User talk:Before My Ken/archives 4 May-Jun 2008

I have posed a question regarding an edit of yours on the article's talk page. Just thought you might want to know. -- Jao (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

In the Plot section of The Caine Mutiny (film), you've taken out my contributions on the grounds that "There is no textual evidence that Maryk is 'prepared to forgive and forget'" and that "Keefer's motivations are not made clear in the film". When Keefer thanks him at the celebrations for not revealing his double-cross Maryk does say that the matter is "over and done with" and later tries to dissuade Greenwald from revealing Keefer's treachery with "Let's forget it, Barney". That strikes me as "evidence" enough. What do you need: a written statement by the actors, producers and director?

Also, Greenwald points out that "From the start, [Keefer] hated the Navy", as in it interfered with his writing. In the tow-line incident Queeg does state: "There will be no more novel-writing on the Caine". I think this describes some of Keefer's motivations, which were based on pure selfishness. Granted, Keefer does not make a full confession of his own, but the point of many great works of fiction, from the novel to the cinema, is that it is up to the reader and the audience to try and interpret a character's motivation and pass this on to others who are still a little puzzled by it.

With your permission, I'll restore my contributions. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Moved the comment above to Talk:The Caine Mutiny and made response there.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just finished reading your user page. I think I agree 4 times. (I think I counted about 4 different ways of saying the same thing. :-) I'm definitely very, exceedingly, excessively, concerned that Wikipedia is really a popularity poll and disparages and dare I say hates "facts", labeling people like scientists that will not bow to consensus with some 9 year old in Brasil with things like WP:TRUTH, and banning them forthwith.

I'm also very concerned that the entire concept of BLP is inherently broken from the get-go. The BLP rules work (such as anything works around here) for people who are dead, and for corporations and the like that aren't too fistey. They are hopeless for people that are both living and have the extreme misfortune to end up with a Wikipedia article about them, and then find out about it.

Wikipedia, as designed, seems to me like an apparatus designed to promote libel and disparagement of living people, while also having been carefullly designed to insure that nobody is to blame for such disparagement. And also designed to insure that the people being disparaged can not do anything about it.

Indeed, it seems to me, from watching the mechanisms turn, that if some completely non-notable person ends up with a disparaging Wikipedia article about them and registers a complaint, demanding the article be removed, three things will forthwith happen:

1. The person will be blocked indefinitely for bad faith editing under WP:COI
2. Extreme effort will be made to insure that the article is retained and under no conditions can be deleted
3. The article will remain available and unlocked for any anonomous vandal to stick anything they want into it. Of course, the target, excuse me, subject of the article will not be allowed to contest the vandalism and popularity-poll "information" placed in it.

I'm not sure quite what to do about this. It may well resolve itself one of these days pretty soon by the simple expedient of a court order making Wikipedia vanish en toto. (Although the same people that ensure such attack articles are not removed also bluster than Wikipedia is immmune to court and government action because it has a volunteer lawyer and has corporate offices in Florida. I haven't really figured out the connection they are asserting just yet.)

Thoughts? Loren.wilton (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Loren: I'm not ignoring you. I honestly don't know exactly what my opinion is on this issue, so I'm still thinking about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way: if someone does something that makes them notable enough to warrant an article, they've been reported in the mainstream media (or other secondary sources). Should they then demand that the media retract any articles or videos done about them? Everybody has the right to privacy, but if they do something notable enough, they can't try to prevent information about them from getting out. If an article is written about a person and there is no satisfactory reason for it to be deleted, why should it be? Loren, this is an issue that's been debated many, many times. If a relatively unimportant person requests that their article is deleted and their request is honored, what's to prevent a more important person from getting their article deleted? What kind of encyclopedia would this be if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad contacted the Wikimedia Foundation and asked that his article be removed? By your logic, this should be allowable. Where should the line be drawn? What separates the barely notable from the very notable? It's not an easy situation to address. And just because a solution hasn't presented itself doesn't mean no one cares about the issue. --clpo13_(talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see two main problems:

