User talk:Girolamo Savonarola

This user may have left Wikipedia. Girolamo Savonarola has not edited Wikipedia since November 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

I will be replying on this page to all topics started here, for the sake of ease of reading.

This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Films by length

Category:Films by length, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: New York talk page

Re: "core" - sorry, it was an a simple oversight - I copied the templates from another article which had marked the core "yes" and did not notice it. I'll keep my eyes out for it in the future. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping

GS, I know you have some technical expertise in filmmaking. This is a sentence I'm citing for Fight Club: "When we processed it, we stretched the contrast to make it kind of ugly, a little bit of underexposure, a little bit resilvering, and using new high-contrast print socks and stepping all over it so it has a dirty patina." Do you know about "stepping all over it" means? I may need to clarify it in the article body, so a clearer definition is appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a technical term - just another way of saying that they really tried to degrade the image. Where's the quote from? Resilvering is technically wrong - those processes are always silver retention; you can't add it back once it's been bleached out, although they might mean that they "added" it back in during the intermediate or print stage after "losing" it during negative processing. I'm also curious as to what he means by stretching the contrast. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from Fincher, interviewed in Film Comment. Here's the article. He also describes resilvering, "Lover-scale enhancement. Rebonding silver that's been bleached away during the processing of the print and then rebonding it to the print... Makes it really dense. The blacks become incredibly rich and kind of dirty. We did it on Seven a little, just to make the prints nice. But it's really in this more for making it ugly." Any way to rewrite it in Fight Club for the average reader? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, a director talking over technical matters... Trust the AC article - there's no better (or precise) source than the DP. Cronenweth describes some flashing for night exteriors, which would "stretch the contrast" by milking the blacks slightly. As for "resilvering", AC confirms what I suspected - the negative was processed normally (ie, no silver in the neg after processing), and (some of) the prints were partially bleached (ENR process), thus retaining dense silver in the blacks. That would elide with the Seven comment, since Khondji did ENR on that, IIRC - although on the interpositive stage, I think. (Khondji's a big ENR fan.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Plugin++#Films plugin request

Could you please see that request I've just made and make any general comments as to how you like your banners to be handled. I.e. if Categories/Templates are Class=Cat/Template or N/A, and any other relevant information. –xeno^talk 03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So should I tag the categories themselves with the banner&task force tag? –xeno^talk 03:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No preference as regards the categories themselves, but all of the articles within them most definitely. Thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys prefer "{{Film}}" or "{{film}}" ? –xeno^talk 03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer Film, although it technically does not matter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Yeah, as I said don't worry, I'll remove the redirects. A lot of work is needed on those films anyway, so gives me something to work on....Take care. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bio's not in project scope

[1] Bah! You should've told me. =) There's a whole row of bios, shall I mass-rv? –xeno^talk 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've already just about finished. I knew that there would be a small amount of mistags due to some poor categorization (such as putting filmmakers into the Cinema of the United States category). Anyway, not a prob! Thanks, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any other exceptions? I can skip based on criteria like "contains WPBio" (and in fact, it makes it a metric shit-tonne easier because WPBio is supposed to go on top so I have to program for that). –xeno^talk 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can think of offhand. How is the bot going? How far along is it? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have about 3000 pages to go. There is one more possible mistagging, Category:Miramax films also includes possibly non-US films distributed by Miramax in the U.S. I would gather a category split would be worthwhile. All the articles are getting tagged nonetheless, I can mass de-tag if you want, otherwise, manual refining may be required. –xeno^talk 17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

