Erik

The June 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. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 07:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Once again you appear to show a dislike to images. What the problem with the searchers article? In other film articles wikipedia would be crying out for public domain film images but with the Searchers there are many available but none used!!! Do you beleive images degrade an article?? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

HI. The commons has about 40 images of the film. The film is registered as a national possession or something so is considered pubic domain -its odd isn't it -I put in only one image of John Wayne and it was removed. I also don't like a high number of images but i'm sure one or two with appropriate citations in relation to article discussion is more than appropriate. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I've addressed it to them. It does seem odd not to use at least one picture from

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Searchers_%28film_1956%29

I am very impressed with the article development though. Shame that Casino Royale wasn't promoted after I and others including youself worked hard on it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well the first nomination was a clear support with over 20 people supporting. However the FA admin wasn't happy about one ongoing complaint about unreliable references from "unofficial bond sites". So it was started again but his time not even half of the people felt like renominating again -and quite rightly so -they shouldn't have had to do it twice. Desptie several references altered it still wasn't regarded as sound referencing - everybody involved beleived it was a well written article up to FA quality but because of several of the sources used it was refused after about a two month long process. I don't know what happening with Goldeneye at present -in my view I don't think its quite FA qulaity yet ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

well i',m not going to fuss around with references when there are thousands of articles and films barely beyond a stub!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, don't want to be naggy, but I was wondering when you thought you could do that? I'm bored and I'd like to write a production section, but I'm shite at finding sources. Atropos 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Awesome. Google always seems to amaze me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. Alientraveller 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see that you're currently removing a number of links in Korean film articles as "linkspam", but as far as I can see the links are all perectly good. I've reverted one or two of your changes, but would rather discuss it with you first. PC78 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to second that. For one thing, the sites are not spam. For another, reviews are specifically mentioned as what SHOULD be linked at wp:el. Rizzleboffin 18:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply