Welcome!

Hello, Drown Soda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up some the information in Vampyr! I've edited a bit of it for quality of prose. Before adding dvd images, remeber that we don't want the article to be bombarded with "Template:Non-free" because of it's excessive use of copyrighted images. For example, all the images in the Vampyr article suggest something to balence up the text such as a scene being praised by critics (the coffin image) or an image that showcases a change in the film's script and presentation (such as the white powder scene and it's censorship and how it changed the film's ending.). The DVD image looks really nice, but I think it doesn't say much other then it was released by the criterion collection. I added a bit more prose to the image to note that it reveals a scene that is not shown in the actual film. Also, don't forget to add alt tags to these images after posting them.

otherwise, thanks for contributing to the article! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pretty on the Inside you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pretty on the Inside for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my username is 4 Stars. You seem to be a fan of Hole, right? Well anyways, there's a Good Article review of Hole (band), and you need to fix all the problems noticed by a user named Aircorn in that page. The link to that page is Talk:Hole (band)/GA1. By the way, how did you improve that article? ★★★★ 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A GAN has started on Courtney Love and is currently on hold for an initial seven days to allow contributors to deal with copy-edit issues, building the lead, and trimming excessive detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the hold for another seven days. I note that work has been done, but the issues raised on the GAN have not been addressed either in the article or discussed on the review page. I would rather the issues were dealt with and the article listed than have to close the GAN due to lack of response. I'd like to help out, but I've not had much free time recently. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take look at the Peer Review of your Good Article, Pretty on the Inside. Fix all the problems suggested on this PR. ★★★★ 18:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott. I have finally finished my review. Sorry about the delay. I have left my comments at Talk:Hole (band)/GA1. I think you may have responded to some of the comments. If you can leave notes under each comment when it is done that would make it easier for me to keep track. If you are unsure what I mean or disagree leave a note too. I see this as a collaborative process so everything is negotiable to some extent and some of the comments are not strictly due to the WP:GACR. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a break from here soon so if we could wrap up this soon that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Love has been going through a lengthy Good Article review, and is now close to being listed. There now needs to be a bit of tidying up done - trimming some excessive detail, and a bit of copy-editing, as well as building up the lead a bit more. This is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia and is on an important yet complex subject. Any assistance, even if only to proof read one of the sections, would be much appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the GAN as not listed. The article can be nominated again when the work has been done. Good luck. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

au contraire

This information is not in contrary with what was written before. Dave Nichtern made clear in his interview that Lizzy Grant bought him out and signed a new contract with him in April 2010 to remove all trace of her first album, as she had been offered a new deal. You have just copied and pasted a large chunk of the interview and it has no relation to the previous paragraph. Her previous producer David Kahne confirms the fact that she bought out of the deal in the previous paragraph.

Your paragraph makes no sense. You decided to leave out important facts and include something irrelevant.

According to David Kahne, who produced Grant, Grant bought the rights back from [her label] 5 Points as she wanted it out of circulation to stifle future opportunities to distribute it—an echo of rumors that the action was part of a calculated strategy.[24] Contrarily, according to 5 Points owner Dave Nichtern, he "always thought she had potential to have a major breakthrough

188.220.44.105 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.44.105 (talk)

Hi there, came across your recent post on the Pretty on the Inside talk page and would be willing to nominate the article for FA. However, there's some reference/prose issues that could be problematic and might not meet the FAC. Before I nominate it, I plan on fixing some references and doing some copyediting to bring it up to standard. Just thought I'd run it by you first and see if that's alright, considering all the work you've put into the article. Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally, go for it. I'd love to see it make FA because I think it's got the potential at this point. Thanks! Scottdoesntknow (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits to Pamela_Moore_(author). However, when you delete an entire section of an article, without explanation on the talk page or even an edit summary, it's hard to understand your reasoning or even whether this edit was done in error.

Plot summary sections are usually included in article about novels. If you feel this section needs to be edited down, you're of course welcome to do so. You can also proposed on the talk page if there's a reason you feel this book should not have a plot summary section at all, or if you have other ideas for improving this article.

