User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10


Re: Wikis in the classroom

Hello Jbmurray,

I wanted to thank you for the post you made on: Making Wikis Work for Scholars http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/28/wiki which alerted me to your work on The WP. I've only skimmed through your projects at the moment but I look forward to reading through them over time. Glad to see you (and your students) here. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) Thanks for the encouragement! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Just wanted to add my thanks as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That guy has been spamming user talk pages all morning (My local time is UTC-4) with various sockpuppet accounts. I'm surprised he hasn't spammed me yet. J.delanoygabsadds 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Baby boomers in fiction

Category:Baby boomers in fiction, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Electronic Literature

Thanks for your help with various electronic literature and hyperfiction pages!

I'm not sure that you're aware that the ELO is rather more contentious than it may seem to outsiders; see http://markbernstein.org/ELO.html . I don't think it appropriate to link every hypertext author to ELO, or to subsume hypertext fiction under the ELO rubric of "electronic fiction". But I agree that there is much to improve in all these articles, and welcome fresh hands and fresh insights! Feel free to email me (bernstein@eastgate.com) if you'd like to explore this further. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mark,
Thanks so much - I am quite grateful for your insights and suggestions and willingness to help here. I do have some familiarity with this subject and would very much like to work with you to improve these pages.
Here is what I saw when I first looked at the pages. Both pages were badly in need of clean up:
The original ELO page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_Literature_Organization&oldid=182338791
The original Electronic Literature page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_literature&oldid=209549580
Since both pages were enormously similar, I made the decision to merge. However, by all means, please do restore the ELO page here if you feel it should be a separate article, perhaps developing it a bit more from its original state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_Literature_Organization&redirect=no
In terms of authors - the pages in their original form each contained lists of hypertext authors that were nearly identical which is why I included them. In addition, the definition of electronic literature on the ELO website does include "hypertext fiction" - I also used current scholarship which discusses "hypertext fiction" as "first generation" electronic literature.
That being said, I appreciate all of your points and wonder if I might ask for your help in improving these articles which were originally badly in need of clean up and am open to any suggestions you might have. Thanks again for this very helpful post and I look forward to hearing from you, -Classicfilms (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that ELO is a particular organization -- a faction, if you will. So it's not synonymous with "electronic literature", and has sometimes (in my view) been hostile to hypertext fiction. It's not uncommon for two or more organization (or political parties) to have similar over-arching goals but great differences; merging is good, but you don't really want to merge the Republicans and Democrats because both parties want a better US.
What these pages need most, IMHO, are links and citations to the critical literature -- to discussions of the titles in print and on the Web -- so that people will have better guidance in reading and discussing these works. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I restored the page Electronic Literature Organization and updated the introduction. Perhaps if you have some time, you could develop and improve the article a bit. I also think that your suggestion about links from the critical literature is quite fair. If you want to go ahead and make these edits, I'd be happy to look at them. Thanks again for your input and help in improving these articles and I look forward to reading your edits. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I should not edit ELO -- I'm COI there -- and as I run Eastgate, it might be better that other hands compose the revisions. I understand that this adds to the burden, but I see no way around it. MarkBernstein (talk)
Keeping your points in mind, I made some further edits to the articles and as far as I can see, they do adhere to Wikipedia:Five pillars - so I'm not sure I have anything else to add. I understand and appreciate the points about your own further involvement. Perhaps the next step would be for other people interested in electronic literature to edit and develop these pages, which I hope will happen over time. Thanks again for your suggestions and help with these pages. Regards -Classicfilms (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cinderella (musical)

I have expanded and reorganized the article to bring it more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. As a major contributor to this article in the past, would you mind having a look and giving me your comments? It still lacks Synopsis and Awards sections, which I am still working on. Thanks. --Thomprod (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[response copied from my talkpage to keep the thread together:]
Hi Thomprod,
Outstanding work. I'm really impressed with the way in which you have developed the article. It's been awhile since I worked on it but I seem to remember that this was a complex article to work on simply because there are so many versions. My only comment would be to think about how to "center" the article. In other words, while the Julie Andrews version was the first, is it the definitive version as indicated through the infobox on the page? Or should the page balance towards all three versions? I'm not certain what the answer is, but it is a point to keep in mind if you are planning to push this article towards GAN. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I will put some thought into the "center" or "balance" of the article. Cheers! --Thomprod (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


