User talk:Angmering/Archive5

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Quatexp04.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quatexp04.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please be careful not to flag your edits are minor if they do not fit the guidelines set out in Help:Minor Edits. For example - this change is clearly not minor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Nation&diff=next&oldid=105613080 . -- Beardo 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - the link is Help:Minor edit - but every time you flag an edit there's a link there by the box. (It says "what's this"). -- Beardo 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. E. J. Collins

Gosh, thanks for your additions! -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congrats on The Quatermass Experiment passing FAR! Good work, Paul! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermass II

I'm gonna be busy for the next couple of days, but I'll happily give this a quick look when I'm back. The one thing I saw within a 30-second glimpse was that your "retrieved on" dates in the references section are ugly-ass American abbreviated forms. My personal preference is a good ol' February 9, 2007 - no room for ambiguity or confusion, which the others might provide. Might just be because I'm a stubborn fart... I know it'd take hours, but hell, you asked. I'll get my teeth into it soon enough though. Seegoon 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hell you're right. I never knew. Now I feel a fool. In that case, put your feet up until Sunday when I'll try to find some flaws in what looks a very good article. Seegoon 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a once-over, have a look at the peer review page. Seegoon 22:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded; great job. Good luck with where-ever you plan on taking this article. Seegoon 16:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the updates on your front page... well you said to say "hello".. :) LuciferMorgan 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: inserts. My bad! Thanks for the fix. Proteus71 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Since I was instructed... "Hello!" I often check out the user pages of people I come across a lot on the history pages I glance over, to get know who else is out there. Enjoyed your blog.. I like following up links and seeing what others are interested in. All the best. Gwinva 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Quat203.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quat203.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Quat205.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quat205.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJTalk 04:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm too angry to do this nicely...

Could you please CFD Category:Lists of shows by Joss Whedon and Category:Lists of shows by Tim Minear? There are no parent categories named for either of those people and it makes no sense to parent the categories as they concern people and not just their shows. Also, the pages being linked are not lists, but categories, categories for shows.

I'm not sure how to phrase my reasoning and there's no way I can deal with my connection problems and with any input from the creator. I just don't think I can be civil and there's also the issue of whether or not to rename them or delete them.--Rmky87 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Just popped in to say hello, as you asked on your user page for people to do so if they read the page lol. I like your blogging-style userpage, it's interesting. :) Best regards 86.134.253.22 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) that was me, btw, somehow my pc had logged me off! High Heels on Wet Pavement 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Synchronised bothering

I was just doing a mate a favour - he doesn't know much about how to gain an FA, but edits articles a lot, and his first nomination didn't go that well. I'm hoping he'll learn how to get an FA etc., so am trying to help out. I wish I could comment as regards Nigel Kneale, though it seems ok to me - beyond citations, my skills are little. Yannismarou and Sandy (as your experience will have shown) are also editors that are rather good in reviewing articles, so you could always politely enquire if they aren't busy, and whether they could have a browse at your article. The more the merrier that comment in my opinion. Jeffpw I found helpful also.

I reckon all your Quatermass related articles could go for FAC - while you go for FAC on one, you could always nominate the other for GA at the same time. I've been tempted to nominate them already, but of course it holds you up in the event of you wanting to get it straight to FA. LuciferMorgan 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermass II, as I've said many times, is definitely ready for FA nomination - when you want to nominate it, just ask those I've named to review the article to properly prepare it. I think you could get the other Quatermass related articles up to GA/FA rather easily - the one I think you might find difficulty on is the character of Quatermass, especially if you've never written an FA on a fictional character. Dmoon1's FAs on Star Wars characters are rather good templates to use in rewriting a character article. If you end up getting really into getting these Quatermass related articles to GA/FA, you could always try to get them to featured topic standard - now that's a challenge. There's currently only 9 featured topics, but I think you could do it if you were interested. LuciferMorgan 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However it goes, you still got two FACs in your midst in the shape of Quatermass II and Nigel Kneale. Good luck with them and the others. LuciferMorgan 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Angmering, I'd really like to help, but I'm getting on a plane tomorrow, still packing, and don't know how much internet access I'll have over the next few weeks. Sorry :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No :-) I wish! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking along a printout to read on the plane, but just don't know if I'll get internet access to respond to you after I read it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the name of the peer review so that it can gain the help of the Biography Wikiproject, who are a lot more active in reviewing articles. The old link will redirect there, so hope you don't mind. LuciferMorgan 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should help to gain more feedback since it's now listed at both the regular PR and here. I hope you get feedback because some poor souls use PR and nobody replies :(. Hopefully some of the bio reviewer regulars will pitch in to review :). LuciferMorgan 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cos I pinged him soon after, I'm unsure if Seegoon has noticed your request. Perhaps you should remove the request on his talk page from that section, and place it in a new section of its own on the bottom. LuciferMorgan 03:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Kneale

I'd be happy to take a look at it. I'm going out to the theatre tonight, but I'll examine Nigel Kneale either after I get back or tomorrow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. I've given the article a once-over. It looks very good to me — I made a few minor edits, but nothing of substance. (There was some over-linking early in the article — as a rule, I don't think that we need to link common terms like "newspaper" — but that's not a big deal.)
One sentence that could be improved is the reference to the uneven quality of the six parts of Beasts. Since I don't have the original source, I can't clarify it, but it would probably be better to cite a particular critic's opinion than to use the weasel phrase "regarded by some critics". Similary, it would be better to name names for Kneale's double standard about alterations for adaptations rather than saying "it has been observed".
But overall the article looks great — certainly good enough for GA, or you could jump straight to FAC. If it does go on FAC, I'll try to help out with any suggestions the folks there make. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't chose a better word than "snowed"! I'll definitely review the article, but give me some days. I hope that until Friday I'll be able to go through it.--Yannismarou 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the article for GA, which should be passed by the time PR runs its course - I hope you didn't mind (withdraw the nomination the moment you nominate the article for FAC if it hasn't passed by then). I thought at the moment you're more concerned in expanding / improving Rudolph Cartier, more specifically the "BBC television" section which needs citations, so thought it could quietly pass GA while you're doing up that one. I know you already have a Gatiss related piece in the article, but is this any good, or have you already used it? LuciferMorgan 05:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite there not being many sources, I still think Cartier could make GA if you wanted it to - length is never an issue with GA. The end of the "BBC television" section could be broken off and made into a "Legacy" or "Influence" section like you did with Kneale then. LuciferMorgan 08:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you was planning it that way - you're rather good at brushing up articles and making them into future FA possibilities. LuciferMorgan 08:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it looks real good - I rated it B. I don't like giving higher ratings than that - the other I could've given is A, but I think it'd be best if it passed GA first. I nominated Cartier for GA (hope you didn't mind) also, but didn't know where to put him - I put him under "Television" after (you could put Kneale there too if you wanted, but make sure you queue it where it would've been at the time I nominated it). You should make a GA trophy cabinet on your userpage somewhere I reckon - once you got all those GAs you can choose then which can make FA (Q2 and Kneale could sometime). LuciferMorgan 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm at the FAC everyone seems off put by the size which is unfortunate, since it's a decent article. That's one thing I like about QII; nobody would be able to gripe about the size. I hope the FAC picks up for you :) LuciferMorgan 11:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long in responding; I'm back from two weeks of travel, had every intention to read the article on my trip (took a printout), but really had a really really bad trip, and just didn't get to it. And, I have two more weeks of travel coming up, so I can't promise I will get to it, but I do intend to try. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Crouch

Apolgies for not getting back to you sooner. I see that following further vandalism, the page has now been protected. Thanks. Daemonic Kangaroo 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

