Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:16, 1 November 2008

Please note:

• I will reply to you on both this talk page and your talk page, unless you request otherwise.
• If this is a private matter, please e-mail me.

Welcome!

Hello, Ms. Sarita, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Acalamari 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, Ms. Sarita! I've gotten to know the overview of Misplaced Pages and that helps though I'm a newbie who still has a lot to learn! I would mostly like to clean up vandalized pages and that's about it. Writing or re-editing entire articles is something I will seldom, if ever do unless it's really required of me. I'll visit the village pump and other help portals just so I can really get the hang of things, though I'm sure I will need TONS of assistance! --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! :) --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy

Thanks for watching Cillian Murphy and zapping the vandals! Cheers, Melty girl 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Zoe Saldana

Hi. My main point is that Zoe Saldana is latina and that she has played roles in which she has portrayed as an African American woman i.e. Drumline (2002) and Guess Who (2005). Sure she has a brown complexion but that could come from Taino bloodline or African she also has a slight accent when she speaks (even though that matters little with ethnicity). My argument is that is something that some latina actors could and have potrayed just because they have a light brown or brown complexion. There are some people that don't even she's a latina and not black. Same thing applies for actors or actresses that are well known not to be full blooded African American i.e. Meagan Good, Aaliyah, Terrance Howard, James Earl Jones, even Oprah has a mixed heritage. I just don't want any confusion to occur in the article. That's all.Mcelite (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mcelite. Thanks for responding and being civil. I really appreciate it.

I know that Saldaña is Latina. I never said otherwise. However, my point is that Saldaña is Black (as she has stated) by racial background and Latina by cultural/ethnic background. Being Latino is not considered a race as Latinos can be any color under the sun. To believe that Latinos are to look a certain way is discriminatory because Latinos comprise part of a culture and they can be Black, White, Asian, or multiracial.

I don't want any confusion to occur in the article either, which is why I deleted the sentence in question in the first place. The fact that the article states that she is the daughter of a Puerto Rican and a Dominican, and that she speaks fluent Spanish, is enough for people to assume that she is, indeed, a Latina. But stating that her playing an African American in films is of significant value may lead others to believe that she is not Black, which she is. As I stated before, a Black woman playing a Black woman is not significant. Ms. Sarita (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well from what my friends and I guess people in my age group discuss Latino and Hispanic are the same thing. I mean I have friends that actually look very similar to Zoe and they exclusively consider themselves Latina. They truly are a mixed race of people with strong culture. lol I agree stating her parent's lineage is enough. I apologize if I seemed mean in any way I sometimes can be defensive of certain things.Mcelite (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "Hispanic" is a whole 'nother topic that doesn't need to be discussed here. Like I stated before, I have a good friend who hails from PR and although she identifies herself as a Latina, she realizes that she is multiracial (her ancestry comes from African, Italian (European) and Taíno lines). I used to date a man who was born in the DR but he was Black and identified as a "Blatino". It really is all about preference and education.

I see where you're coming from and I understand why you got defensive. Race and ethnicity are two words that are difficult to explain, especially when it comes to the Latin culture, and many people confuse the differences between the two terms. And I didn't mean to make it seem as if I don't believe Saldaña is Latina. I apologize if I came off as such. She is a Latina to the fullest extent, but she can be both Black and Latina (since that is what she is and that is what she identifies with). I'm very happy that we were able to resolve this in a civil manner. Ciao. Ms. Sarita (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to edit Kanye West

Hello, I was trying to edit the arrest section on Kanye West's article, except when I cite my sources, they do not show as links. They are just plain and black. How do I fix that? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I have no idea why your citations won't link correctly. Try going to the citation template page and scroll down to the "Cite web" section. That will give you the proper format. How are you writing out your citations? Ms. Sarita (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I typed them as-is at first (like http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b28482_Eyewitness__Kanye_Arrest__amp_quot_Pure_Chaos_amp_quot_.html for example), but that didn't work, so I type them in the format they're supposed to written in order to be recognized as sources (you know, with templates and whatnot), and still nothing. I went to WP:CIT that you recommended and I'm still very confused. It's the first time I'm making a major edit to an article, so there's a lot of things that are foreign to me, especially when it comes to formatting.Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...that's very odd that you're using the citation templates and it's not working. Let me actually write out the template for you and you can copy it, paste it into the article (after the information that you are citing) and then fill in the information or delete the categories that are unnecessary or that you don't have information for.