Inherit the Wind

Stellar job splitting up that article. I'm awfully impressed. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! That's so nice of you to say. Inherit the Wind is a favorite play and well-deserving of some attention. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen a stage performance, but, along with Singin' in the Rain and various Hitchcock films, it's my favorite "classic" movie. I'm glad someone finally did the split... because I was never motivated enough to do it. Thankfully, you did a far better job than I ever could have. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have a chance pick up the play and read it. While I revere Spencer Tracey and it is a wonderful interpretation, the stage play really reads quite differently. Thanks again for your feedback - it really is appreciated. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Classicfilms! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. 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 these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 938 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Betty Sue Flowers - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Ayub Khan-Din - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Nomination for deletion of Template:Cinematic depictions of dyslexia

Template:Cinematic depictions of dyslexia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

You didn't have to blank the page. But thanks and double thanks for not screaming at me like every one else I've ever stumbled upon. Rgoodermote  00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it was a fair request. I think the discussion was over by this point anyway. And I've got to get to taking a break as I noted above. :-) Cheers. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome message. I should point out, though, that I read all that stuff a long time ago. I'm a serious Wikipedian now. I should be giving those messages to other people! --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

lol :-) No problem. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Classicfilms. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Joseph Campbell

I have nominated Category:Joseph Campbell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. TheGrappler (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of independent bookstores in the United States

I have nominated List of independent bookstores in the United States, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of independent bookstores in the United States. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WuhWuzDat 03:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Adam Horowitz

Hi, now that Adam Horowitz is a disambig page, could you help clean up the links that point to the disambig per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGatalk 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look a little later. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I fixed all of the redirects but one: List of Lost episodes. Try as I might, I cannot find the remaining redirect to fix. Perhaps you can take a look. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It was tucked away in a template that had already been fixed (probably by yourself). I just had to use a null edit to force a recompilation of pagelinks. On behalf of the folks at the disambiguation page delinking project, thanks so much for the cleanup!!! --JaGatalk 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I'm really impressed. I would have never found that. Glad to help out! -Classicfilms (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Philip Weiss

NSH001 - The dab page was not intended as advertising. This is a common name. The WP at the moment only has one article using the name, but the intention was to provide space for other uses should other articles appear. I am fine with the move to a redirect which will have the same impact so I won't revert. I did the same thing with Adam Horowitz which did have existing articles using multiple names. I just wanted to clarify the intent. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have mentioned above that I did this because after doing a search for where else "Philip Weiss" is used in the Wikipedia, I came across two references to "Philip Weiss Auctions," in two articles: T206 Honus Wagner and CSS Alabama. I thus made the dab page in case either mention was turned into an article. Again, with a common name like this, the goal was to provide the subject with a dedicated article which he now has. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Philip Weiss and dab pages

Dab pages are only necessary if there are three or more topics of the same title to disambiguate (and sometimes, but not always, if there are two to disambiguate). The fact that a name is "common" is not, of itself, a reason to create a dab page or to move an article to a title with an unnecessary disambiguator in parenthesis. Dab pages are never used to disambiguate between external links and Wikipedia articles. Moreover, even if a dab page is necessary, it may still not be necessary to move Philip Weiss to a disambiguated title if he is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'd recommend you take a look at MOS:DAB generally, the primary topic link I've just given, and MOS:DABRL which deals with the situation where red links can legitimately appear on a dab page. I think Weiss should probably be moved back to the base title, but it needs an admin to do that, and it may be worth waiting to see if any genuine, and different, "Philip Weiss"s turn up. If the only topic that turns up is, say, Philip Weiss Auctions, there is no need for a dab page, since the titles are already disambiguated, and all that is necessary is a hatnote from Philip Weiss to the other article.