I actually gave that article a once-over a while back and honestly couldn't find anything about it I didn't like! Pretty crap advice, but a very nice ego-stroke, I'm sure. Seegoon 15:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the same as Seegoon when looking at it, and felt bad I had nothing constructive to say! LuciferMorgan 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for warning me of the dangers of cut and paste - a lesson learnt I hope, though likely not. :) Definitely go for FAC with Nigel Kneale sometime, and once that successful FAC is over finally get around to getting Quatermass II ready for nomination. They're Doctor Morgan's orders lol - it doesn't really even need much work, it's just sitting there waiting for someone to nominate it. So once the first FAC is over, try another FAC soon after. LuciferMorgan 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond to your request. I haven't much time, but I will try to look over the article next week in more detail. My initial reaction from skimming the article is that it looks pretty good. Dmoon1 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Illusion

Since you have knowledge of FA/FAC and I notice you've recently edited the article, are there any problems you can notice in the article? I wish to nominate it at FAC soon, but would rather iron out any minor / major problems before nomination. Thanks for any feedback you may be able to give. LuciferMorgan 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments regarding the article, which are hugely appreciated. It's my first proper attempt at improving an article, so I feel a bit of an attachment to it. Would you deem it appropriately wikilinked after your edits? Just wondering. LuciferMorgan 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence, Fallen

Check this. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to respond to the above Wikipedian, do so at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#.5B.5BFallen_.28album.29.5D.5D. If the above Wikipedian wishes for a debate as concerns GA, then I thought it best to make it formal. Up to you whether you get involved mate. LuciferMorgan 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

There is draft being worked on at User:JoshuaZ/Conservapedia, feel free to edit it. JoshuaZ 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congratulations on the promotion of Nigel Kneale to FA status. Have a cookie. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely congratulations. Now tell me when you're going to nominate Quatermass II? I mean, really? Nominate it! It'll pass FAC easily, smoother than Kneale I reckon. LuciferMorgan 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tips for proper english

Hi!, just wondering if you have the time to explain me the differences between controversial and debatable in an encyclopedical point of view. thank you! --Jor70 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the Time Lords

Hiya, thanks for retagging the Toclafane/Time Lord stuff on the LotTL article. I'd tagged it first, then a newbie removed the tags. I started a discussion about edits like that here; perhaps you could give your views? Once again, thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul on the radio!

Hey, Paul — I just heard you talking to Julie Gardner on BBC Radio Wales, thanks to the magic of the Internet! You forgot to tell her that you're one of the authors of her Wikipedia page! :)

Congrats — and enjoy Smith and Jones (a few hours before I will, thanks to the aforementioned magic...)! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFA/R revamping

I have proposed revising the WP:TFA/R process. After the recent rejection of my proposal, I researched Old FAs. You were the nominator of an article that was promoted to WP:FA before 2005, and you continue to be an active wikipedian. Your article has not yet been featured on the main page as a WP:TFA. I am wondering if you have ever made an active effort to get it featured and if you are aware of the new TFA/R procedure, which requires an active request. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stone Tape

Hi Paul. I was wondering if, as Wikipedia's resident Nigel Kneale expert, you might be able to find the time to give The Stone Tape article the onceover? I've beefed it up and expanded it and I think it might stand a chance of making GA but I'd appreciate if someone knowledgeable could throw their eye over it before I put it up for nomination. Thanks. - Joe King 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, thanks very much for taking a look at the The Stone Tape and thanks very much for your kind words, much appreciated. I'm going to nominate it for GA this evening, so fingers crossed! Joe King 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Does Dave Martin (screenwriter) fall under the Doctor Who Project? He wrote a few scripts for the show and died recently. You doing much on Wikipedia at present. Anyway, I hope all is well. LuciferMorgan 16:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed that out since you seem to like working up screenwriter's articles. Good luck with the FAR - make sure all magazine and book citations have specific page numbers by the way. Shame the original nominator hasn't stuck around to give feedback..
I'll take this opportunity to once again beg you to nominate Quatermass II at FAC - it's FA material! I'll do you a deal.. if you nominate it finally and it reaches FA I'll give you a barnstar. How about that? I hope that's a nice incentive. Lol. LuciferMorgan 19:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Palace

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I have no intention of becoming a regular provider of photo images to Wikipedia, so it would be much appreciated if you could load the picture for me on the Kew Palace article, to illustrate the section on Kew Palace Restoration.

This is how I described the matter to Josiah:

Kew Palace (a former royal residence at the Kew Botanic Gardens in South West London) was fully restored and re-opened last year, when I added some factual details to the Restoration of Kew Palace paragraphs.

Later I took an archival-quality photograph of the main front of the Palace as it now appears.

The photograph would be of value for architectural history users because it reveals that the Thomas Dugdale etching (in the previous section of the article) got things subtly wrong about the Dutch gable adornments, the pediments and fenestration details.

I would be delighted to make the picture available free of copyright to anyone who would like to make use of it but have no idea how to input it to Wikipedia and, more particularly, how to set it up as an illustration for the Restoration paras.

Please let me know how I should send you the photograph.

Best wishes, John Thaxter 09:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul

Thanks for your words of wisdom on my Talk page. I am actually more interested in illustrating the article than just generally downloading the photograph, but I am more than happy to make the photograph freely available to whomsoever would like to use it!

You offered your email address, but I did not find it in your message. (Mine is). But if you let me have the address the simplest thing for me would be to send the pic to you and let you act with my 'power of attorney' as far as copyright and the rest of it goes, Although I have worked as a professional photographer, this particular image is of particular value to upcoming architectural students and all lovers of Kew Palace.

I assume from your nom-de-plume that you are UK based and so you probably already know the delights of Kew Gardens and the place of Kew Palace in the affections of those who spend happy afternoons there (we have season tickets)!

Thanks for your offer of help, Really, much appreciated. Best wishes, John Thaxter 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing episodes citations

Hi, Paul. What you're doing on Doctor Who missing episodes is more than fine — it's looking as if I may not have time to find the citations I was thinking of at all, certainly not within the regular FAR period. (It doesn't help that I got far too excited about "Gridlock", and it sent me back to the OG Forum for the first time in months — which got me involved in forum conversations that are taking up valuable Wikipedia time!) I'll leave it in your capable hands. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for helping the fellow who asked about image uploads, too! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You

You are a big Arse on legs.

Reverts on Quatermass experiment

I saw your comment on LuciferMorgan's talk page. You did violate the 3rr on Quatermass Experiment, but frankly, you were completely right and the anon is completely wrong. So I'm just going to tell you to be more careful in the future, and let that be the end of it. Raul654 18:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the person to ANI before Raul took care of the situation. My apologies if I've caused you unnecessary hassle - I replied to you on my talk page. LuciferMorgan 18:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anon was a sockpuppet and has been blocked, alongside another account. All the info can be checked at the bottom of WP:ANI. On another note, in the thread before this is that a vandal that has called you "a big arse on legs"? You should've reported that user Jembay - his talk page suggests he holds racist tendencies and uses them in his vandalism. LuciferMorgan 19:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user giving you trouble with several anons is editing from Manchester and using Tiscali. LuciferMorgan 14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Rauk to intervene should he keep being disruptive. Given any more thought to my offer of a barnstar or something if you FAC Quatermass II? Needs no work really. In fact I was tempted to FAC it myself, but thought you should have the honour. LuciferMorgan 14:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you like being told you've written an FA in waiting :) It could be FT in awhile I think if you keep notching up the GAs / FAs. LuciferMorgan 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they'd want the whole thing, but minus the actors. You're doing hell of a job with them. I think your 3 GAs are all FAs in waiting to be fair - nominate them one by one. I just feel saddened that the first FA I ever got delisted was one of yours (1984, the one with the late great Peter Cushing). LuciferMorgan 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's warming to hear you're considering bringing it to scratch someday - it has two revered actors in the Horror genre in the form of the aforementioned Cushing and Donald Pleasance (the Halloween series lost something when he passed away). LuciferMorgan 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen the 1956 version - you seem to know your TV though. You should find a critic job or something. LuciferMorgan 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't know good writing when he sees it that editor. I can't notch up the amount of FAs you've had - Jihad (song) is an article I wish to FAC but I'm unsure if it's FA at the moment. LuciferMorgan 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll FAC the song later on, and thanks for taking a look. LuciferMorgan 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Tate