1. 1. Once the article exists, anyone can defame the person anonomously. The defamation may be caught, it may not be. It could well be caught by the New York Times and broadcast around the world and picked up by all other news media likewise, and then someone comes along the next day and removes it as vandalism or unsourced from Wikipedia. But by then the person has been arrested and is being demanded foe extradition by twelve different federal governments on child porn charges going back to 1862, based on the now-removed vandalism in the Wikipedia article that claimed he was a previously unknown children's version of Jack The Ripper. The fact that we then delete it and say it is vandalism really isn't of interest to our modern tabloid media once they get some nice person that they can destroy.
   2. Second: suppose anyone could demand that their article be deleted, assuming that it could be verified that it was really them asking. Suppose the result was a stub that said "a person of this name is reputed to currently exist". How many articles will we end up with like that? All living people? Probably not. All politicians? Probably not. In fact, it will probably be a vansishingly small number. Watching this play out in WP:DRAMA daily, I'd say about one person a week asks/demands their biography be deleted. The usual reason for that demand is #1 above. Many of these same people likely pay Who's Who to publish a tag on them. But they don't ahve to worry about anonomous defamation there.

Most major players, if they have ever heard of Wikipedia, aren't going to demand their articles be retracted. For one thing, they want the publicity. For another, their reputations can withstand the possibility of #1, because some editor somewhere in the newspaper might think the defamation is unlikely enough to check twice before publishing. That isn't going to happen with minor players, like Jimbo's ex lover, or the producer of some minor Hollywool slasher flick, or some woman from the midwest that was unfortunate enoutgh to be in the news for a few days because her neighbor did something, and some kid down the street decided to do a Wikipedia article on her, with citations to all the major newspapers.

If there were some way to prevent the defamation, like requiring that changes to BLP articles only appeared after a review by some number of trusted reviewers, then it wouldn't be a problem. Since that is antithecal to the concept that "anyone can libel" that Wikipedia is based on, I see it as a problem. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I came back from Wikibreak about 24 hours ago. Found your note on my talk page, went over to the page and left my comments. But, 24 hours later, no one has added any comments. I guess that means the whole issue is dead? I don't really know much about these backstage areas, but I hope it worked out for you. Unschool (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, really, it's all new to me too. That's for your comment, though, I thought it was pretty perceptive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Since you have yet again taken out my so-called "POV" views of The Caine Mutiny (film) let me tell you a little story. A couple of years ago I read a book and realised that some of the characters and events were based on real-life. I checked out several reviews but most of the critics and analysis focused on other aspects of the novel and did not raise the similarities between the characters, the events and their real-life counterparts. It would also have been difficult to get a confirmation from the late author. I therefore decided to submit an analysis of the book based on my own observations. I included them on wikipedia and they have remained ever since. Other visitors have come and made changes to my text, but the analysis has stayed. I will NOT give you the title, but no doubt in time you or some other editor will come across this analysis and take it all out. However, my point is that I believe that POV and OR are needed, especially if they are based on good faith and are backed up with suitable examples. I am not saying all POVs are welcome — I myself have modified analysis which I thought did not quite make sense or get to the nub of the matter, or taken out completely allegations with no basis at all: such as some concerning an ongoing criminal investigation. As regard the issue of Keefer and Maryk, I do believe that my observations are based on good grounds and that some explanation for Keefer's behaviour in particular is needed: why does he scheme against Queeg and turn the essentially decent Maryk into a mutineer? If mine is not good enough, then would you please explain it.--Marktreut (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot sections are for straight-forward presentations of what happens in the film. If you see it happen, that it can go into the plot synopsis. Descriptions of time, place, setting etc. are legit. Analysis of the motivation of the characters, unless supported by the dialogue, shouldn't be included. Your assumptions, conclusions and feelings about the film should not be part of the film synopsis. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying, Marktreut, but the OR and POV that does admitedly sometimes stay in certain articles usually does so because it reflects consensus. I believe I indicated on the movie's talk page that I disagreed with at least a portion of your analysis. So now you've got two moderately experienced editors saying that inclusion of your personal analysis is unacceptable. I'm not saying my analysis is correct, I'm saying it's not up to us to say what is correct. Go and find some film experts who share your viewpoint and quote them, but do not inject your own POV into the article. It's really quite simple. Unschool (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your ideas on tags are wrong. They must be left prominently at the top of articles or at the top of relevent sections, so that editors will fix the articles AND so that casual readers will know that there is something wrong with the article, and also so that casual readers will realize the extent of the flaws in Wikipedia. Do not remove or move any more article tags. Thanks! --Afed (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As you command, master. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To take the subject of our discussion further, I am raising the point of OR on the WP:NOR discussion page, under the tile "But OR may be all we have". It is time we found some kind of compromise over this. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually opposed to "original research" per se -- I think many Wikipedians carry their objections to it to absurd lengths. It's the specific instance of the plot synopsis where I object to material which is non-factual. If you were to write up a character analysis section, I might disagree with your conclusions, and want them removed for that reason, but not because they were "original research". I have long said that observation (i.e. I see or hear something, and then describe what I've seen or heard) is not OR, and to consider it as such (which many do), is ridiculou --, but drawing conclusions about motivation is not observation, it goes a level further. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)\