--NSH001 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, I appreciate the clarification of dab articles and their use. I am fine with it and what you wrote above makes sense. Here is my concern about moving the article back to the base title. While it may not be a reason in and of itself that this is a common name, it is still one. And I clarified my motivations with the search which brought up two articles with Philip Weiss Auctions. Down the road it is highly probable that another article will be made using the same name and at that point moves will have to be made. Moving is, as you know, a pain. Philip Weiss (journalist) is a notable journalist and with time, more pages will be linked to the article particularly as it grows. So here is my goal - ultimately whether or not it is moved back is a community decision. That is not my goal. My goal is to set things up so that there is dedicated space for this subject that will not be subject to a possible move down the road which will involve a lot of clean up. In retrospect, I should have just made the redirect that you made as it serves the same purpose and provides space for a future dab page if it is needed. At this point, I'd like to wait a bit and see how it goes. Or open up the discussion to admins or other editors to decide what the best step to take is. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The intent behind your goal is good, but all you have done is just create unnecessary work. As I explained above, even if a dab page proves necessary in the future, it is quite likely that there will be no need to have the journalist at a disambiguated title, since he may be the primary topic, or the other topics may have already-disambiguated titles. No point in doing work that may never be necessary! I will leave it for a while, and then initiate the process to move it back, since it is pointless having an unambiguous title with a disambiguator in parentheses. --NSH001 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I see it as the opposite - by thinking ahead, it is saving work. The assumption here is that Philip Weiss (journalist) will be the primary topic. I am wondering why that would be the case? It is currently the only article in the WP, but considering the number of people in the world with this name, over the years as I said it is probable that another notable person with that name will come up. Again, I am not necessarily arguing against moving it back, but rather to point out that making something a "primary topic" is a subjective decision. Adam Horowitz is now a dab page, but the process of getting there was a bit of work as originally, Adam Horowitz (screenwriter) was the sole occupant of that space. Clearly, from the three names listed, all of the people who share that name in the Wikipedia are notable in their own ways. It would be impossible to say who the primary topic would be. In the process of the move, it took a great deal of time to fix all of the redirects. With the Philip Weiss, article, I was thinking ahead, down the road to the amount of time it would take to do the same thing should other articles arise, with biographies as notable as this one. It is speculation, but again with this particular name (which is not unlike "John Smith" in that respect) that the chances are higher. So, in the end, my goal was to save future work as the article develops. I've worked on many biographies in the WP over the years and know how much time redirects can take. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
With a few exceptions (such as entries in navboxes), there is generally no need to "fix" redirects - see WP:NOTBROKEN. If we follow your logic through, what you are effectively suggesting is that every Human Name article (or at least those deemed to be a "common" name) should pre-emptively be moved to Human Name (something). Just unnecessary work, neither desireable nor feasible. --NSH001 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was the disamb. pages that resulted from the move and I was asked to by someone who works on dab cleamups. As for the name, not really, only thinking about this name. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, E-mail Surveillance has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Fences&Windows 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back :) Dhobi Ghat (film) for GA? :) —SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm not back a few days and already put to work. Good to hear from you. I'll take a look. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I took a look. The article needs an enormous amount of work to even begin thinking about a GA. For GAs I would recommend: New York (film), 3 Idiots, Wake Up Sid, Peepli Live, or Jodhaa Akbar. The other possibility is to push some GAs to FAC such as Chak De! India. You might ask around and see what people are interested in. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
3i seems a good option as it's got my favorite Khan, but CDI seems to be the least amount of work. I'm currently working on bringing gender neutrality to our cricket coverage (have a few women's lists up for FL on plan), so I'd prefer to work on something that needs only incremental contribution. I'll check around to see if Dwaipayanc etc would be interested in it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Would be great to have Dwai involved if he has the time. Best to choose a film many people want to work on since we all have other demands. Gender neutrality project sounds great, keep it up. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Other GAs to FAC I would be interested in: Dor (film), and Parineeta (2005 film).-Classicfilms (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Female sports films