I noticed your real great expansion of Reginald Tate, so I went and nominated it for GA. I think it's GA personally as it's broad in coverage and addresses the major aspects of the topic, but you never know how a reviewer may feel about it. Let's hope someone reviews it as quick as Cartier (future FA, *hint hint*), and that this'll be another GA for your expanding collection. I hope you didn't mind me nominating it :) - I can withdraw it if you wish. All the best. LuciferMorgan 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at Andre Morell tomorrow night - sorry for the delay. LuciferMorgan 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Variety review of Ben Hur (originally published November 1959) says; "Other good portrayals are given by Sam Jaffe, as Simonides; Frank Thring, as Pontius Pilate, Finlay Currie, as the Egyptian who followed the star to Bethlehem, and Andre Morell, as Sextus." Not sure if it's worth adding. LuciferMorgan 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on Tate being GA - that's probably the most ballsy GA nomination I've made, especially considering how short it is. I still felt it was GA though considering the topic's obscurity and lack of information available, but then again not everyone understands this criterion (eg. some would think an obscure topic should have as much info as a popular topic). I'll take a look at Morell etc. sometime and consider whether they're worth nominating, but I'll leave it till after my FAC has passed. So, congratulations! LuciferMorgan 17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Robinson

From an NY Times review (need to register to view it) of 1958's "The Doctor's Dilemma"; "Mr. Robinson is somewhat more serious as the lung specialist who has to decide which of two men he will cure, a poor doctor or a brash young artist whose wife he loves." LuciferMorgan 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Sorry my bad I got the wrong 1Arnon Chaffin 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really I'm sorry about that I try to get a Vandal called Vandalspree But I got you instead Lol I’ll try better promise :)Arnon Chaffin 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Medal

The Featured Article Medal
This is awarded to you for writing numerous television / film related articles of FA standard and more so for keeping them in good shape. Keep up the good work, and write / nominate some more!

Rudolph Cartier

When is this one going up for FA? Definitely FA material in my opinion - I was right about Q2, so could be about this one too... LuciferMorgan 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles have much more grating gaps - if it was such an interesting period it would've been documented. "Comprehensive" means you've covered all the posts you can, and this one passes with flying colours. If you never try you'll never know - so go try. LuciferMorgan 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Jihad (song)" was just promoted to FA status - I hope this gives you the confidence a Cartier nomination would be successful. The song collected all the available information on the subject to satisfy comprehensiveness, though no information is available about certain aspects of the song. I feel the song was a more extreme case than Cartier, so I reckon you should nominate it for FA. Give my opinion some thought? Thanks, and I hope I haven't begun to annoy you... LuciferMorgan 22:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Shubik

Hi Paul, thanks for your kind words about the Irene Shubik article. To be honest, I think it still needs a lot of work, especially with regard to the citations, but since someone had created an article, I felt it best to put up my very early draft even if it only fills in her career in very broad strokes. If anything, now that the article is “live”, it will probably give me the incentive I needed to get on with getting it properly up to scratch. Congrats on getting Quatermass II up to FA by the way. I've got a few bits and pieces relating to Quatermass (1979) lying around here and I might hammer something together on it as it's now looking like the poor relation to the other three serials (hope you don't think I'm intruding on your turf!). All the best - Joe King 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afterlife