Hi Girolamo, re [2], could you have another look? I don't think it's a stub any more. Cheers, JN 466 17:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A related question -- in a case like this (a documentary), is it appropriate to use a viewing of the film itself to give a detailed description of its contents, beyond the descriptions available in secondary sources? For example, I could do a linear description following more or less the timeline of the film, much as we do with movie plots, or I could restrict it more or less to those points that secondary sources have thought worthy of mention. Which is better? JN 466 17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and have upgraded it accordingly. Next time, please feel free to do so yourself - de-classing it, however, is not an appropriate action. As far as the Plot section goes (it's still a plot, even if it's real), no, you don't need secondary sources so long as your summary is purely objective and descriptive. The film itself is the source, and this is understood under both the site-wide sourcing rules and the MOSFILM. It's synthesis, interpretation, or subjective readings that you need to look out for and avoid; even reliably sourced ones don't usually belong in the Plot section anyway. Good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll provide a more rounded content summary once I have time to watch the film again, bearing in mind the guidance in MOSFILM (thanks). Should I rename the "Content" section "Plot"? If you happen to know a documentary FA or GA off the top of your head, that would be helpful. Cheers, --JN 466 20:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rename it, maybe to Synopsis. As for documentary FA's, we have The Power of Nightmares and Triumph of the Will, although the latter is in FAR and likely will be delisted. The only documentary GA I could quickly identify is The Last Waltz, which is a concert film. Good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. JN 466 00:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film lists

Really really Giro. Tut tut. You disappoint me. You didn't even let me know! For the record I think they should be strongly deleted and it would have been far easier to discuss it between us than going official for something within our project. It should have been discussed on the film talk page, not as MFD. Maybe you envisaged I'd create this great upset, not at all. I actually feel more disappointed that you felt you couldn't speak to me and say you were doing a spick and span. Maybe you feared me opening the elevator trap door and emptying you into the shark/piranha tank on the way out? So let me get this straight you tried to speedy them but an admin forced you to take them to MFD? Why or why or why didn't you just simply say Blofeld can I delete these. I'd have repsonded with a YES! in two seconds, I'd have DB-authored them and problem would have been solved. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue in cheek^ I hope? Anyhow Db-author might have been declined by a stickler admin because there were other authors. A conversation at WT:FILM might have been enough to get G6 to carry though. –xeno^talk 21:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug* Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is is light hearted. I find it kind of funny actually that you thought I'd bite at you and you tried to delete them discreetly without my knowledge! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe what you need to. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Just a quick request

Thaks for the advice! I will use {{Film|class=Stub}} instead. --Bensin (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

Hiya, re the Afghan Massacre documentary – I've noticed that we have screenshots from Hollywood movies on the English Wikipedia (not in Commons), with a fair-use rationale (examples: [3], [4]). Would it be appropriate to upload some screenshots from the programme to en:WP, with a fair-use rationale derived from these examples, and if so, how many would it be appropriate to show in the article on the film? Would appreciate your advice. Thanks, JN 466 12:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:FILMNFI - should explain the image policy as it relates to film images. If that doesn't help, let me know. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is of some help. Would I be far off the mark if I understood that to mean that I may add screen shots of scenes that secondary sources have specifically commented upon and described? For example, one source mentions the film showing John Walker Lindh being interrogated by Mike Spann, just hours before the latter was killed in the uprising. Would it be permissible to include a screen shot of that? And likewise, screenshots of witness statements mentioned in such sources (these scenes have subtitles in the film)? And is it a strict rule that images must not be placed in the Synopsis section, but the Reception section only? --JN 466 10:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it can't just be illustrative - it has to directly enhance critical commentary by showing something above and beyond what text is capable of doing. But I'm not a fair-use expert on images - you should consult the appropriate on-wiki forums. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll probably run it by user:Moonriddengirl; she always seems to know what she is talking about. Regards, JN 466 18:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Excuse me, but Nemesis (Resident Evil) failed the film project's A-class nomation why exactly? I don't see how one support and everyone else ignoring it automatically equates failure. I'm really trying to assume good faith here, but as you're the one that pushed for the review in the first place it comes across as ridiculous.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It failed to gain the required support margin of at least three editors, nor had it had any lack of time sufficient to garner such support. I'd encourage you not to take it personally - I just failed the entirety of what was left on ACR. If you want to relist it, I'd encourage you to. The larger problem, as I recall, is that there was some debate on either WT:FILM or WT:FILMC (I can't remember which) as to whether or not it could legitimately be subject to the ACR process, as so little of the article was germane to the film project. Please don't shoot the messenger - I'm just doing project housekeeping and have no particular opinion wrt this case. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U2 3D A-Class fail