Category:Female sports films, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Good call on re-organizing early life. Skywriter (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of List of electronic literature authors, critics, and works

The article List of electronic literature authors, critics, and works has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all 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.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

List of electronic literature authors, critics, and works

The article you created, List of electronic literature authors, critics, and works, was proposed for deletion by another user. I declined the proposal because this article appears to cover a notable topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Holland Codes

Apologies - I've been away for awhile and realized I forgot to login and just did. I restored your revert to the page. I've been trying to develop the article by adding more sources and developing the background. If you have further suggestions, I would be interested in hearing them. I am still officially "away" so only periodically check in, but I'll look for your response. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All I was attempting to do was restore the removed references, but thank you for reaching out. Achowat (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'm happy to restore - it's just been a big clean up and after a few GACs and FACs I tend to cut a lot. What would you like restored? -Classicfilms (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It appears that you've already restored what needs to have been done. And I apologize for inconveniencing your larger project, it's just that my Assumption of Good Faith has its limit, and there's only so many times you see an IP remove references with no edit summary before some legitimate updates get caught in the crossfire. -Achowat (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that's my fault for both not logging in and simply being lazy about edit explanations. Don't blame you one bit. Will be better about both -after years on the WP it's easy to get a little lax. If you have knowledge on the topic would love more contributions - it's an article worth developing though many more sources are needed. And if in the future you have suggestions, feel free to ask. Again, I'm not sure how often I'll be on but I do check once and awhile. Thanks for you diligence in general. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RAK*


 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For dealing with my hasty reversions with the utmost civility, sincerity, and kindness, it is my pleasure to present this Barnstar to Classicfilms Achowat (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • lol!!! :-) I wish you could see me now, I burst out laughing. This made my morning. Thanks so much, it is much appreciated!! -Classicfilms (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy holidays to you too! -Classicfilms (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: adding images

Yes. The main problem is proving that the image is ok for use (permission, or, unavailability of a suitable alternative). Have you already uploaded the image? You have to upload teh image with appropriate copuright tags, and then just addx that in the article infobox. I am not sure where exactly you are facing problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you would know how to go about this - thanks so much Dwai. I have not uploaded or done anything yet at all because I'm trying to figure out how one goes about it. So I'll try to clarify my confusion. All of this pertains to a non-free image - I do not think getting permission will be a problem, but I need to know the following:
If I get permission, how do I prove it? Do I need to upload a letter of some kind?
Is there a legal requirement for the resolution of the image?
Given the above - how do I upload and create a page like this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MountHolyokeSeal.png
I have looked at the various Images pages in the WP style guide and can't seem to find a consistent place that has a set of steps that take me through the above - and I want to make sure that I do it properly -- By the way, congrats on Pather Panchali -- saw that you brought it to FA which I know has been your goal for awhile :great work! I went ahead and updated this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Notable_articles

though you probably want to go in and tweak it a bit ...

Not been around as much, a lot of RL going on but things have calmed a bit -- hope you are on some interesting projects.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
If you get a permission, ideally the permission email should be in a particular format, and the permision email should be sent to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. Some OTRS volunteer will verify the permission.
No legal requirement for resolution if you have permission. For "fair use" images (without permission) there is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger (WP:IMAGERES)
You can use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard for uploading the image, it will guide you through. You can copy-paste (with appropriate modification) the free use rationale from your example (File:MountHolyokeSeal.png) to your uploaded image.
Hope this helps/. Thanks for the congrats :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much for this Dwai - really appreciate it -- this answers the questions I had about it. You are welcome - very good work. I'm sort of in and out of the WP these days, it's been a very hectic year and a half in RL -- and haven't been involved in an FAC in a long time - so appreciate the amount of time and work you put into Ray's work - PP is certainly worthy of an FA article...-Classicfilms (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Zul Vilani for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zul Vilani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zul Vilani until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Mohan Jhangiani for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohan Jhangiani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohan Jhangiani until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

Okay thanks-since you do go ahead and comment on the AFD's that you agree! Wgolf (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Classicfilms/Archive_6&oldid=1142934772"