Volatile

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The proposed split was mostly a note to self—I may not get around to it for a little while. When I do, I assure you that I won't do a half-assed job of it. I was actually quite surprised when I went through the Best Picture winners (to add the template, standard section names and formatting of awards, etc.) at how many of them shared articles with the works of which they were derivative. Some of them, A Man for All Seasons in particular, exhibit disastrous layout problems as a result. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i saw your edit on the Hong Kong action cinema so you may be interested that it is now a featured article candidate. Please "support" or "object" with your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hong_Kong_action_cinema. thanks! Zzzzz 07:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, Zzzzz 11:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Volatile,

I noticed that you created an article (an excellent one BTW) that was part of the notable album list. This subproject aims at identify, creating and standardizing articles for important albums. Your help would be appreciated if you can provide it. If not, best luck and wishes editing wikipedia. Good luck on your exams! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You supported Hank Williams, which has been selected as WikiProject Country Music's next Collaboration. Please help improve this article to featured-article standards. --TantalumTelluride 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, since you uploaded the image, could you help use with my query at Talk:Vertigo_(film)#Picture_query? Thanks, Henry^Flower 12:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the At Last article, the Dion version is neither the most popular nor most notable version of the song. Giving it its own infobox and skimpy paragraph is not necessary and provides a stilted view of the song's history. If you'd like, you could expand on the Etta James version and then add the Dion information in a separate article. Volatile 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

At Last is a part of Celine Dion singles discography. All her singles have their pages with infoboxes. There is no need to remove it here, only because it "provides a stilted view of the song's history." The thing is that Dion has her infobox, but nobody cared enough to make an infobox about Etta James version or other versions. I say that Dion's infobox stays and you can expand Etta James version by adding additional informations. There is no sence to remove Dion's version only because nobody wants to write about the original version. Max24 18:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We don't have articles about every single ever released; there are notability guidelines. If it weren't for the Etta James version, the Celine Dion version wouldn't warrant a mention. It makes sense, therefore, to keep the information on it in balance with both the better-known versions and its own significance. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Several of the pages for Hitchcock early films have had a statement added that they were until recently in the "public domain" -- I believe this is incorrect, as UGC UK (now part of Studio Canal) and Carlton (now part of Granada Internation) reasserted their US rights during 1997. The titles can be found listed in the documents at http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html (specifically 22/Aug/1997). I'd like to propose that the "public domain" entries are removed. Thanks! Davepattern 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

PhantomS 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 00:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023 talk 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 22:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply