of the key elements of that is to make sure that the player sees that every life is important and precious."

• As you'd expect, you'll be encouraged to do good while playing the game, but you may also do evil, as well. Like many real-time strategy games, Eternal Forces features a variety of resources that you need to accumulate to build units. One of these resources is your spiritual rating, which measures how good or evil you are. If your troops kill civilians and innocents, your spiritual rating drops, and if it drops too much, you may see your units defect (each unit has his or her own spiritual rating), and if drops too far, demons will show up.

• Killing civilians will definitely make you a friend of the devil.

• The forces of evil mirror the forces of good, with the notable difference that the abilities of evil will decrease spirit, while those of good raise spirit (except for killing, which lowers spirit, no matter what).

Clearly the descriptions about killing are erroneous and should be dropped from this entry. Don't you even care about the truth? Such balatant disregard for it is rather shocking. Layman 15:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do YOU care about the truth?

The Los Angeles Times and the Sioux City Journal both report killing. If you have a source more legitimate than my three sources, I'd like to see it. (Ibaranoff24 15:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Yes, you are fighting the armies of the anti-Christ. But to leap from that to say you kill Jews, gays, etc. because they do not convert is a lie. You are lying. My entry does not deny there is killing, but that you are on a mission to convert or kill those who do not convert to Christianity. That is the outrageous lie you are repeating without real support. Layman 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• "My entry does not deny there is killing"

Yes, it does. (Ibaranoff24 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Where? I note in the first paragraph that there is armed conflict between the armies of the anti-Christ and the Tribulation Force. What I clarify is that you do not kill people because they fail to convert. Yes, you may kill anti-Christ soldiers who are trying to kill you. But you do not kill noncombatants who decline to convert to Christianity. You keep repeating that lie with no support. Layman 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To make it clear for you, this is the outrageous lie you are repeating: "Players are issued high-tech military weaponry, and set on a mission to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state."

Show me where you find support for that in the LA Times? You can't. You are getting that from an anti-Christian site that is spewing propganda. You are buying it hook, line, and sinker. Be a little critical. Read the reviews I link to that are reviews by gamers who have actually played an early version of the game. Layman 16:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Idiot...please do not talk to me, alright? Go spread your bullshit someplace else, okay? You are taking up too much space on my Talk page. (Ibaranoff24 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Thanks

I'm a huge film guy and I like wikipedia so I decided to put the two together. While my grammar's not the best others fix it for me; so I feel like i'm the big idea sorta person. My favorites are 70s dystopic future flicks like soylent green, marathon man, logan's run, etc. and I also weird ass indie stuff like twenty bucks, chumscrubber. Check out my myspace (Garrett8888) I put a bunch more movies on there. Andman8 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Night of the Living Dead

Just for future reference, any promotion above the B-level in the Wikifilm Project, must be done through the Official GA or FA process!--P-Chan 17:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Althought I think your assessment of an A is pretty close.--P-Chan 08:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

New Film Template

Could you leave your two cents about the new proposed film template here Andman8 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Make New User Boxes?... a request

I was on your User Page today, after I looked back at the history of a particular article page and saw your link. I notice that you say you have created User Boxes — something I have no personal experience of or expertise/knowledge for attempting. I thought I'd ask if you might try making a couple new boxes?

I'd like to see User Boxes for: "users who like to Cross-Country Ski" and "users who have Driven a Dogsled". As you may surmise, these are pastimes that some of us in the North enjoy.

Thanks for considering my request. ---Joel Russ

I didn't properly sign trhe above off. But I'll properly sign this off. --Joel Russ 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Simmons

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a disambiguation page for Jeff Simmons and moved the prior article to another location. Per WP:DAB, will you be doing the link clean up associated with the resulting move? Thanks --Brian G 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, again. The favour of a reply would be appreciated. It looks like someone else has done much of the original clean-up but there are a few left to be done. I've also noticed that you have created or moved at least 2 additional disambiguations for other articles and have not done the clean-up. Per WP:DAB, "A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links." --Brian G 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Carnivorous plant

Hi! Just in case you're not watching the page, I wanted to let you know I replied to you at Talk:Carnivorous plant 1#Popular culture concerning the popular culture section. I wanted to get your opinion on what I noted there. Thanks! Best, Rkitko 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for your attention to that article and talk page. I replied again, if you wish to look it over. Grazie. Best, Rkitko 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

I had no idea that book was a peice of shit. all apologies, what references would you reccommend? Another question, how the fuck did I delete the whole second part of the page? I don't know how the hell I managed to do that, but then again, i'm relatively new.The Guilty Undertaker

• The only reference I truly recommend is Zappa's own book, The Real Frank Zappa Book. (Ibaranoff24 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

New userboxes

I have deleted a userbox template you recently created, as userboxes should no longer be created in templatespace per the terms of the German userbox solution. Here is the userbox code so that you can recreate the userbox in your userspace ("userfying") if you wish.

<div style="float:{{{float|left}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|gray}}}; margin:1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background|beige}}};"
| style="width:45px; height:45px; background:{{{logo-background|black}}}; text-align:center; font-size:{{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}}pt; color:{{{logo-color|{{{id-fc|black}}}}}};" | '''{{{logo|[[Image:Caligari.JPG|63px]]}}}'''
| style="font-size:{{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color|{{{info-fc|black}}}}}};" | {{{info|This user '''[[The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920 film)|is Caligari!]]'''}}}
|}</div>

--Cyde Weys 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Filmmaking changes

New discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Filmmaking#Future project development and Ideas for your consideration regarding expansion of the project. As a member, your comments are welcome and wanted! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 22:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alfred Hitchcock.JPG

Hello, I noticed that you uploaded this picture and had a couple of questions. You originally said that it was "taken from a public domain print", can you elaborate further on this and find an applicable new template for it that states clearly how it is PD? Right now the template is changed from {{PD}} to {{screenshot}}, which is fair use and limits it's use in articles. It is used in a stub template {{UK-film-director-stub}}, which seems to me to be outside of the terms of fair use. Thanks, DVD+ R/W 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bakshi LOTR images

Would you mind replacing Image:BakshiGandalfWhite.jpg with one from the DVD version? I took the screenshot from a VCD. Thanks! Uthanc 05:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Elrond doesn't have a Bakshi image at the moment. Thanks! Uthanc 06:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[2]Vandalism?

Chances are, when someone signs their post, puts it in the image's talk page (so it's not apparent), and doesn't negatively effect Wikipedia, it's not really vandalism is it? Just a bit of good humor. I won't revert, but I just wanted to say that I'm not a vandal, but an ordinary user --Planetary 01:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Little Shop of Horrors

Thanks for that detail - didn't know that. The issue is that the word "the" doesn't really make much difference to most people, it's still a bit confusing.

The problem is that most people won't be aware of the difference between two films, one of which is titled "Little Shop of Horrors" and the other titled "The Little Shop of Horrors". So it's worth putting the year in as well, to prevent confusion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth thinking of people who don't know about all 3 versions. Someone just looking up the 1960 or 1986 version will not know that the word "the" was present or not in one or other title, and articles which link to one or the other will run the risk of ambiguity. You shouldn't rely upon the word "the" to distuinguish them. In that circumstance its probably good practice to put the year in the title, because it ensures that there is explicit clarity . FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

look

The picture is mine http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Bakshi http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Trabajonacho

User:83.49.225.1 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Midnight Movie images

Terrific! It's great to see the actual posters from the era. Best, Dan—DCGeist 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No-Importance

That class is only for cats, templates, and other projects. All articles have some importance. The lowest for articles is "low". Thanks, :) Cbrown1023 21:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...[3]... (I saw it and looked no further) Cbrown1023 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I don't care.... I think of you no differently as an editor. It was just a little note. Cbrown1023 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)