I'm also going to revert your change of source for the news about the reissue, since the original USA Today article cited as the source specified the details put forward in that edit, however the general Press page of the website which you put in its place is a list of articles that points to many sources, most of which don't relate specifically to the reissue of this book.

Any questions or comments please feel free to post on the article talk page.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry that latter edit (source for news about the reissue) was not yours but rather 98.109.211.130 My error. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Chocolates for Breakfast, Scottdoesntknow!

Wikipedia editor Bryanrutherford0 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Interesting article!

To reply, leave a comment on Bryanrutherford0's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Courtney Love you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilkTork -- SilkTork (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Courtney Love you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Courtney Love for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilkTork -- SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Legobot is very useful! But I am highly unlikely to fail the article as it only needs minor work, and I'll be happy to do that myself if nobody else does. I see the article as being listing this month. And well done for all your contributions to Courtney Love and Hole related articles. You're doing well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, I made some adjustments on the page and re-wrote the lead, added some additional citations, etc. If there are missing components or things that need tweaked that I haven't addressed, feel free to make adjustments. Her music is a major interest of mine and I'm an English lit. student, so I've actually enjoyed doing all the work. It's good writing exercise for me! Scottdoesntknow (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For working tirelessly for several years on improving Courtney Love and Hole related articles. Contributors like you are the backbone of Wikipedia. You don't create drama - you just get on with the job. Well done! And keep it up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you pause a moment, I have an edit which covers 81 references across the article to make, and have met with two edit conflicts. I have the edit saved on the edit conflict page. It will revert your last two edits, and I will then redo those edits for you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, roger that. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to put back what you did, but it might be quicker and easier for you to do it! I'm stopping editing for a while so there shouldn't be any edit conflicts! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, not idea what this was, sorry; just happened to notice it in contrib history a moment ago. Must've been a misclick. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Courtney Love you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Courtney Love for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilkTork -- SilkTork (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite handy that bot - though I do like to leave these messages myself. Feels more personal. I'll have a word with the bot owner see if there's an opt out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Courtney Love (estimated annual readership: 1,280,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Courtney Love to Good Article status.

Thanks for taking on such a high-traffic article, and if any other editors deserve to share in this, please pass on the love! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teenage Whore you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilkTork -- SilkTork (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Teenage Whore you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Teenage Whore for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilkTork -- SilkTork (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to attend to the matters raised during the GAN? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the GAN as not listed. You can renominate later when you have time to address the issues regarding citations. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Teenage Whore you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Teenage Whore for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SilkTork -- SilkTork (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on Cat Power! Keep on the good work!