Thanks for uploading Image:Oscar Levant.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review the civility policy. Words like "fucking" and "dick" are always unhelpful and should never be used. DrKiernan (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And the phrase "as time goes by" shouldn't be used in an article about Casblanca except in the context of describing the song featured in the movie. It's cleverness for it's own sake and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. (BTW, in case you're interested, "clever dick" has nothing to do with penises, and is not uncivil.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No-one likes being called a dick. Use of the term is likely to cause offence, regardless of your intention. I recommend avoiding it in future. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone a dick, I said the writing I reverted was "clever dick writing" -- that's something else entirely. Please stop trying to churn up some sort of issue here that doesn't exist. The only relevant matter is whether using "as time goes by" in an article about Casablanca is a good idea, and it isn't. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given you a putative block for breach of WP:3RR. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Version reverted to:http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Casablanca_%28film%29&diff=218546976&oldid=218123567

1st revert: http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Casablanca_%28film%29&diff=218574092&oldid=218573568

2nd revert:http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Casablanca_%28film%29&diff=218575686&oldid=218575609

3rd revert:http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Casablanca_%28film%29&diff=218575984&oldid=218575736

4th revert:http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Casablanca_%28film%29&diff=218683141&oldid=218682936

5th revert:http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Casablanca_%28film%29&diff=218706483&oldid=218706018

6th revert:http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Casablanca_%28film%29&diff=218708474&oldid=218707480

Thanks for uploading Image:Invisible Man Claude Rains.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop moving template messages and disputes that are clearly marked as "For placement at top of an article" to the bottoms of articles. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes. Thank you. Groupthink (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't tag it, fix it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ed Fitzgerald: I wanted to apologize for my inadvertent revert of your edits in progress to Imitation of Life (1934 film) (diff). I was doing RC Patrol and I clicked the link for your edit, instead of the link for the edit I meant to rollback in an unrelated article by a different user. I reverted my own revert as soon as I saw I had accidentally reverted you. I just wanted to drop you a line, and let you know what had happened there. Sorry. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 07:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the article expansion! Lugnuts (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - although I think I may have just hit a temporary limit to what I can do right now. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't expect the memorial article to get that long, but what a story! Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of more Rivertowns NRHP articles coming: U.S. Post Office (Dobbs Ferry, New York), just done; then Estherwood and South Presbyterian Church. Since the pics are available already, I think I can squeeze out Irvington Town Hall and East Irvington School. Also, a picture of Dobbs Ferry (Metro-North station) (not an NRHP) and some material on Philipse Manor (Metro-North station) from its NRHP nom.

Seeing as you have an interest in these articles, might I interest you in adding your name to WikiProject Hudson Valley? Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Sure, I'd love that! Do you think you could get some pics of the mosaics in the old library space and the theater as well? I very rarely get interior pics of the places I write NRHP articles about (except when, like Grey Towers National Historic Site, it's managed by the federal government and thus the pics they put on their website are in the public domain). Since this is a public building, it should be easy.

If you want to take pics of any other Westchester RHPs, go ahead and let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any shots of the other subjects you mention at hand, but I go up to Irvington once a month or so (I'm in NYC), so I'll see if we can get some of them when we're next there. I used to work in the library (as teenager I was a librarian's aide) and the mosaics & Tiffany-glass lamps were beautiful.

In the meantime, I'll post the clock-tower photo shortly. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits appear to be unproductive and have been reverted. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; Please take a look at Wikipedia;External link - Important_points_to_remember to learn more. Thank you. --R.T.Gellar (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent additions to this article are excellent. However, please don't remove existing photographs if you add new ones. Thank you. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't, but that photo was inferior - very small, not readily apparent who it is or what they're doing. In addition, it's the same stars as the close-up I added, in basically the same shot. I've removed it again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:TheRedPenOfDoom was correct in removing the image. We would have to add an additional rationale to the image page. Are you up for it? Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

One way we could get the covers back into the bibliography is to comment about the artists and the art used for the novels. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,Please do not return the copyright image of the book cover of Titan to the Bibliography of Philip K. Dick article without adding content to the article that would make the use of that image meet Wikipedia's fair use guidelines which state in part that we can use cover art "from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). " Currently there is no commentary about Titan in the article, and therefore we cannot use that image.