With regard to this, the original air dates given in the infobox refer to the airing of the first series in Australia, so the original network reflects that. I don't see the need to differentiate between the airdats and network for airing in Australia and in the UK. I feel that should be covered in the article, rather than in the infobox.--NeilEvans 22:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMm, I don't know, maybe we could add separate airedates for UK and AUS and add ITV to the original network too. That would probably be ok. Do you agree?--NeilEvans 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey sorry about that, I've added the UK airdates and ITV to the infobox.--NeilEvans 23:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Cheers for the barnstar, I don't think it's deserved; that article still needs a lot of attention to bring it up to scratch with the other Quatermass articles. I was rather surprised how much I got done yesterday; put it down to dreary bank holiday weather. But I'll keep plugging away on it. Still, since the barnstar is also for "generally excellent work on articles relating to British television", I'll take in honor of the weekend I spent last year reading and listening to Chris Boucher droning on and on and on about how Evgeny Gridneff ruined Star Cops on him. That's got to be worth a medal in anyone's book! Take care - Joe King 18:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dangerous territory

On a quick glance it looks fine to me, and is at least GA - if you aren't going for FA with it, I'll nominate it for you. If I find anything amiss I'll get in touch. The person I deem to be Wikipedia's best on character articles is Dmoon1 - his Star Wars character FAs may throw up some new ideas, and maybe he can even give you some feedback if he has the time. Wish I could be more helpful, but my expertise is rather poor in all fairness. LuciferMorgan 23:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. By the way, is there any information on how Kneale developed the character in the beginning and over the years, and the themes he felt the character represents? LuciferMorgan 23:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's much richer with your newly created "Themes" section - what you going for with this one then? GA or FA? I think it could pass FA sometime, but it depends really if you have the time to guide it through the FAC process - maybe you could try after Cartier. You're well on the way to an FT. LuciferMorgan 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the character article has better FA potential than Cartier, but both could be FAs. LuciferMorgan 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermass

I'll try and look over it soon if I can. I've been really busy with the end of the semester at hand, so I can't make any promises. After giving it a quick glance, it looks like you've done a good job, though. Dmoon1 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC English Regions

Ah, okay, sorry, I haven't been involved much with these articles and hadn't seen the BBC English Regions page. Its existence and referencing makes ********'* edits all the odder, really. Angmering 13:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only discovered it recently, but it seems to sum up things well - apart from certain demands for citations! Keep up the good work Zir 19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermass spoken word

Hi Paul. Sorry for the delay in replying, and congratulations on the article. I'll try to update the spoken version soon. Whouk (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Quatermass Memoirs

Hi Paul. No, don't worry about it. I was re-listening to the CD the other night and decided to take advantage of the opportunity to add the cover to the article. I was reading the liner notes and decided to dig out the Dreamwatch articles mentioned with a view to maybe doing something with it. Then I saw the neat job you'd done with the article today and just decided to flesh it out a bit more with a few quotes from the magazine articles. I hadn't gone beyond the vague notion of maybe writing something at the weekend. Nice work by the way. Joe King 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rudolph Cartier