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

Hi Scott. I was working through the dead link list when I came upon a link that you added to Nobody's Daughter on the 30th of january 2012. ^[1] Unfortunately It is now a dead link and I can not find it in the archives. I was wondering if you remembered what said link was about? BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carroll Baker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of onel5969 -- onel5969 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Finished the first pass at the review. There are a few things which I think need fixing before passing it. Let me know after you take a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Carroll Baker you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Carroll Baker for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of onel5969 -- onel5969 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scottdoesntknow, the review was completed at the beginning of August. While it looks like you may have addressed some of the issues raised earlier this month, you need to report on your progress at Talk:Carroll Baker/GA1 right away, if you wish to pursue this nomination. Otherwise, onel5969 is likely to close the nomination as unsuccessful, since you have not responded there. Thank you for participating; please continue doing so. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Carroll Baker you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Carroll Baker for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of onel5969 -- onel5969 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your collage is nice, but you need to replace the Portlandia sculpture picture since that is a copyvio of the underlying sculpture. There used to be a collage (or some other picture) in the infobox with Portlandia, but it had to be removed for this reason. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding color to the File:Portland State University Seal.svg, but can you make it transparent? There is no need for that white space and it looks better when displayed when it is transparent. Thanks. Corkythehornetfan 03:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I can't figure out how to make it transparent— I used an online editor and went a roundabout way of coloring it. Maybe someone else has the proper software/resources? Scottdoesntknow (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, got it! Scottdoesntknow (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry I didn't respond shortly after you, I had logged off for the night. Thanks again, Corkythehornetfan 14:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to revert. I didn't mean to be rude. The interview image just conveys so much more. I certainly hope I'm not WP:OWNing the article because I uploaded that image. If you feel the other image is better, please raise it at talk. Again, my apologies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there! Thank you for your amazing edits on the #Horror page! Do you happen to know any reliable sources with dates and information for the Cannes screening? If you do, please add it to the page! Had to remove due to no reliable source. :( Thank you :) Vmars22 (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a source for it Scottdoesntknow (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw you added the PLOT for #Horror, it seems it's going to be a great film! So excited to see it. Since you have seen the film, is Taryn Manning in the film a lot? There hasn't been any pictures or stills of her, or anything. Vmars22 (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vmars22, yes, I got to see the movie last night at the NYC Horror Festival. Very cool. Tara Subkoff was there and so were the young actresses, and they did a Q&A session after the screening. Taryn Manning is only in one scene, maybe a minute if that. She plays a woman in the twelve-step program that Chloë Sevigny's character goes to. They have a brief dialogue while smoking cigarettes, but she is only onscreen for a minute tops. Natasha Lyonne has a bit longer of a scene, but it's also short as well. I really liked the movie though! Cheers —Drown Soda (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm so excited for it. I know it was going to be great. :) Was there a character named mentioned for Natasha? Vmars22 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Vmars22, unfortunately, no, so I just listed her as "Sam's Mom." The only scene she has is just between her and her daughter, and the daughter is naturally just referring to her as "mom," and she doesn't get brought up by name later on either. I wonder if there was a name for her in the script? I don't recall Taryn Manning's character's name being said either. —Drown Soda (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay! Just a week until its in theaters & VOD! So pumped! :) Vmars22 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vmars22: Yeah, I plan on seeing it again. I had originally planned on seeing it on the 20th, but I found out last minute through the movie's Facebook page that it was premiering at the NYC Horror Festival; when I read that Tara Subkoff was going to be at the screening, I had to go! I'd be kicking myself forever if I missed the opportunity. She said at the screening that it was playing in LA and New York, but I don't believe it's showing in any other cities unfortunately; it's a super limited release, and she encouraged the audience to spread the word about the film if they liked it, because it was a very small production. I'm going to see the film again on the 20th at the IFC Center because I liked what she did and want to support it. —Drown Soda (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be seeing it on VOD, I'm very excited for it. I kinda wish IFC Midnight would just released it in limited theaters and have it expand instead of going with the day-and-date method. It doesn't have an MPAA rating right? Vmars22 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it does have a rating. I found this link and it has showtimes in other cities beginning November 27; no clue if you're close to any of them, but I guess it looks like it may be expanding across indie theaters? I didn't know this, and at the premiere Subkoff mentioned that it was playing in New York and LA, but didn't say elsewhere. —Drown Soda (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for including the link :) Sadly, the theaters listed aren't playing around anywhere near me. I did see additional markets/cities to be added so that's some hope of seeing it theatrically, but I guess I'll be watching it on VOD :) Is there an actual theatrical poster for the film, or just the one on the article? :) Vmars22 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Horror is here! Yay! Do you plan on re-seeing it this weekend? Vmars22 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon . You received this invitation because of your history editing Oregon articles or discussion of Oregon topics. The Oregon WikiProject group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. New members may read about existing members and introduce themselves here.

Valfontis (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: ((User WikiProject Oregon)). Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome! Valfontis (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joan Lindsay you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Joan Lindsay/GA1 - I am finished with my preliminary review. A few items need your attention. Please let me know when you've taken care of everything. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66:, I just addressed the bibliography and did a reformat and integrated SFN references. I looked over the review and unless I'm missing something, is there anything else I can address right now while the images are still being looked at? Thank you much! —Drown Soda (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See template. And by the way, Notifications aren't working for me right now, so I'll just keep checking the template. — Maile (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joan Lindsay you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Joan Lindsay for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joan Lindsay you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Joan Lindsay for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Big-love-cast14.jpg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