There are several books that currently do have some "critical commentary" within the article - use of the image of a cover of one of those books specifically mentioned would also fit Wikipedias guidelines for fair use of copyright images.

In addition to adding commentary in the article, the image page would need to be updated with fair use rationale for the image to be used in Bibliography of Philip K. Dick. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace for information about how to properly identify the use on the image page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Ed! Could I ask your help in something? A week or two ago, I created this article, but I can't seem to upload the relevant images I really want to add to the page. I know you've uploaded quite a few images in your time here; d'ya think you could upload them for me? Or at least show me how you do it? I dunno why, but I've never been able to upload anything here so far. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to help, either by uploading them or by going through the process with you, whichever you prefer. What are the pictures, and how are you getting hung up uploading them? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the pictures: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

I'm not sure why I've had so much trouble uploading pictures here. Back when we were working extensively on Duck Soup, my attempts at uploading relevant images were unsuccessful, but you, fortunately, succeeded — which is precisely why I've asked for your assistance in this matter. Maybe I'm getting the "source filename" and "destination filename" mixed up? In which one does the URL go, and then the encyclopedia's title for the image? Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The "source filename" is the location of the picture, and the "destination filename" is the name you want it to have on Wikipedia.

Maybe the trouble is that you're trying to upload from a URL? I've never actually done that, I always download the image to my computer and then re-upload using the "browse" button next to "source filename." Give that a try and see what happens. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!! I'll give it a try. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey-hey, it worked! [6] But now, what do I do about the licensing? Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's trickier. I took a look at your images and none of the licensing options I usually use (screenshot, posters, etc.) would seem to fit. Do any of the licenses seem to you to be appropriate? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm pretty sure they're all screenshots. I've seen the TV clips concerning the "feud" through which these images exist, and they — to me, at least — are dead ringers for screen captures. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 04:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Try using Template:Non-free film screenshot for the licensing and fill out Template:Non-free use rationale for the rationale. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup yup, it worked! I'm ever so much obliged to you, Ed, for helping me understand how to do these sort of things. Thank you again! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help.Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember we had an argument before over whether or not we should have a blank line before where the ToC goes at Philip K. Dick. I find that you've added the blank line back without replying to my argument, so I think we should settle this. As I argued before, I do not think the blank line belongs, because the reason that you want the blank line -- to separate the lede from the ToC -- is best done with CSS, not by adding blank lines to the articles. The way we have it now, many articles have these blank lines and many do not; if we want it to be entirely consistent across all articles, then the best choice is to leave out the whitespace and allow the users to decide whether they want to view the article with the whitespace there or not, by modifying their CSS file. (It could be possible that such an adjustment could eventually be made available in the user preferences without needing CSS hacking.) If instead all the articles have this extra whitespace inserted, no such choice is possible; everybody would have this extra space whether they wanted it or not. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that we discuss this matter instead of you simply reverting my changes. If you think extra space looks cleaner to casual users, then you should suggest that the admins modify the CSS to insert this blank space system-wide. I think doing it any other way is going to lead to inconsistency (because, let's face it, we'll never get everybody to agree that the blank space is better or worse). - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never been successful at attempting to get changes made in that way, nor have I enjoyed the process, so I am loathe to take that step. If you think you can be successful, I encourage you to try. In the meantime, there is more than one way to skin a cat: instituting change on the local level can provoke global change as well, and that is the strategy I prefer to pursue. If someone makes a global change, I will personally remove every spacing line I've found it necessary to add, but in the meantime, I want casual users to be able to get the best out of Wikipedia by having the articles not only contain good information, but to have it be well presented. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I disagree with the way you have used the image in Ida Lupino, and also Miriam Hopkins and I wonder if you are aware of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which says as part of Wikipedia's official policy on the use of images : "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It seems to me that the free images of Lupino and Hopkins show what they looked like, and that the unfree images don't offer anything more in terms of showing what they looked like, and ultimately serve "the same encyclopedic purpose". I agree the images you added are better quality, but the unfree images show each person to a satisfactory degree. Also on the image page for Lupino under "replaceable" it says "No free equivalents have been found which will properly serve this purpose." Again, I disagree, because only her appearance is conveyed, and it's not substantially different to the unfree image. There are several free images of her in Commons that show what she looked like. Rossrs (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped that we would be able to discuss this issue, especially as we are obviously interested in editing similar articles, but I have to assume it isn't going to happen. The images do not comply with policy, and I have now disputed their use, so that an independent admin can decide. I am leaving this message as a courtesy so that you know, rather than using the standard template, so that if you wish to comment via the image pages, you are at least aware. Rossrs (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather wish you hadn't done that, since I was about to respond to you. I didn't realize I was under some sort of deadline -- considering it's only a bit over a day between your two messages -- and I generally prefer to actually edit articles rather than deal with this kind of stuff. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the rationales and removed your dispute label. Next time, if you're really interested in having a dialogue, instead of just intent on removing images for the sake of doing so, you might want to give the editor involved a little bit of time to respond. It's not like Wikipedia is going to collapse like a house of cards if you don't get your reponse in 24 hours. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I could have given more time, but I noticed that you had edited numerous articles during the time that had elapsed, so assumed that you would not respond. I'll assume good faith then - you were about to respond and I jumped the gun. But what were you going to say? Perhaps we could both take a deep breath, and a step back, and discuss this. I disagree still, and I appreciate that our opinions differ, but everything I have done and commented upon is in line with established policy. Personally, I prefer your images, but personal preference aside, the other images are free. Also, it was bad form to revert me. The tag says "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern." I was the one who disputed the use of the images, and I do not believe that you have "successfully addressed the concern". The very fact that I replaced the tags with a clear edit summary establishes that I do not believe it has been successfully dealt with. If we cannot reach agreement, then it should be left to an adminstrator to determine, and by removing the tags, you prevent that from occurring. I have a legitimate concern, which I have expressed in line with established procedures, and the tags should all go back until the issue is resolved. I too like to actually edit articles, and I would prefer not to be in a dispute with you. I also feel strongly about the policies that are in place to protect the project and believe they should be respected and upheld, so to ignore my initial message when it was clear I had a concern, because you had more important things to do, showed no respect for me or my opinion or Wikipedia's policies. Now, is it possible we can discuss this? Rossrs (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely we can discuss it. I'm just passing through at the moment, but I'll be back for good later on today, and will present my arguments then. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. You missed the tags on the Miriam Hopkins photo when you removed the others. I've removed them so that this can be discussed; all of the images/articles are untagged now. Rossrs (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent for a fresh start!) Thanks for that, and sorry to be so long, real life intruded!

There are a number of points I want to put forward, but I'm not sure I have a coherent way to present them in toto, so let me just put them out there.

First, let me totally agree that the two publicity photos, Ida Lupino for One Rainy Afternoon and Miriam Hopkins for Fast and Loose are far from the ideal images for those articles. When I had finished taking those entries as far as I thought I could at the time, and went looking for images, what I looked for were screenshots from the films, set-ups which duplicated action in the film or "backstage" shots, all of which I think are the best images to add value to an article, in that they provide a great deal of concentrated additional information on the film as they also serve to illustrate the article. Failing to find anything like that, free or non-free, I decided to add something which, if not ideal, at least still provided some informational value. The typical reader who comes to Wikipedia for some quick information about a film is unlikely to know much of anything about the actors and creators of seventy-year old films, so the names in the cast list or on the infobox are just so many words unless they can be associated with a face. Putting up a photo for the lead actress in each film thus provides a modicum of information, albeit less than a screenshot etc. would do. However, the photo really needs to be one from the relative period in which the film was made -- a ten or fifteen year old image isn't really going to be very helpful or informative, especially when the images are fuzzy or badly cropped or specific to the films they came from. Since there were no appropriate images available, I opted to post a publicity photo from the period as being the best choice available to me.

The question arises: why post any image at all? Admittedly, not putting up an image is always an option, however, my general overriding concern is that the information in an article be good information and be well presented. Not only does an image help to prevent the article from having too much concentrated whitespace, which makes the article more difficult to read, but an image also breaks up the text in a way that facilitates it being read more efficiently. (I'm sure you've experienced how difficult it can be to slog through a concentrated block of text - such as this one! - without something to help the eye to break it up into chunks.) In this respect any image, even of the remotest relevance, can be better than no image at all, a fact which casts serious doubt on that "decorative vs. illustrative" comparison, which I tend to believe is a falso dichotomy in any case.

So I find it preferable to have an image, if I can find one that's relevant, and it think it's clear that an appropriate photograph of one of the cast members is relevant. Not only that, but the type of photograph I chose, a publicity photo is one of the least deserving of strict copyright concern, since these photos were expressly designed by the studio to be sent out willy-nilly where they had little or no control about their use. These photos were sent out in bulk mailings, they were given away to anyone who wrote in asking for a photograph, they were, in fact, made to get out to the pulic in any way possible. To have overly much concern for the copyright of such photographs seems rather silly to me, since their entire purpose was to be spread far and wide, outside of the studio's control.

In any event, the case I am making for the use of those photo in the film articles is that they are not the best possible choice (and I would fully support their being removed if screenshots were to become available), but they are nonetheless a valid and informative choice that serves to add value to the articles, both functionally and informationally. In the biography articles for the two actresses, the case is both the same and a little different. I think that there's no denying that actors, in general, can play very different kinds of roles as they go through life, and this is even more true for actresses than it is for male actors. Because of this, photographs of actresses at different points in their careers are not necessarily redundant, since they carry information about who they were (or what their projected personae was intended to be) at those different times. There's a significant distinction, for instance, in the message that's conveyed by the two photos of Ida Lupino. In one, she's almost a sex-kitten type (if not quite) and in the other she's a mature actress. The juxtaposition of those two photos says something signficiant about the development of her career, something that neither photograph alone can say. Given that, I think there's distinct value to having both photographs in the article, especially when the free photo is of such inferior quality by comparison.

And that's another point I would like to explore: whether the existence of a free photo means that one is not able to use a non-free photo as well. Common sense would say that would be the case when the photo are obviously duplicative or redundant, but it seems to me to be entirely too reductive to say that a single photograph of a person competently serves the purpose of illustrating that person's being, persona and appearance throughout the entirety of their live. (And, while I'm at it, it's also unhelpfully reductive to see the entire purpose of a photograph as being to "identify" the subject, since photographs can convey so much more information than that.) Can the case really be being made that a single photograph, especially one of inferior quality, says everything that can possibly be said about the subject, especially when the subject is an actor, who is apt to go through distinctive phases as they pass through their career?

As I said, I would have preferred to have presented these rather disparate thoughts in a more coherent manner, but I hope you will still find in them the core of my argument that these two photographs are not "more decorative than illustrative" and should remain in their respective articles. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ed, First I would like to thank you for such a detailed and well reasoned reply. You have given me a lot to think about, and I can understand your point of view much better now. Your arguments are very persuasive, and you are looking at the issue in a way that is completely different to what I expected. I'm more inclined to support than oppose your view in this. Real life will be intruding for me, but I would like to discuss this further. I think it might be a case of making the fair use rationales a little more specific, and maybe even tweaking the articles somewhat, so that the thoughts you have conveyed here are better represented in the image pages and articles. (I added a point to the "Ida Lupino directing" image a couple of days ago. Not a big deal, but I've found sometimes making a very clear specific point is helpful in showing why a particular image is used). Let me take a little time to think about how to approach it. Again, thank you. I was worried that we'd gotten off to a rocky start, when it seems more that we were merely misunderstanding each other. Rossrs (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Great - I look forward to hearing your thoughts (whenever you're able to post them), and to working together on whatever changes we made need to make. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting because I'm verbose)

Hi again : Thoughts : I accept what you say about the use of images in the film articles. Currently there are no other images available, and if screenshots were available you wouldn't be using these. You also mentioned that an article can survive without an image (I agree) but that a suitable image enhances it (I also agree). Your comments regarding the images in the film articles all sound fair to me, and I won't push that point any further. You have convinced me.