I'd say it's worth a try, though you have more experience with FAs than I do. It does need some copyediting though, and I'll try and get that done ASAP. Meanwhile, can you take a look at Backmasking in return, and tell me if it's at or near FA quality and how to get there? Λυδαcιτγ 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Angmering, I wouldn't recommend you to nominate it to FAC if I thought you'd be wasting everyone's time lol. If I'd nagged you to nominate Reginald Tate for FAC on the other hand, I would then understand your fear... So go for FAC :) LuciferMorgan 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've nominated it. Cool! LuciferMorgan 14:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't bad to have a PR up at the same time - works fine for people like Hurricanehink. PR it, and then once Cartier passes then eventually FAC the character page. It has more potential than Cartier to be successful at FAC, so that's another FA I reckon (avoid GA with the character page and go for the main prize). LuciferMorgan 14:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of it is self-gratification, though I see no problem in that. It's a good incentive to improve the Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, I get the same guilt sometimes by not contributing to serious articles, but music related topics is my area so I tend to stick with what I know. Furthermore, I'd find it boring editing a topic I dislike. LuciferMorgan 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see the Cartier nomination is slow, though then again Kneale was the same. I'm not going to comment on the FAC anymore though, as I think I may be putting off voters (as I have at a different FAC!) :( LuciferMorgan 10:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd the way FAC works. If your biography concerned a musician or actor there'd be a few replies, but because it's a director (not as known as say Spielberg or Lucas by the common man) people get put off commenting. LuciferMorgan 11:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you end up becoming keen to get a few more people at the Cartier FAC, feel free to leave a message at the FAC talk page. That might get you the odd reviewer here and there. LuciferMorgan 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, the article now has 4 supports. I wouldn't worry about it not passing, as articles with 2-3 supports have passed before now. Raul's likely leaving the article there for another few days to see whether anyone will come up with objections or not (they won't). Good job. LuciferMorgan 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's now FA - good job! Bernard Quatermass next maybe? LuciferMorgan 19:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want me to nominate Bernard Quatermass for GA then while you have a cooling off period? I already updated your GA / FA stash - Cartier's the FA, not Tate (had to correct the GA bit and your userpage update :)) Good luck with your writing elsewhere by the way (I'm doing a bit of that myself). LuciferMorgan 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Why'd you blank your userpage? I went to have a look at it to see if you put up your latest update, and then the nice page was gone... :( LuciferMorgan 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a slight change in your userpage which can be found in the edit history. It's modified from something I stole from User:Hurricanehink who has a few FAs. If you wish to use it, cool, though if not, that's fine; just trying to help!
Cool. I reckon someone could likely enhance them and make them look even better. I'll import them to your own pages now, as opposed to my draft pages. LuciferMorgan 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. User:Angmering/Featured material and User:Angmering/Good material are the pages to update when you have new GAs / FAs, and that'll consequently update your userpage. LuciferMorgan 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a box around the two (FA box and GA box) to make it look a little better. The colour of the box etc. can be changed if you wish to do so. LuciferMorgan 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back - I thought I'd venture to your page and saw you'd got around to nominating Bernard Quatermass, so what a strange coincidence. Good luck with the FAC. LuciferMorgan 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rtd.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Damagedgoods.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Damagedgoods.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dwmissingeps.JPG

Hi, after this image was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems I changed the tag from public domain to a standard fair use tag. As a derivative work you can't release this in the public domain. If you don't want it deleted, please add a fair use rationale etc to the image before it will get automatically tagged sometime in the future. Garion96 (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Garion96 (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bbc1984.jpg

I have tagged Image:Bbc1984.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 03:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bbc19842.jpg

I have tagged Image:Bbc19842.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Bernard Quatermass is an FA - that's yet another accolade to add to your virtual trophy room. I'll let you add it yourself this time around :) LuciferMorgan 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other articles you're working up for FA? The Quatermass Xperiment and Quatermass (TV serial) look as though they're being groomed for FAC - good luck with that. I'm mostly busy these days to work an article to FA. LuciferMorgan 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a definite, successful FT bid, all the articles would have to be of GA quality or higher. So, if all the others were raised just to GA instead of FA this would still be ok - I just think an FA instead of a GA strengthens the FT's case further that's all. LuciferMorgan 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

Hi, Paul. I'm back dipping my toe in the wiki-world again — still rather displeased about various bits of wikipolitics, but I'm trying to ignore that. I've asked for a peer review on the graphic memoir Fun Home, but as you know peer reviews don't get much comment. I don't know if you know the book, but I trust your judgment on writing and Wikipedia standards. Could you have a look at the article and let me know what you think? How far would you say it is from being ready for FAC? Thanks a bunch. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oz

I've got Oz on the brain at the moment, because I'm currently playing the Scarecrow. (Well, in rehearsals anyway.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been even odder without knowing the Oz context. A bit like reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead if you've never read or seen Hamlet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Helen Mirren

Dear Paul: The Helen Mirren article is at present minus a main photograph, but there's a plaintive request for someone to make anther one available.

I think the one that John Reiss took at the Critics' Circle presentation to Helen Mirren in April would do quite well. You can see a version of it at [1] and I have a high resolution image on iPhoto. John Reiss who took the picture is happy to make it freely available but balks at the problem of uploading it on Wikipedia. Could you possibly help me again? We would be hugely grateful. Hope you are having a good summer. Best wishes, John Thaxter 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Mirren0407.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]