I commented here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for messing with your edit; I hit an edit conflict and hit the wrong button. I think I restored it (see [1]). Yours, Quis separabit? 01:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating Over 800 new articles were created in connection with Art and Feminism
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism March 2016 (check out our next event Women writers worldwide online edit-a-thon)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

I have started reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Courtney Love/archive3. I could use some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed by your uploading the poster. Where did you obtain the digital copy of the poster? The poster looks rare. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- just happened to look at the recent activity on the Courtney Love FAC, and I thought I'd mention something you might not be aware of -- at FAC it's generally thought best to not strike objections when you think they're dealt with, but rather to let the objector strike them. Most reviewers won't mind very much if you strike their comments, but it is standard practice to let the reviewer do it, at FAC and I think mostly at GAN too, so I just wanted to make sure you knew. It's because if you let the person making the objections strike their points, you can be confident they're dealt with, and they can easily see what's left outstanding. If you strike something and they don't think the issue is fixed you can imagine it's a bit tricky to show that without reverting. Best of luck with the nomination, by the way; I think it's close to passing and good luck with getting it across the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mike Christie, oops, my mistake! That makes total sense. I'm still new to the FAC process. Thank you for the heads up (and good luck) --Drown Soda (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drown Soda. 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]

I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:, understood; I am new to making edits on health conditions. Thank you for the information. I've gone back to the page and simply added citations to uncited material from medical journals/books, which to my understanding meet these qualifications. Thank you! --Drown Soda (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

great, thanks! :) Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	hello dude Hill Climber (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Pacific Northwest, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. TM 12:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rose O'Neill you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you going to respond to this? I'm supposed to close the GAN after a week of inactivity—and it's been a week. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, @Curly Turkey:. I looked over the review and addressed the things I saw raised. The only thing that really seems to be in the way would be the comments on the further reading from what I can tell--a couple of these books do tend to be more Kewpie-focused rather than biographical (with a couple of exceptions). --Drown Soda (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Get Out 2017 poster.jpg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! SJ Morg (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Seventh Victim you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MatthewHoobin -- MatthewHoobin (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rose O'Neill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rose O'Neill for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Seventh Victim you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Seventh Victim for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MatthewHoobin -- MatthewHoobin (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this project! :) Tell me if you plan on working on any other Val Lewton related films. I have access to some good items related to Cat People that I could use to expand the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I picked the review up so fast, it seems Legobot has missed you, so I'll notify you here. I have begun a review for "Teenage Whore". Since I picked it up so fast, and I notice you have Courtney at FAC, I will be flexible with time, as long as you keep me posted on your progress unlike last time. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Blood Mania.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not upload higher resolution versions of non-free files. Our non-free content criteria require the use of low resolution images. Uploading a higher resolution constitutes a copyright violation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13:, which are you referring to?

This is to let you know that the Courtney Love article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Love with love

Thank you for quality articles on women performers such as Courtney Love, written in years of passion and patience, for artists such as Rose O'Neill and films such as The Seventh Victim, for uploading images, - survivor of cancer and the "echo chambers of academia", you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt:, that's very kind--thank you so much. I appreciate it. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Strangers (2008 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PanagiotisZois -- PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please sort out and add all alumni from

to List of Fordham University alumni. Thanks!

Also, if you can, please reformat like List of Georgetown University alumni

I can try to work on this, though it's a large project. I can chip away at it. --Drown Soda (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started adding the degrees, B.S., B.A., M.A., JD, PhD etc under School/Degree section. List of Georgetown University alumni doesn't have it, but List of New York University alumni and many other similar lists do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.166.122 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new "fiction" section needs to be created, and fictional alumni added from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordham_University#In_the_arts  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.166.122 (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

The article The Strangers (2008 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Strangers (2008 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PanagiotisZois -- PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Strangers (2008 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Strangers (2008 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PanagiotisZois -- PanagiotisZois (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/b22d2710. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some Judges on List of Fordham University alumni, but haven't formatted because I don't know how to do it.--Killian James (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added many more notable alumni with Wikipedia articles on List of Fordham University alumni, but they need linking and formatting.--Killian James (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Killian James:, thanks for this-- I have hidden the list you provided from the article for the sake of format/appearance, but it is still located within the edit form (at the end), so all of the names are still there and can be pulled from and added to the appropriate categories. Some of them are already in the tables, but quite a few it seems are not. I will chip away at this. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! The ones that don't fall under any category can be put under "Miscellaneous", just like at List of Dartmouth College alumni

The article Teenage Whore you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teenage Whore for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hole Retard Girl Alternates.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you replaced a header with a semicolon, as in this edit. Please don't do this. Semicolons It generates invalid HTML and causes some browsers to choke, especially screen readers for the blind. Semicolons should only be used for definition lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.

• Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
• Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
• Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
• Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!

(This message was sent to WikiProject members via Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

Thanks for creating List of sanatoria in the United States, Drown Soda!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful list!

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Poultry Building and Incubator House, Drown Soda!

Wikipedia editor Sulaimandaud just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Kindly add stub to your article

To reply, leave a comment on Sulaimandaud's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Sulaimandaud (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on Lois Duncan and related articles. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fearstreetsaga:, thank you so much! --Drown Soda (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fordham University you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jzsj -- Jzsj (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to work on the article continuously the past couple days and find the refs that are traceable on the web to be carefully made. I've supplied a few that were lacking, on important issues, but I have these few remaining quotes which you may able to help with. If not I can tone down the statements and pass the article as GA:

 65 countries

 60 disciplines

 first collegiate baseball game under modern rules

 15th most wins of any college football program
		https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_football_teams_by_wins

I note that U.S. News & World Report is not considered reliable, but I found a featured articles that relies on it so I just left the link to their website which includes the criticism.

@Drown Soda: Jzsj (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzsj:: I've addressed all statements aside from the "15th most wins" claim—I cannot find a corroboration of that. Another user added that information but I am unable to find a reference. Thank you! --Drown Soda (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fordham University you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fordham University for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jzsj -- Jzsj (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lana Turner you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JohnWickTwo -- JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lana Turner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lana Turner for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JohnWickTwo -- JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination to Carroll Baker has been assessed and started here: [2]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boring, Oregon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boring, Oregon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Boring, Oregon for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Natureofthingspenguin.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boring, Oregon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Boring, Oregon for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article My Body, the Hand Grenade you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article My Body, the Hand Grenade you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:My Body, the Hand Grenade for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Articles: Music needs the help of willing reviewers!

Hi there. You nominated an article for evaluation against the good article criteria some time ago, but I noticed you have yet to review an article yourself. Although it's not mandatory, it would be helpful if every user who creates a nomination also reviewed at least one other article, as this would help clear the massive backlog. Reviewing someone else's article can also help you in the long run: every article reviewed brings yours one position closer to the top of the nominations list! If you worked on the article you nominated, chances are you're already familiar with the six good article criteria. It really isn't hard to review, and may take an experienced editor only a few hours to complete. If you have the time and would like to help, please click here, take a moment to figure out which article you'd like to review, then click on its (start review) button. Thank you for reading, and if you need assistance with your review at any point, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll respond to you as soon as I can. Homeostasis07 (talk)

The article My Body, the Hand Grenade you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:My Body, the Hand Grenade for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Mamas & the Papas discography, Drown Soda!

Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The AU singles chart column is missing sources.

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mt.HoodCommunityCollegeLogo.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Picnic at Hanging Rock (novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Ribbet32, and not Legobot, on behalf of Ribbet32 -- Ribbet32 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Picnic at Hanging Rock (novel) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Picnic at Hanging Rock (novel) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ribbet32 -- Ribbet32 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just making double sure you're aware of this. It's been 48 hours and there's a lot of work to be done on this, and in five days it will be closed. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, Drown Soda,

If possible, would you be able to help the pages of Alma Beltran and Dorothy Meyer out by adding pictures because they have none. It be greatly appreciated and you always make such good selections. Thank you for you're time and consideration.Ffaafafaf323442 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ffaafafaf323442:, I can look into this. I mainly try to source images from eBay that were either published prior to 1923 or were publicity photos pre-1978 that have no known copyright restrictions. Sometimes it's easy to track down photos that fall under this criteria, and other times it's not (simply depends upon whether or not such photos were taken, and if they are available). I will try to see if I can find some for these two actresses. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

162.246.117.233 (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC) HELLO MISTER[reply]

  johnnie ray had a son ... the more you know.

did you know johnnie had a son born in 1956 this boy had 2 fathers, lover of johnnie ray,kept secret for many years also some family members know of his existence, some articles have been written but he has kept himself low key for so many years, at the age of 60 years old many friends family members of johnnies have embraced him, him name was lary, at this point, he lives in las vegas, and is the biological of johnnie ray, alot of the information is not correct. if you would like to contact him about any of the information regarding you editing of these articles, please leave your message here so we may correspond, 162.246.117.233 (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@162.246.117.233: hi, and thanks for this message. I did not know Ray had a son and have never come across any material that has suggested so—if this it true, it's very interesting, though for it to be included here, it would need reliable sources (i.e. published in a book, biography, article, etc.) Did he have the son with his wife? --Drown Soda (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did in this edit, which labeled a film a "commercial success". This is original research and forbidden by policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: note taken, the inference was unintentional. --Drown Soda (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that labeling films like this is very difficult, even for insiders. There are a lot of things to consider, such as marketing costs, splitting profits with exhibitors, actors and directors who take a percentage of the gross before profits, plus many other hidden costs. You can't just compare the budget to the gross and proclaim a film a "commercial success" – there's a reason why Hollywood accounting is so infamous. It is somewhat unlikely but entirely possible that this film was a net loss for the studio. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly here. Please stop adding your own personal analysis, conclusions, and thoughts to Wikipedia articles. This means you can't engage in synthesis to determine what the overall critical reception was for a film. Also, please stop labeling reviews "positive" and "negative", as you did in this edit. This is your own personal analysis of the review, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I can understand why declaring a film a "commercial success/failure" or a "critical success/failure" is reductive and potentially problematic, but I'm not really understanding how plainly stating that a film received a "negative" review qualifies as original research, especially if the collective assessment (i.e. per Rotten Tomatoes) says as much—I'm not necessarily drawing that conclusion, as RT did it for me. If a published review of a product is overwhelmingly critical and not at all laudatory, would "critical" be an appropriate alternate if you're perceiving "negative" as a misnomer? Case in point: the lede of the Mulholland Drive (film) article plainly states that the film "received critical acclaim"—how is this different, aside from being the inverse? Is it because it doesn't denote the weight/ratio of that acclaim? That article in question also cites Rotten Tomatoes as well in the Critical reception section. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what other articles do, and I try to focus mostly on my own watchlist. Otherwise, I'll end up spending all day on Wikipedia, cleaning up hundreds of articles. Per MOS:FILM, review aggregators are reliable for statistics and aggregation. We don't use every aspect of Rotten Tomatoes; the audience score, for example, is unusable. Rotten Tomatoes is also very black-and-white about reviews; it's either positive or negative, and they do not recognize the existence of mixed reviews. This is clearly problematic, and it's something we should probably avoid. Reviewers also sometimes criticize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for misconstruing their reviews; this is also something we should avoid. We don't need editors to determine the consensus of a film's reception; we already have two aggregators to do that for us. If a reliable source says that a film received "critical acclaim", we could probably report that, though I personally wish editors would find some other way phrase it so that it doesn't sound like we're some kind of fansite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you adding football players to Category:Fordham University alumni. However, Category:Fordham Rams football players is a subcat of the alumni one. Thoughts? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how your first edit 8 years ago was on The Strangers, and seeing the focused attention you've given that page over these years, it's only fitting that the page creator credit for the sequel's article on Wikipedia should go to you.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  13:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this edit you made to FeardotCom, what is your source that "the film received mixed reviews from critics, with many criticizing its narrative inconsistencies and overt violence"? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is referring to the critical reception section body of the article, in which those criticisms/praises of the film are noted in reviews. There is no reason to put a citation in the lede if it is cited within the body of the article. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cited. This is your own personal analysis. If I see you do this again, I will block you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is cited; the Ebert review among others notes this. In any case, I'm still not convinced by your interpretation of the guidelines regarding OR in relation to critical work/reviews, especially given (as I said before) that numerous featured articles on films here use the precise language that you are threatening to block me over. Your earlier response about "not being able to monitor all of Wikipedia" is not an excuse for your arbitrary power trips on random film articles when it comes to this. Featured articles are what the community at large has agreed are the best work on Wikipedia, so my question is why it's acceptable to classify critical responses in those articles, but not in the ones you have on your watch list? Look at Featured media articles and you will see this across the board—critical response classes as positive, negative, and everything in-between. I do a lot of work here and you are the only person I have ever encountered who takes issue with this. You can threaten to block me all you want, but the consensus on this is not in your favor based on what the community permits in Featured articles. --Drown Soda (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have two review aggregators to tell us what the critical consensus is. Your interpretation of the reviews may be that there's a consensus that the film was criticized for certain things. My interpretation of the reviews may be that this is not true, and it was criticized for something entirely different. This is why I don't think individual editors should come up with their own personal Rotten Tomatoes-style "critical consensus" on top of what's quoted in reception. I will raise this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film, and see how others feel about this. Maybe we can get MOS:FILM updated and stop the featured articles from doing this, then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your work on Disappearance of Maura Murray. You're awesome! - MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthmovieS: no worries, the majority of what needed to be there was, it just needed a bit of fleshing out. I'm happy to have done it. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Seeing as you are interested in true crime cases and women's studies, would you perhaps be interested in reviewing one of the following articles I've nominated for GA status:

• Mary Surratt, a woman hung for her alleged involvement in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the first woman to be put to death by the U.S federal government
• Death of Elisa Lam
• Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento, the first time a woman tried to assassinate a U.S. president
• Tawana Brawley rape allegations

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello Drown Soda, I was looking over your edits to the Black Christmas remake article. So far it looks pretty good, however there are a few details that could be added to the article if the information is available. For instance, the casting and filming sections seems a bit short and could be expanded a bit more. Information such as the casting of Mann and other cast members that aren't included in the casting section could be added. More information on the filming of the remake with interviews from the cast and crew also need to be added to the article as well. I was also wanting to point out my comment on the article's talk page about the article on the original film needing work on as well, and since you seem to be doing a great job here I was just thinking that you might also give that article a shot. Let me know what you think.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: I actually did do some work recently on the original 1974 film's article—it was a bit of a disaster and the film deserves better. I will try to look for some info on the casting process. This information was spare based on what I recall finding back when I was doing work on that article (about 1�–2 months ago), and since it's a fairly recent film, there are few published sources on it; most of the information/interviews with cast and crew was in the DVD bonus material, though I'm not sure if they went into the casting process much. I will have to revisit. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks. I will try to help you expand it a little later when I'm done with my other article projects.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that I'm also expanding the article on the character Billy. Looking over the original film and the remake film articles, I've noticed not a lot of coverage is made to the character, specifically in the case of the article on the original film, the development/creation of the character. The remake article also has some issues that I've noticed. The casting section seems a bit short and should include information on the actors/actresses that portray both Billy and Agnes since there is no mention of either in the article. The filming section also seems a little short and could be expanded a bit more. Again this all banks on the fact that somewhere out there ("beneath the pale blue sky...") this information exists. If it doesn't that's fine. This is not me blasting your work on both article's (I've had that problem of misinterpretation before), quite the contrary. I like what you're doing with BOTH articles, with several tweaks and additions these articles are for certain to get GA status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kirkbride Plan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): thank you much. I did a one-over on the article again once I received this notification, and I cleaned up some repetitive and messy prose that were left there last (it's been months since I've significantly looked at that article). In any case, appreciated. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jean Brooks you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drown Soda. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jean Brooks you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jean Brooks for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jean Brooks you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jean Brooks for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Natacha Rambova you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Natacha Rambova you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Natacha Rambova for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Natacha Rambova you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Natacha Rambova for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kirkbride Plan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kirkbride Plan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]