The uses in the biographical articles are somewhat different, but I see your point. The use is not going to satisfy the purist and it doesn't completely fit in with Wikipedia:NFCC#1. The policy uses the word "satisfactory" and for identification purposes the free image is "satisfactory" (in a way that the free image of ZaSu Pitts is not satisfactory. I uploaded it but I'm the first to admit it's a shocker, which is why I considered the unfree addition to be completely suitable.) So.... how do we deal with this? First, I think the way the images are currently used in the articles, they serve the purpose of identification only. They aren't placed into any context and there's nothing in the text that strongly demonstrates the necessity of either image. You've conveyed the necessity to me quite clearly, so I think that necessity should be injected into the article, and the image description pages. Both articles could use a good overhaul, and I'll be happy to contribute. I think that a more specific comment needs to be added to the fair use rationales. For example, something along the lines of "Miriam Hopkins was notable as a sophisticated and fashionable woman in the 1920s, and this image depicts her personal appearance, hairstyle and the type of clothing she wore", and then if the article is somewhat expanded to include some mention of her appearance, it would all fit. (I know what I've just written is extremely awkward but it's just to convey a general idea). A more descriptive caption might work. "Lupino in one of the ingenue poses that typified her early career" for example. I've done a bit of reading-up on both women. I couldn't find anything useful on Hopkins, but will keep looking. Lupino, I have learnt, went through a definite "ingenue" period where she wasn't taken particularly seriously, and was basically required to stand in front of the camera and look pretty. This image is of that period, and depicts her in, as you said, a "sex kitten" pose. Her career didn't take off until the 40s, and then she was playing more the film-noir femme fatale, which is completely different. Yes, I see your point about representing people at different phases of their careers. So... if a free "sex kitten" image becomes available, this argument kind of goes out the window.  :-) But for now, I think it works.

If you look at the articles for modern performers such as Juliette Binoche, Janet Jackson, Lindsay Lohan (ergg), Julie Andrews, John Travolta etc.... their infobox images are pretty unrepresentative and/or just plain not-very-good. Those articles are obviously on the radar of more editors, but there is also more certainty regarding the copyright status of more recent images. As you mentioned, the Hopkins/Lupino images were freely handed to anyone who wanted them. Their copyright status is murky, and it's assumed that many of the old studio photographs were probably forgotten about, and copyrights, if they ever existed, were not renewed. (It's logical - if they were careless enough to let complete films lapse, it's hard to imagine they were more diligent when it came to their old promo shots, especially as they were of stars who were no longer in demand) There is a school of thought that says they are probably in the public domain, but it's not provable to the degree that Wikipedia would require proof. I think, however, that it works in favour of supporting the use of the images, in these cases. Another consideration is that while free images exist of both Lupino and Hopkins, the selection is limited. I agree with your points in that regard, but if Commons suddenly becomes flooded with free images of either of them, it may need to be reviewed. As it is, there is really just one style of image to depict each person. Hopkins' free image is particularly limiting because it shows her in character in a costume drama, and doesn't really reflect her "look" (as opposed to her appearance). The free image of Lupino is quite good and quite representative, in my opinion, but I agree that it doesn't tell the whole story. If we were discussing Barbara Stanwyck or Joan Crawford or Bette Davis or Greer Garson - it would probably be different as they are well represented on Commons, though a case could be made for later images for them working as older actresses.

I'm happy to retract my earlier opposition, and hope that there are no hard feelings. One more thing about Ida Lupino : there was a time when this very unflattering image was the only one in her article. It was added on the basis that it was free, and it replaced a more representative (but unfree) glamour shot of her, which was then deleted. I don't think the image at all represents either her "sex-kitten" phase or her "femme fatale" phase, in fact looking at that photo it was hard to believe she'd ever had either of those phases. I was fairly sure that her career never went through a "batty old Aunt at a family gathering" phase, so I set myself the task of finding something more representative, and eventually found the image from The Hard Way. Just telling you this to highlight that some editors believe that "Crazy old Aunt Ida" is a more suitable image than anything unfree, despite the fact that as an illustration of her film career (ie her notability), it has zero value. It'll be interesting to see what happens, but now that I understand what your aim is, I would support you. Rossrs (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and the time you've taken to express them so thoroughly. It seems to me that we have no major disagreements at this point, and I certainly support your idea that articles & captions should be beefed up to include information supportive of the use of the images. I'll be glad to take a look at the articles and see what I can do to help. One caveat, though -- the major project I'm working on at the moment is going through the Preston Sturges filmography and putting all the articles into shape, expanding stubs or creating new articles where none existed, so I spend a lot of my editing time on that. Not to the exclusion of other things, of course.

Thanks for the link to the Lupino picture you removed -- it's really quite amazing that anyone reasonable would see that as being in any way representative of the woman! Beyond that, it's also quite useless for "identification" purposes as well! I do, however, take your point about a prevailing attitude regarding free vs. non-free images, but I'm also heartened that we were able to have this dialogue and come to an understanding.

