| Revision as of 00:26, 1 October 2006 editCbrown1023 (talk | contribs)Administrators28,405 edits →[] GA Nomination← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:59, 1 October 2006 edit undoFresheneesz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,061 edits arbitrationNext edit → | ||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
| :Thanks, you are completely right about the glaring ommission of a Reception section. I knew this, and had listed it on the talk page under ToDo. Working on it now. By the way, if you dont mind, do you have any other suggestions? Is this getting anywhere near FA? I've never really been through the process. Thanks again, —] 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | :Thanks, you are completely right about the glaring ommission of a Reception section. I knew this, and had listed it on the talk page under ToDo. Working on it now. By the way, if you dont mind, do you have any other suggestions? Is this getting anywhere near FA? I've never really been through the process. Thanks again, —] 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::As for nearing FA-quality, I would probably have to say no. For a show of what types of information FA-class articles about films should have, you should look at the articles in ]. One other thing you could '''''possibly''''' do to expand the article: Add some more images (this may not be a necessity and may be hard to do). The only other thing to do would be to look at FA film articles (as stated above) to get ideas for other sections that you may want to include (becuase FA articles are not just the bare bones, they are in-depth and include many different topics related to the film). If you have any further questions, you can contact me on ]. ] 00:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | ::As for nearing FA-quality, I would probably have to say no. For a show of what types of information FA-class articles about films should have, you should look at the articles in ]. One other thing you could '''''possibly''''' do to expand the article: Add some more images (this may not be a necessity and may be hard to do). The only other thing to do would be to look at FA film articles (as stated above) to get ideas for other sections that you may want to include (becuase FA articles are not just the bare bones, they are in-depth and include many different topics related to the film). If you have any further questions, you can contact me on ]. ] 00:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == arbitration == | |||
| Hi, since you were involved with this case at the ], I would very much appreciate your input at my case at ]. Thanks! ] 04:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:59, 1 October 2006
D.O.R.At first I was really confused, because I didn't know what you were talking about. I really messed up, I was looking at different tabs on firefox and I was editing another biography. I must have mixed up the talk pages. Thanks for fixing it up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timkmak (talk • contribs) .
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC) From the SNOW talk pageNate hi. I just realized that I didn't reply to the most important part of your post at Misplaced Pages talk:Snowball clause#Is this a guideline already?, so I'd like to do that now. In cases of WP:PROD and, as far as I'm concerned, WP:SNOW, it is not ok for any admin to just ignore objections because they decide the objector is a troll. Such actions, even if they're correct on some level, cause more trouble than they're worth in the form of ill-will. If one finds another's comments unproductive, there are much better ways to say it than "you're becoming quite tiresome in your trollishness". There are ways to say one doesn't think someone is being constructive without poisoning the well. In fact, there's been quite a lot of backlash against that particular admin, largely because of such unhelpful comments as the one you linked to, and he's stopped using his admin tools as a result of that backlash. Most of us do not consider it cool or helpful to be dismissive or contemptuous to contributors who voice concerns (see point #7 here), and we're working to reinforce a culture where that kind of nonsense doesn't happen. I think Misplaced Pages in changing, in a direction of greater respect and civility. I'm sorry you were called a troll; viewing your contributions, I don't think you are one. -GTBacchus 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Something you should knowYour girlfriend misses you and loves you very much. Please forgive her for anything that might have upset you. You are great guy and she is very lucky to have you. Love you 24.181.193.95 04:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) {{endspoiler}}The {{endspoiler}} template is only for use to end spoiled text midsection, not at the end of the section. If one whole section is a spoiler, then you don't need an endspoiler to end it, i.e. ==Plot==
{{spoiler}}
The plot would go here...
would need no endspoiler because it is understanded that at the end of a section, there are no more spoilers, but if a spoiler tag covers more than one section, you can have separe tags (which is preferred by many users) or... ==Themes==
The opening/un-spoiling themes are discussed here...
{{spoiler}}
spoiling-themes
{{endspoiler}}
more un-spoiling themes.
Do you get it? I'm not sure how to really explain, but if there is only one section that is spoiled, no end tag is needed, but if there is less than a section, yes. Cbrown1023 21:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Three Kings (film) GA NominationJust a heads-up. I put the nomination on hold and left some notes on its talk page of things to add to it. Cbrown1023 00:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
arbitrationHi, since you were involved with this case at the Administrators'_noticeboard, I would very much appreciate your input at my case at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline. Thanks! Fresheneesz 04:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