I see that you recently failed U2 3D for an A-class nomination, but did not state a reason why. The last comment you made on the talk page was 3 months ago. I do not understand how you can simply go from making comments, not replying to my comments, then failing it 3 months later. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not replying to your latest comments - I had a month-long work detail that largely precluded any significant presence online. That being said, please don't shoot the messenger: my actions at ACR were purely organizational in nature - we had 4 A-Class reviews, none of which had any activity within the past month, and none of which were close to the required three support margin to pass. With regard to the U2 3D review in particular, it had gone on for four months, IIRC, and had only yielded one support (PC78) and two reviewers who did not feel it had advanced enough to support (Erik and me). (Please correct me if any of that is wrong.)

Similar things happen at FAC when a dearth of reviews emerge, albeit over a much shorter time-scale, and these too end in a failed candidacy. But like FAC, it may be that a new review will be able to attract a few new faces, however, and you certainly would be justified to get PC78 to re-support, as well as Erik and myself to follow-up from our previous comments. If anything, I'd say you were too patient before! :) I hope that answered your questions and addressed your concerns. Please let me know otherwise. Best of luck, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the reply. I feel as if the A-Class reviews did sit idle for a while (U2 3D and others) without any discussions taking place. However, the article has expanded greatly since your last comments. The lead was rewritten, the editing section was expanded, and a new section was added at the end of the article, plus tons of other minor edits. I would like to know how the article can be approved from here to try another A-Class nom at another time. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:An Empress And The Warriors

Hello I was wondeering what the reason behind your recent edit to this page?--Tim1357 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the talk page to what is now a redirect. The project banner was relocated to the article's present talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding edit history

If you have occasion again to cover (in effect, to "hide") a former article's edit history under a Rdr (e.g. B-actor), please put

on the same line. The text it places is tricky to see (at this point; could a MediaWiki mod be in the works?) except on the template page (even via preview) but reads something like

This page was kept as a redirect to the corresponding main article of the subject matter, in order to preserve its edit history after the content was merged. Please do not remove this tag (unless the need to recreate this article is demonstrated), or delete this page. For more information, follow the category link.

Tnx!
--Jerzy•t 03:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 on task force runs

Can you see this and advise if I should tag those categories, files, and templates, or which namespace(s) to exclude? Thanks, –xeno^talk 20:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say lose the File: namespace entries, lose the biographies, and lose anything that ends with (song). Sound good? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, biographies will get skipped. Will do those other two things as well. Cheers, –xeno^talk 20:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Xenobot Mk V/requests#Mistagging reports: USFILMS. –xeno^talk 18:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag and assess drive

All of the individual issues have now been organized in a recap, please weigh in if you can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Arricamstlt.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Arricamstlt.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Arri16sr3.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Arri16sr3.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Arri435x.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Arri435x.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New autoassessment functionality available from Xenobot Mk V

Check it out, let me know if it's something you'd be interested in me running on the unassessed category. Xenobot just completed a task for WikiProject Chicago. See here for an idea of the edits it was making. I can make it more strict, i.e., only tag if two other projects agree. –xeno^talk 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

want I should run this on the 4400+ articles in this category? –xeno^talk 08:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Takeo Kimura filmography/archive1

The nomination has been restarted so that consensus for promotion or archival can emerge. Please update your stance on the article and be sure to add/update any comments you may have. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friar Savonarola. Not sure if you caught my last argument at the FLC but you're not alone in assuming a 50% red link limit; however, rather than arguing semantics I wonder if I can entice into a red link criteria discussion here? Guaranteed good times. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho

Why did you move the article to Jericho (1937 British film)? Why not just Jericho (1937 film)? I checked IMDb for other 1937 films called Jericho but did not see anything. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't get it moved to the latter, and I guess I just assumed it was another film. Oops! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. FYI. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS' Tag & Assess Drive and Roll Call

The project's Tag & Assess drive has begun. We will be assessing over 50,000 articles during the drive and we need your help! 200-article ranges can be adopted and completed at any pace. A variety of awards are available based on the number of articles assessed. Please help review whatever you are comfortable with, and if you have any questions, leave a message on the talk page of the drive. In addition, please add your name to the active member list if you have not already. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Core films parameter

I think I've added the core parameter in: Beauty of the Devil, Ben-Hur 1925 and 1959, and Capricorn One, but I am not sure. Sorry, but that is something I didn't know before. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Arricamst.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Arricamst.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Girolamo Savonarola! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 146 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Cex - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

I have nominated 35 mm film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ding dong

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film seems to be building up requests with no replies. Please be so kind as to provided comments to those requests. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exposing to the right

Hi Girolamo! I have recently re-written Exposing to the right and would appreciate some feedback, if you have the time. Even a cursory glance to see if I've made any glaring errors would be enough. Thank you in advance. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Panavision logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Panavision logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Happy New Year 2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg

Have an enjoyable New Year!

Hello Girolamo Savonarola: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

May the New Year bring everything you wish for and more!
Wishing you and yours all the very best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James (film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James (film). Since you had some involvement with the James (film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 11:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Aaton universal

The article Aaton universal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced article about a camera part which asserts no evidence of notability. Searches turned up zero on 5 of the search engines. There were a couple of brief mentions on Books, but no in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Truce (1996 film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Truce (1996 film). Since you had some involvement with the The Truce (1996 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Girolamo Savonarola. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Girolamo Savonarola. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with new Gangster film article

Hi, thanks so much for all your contributions! A group of us are currently endeavoring to create a new Gangster film article. If you are so inclined, please come by and lend a hand, either with content or just feedback. Thanks again Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Girolamo Savonarola/V0.7

Hello, I'm Titoxd. I wanted to let you know that I've blanked one of your drafts (User:Girolamo Savonarola/V0.7) due to your inactivity. If you decide to come back and start editing again, don't fret as the previous contents of the article are still available in the page history. Just click the "Undo" button next to my edit and everything will be back to like it was. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of False Pretenses (film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on False Pretenses (film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Sceptre (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Bud: Aussie Rules

I noticed that, about a decade ago, you nominated Air Bud: Aussie Rules for deletion, and that the consensus was to have the article redirected to Air Bud. Given that no reliable sources have even alluded to the film being considered by the scriptwriters at all, it probably is best to have Air Bud: Aussie Rules listed at Redirects for Discussion. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sooteh-Delan

The article Sooteh-Delan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia is not an IMdB mirror.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Panavision

I have nominated Panavision for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Los Traidores

A tag has been placed on Los Traidores requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A7: No indication of importance

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Czello ^(music) 08:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect page references on List of motion picture film formats

To aid my research on some old 70mm formats, I recently acquired a copy of the American Cinematographer Manual, Eighth Edition, 2001, edited by Rob Hummel, which is cited as a reference for several of the film formats on this page, e.g. 16mm, Super 16, Academy format, 70mm, etc.

To my surprise, most of the page numbers cited in the list are incorrect. For instance, the reference for 16mm and Super 16 states page 16, but the illustration that provides the numbers used in the table is on page 12 of my copy. Nor is there any reference to those formats on page 16 of my copy.

Checking the history of the page, it appears that you added those references in May 2006.

I was going to undertake updating the page with the correct page numbers, but I thought I'd check in with you to see if we can determine the source of this discrepancy. Commasense (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Saleem(film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Saleem(film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § Saleem(film) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]