If you do come across screenshots of those films or free images of the actresses at comparable periods, please feel free to substitute them, and, if you remember, drop me a note when you do. Many thanks, and apologies for the crabbiness I exhibited at the start of our encounter. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, and my apologies for acting in haste. I'm glad to find that we are on a similar wavelength. I'm sure the articles will evolve, and I respect that you have other projects at hand. There's no urgency. Some time in the next 24 hours would be great. (Kidding, kidding). No urgency. I'll do what I can as time permits and as inspiration strikes. Preston Sturges? I have a couple of images of Veronica Lake and Joel McCrea that I haven't gotten around to uploading yet, that are free as they're from the trailer. You may be able to use them. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. And I should have mentioned they are from Sullivan's Travels. They are - "Veronica and Joel out for a drive" and "Veronica offers Joel a reassuring peekaboo at the hospital. Undoubtedly it helped ensure a speedy recovery." Rossrs (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! I've replaced the non-free screenshot I had put into the article with your driving image. Anything else Sturges-related you come across, let me know. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how following policy and tagging unsourced info and Trivia is abusive and I don't much like the bad faith in having my edits called abusive. If you don't like the look of ^{[citation needed]} I suggest you get sources for the unsourced opionated and possibly made up or OR info which is largely presented in a Trivia format or delete it. Thankyou for considering that in the future.

Please sign your comments in the future. Tagging every fact in multiple sections is an abuse of the citation tag, which should be used sparingly and for facts that you actually are in doubt about, not simply because you object to so-called "trivia" sections. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought the autosigner would do it for me, no real name thing so I don't tend to bother. I'll give you that, but I was actually doubting everything in those "trivia" sections, theres no sources, they sound like they were written by people who watch way too many movies and come to far too many conclusions themselves without facts helping them along. Personally I think the tag at the top is uglier than a bunch of individuals. And they information in them is certianly trivial, whatever the heading, made up (?) information about how similar they are to other movies and what questionable equipment they use in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that the tag at the top is ugly as sin, but the citation tags are pretty distracting as well. Were I you, if you really doubt all of those facts, I would do a little research and delete the stuff which you find to be unsupported. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question, Ed. I wish that I had a good answer. After reverting the strange and unexplained edits to the Mexican Revolution article, it did not occur to me to look at the fellow's other contributions, but you are correct, on their face, they did not look like vandalism. But, looking through some of them now---for example, Classics---I can see that they are certainly not helpful. I am not sure what his intent is, and his consistent unwillingness to use edit summaries only makes matters worse. But, to your question, I am uncertain where to go with this. It is not obvious vandalism, so AiV is not appropriate. Perhaps, a report at ANI is in order, though, especially given the fact that he has been asked to stop and has not responded. I think a report at ANI is in order. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sullivans Travels screenshot.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with image from trailer - can be deleted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Go Tell Spartans Lancaster.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

License added. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, sorry, i'm no doubt doing this wrong but not at all clear on the proper protocol and unwilling to learn it. Hopefully this method will suffice. The woman pictured with Ann Carter in "Curse Of The Cat People" photo is not Simone Simon, but co-star Jane Randolph who plays the little girl's mother in the film. Kurtfelix5 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You know I wasn't entirely sure when I added it to the article, but was reasonably certain enough to go ahead. Oh well... I'll fix it -- and, again, thanks for the catch. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ed. I saw you were involved in a bit of a kerfuffle with yet another re-incarnation of the banned user: Jvolkblum. If you come across yet another one, notify ANI. Rudget (logs) 15:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Imitation of Life. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the edit summary to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hru692 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Palm Beach Story. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the edit summary to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hru692 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Big Pond. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the edit summary to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hru692 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You are a real piece of work. Follow policy and leave your "out of your box philosophy" to your life, not Wikipedia. I'll shall return with more, but I'm busy w/ work. Follow policy listed at MOS:FILM Luigibob (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm always open to discussion, but MoS isn't a policy, it's a guideline, as it says quite clearly in numerous places. I don't ignore it, but I sometimes find that, for specific purposes, there are better ways to do things, that make articles easier to read and use and therefore better for the reader. That really should be out goal, and we should all use our abilities to the maximum to achieve it. That's means not blindly following pre-set "rules", but being thoughtful and working to get the best possible result.

Anyway, I look forward to what you've got to say. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)