<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | title = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>

Here's an example that I pulled from the Cillian Murphy article: <ref> {{cite web | last = Riley | first = Jenelle | title = Luck of the Irish | date = 2005-11-18 | url = http://www.backstage.com/bso/news_reviews/features/feature_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001524804 | accessdate = 2007-08-09}} ''Backstage.com''</ref>

Which should show up like this, with the reference at the bottom, under the reference list like this:

1. Riley, Jenelle (2005-11-18). "Luck of the Irish". Retrieved 2007-08-09. Backstage.com

The date should be in the format year-2 digit month-2 digit date. Let me know how this works out for you. If it doesn't work, show me exactly how you're typing out the citation by copying and pasting it here so that I can try to see what's going on. Ms. Sarita (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What's with the first and last name? Should I know who exactly wrote the source? I'm sorry if I take forever to respond, but my connection is EXTREMELY slow at the moment. It took me 10 minutes just to load this post. This is what I'm trying to do, by the way.

<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | Kanye Attack Caught on Tape = | September 11, 2008 = |http://www.tmz.com/2008/09/11/kanye-attack-caught-on-tape/ = | 2008-09-14 = }}cnn.com</ref> Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I've been extremely busy! Anyway, if you haven't figured out the whole citation thing out yet, here's a piece of advice:

From what you have posted in your above response, I can see precisely what is going on. You are replacing the criteria text with the information that you are getting from your source of information. For example, "Kanye Attack Caught on Tape =" should be "title = Kanye Attack Caught on Tape" and "September 11, 2008 = " should be "date = September 11, 2008" and so on and so forth (without the quotation marks, of course, and with proper date formatting, i.e., 2008-09-11). You need to keep the "date = ", "title = ", "url = ", etc. in order for the reference to work properly.

Take a close look at the example citation I posted above from the Cillian Murphy article. That is how your references should be layed out.

To answer your question, you do not need to input the first and last name of the author, but if it is available to you, it should be included in the reference. If information is not available, you can simply leave that space blank, or not input the criteria field at all (i.e., if you don't have the name of the author of the article you are citing, don't type "last =" or "first =" into the citation template).

You can go to the cite web template article; they have some examples that you can look at if you wish.

Let me know if you're still having trouble and/or if I am making absolutely no sense. Ms. Sarita (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this myself because of my faulty internet connection but fortunately, it's all good now. I am quite grateful for your help and patience, though someone else has edited the arrest section so now I am wondering if my edits will make any difference to the article. It doesn't mean I'm giving up altogether, but see the Kanye West article and tell me if I should proceed with the editing or if it is best left in it's current state. I just want to move the section to a different part of the article so it can be in accordance with the timeline and re-word the section to sound more encyclopedic. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I took a glance at the Kanye West article and the only thing that I can notice (without reading it over thoroughly) is that the "Arrest" subsection and the "Pending charges" section should be in the same section since they are related to each other. I also agree that the two sections should be gone over to correct grammar and sentence structure. But, it's all on you and what you want to do. Ms. Sarita (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if this works or revert. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I looked over the section and moving it to its own section was a good idea. However, I would try to summarize it even more. It feels like there's just a little too much detail. Folks don't need a play-by-play of what happened with West in the altercation, if you know what I mean. Also, you should try to refrain from writing curse words on article pages, even if it is a direct quote (unless it is absolutely of value, which in this case, I don't believe it is). Other than that, I would just condense the section a little more and maybe someone (or I) will come by and clean it up a bit. But it looks good! Ms. Sarita (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to thank you for your help and input and now reading the section, I agree that is written a little tabloid-ish with all the unnecessary details and the alleged quote he made to one of the paparazzi. I will go and try to fix that, but also happen to be busy with other stuff at the moment so if I don't do it soon, I will get to it later. One again, thanks a million. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Ms. Sarita (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this version better? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks a lot better. I may go in and tweak some things out a little bit, but it looks like it's well layed out. This is your first big edit, yes? Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the first time I'm making a major change to an article. The only thing now is that it'll have to be updated next month, considering the pending charges and fact he's due back in court on October 2nd. Thank you very much for taking the time out to help me. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, congratulations on your first major edit. I'm glad that I was able to help you out. If you have any more questions in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. I'll try to go over the section in the Kanye West article later on in the week (if someone else doesn't get ahold of it first). Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-Misplaced Pages related question

If you get an iTunes gift card, do you need an iTunes account to use it or can you just redeem the code and buy songs without needing an account? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha! You officially win the prize for random question of the year! I kid, I kid. To answer your question, I believe you need to have an account with iTunes in order to download songs, period, regardless of whether you have a gift card or not. Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thanks! Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I voice my opinions?

If an editor is under review for possible adminship, but that review doesn't appear on everybody's watchlist for everyone to participate (like the Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise/A.1), can you still make comments or ask questions? And just out of pure curiosity, are you an admin? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Unfortunately, I'm not too familiar with the adminship process. I believe that anyone, who is an established editor and has knowledge of these types of processes (as well as the numerous policies of Misplaced Pages) can comment and ask questions to whomever is applying for adminship. But I could be wrong. To get a more thorough answer, I would check in with an official administrator. Here is a list of active administrators that you can ask. Hope that helps.

To answer your other question, I am not an administrator and presently, I have no desire to be an administrator. I barely have enough time to manage my life and the articles that I work on regularly (which are only a few, comparatively speaking), let alone managing the responsibilities of an admin. Ms. Sarita (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. Ms. Sarita (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Reverting edits

Have you even checked what i have reverted?. Of course that is vandalism. Removing references and adding "See the talk page, and read" is a vandal. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:VAN to recognize what true vandalism is. As far as the Angelina Jolie article goes, it has been discussed in the article discussion page and the removal of the references was thought to be fair. Ms. Sarita (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Iam well aware of the rules. I know what is vandalism when i see one. Removing references is one of them. Well if it discussed them it i alright. The one who was removing the removing the references should atleast mentioned in edit summaries instead of saying "rm refs". --SkyWalker (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a more concise edit summary should have been given. But the user did leave a specific comment stating to check the discussion page, so I figured that it would have ruled out any plausible deniability regarding vandalism. But thanks for patrolling anyway. Ms. Sarita (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have around 10,000 pages that i have watchlisted and when i saw -553 done by that person and when i was looking at the diffs i made a revert. Nope i did nor see any comment all i see is "ed ref, rm refs and remove reference again". It says nothing regarding looking at talk page and thank you for informing me. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a crapload of pages. Like I said, thank you for patrolling. I am not too familiar with Twinkle, so maybe I was naïve in assuming what differences you could see before making a revert. My apologies for jumping on your back. It's early and I'm cranky. Ms. Sarita (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just jumping in, as an admin I support the removal of the references. They are unnecessary. 23skidoo (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you are President of USA. It proves nothing. Support on whatever you want to. Means nothing to me. I do hate how you admins are such prideful.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for the removal of the references were stated by Enemy of the State and 23skidoo in the discussion. They were valid reasons and everyone who participated in the discussion agreed that the references should be removed. I don't understand why you had to get snippy with 23skidoo over this. Ms. Sarita (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Santa Cruz, California

This is a collaboration and the only means of communication that we have is text. We have talk pages where we can rant a little bit, because there's space to do that. But in terms of day to day editing, it's all in the edit summary. If a person does not leave an edit summary, especially after they've communicated that they want to work together, it's just contradictory. My comment was not a made up wiki rule, but a valid comment based on what happened this evening. So, I don't know, I have presented a willingness to work together. Bye E_dog95' 08:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"...I have presented a willingness to work together." == E_dog95

Honestly, your attitude says otherwise. Not leaving a comment in the edit summary is not "breaking the rules," nor do I think it warrants a comment on another's talk page. You can easily tell what the person is doing by simply clicking "diff" or comparing two different revisions. And talk pages aren't made for ranting...they are created for discussing how we can better the article. I am all for leaving a comment in edit summaries, and encourage its usage but, with the exception of obvious vandalism, I won't go so far as to accuse another of not being willing to "collaborate" with other editors simply because they leave the edit summary blank.

By the way, you have failed to provide me with the written Misplaced Pages policy/guideline that specifically states "by leaving the summary blank implying that are the only one working on ." Ms. Sarita (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded brusque though I don't think it was out of line. None of what I said was unacceptable. Was there a better way? Yeah, there's always a better way. I did not insist on anything. I assumed wrongly, xsg, that you were new. My bad.

Ms Sarita... Let me tell you that I appreciate your attachment to SC, I do not think that all Santa Cruzans think that the whole list of items is / was notable. The reason that I know this is that if this was the case the list would have never been a bunch of red links with no prose. Notable items get written about because people like them. I will apologize for stepping on your toes though. Take care. E_dog95' 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"I do not think that all Santa Cruzans think that the whole list of items is / was notable. The reason that I know this is that if this was the case the list would have never been a bunch of red links with no prose." == E_dog95

Sorry, but I would have to disagree. If there is little information on an event, it most likely will not have a page dedicated to it due to Wikipedians arguing for its deletion. Every person that has grown up there, that I know of, knows of these events and the events hold cultural value to them. So, is it fair for you to assume that it is not of notability and to simply delete the entire list? No. That is what initially bugged me.

Like I said, I would love to work with you on the article (although it seems that you have more time to work on it than I do). And like I said, I think you found some great references to substantiate your own beliefs on what is notable or not. However, like XSG has mentioned, the attitude that has fermented from your edit summaries and talk page comments has annoyed me and has made both of us believe that you think you know what is best when that is simply not true. I know you believe that you were not acting inappropriately, but the fact that two separate users have shared the same feelings really says something. Learn to work with people, in a civil manner, and we can all work together. Ms. Sarita (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This next bit is the last thing that I want to say. It's about my comment for using the edit summary. It's not mandatory, but we were talking about collaborating here and I do think that using the edit summary is vital because we have so few means of communicating. There's no verbal cues, no body language, nothing that implies the tone of any statement that we write. So, writing then is the very least we can do when changing things. Last night there were edits made after collaboration was mentioned. I thought it was odd in that circumstance. Here's the recommendation...

Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. 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). Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. We've found that summaries often pique the interest of contributors with expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but "fixed spelling" would be nice even then.

E_dog95' 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the guideline. Like I said before, I encourage the usage of edit summaries, but I do not believe that it warrants a comment on another's talk page, nor do I believe that it implies that the user is insinuating that they are the only one working on the article. Like you said, it is not mandatory. But you came off as though it was. So, let's stop bickering and work on the article already. Ms. Sarita (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK thank you. The lesson you mentioned has been noted. E_dog95' 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Zoë Saldaña's name

Hello, Ms. Sarita. I have to remind you of something called the WP:3RR rule, which goes that 4 reverts in a 24-hour period can result in a block. Also, I encourage you to read the discussion in the article's talk page. Visit the article about naming conventions, which also talks about spelling. You see, Misplaced Pages is blind to what her name's original spelling is, because what's important is whether our readers can go verify what we write by looking it up somewhere else. Her name with diacritics is not widely used; not even on her on website! Hence, it's not as verifiable as "Zoe Saldana". SamEV (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SamEV. I appreciate your message regarding the issue. I am well aware of WP:3RR. I have never been warned about violating this policy, and was actually no where close to violating the policy, so I am not sure why you even brought it up. I have read the discussion page that you referred to. Honestly, I disagree with you. Saldaña's name is verifiable through magazine articles (e.g., Vanity Fair, Latina, People en español, etc.) and the pronunciation of her last name. You don't see many television/film credits give proper spelling when "foreign" characters are involved.

However, I will leave it as you wish. I don't want this to turn into an edit war and frankly, it's not worth my time. In the meantime, in your efforts to undo my edits, you have failed to observe the other edits that I made. Can you please change them back for me? Thanks. Ms. Sarita (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Users are required to warn those who are about to break 3RR. Since I think your edit was wrong, I obviously didn't want you to repeat it. And since I also thought you were actually editing in good faith and, in general, improving the article, I didn't want you to possibly get blocked (believe it or not). But I was wrong: you'd not reverted (partially, but partial reverts count just the same) 3 times already. In fact, it was only 2. I'm sorry about that, Ms. Sarita.

"Saldaña's name is verifiable through magazine articles (e.g., Vanity Fair, Latina, People en español, etc.) and the pronunciation of her last name."

Then please provide those sources. But even then, keep in mind that she's credited in her work as "Zoe Saldana" and that that is how she's almost exclusively referred to on her own website. So the most we can do is add mention of alternative spellings, but for consistency the article should use the spelling in the article's title.

"In the meantime, in your efforts to undo my edits, you have failed to observe the other edits that I made. Can you please change them back for me?"

Yes. Done. SamEV (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the references, you can go to Saldaña's official site and see plenty of magazine covers with her name printed clearly. And I have not checked, but you can probably find an archive of the magazine covers so that they may be implemented into the article if need be. As far as her official website not using the spelling of "Zoë" or "Saldaña" consistently, that is the same issue with the official website of singer Beyoncé. And there are many articles in which her name is simply spelled Beyonce. However, no one questions the spelling of her name. May I ask why that is? And thank you very much for restoring the edits that did not regard her name. I appreciate it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we're supposed to go with the most common spelling we find. So far, I've seen no proof that "Zoe Saldana" isn't it. It baffles me that you are, in effect, suggesting that she's allowed her name to be misspelled in her film credits for the last three years (until Vantage Point broke the streak), as seen at IMDb. Anything with a diacritic is described merely as an 'alternate name' on her page there, which page is titled the same as her WP article. We seem to have no categorical source that says: 'this is the correct spelling of her name, darn it!' Thus, it comes down to numbers. A Google search easily reveals what that most common spelling is on the internet. An IMDb search easily reveals how she's been credited; and I think it obvious that her recent credits should carry more weight than earlier ones. But your comparison to Beyoncé makes a good point. I'll add the alternate versions to the article. Please let me know whether or not you find that a good compromise. SamEV (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It would baffle me more so that she would allow her name to be misspelled by Vanity Fair, People en español, etc., in which she most likely personally spoke to the interviewers. But you have made some good points and like I said, I will leave it. Thank you for compromising with the argument. I appreciate it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And I hope you change your mind and decide to again contribute to the article and keep it on your watchlist. Take care. SamEV (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Jada Pinkett Smith

Nice work with this article! I've reassessed it as B-Class for WikiProject Biography, but I hope you consider nominating it at WP:GAN, because I think it's ready. Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. And thanks for assessing the article. Are you sure that there is absolutely no room for improvement before I nominate it for GA status? What about more pictures? Or are more pictures unnecessary? Ms. Sarita (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs much if anything to reach GA status – at least, I didn't notice anything obvious. More pictures would be nice, but I don't think they're essential. I think you've got the makings of an FA here. PC78 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Another user and I are just cleaning up the article, but it's been nominated for GA status. But I'll look into nominating it for FA status. Thank you for the advice! Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey again. I added Human Contract because the movie is completed. Btw future movies can be added. Look at other good and featured articles. Also do you have plans on improving Gary Oldman?. The articles needs to be improved a lot?. Any help?. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. The movie may be completed, but there is still no release date. Future films should only be added if it is considered notable to avoid violating the crystal ball policy. I researched the Angelina Jolie article (a Featured Article) when I worked on the Jada Pinkett Smith project. The Jolie article states the same thing when speaking about films that have not been released. The Human Contract is already mentioned in the article. When a release date is announced, please feel free to place it in the table. But I am in the process of fine-tuning the Pinkett Smith article so that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. I understand your reasoning for adding The Human Contract into the table, but I don't want any reason for the article to be denied GA status. I hope you understand.

As far as the Gary Oldman article, I am currently working on a new project. But I love Gary Oldman, so I will take a look at it and see if I can't add it to my To Do list. Ms. Sarita (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course i understand. Why don't you nominate the article for GA status and they will let you know know what is wrong with article and you can fix it?. Yea i checked your sandbox when you were working on the Jada Pinkett. Yea i too like Gary Oldman. Seeing that article makes me a cry hopefully it will be GA and next FA someday. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going over the Pinkett Smith article, and trying to make minor changes here and there, so that they may be avoidable when it is assessed. I'm pretty much done, but I saw that you edited a mistake a few minutes ago that I completely missed. So, going over it is obviously needed. Hehe! Thanks for helping out! Oh, and I took a look at the Oldman article and saw that it failed the GA assessment, and nobody did anything about it, even though they were given specific details on how to have the article promoted. It's so close! So I have added it to my To Do list. I should begin work on it shortly. Ms. Sarita (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Iam glad to help. Yea Gary Oldman is a failed GA :(. I have added the table has instructed and have to add cite templates but first i have to remove all unreliable sources before i do that i need to find alternate reliable sources which can be time consuming. When i was wandering around i saw your subpage and saw you need a table for filmography and added it later on. If you need anymore help let me know. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you again for your help. I nominated the article for GA status last night, so keep your fingers crossed! Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup i noticed. It would take some time for them to review. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

get cancer