Contents
- 1 May I Suggest?
- 2 Garbo image
- 3 Greetings- about images in musicians' articles
- 4 Roman Polanski
- 5 Edith Peinemann
- 6 Sasoon refs
- 7 Query, Wikiwatcher1, please respond
- 8 Roman_Polanski infobox picture
- 9 Media copyright questions#File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg
- 10 FYI
- 11 Irving Berlin Portrait - please clarification
- 12 Orange bar harassment
- 13 Your help would be appreciated
- 14 Peter Sellers 1964 heart attack
- 15 Peter Sellers - peer review
- 16 RFC/U discussion concerning you (Wikiwatcher1)
- 17 Bullets
- 18 Kay Christopher
- 19 Caren Marsh Doll
- 20 The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
- 21 Julie Christie
- 22 bad warning
- 23 Myrna Dell page
- 24 A complaint about your edits of Denis Avey has been filed at WP:AN3
- 25 Notification of edit warring report re: Denis Avey
- 26 Resumption of edit warring at Denis Avey
- 27 Stanley Kubrick photos
- 28 Natalie Wood
- 29 Garbo pic
- 30 Carl Sandburg
- 31 Any Intrest In The Following?
- 32 Files missing description details
- 33 Recommendations
- 34 Articles that need photos + one recommendation
- 35 Baby Doll shot
- 36 October 2013
- 37 Neutral notice
- 38 A Request
- 39 Tami Erin
- 40 File:Film stills-Simone.JPG replaceable?
- 41 Precious
- 42 File:Lee interior.jpg
- 43 Lynn Bari (1913 - 1989)
- 44 Frank Capra images
- 45 Possibly unfree File:Pete Seeger-1979.jpg
- 46 Possibly unfree files
- 47 A barnstar for you!
- 48 Wonderful job with Sally Kellerman
- 49 Rooney's quote on marriage
- 50 Your Edits to the Suzanne Somers Article
- 51 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 52 Albert Einstein
- 53 ITN for Eli Wallach
- 54 Peter Sellers
- 55 What happened to the photograph of Anne Bancroft's headstone?
- 56 AfD
- 57 Some baklava for you!
- 58 Map
- 59 title
- 60 George Clooney controversy
- 61 ANI notice
- 62 You are now subject to a topic ban
- 63 Elizabeth Taylor photo
- 64 Bob Simon
- 65 Chaplin
- 66 Talk:Madonna (entertainer)#Infobox image
- 67 Mass deletions replied to
- 68 Al Jolson photos
May I Suggest?
Hi, Wikiwatcher1! Love your picture choices, may I suggest a picture tune up for the pages of Jane Greer , Rue McClanahan, Arlene Dahl
, and John Gavin. They really could use a tune up and poor Arlene has no pictures on her page at all. Hope you'll consider. Have a good one!Carlton30458AZ (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Added Arlene, will do others if possible. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Garbo image
WW, why didn't you either talk to me (since you know I and another made the first choice) or raise as a discussion point first about making this big change? The whole point of the other image is to show her laughing! This was the big tag-line and it was her first and only 1 of 2 comedies. It's very important to the article because it shows her range. Can you explain why you made this change? So with due respect, I'm going to revert again and unless you can persuade on discussion page, we really should keep the choice Fat&Happy and I made several weeks ago. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
NEVERMIND! I'm so sorry. I didn't go all the way through. Now, you don't think the page is overcrowded with images? I do. But will check with fat&happy to get his opinion. Anyway, I'm not wedded to it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
it's me again. Another problem is that it's 2 pics from the same movie. There are so many other classics that are not represented, the most importyant being Queen Christian. You want to check on some of those?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
uhhh. Christina :))
- No problem. I'll keep an eye out for the queen. But if we add a photo of "Queen Christina," it will have to go in the section titled "Queen of MGM." Are such double crowns allowed? :) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- :))!
- OK, google garbo queen christina "images." Look at first two. 2nd one of the most famous shots in cinema history. First slightly better quality. I think either would be a much better choice than having 2 pics from the same movie. What do you think? I'd post it but don't know how to deal with copyright rules.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- o yeah, F&H also questioned the wisdom of having 2 from same movie.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - I found one that is public domain. The ones you found came from blogs which wouldn't be allowed.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Bravo! Much better I think. And brings out her often-cited androgyny, part of her unique screen persona, which adds something to the p.
- :))!
-
You're fast, man.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings- about images in musicians' articles
I've been crazy busy this week. I hope you'll be patient a little longer? Some years ago I found so few musicians' biographies (my focus) missing images, that I ended up 50% half-sidetracked from editing obtaining photos, & since then I've uploaded at least 1,500 photos since then. But the templates, policy, rules, and style I learned I either memorized or stashed someplace on my userpage or in a sandbox there. I'll look for the origin, ASAP. Basically, infobox photos should be of the best quality a recent date. (In the case of Bruce Springsteen, placing a photo from 30 years ago may easily confuse a reader who is newly familiar with him, and not recognize him from long ago is just one reason that comes to mind. There is also the problem of fans editing and placing photos of people they were attracted to years before, as with Mick Taylor or Cat Stevens who are eager to show the artist as they remember their "pin-up" days. After the infobox, images should be used to reflect the text and/or expand the reader's comprehension of points being made. With few exceptions, biography articles flow chronologically, and photos should illuminate text from the time period. See Wikipedia:IMAGE RELEVANCE.. it's taken me years to realize how to begin to look for inspired policy to produce much better articles! I'll try to get back to you with more policy sources. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Roman Polanski
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Roman Polanski". Thank you. --Psalm84 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, (UTC)
I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Just a notice that I replied to your statement in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Edith Peinemann
this is one of the best articles I've seen all day. Thank you for writing it, and keep up the awesome work! Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Sasoon refs
dont use the current format because its a lot of work for you and reflinks provides more data, ill run the rool on the page.Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Query, Wikiwatcher1, please respond
Sorry, Wikiwatcher1, for communicating this way, but user-email is not enabled. Anyway, for a music project about Irving Berlin in Berlin we need to find the source of the Irving Berlin portrait photograph that you have uploaded on English Wikipedia. I bought the book that the caption says contains the image, but it doesn't. So would you please provide the correct source of the image, so I can use it or re-scan it for print publications etc.? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onigorom (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the lead image, that was from a library book, so I'll first try to find it and double check. But if you meant another photo, let me know. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Roman_Polanski infobox picture
Hi - regarding your revert of my edit - I have opened a talkpage policy discussion - please join in there - thanks - Youreallycan 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Media copyright questions#File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg
Hi - I have opened a discussion regarding your claim of public domain on this picture - please comment there - thanks - Youreallycan 17:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Hi - I asked you a question - Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg - pleae reply - thanks - Youreallycan 16:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Irving Berlin Portrait - please clarification
Hi again, Getty Images has this photograph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BerlinPortrait1.jpg) listed, and they claim to have a license (unfortunately). Upon uploading you have listed this image as license-free public domain. I would be thankful if you could inquire on that or give proof that it is public domain etc. The Getty listing can be found here: http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/circa-1945-studio-portrait-of-russian-born-composer-nachrichtenfoto/51240089 The photographer is unknown. Getty wants to charge money for this image being used in a music performance context, and I wonder what is the case here. --Onigorom (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Getty places a copyright notice on all their photos, regardless of whether they have a registration. A search found that this image, if it ever was copyrighted (doubtful - see film still article, was not renewed and nothing similar has been renewed. Because Getty, like Corbis, is a stock photo house, they charge for their services of providing the images in various resolutions. I have the source book on order, and should have it later this week. However, note that the image you're inquiring about is small and low resolution, so for print publication it would only be a bit over an inch square, about the size of a postage stamp. A photo like this one can also be used if you contact the web site for its source and check with them also, along with doing your own copyright search. It will print up to 9" x 12" at print resolution.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Orange bar harassment
Repeated harassment is easily neutered:
.usermessage
{
display: none;
}
Drop that in User:Wikiwatcher1/common.css, and begone. Then you can check for messages when you feel like it, kinda like with email. It will also kill some of teh joke bars. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- no problem. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Your help would be appreciated
The message this replaces was an effort to contact you from a banned user, Excuseme99. Please remember that Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids taking editing directions from banned users, so I strongly urge you to ignore the contract request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.—Kww(talk) 05:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Peter Sellers 1964 heart attack
I see you do a lot of work to his article, so this is a heads up. Sellers didn't have a heart attack on the set of Kiss me Stupid and almost certainly didn't have 13 heart attacks. My explanation for the edit I did can be found here.[1] Cheers!...William 17:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Peter Sellers - peer review
WW, please do not simply revert alterations without first researching why the "extreme" removals and edits are taking place. It has absolutely nothing to do with WP:OWN - a policy you seem to be slightly obsessed with of late. Please see [the image review] which has been conducted by J Milburn; an excellent and prolific image reviewer at FAC who has identified a number of serious issues with a lot of the images within the article. SchroCat and I are putting a lot of time and effort in to this in order to get this upto FA standard and we think this is certainly achievable if we recieve the correct guidance at PR. Such guidence may result in a number of substantial edits taking place so as to remove problematic issues which could potentially hinder Sellers chances at FAC. Surely even you want Sellers to achieve the highest status possible so I beg you, please work with us and not against us, as we only have this articles best interests at heart. If you have an issue with the image review, feel free to approach the image reviewer. I just hope you do your research before you do though, because they will run rings around you if you don't. -- CassiantoTalk 01:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- I understand. I just did that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I really do appreciate your understanding and I'm sure JM will provide a definate answer once and for all. For the record, I would happily keep all the images, but they do come with thier problems and Sellers would be kicked out as soon as it was listed if these problems are not fixed now. We really want Sellers to have a smooth transition from complete obscurity to being the best WP has to offer so its not about OWN. By the way, If you have any comments at PR we would love to hear from you (excuse the cheeky plug ;-) -- CassiantoTalk 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the message you left on my talk page, if we can prove that, firstly, the image was published in the US between those years, and, secondly, that it was published without a copyright notice, then I naturally have no objection to its use. We assume images non-free until proven otherwise. (Whether it's used in the lead, elsewhere or at all is up to you- I'm just concerned about copyright.) Right now, it's not clear that the image is definitely PD; regardless of how appropriate you feel the image is for the article, the copyright concerns have to come first. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
RFC/U discussion concerning you (Wikiwatcher1)
Hello, Wikiwatcher1. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1, where you may want to participate. Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Bullets
I bulleted parts of your comment at Talk:Peter Sellers#Place of birth and possible misuse of BRD to make the text more accessible (per WP:LIST). Hope that's OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Kay Christopher
Hi, Wikiwatcher1,
A new page has been created today in honor of actress Kay Christopher.
Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Christopher
We are hoping you'd like to do the honor of posting some photographs of her on her page since you are such a respected uploader.
Hope you'll consider.DinahIsMyGal (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Caren Marsh Doll
Wikiwatcher1, If you would like another picture project actress Caren Marsh Doll dosen't have any pictures on her Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caren_Marsh_Doll
Perhaps you could add some image for her when you can.MissPhyll (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Julie Christie
The photo you put up there is nice, but it's virtually identical to the screenshot from Doctor Zhivago under the career section. I clicked on your image and saw that it was from eBay. Can you upload another photo from ebay, perhaps this photo, to use instead of the pic that's on there right now? Shipofcool (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's from the same film, so I'll change the caption on the lead. I think the lead image is much better for her bio's image, so will delete the screen captured one. I'll keep my eyes open for some others, but the one you found won't work since it's a reprint without any border details. BTW, Doctor Zhivago is now playing at some major theaters nationwide along with the first runs - seems to be some classic film promo, but can't tell. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
bad warning
You're wrong, I was removing vandalism. Take a look at my edit to John Muir again, then remove the warning from my page. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Myrna Dell page
Today a page was created for the late actress Myrna Dell and we thought you'd like to honor her by uploading a photo for her infobox.
Here is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrna_Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theystillremember (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
A complaint about your edits of Denis Avey has been filed at WP:AN3
Hello Wikiwatcher1. Please see WP:AN3#User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. It is interesting to see that a similar issue was discussed at the BLP noticeboard in 2011. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Notification of edit warring report re: Denis Avey
Hi Wikiwatcher. This is to notify you that a I have created a report on the edit warring noticeboard [2] as I informed you I would if you continued what I see as your edit-warrior activities on the Denis Avey page. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC) As another editor of Denis Avey I would comment that the use of Wikiwatcher in a user name seems to me to conflict with Wikipedia:Username policy section Misleading Usernames. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954
- Hello Wikiwatcher1. Mystichumwipe is the person who filed the edit warring complaint against you, with the title "User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: )". Per this I have closed the complaint with no action. My assumption is that you and the others will now participate in good faith at Talk:Denis Avey and abide by whatever consensus is reached. If you are not satisfied with whatever result is found there, you can consider the other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Any of the editors can ask for this complaint to be reopened if they believe that the edit war has resumed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Judging from this edit, perhaps my closure was premature. Do you think that anyone on the talk page is likely to support your change? EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Resumption of edit warring at Denis Avey
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20150719181620im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
![File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)](https://web.archive.org/web/20150719181620im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Orologio_rosso.svg/48px-Orologio_rosso.svg.png)
Light show (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
The block on the sock was lifted while my restoration to the non-POV soapbox has led to me being blocked instead. In any case, the note on my talk page about the closure was posted while I was trying to repair the bio. I do not believe that the goal of a block should be to allow previously blocked socks to restore their material, which was quickly done. Because this was a BLP content dispute, it should have been listed with an RfC or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard post, rather than blocking of a key contributor. Addendum: I noticed that Thorium-based nuclear power has received a lot of attention today. An editor has requested that I add some of his cites to balance the article to remove the POV tag they added, which would be a good idea. The editor might think I'm reneging on adding them. Can I have the block removed if I don't edit Avey for a few days and the others agree to refrain from adding any more unreliable sources or otherwise adding to the problems noted? Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
- User:Sceptic1954, User:Mystichumwipe User:Griz999 and are not socks of one another and you are welcome to ask them for their opinions. (Griz999 is not active since 2011). You seem to be very determined to exclude from the lead even a single sentence to indicate that Avey's claim of breaking into Auschwitz is controversial. There seem to be an abundance of reliable sources on that point. You simply revert and you make no effort to persuade anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- That is nearly the opposite of the history of the edits. The cites and mention of the "controversy" were included, despite my also noting that their sources violated a number of guidelines, another one being their given obvious undue weight, including prominence in the lead. I have never gone against consensus, but have only removed invalid material. Feel free to read the earlier history of discussions, all of which are a rehash of the same attempt to undermine the bio by essentially defaming Avey by alleging he faked his story. If trying to balance the bio of a celebrated British war hero by removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material which defames him, results in my being blocked, what can I say? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your recent edit to the article lead removed the only mention in the lead that there were people who doubted Denis Avey's story of breaking into Auschwitz. The report was sourced to Reuters. The same edit also removed an entire section that was sourced to the New Statesman, among others. Is the New Statesman a tabloid? EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Reuters article was partly supported by the Daily Mail's own tabloid opinion article: But a subsequent investigation by the Daily Mail quoted historians'. As for the New Statesman, which claims to be a non-neutral publication, their Avey article was simply another essay also by Guy Walters giving his opinions, and he included, ". . . Avey's story was highlighted by myself and my co-authors, Jeremy Duns and Adrian Weale, in the pages of the Daily Mail . . ." A writer's contentious and defamatory opinions, even if repeated by a few other publications, should not undermine and turn a person's bio into an article focused on an alleged "controversy." Walters' article in the Mail was already given too much prominence, although his tabloid essay was still kept in.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your recent edit to the article lead removed the only mention in the lead that there were people who doubted Denis Avey's story of breaking into Auschwitz. The report was sourced to Reuters. The same edit also removed an entire section that was sourced to the New Statesman, among others. Is the New Statesman a tabloid? EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- That is nearly the opposite of the history of the edits. The cites and mention of the "controversy" were included, despite my also noting that their sources violated a number of guidelines, another one being their given obvious undue weight, including prominence in the lead. I have never gone against consensus, but have only removed invalid material. Feel free to read the earlier history of discussions, all of which are a rehash of the same attempt to undermine the bio by essentially defaming Avey by alleging he faked his story. If trying to balance the bio of a celebrated British war hero by removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material which defames him, results in my being blocked, what can I say? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikiwatcher1, I am certainly not trying to discredit a British War Hero, as far as I am concerned he deserves his award for having smuggled cigarettes to Ernst and I have put this first. I can't speak for the motivation of the authors of the sources used, but nobody is outright accusing him of lying, and although I don't want to stray too far into discussion of the subject matter and I couldn't use it in the article because it is OR it might help your mood to look at False Memory Syndrome. I agree that because it is BLP there shouldn't be undue weight to controversies, and I wouldn't want to see this. If you look at my discussion with Mysticumswipe you will see that that user wished to give rather more space to controversies than I do. I would like to put the uncontroversial material first followed by the controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your statement, I am certainly not trying to discredit a British War Hero, is the opposite of your edits. All of your, and User:Griz999, User:mystichumwipe, User:Hardicanute and User:SherlockHolmes249's edits, have been involved with doing exactly that.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Surely Wikipedia is here to present reliable sources and allow readers to make up their own minds. As far as I can tell many people have doubts about aspects of Avey's story. You could look at reader comments in one Daily Mail article, before the Guy Walter's article. In fact all mainstream media reaction was positive, but before publication of the book readers showed disbelief at articles in Telegraph and Daily Mail. That's quite likely what made the Daily Mail want to carry the Walters article. You would normally expect that paper to be in favour of honouring war heroes. Wikipedia looks a bit silly if it doesn't reflect that. Maybe I need to give Wikipedia my email so I don't have to talk politics on your UserPage, if I did want to see anyone discredited in this it wouldn't be Avey. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954
- Do you consider this a reliable source to defame a war hero, a captured Brit soldier in his early 20s who risked his life only to witness the unbelievable? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The point is not whether Avey broke into Auschwitz or not but that many people doubt that he did so that for the purpose of balance this has to be reported. This was the first article in mainstream media to question it and the most widely circulated and it's available online so it's okay to question it. I don't know how you are so certain that did what you say he did. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954
I left a comment on JamesBWatson's talk page regarding your unblock request and my changes to the article as of today. If you are unblocked and allowed to edit the article again please don't revert wholesale, because there are some changes which I am sure you would approve. I'd certainly discuss with you and Mysticumswipe more material in the article, but I'm not sure you would like too much the things he would like to put in. I think greater brevity is called for to make the article more accessible and have asked for comments from other editorsd and administrators on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Stanley Kubrick photos
There are more free use Kubrick photos you might find useful at Flickr. Use the advanced search and choose content able to be used commercially to find photos that have Creative Commons licenses acceptable to WP. If you upload any photos through one of the Commons Flickr bots, they won't let you upload any which aren't license compatible. We hope (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk)
Natalie Wood
Seriously? I don't want to have some long debate over which photo to use. The black and white one that you insist upon using is awful. She looks older than her age in it, and it looks way too old-fashioned, and there's another photo from "Penelope" that looks virtually identical to it. Please just put the color photo from 1973 back on there. Existskiss (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Garbo pic
Hi Wikiwatcher1, curious about why you changed Grand Hotel pic. Advantage of the one you replaced is that it captures her emotional state in the movie. With JB, can't see her face. Is the pic no longer available in the commons? Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll reply on the Garbo talk page in case others want to comment. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks WW; we'll see if anyone weighs in.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Carl Sandburg
Although your upload of the Bette Davis/Carl Sandburg picture was deleted at my instigation, I do wish to convey my thanks for alerting Carl Sandburg editors (well, at least me) to the existence of Sandburg on Broadway. That fact has made it into the article and will soon be in at least one other article. Again, thank you. Choor monster (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Any Intrest In The Following?
If you wanna give a picture facelift to a few more articles, Rock Hudson , Martha Raye
, Joan Caulfield, Virginia Mayo
, and Jayne Meadows
could use a touch up.Whatbecameofjustice? (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Files missing description details
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Recommendations
Bobby Van, Claire Trevor , and Dorothy Lamour
haven't had a photo update in awhile; I'm sure you could do them good should you accept the challenge.This Week's Scheduale (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles that need photos + one recommendation
The following pages Gloria DeHaven, Sylvia Sidney,
Marsha Hunt (actress), Betty Hutton
, and Joan Blondell
need lead images as they have none. Also, Yvonne De Carlo
needs a photo upgrade for her page has not had an update in over a decade. Also, could you upload and crop/trim this picture for Laraine Day's page?
This would be wonderful for her: [3] Hope you can help, it would be much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornelia Page (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Baby Doll shot
Thanks for finding the Baby Doll replacement. How did you knew that there could be a free publicity photo available for that scene? Diego (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- The photo has been used for the film's promo elsewhere, so I had to do some extra searching. --Light show (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
A Request
Can you add pictures for the pages of actress Mary Wickes and Yvonne De Carlo , they could really use a breath of fresh air. Thank you!Hattie Boweman (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Tami Erin
I just noticed you reverted back a whole whack of unsourced content back in August [4]. Please don't do that again. Material in a BLP needs to be sourced properly. --NeilN talk to me 02:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- And now you've removed material sourced to the NY Times and CBS News (the talk page discussion was about unreliable sources). I'm confused. --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
-
- The recent comments there imply events which may not be directly related. As the terms "male roommate" was used in a news story a few months prior to one that used the term "boyfriend." Therefore connecting the events from brief and tabloidish stories separated in time is probably not a good idea. The commenter's questions are valid, IMO. --Light show (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank for clearing that up. I'm not convinced mention of the sex tape had to be entirely removed given that it's now covered by reliable sources but will see if others feel the same. Cheers! --NeilN talk to me 17:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- The recent comments there imply events which may not be directly related. As the terms "male roommate" was used in a news story a few months prior to one that used the term "boyfriend." Therefore connecting the events from brief and tabloidish stories separated in time is probably not a good idea. The commenter's questions are valid, IMO. --Light show (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
File:Film stills-Simone.JPG replaceable?
The screenshot from Simone isn't part of discussion. Also, there are replacement candidates below:
-
One Life to Live, 1973
-
General Hospital, 1973
-
Another World, 1971
-
Rod Serling, 1959
I guess you are familiar with WP:NFCC? You can look again about the non-free image. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- I know, there are lots of publicity stills on the commons. But the section it's in has the statement, "Studios sent out tens of thousands of scene stills and portraits to newspapers, magazines, and fans each year." A pile of stills on the floor, without focusing on any stills or persons, seems to help illustrate the general nature of those kinds of photos better, IMO. --Light show (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe I can take a photo of several stills I own to replace this non-free photo, or you do, right? George Ho (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are already images of single stills. The benefit of illustrating a pile of them, none of which are identifiable, is that they imply they had little value besides the publicity for whoever was on it. Sort of the difference between showing sample soup cans versus showing how they were really valued outside of their PR purpose. --Light show (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I meant picturing them as piles, viewing the same angle as the non-free image's. Would that require several or 20 of them on the ground? George Ho (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I guess a photo like this one or this one would work ok. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- They are still non-free, so do they meet WP:NFCC, especially #2? George Ho (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- A photo of a collection would be a compilation, and would have its own copyright, so an uploader who created it would make it PD. --Light show (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- They are still non-free, so do they meet WP:NFCC, especially #2? George Ho (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I guess a photo like this one or this one would work ok. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I meant picturing them as piles, viewing the same angle as the non-free image's. Would that require several or 20 of them on the ground? George Ho (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are already images of single stills. The benefit of illustrating a pile of them, none of which are identifiable, is that they imply they had little value besides the publicity for whoever was on it. Sort of the difference between showing sample soup cans versus showing how they were really valued outside of their PR purpose. --Light show (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe I can take a photo of several stills I own to replace this non-free photo, or you do, right? George Ho (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Never mind those. I took a photo of seven still images as piles (I mean, in a messy way, not a neat, straight way). Is seven enough as a pile? If so, I'll upload it to Commons and release it as PD. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Seven should be enough. --Light show (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Here you go. George Ho (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good. You have the honor of replacing the old one. --Light show (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Precious
light shows
Thank you for quality cotributions to articles on performers such as Maya Plisetskaya and Maximilian Schell, showing them in best light with infoboxes and images, for making people "think and rethink", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Very much appreciate the comment - thank you! --Light show (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- A year ago, you were the 663rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
File:Lee interior.jpg
Hello, could you add more details about the location of the pictured house? Either a link to its article if it has one, or its address if it doesn't? Without either one, the image isn't particularly useful, and it would be a candidate for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's no link available and I probably shouldn't add an address for potential privacy concerns by its residents. --Light show (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Lynn Bari (1913 - 1989)
Dear, sir or madame,
The 100th birthday of actress Lynn Bari is 12/18/2013 and I would like to recommend that you add some new photographs of her in commemoration for her Wikipedia page is rather sparce. Hope you can help. Thank you and Merry Christmas!Angie and Albert Greeke (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Frank Capra images
Since you are a major (and recent) editor on Frank Capra, I thought you should know that most (if not all) images have been flagged for deletion. Since, as an IP, I can't do anything about it, I hope that you can deal with this (?). ~Eric F:71.20.250.51 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Dwpaul Talk 16:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Pete Seeger-1979.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pete Seeger-1979.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Possibly unfree files
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 11#Various single-use photos for a discussion about some of the files you have uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar |
for your improvement of the wiki with photos. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks! --Light show (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful job with Sally Kellerman
I commend your work. You did a great job!
- Thank you! --Light show (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Rooney's quote on marriage
It has been there for years and nobody ever complained. After you removed it, someone brought it back and you removed it again. I brought it back and you removed it again. If you're the only one who believe it shouldn't be there, perhaps you're the one who's wrong. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Some sort of reply would've been nice. Do you agree that it's not the end of the world if the quote is there? Revert wars are not my thing. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the edit summary, an isolated quote with no context was out of place there. --Light show (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I saw the summary and, if I'm here, it's obviously because I don't agree with that reason. I don't see the harm of having a quote in an article, especially this one which shows Rooney's humor regarding marriage. The worst is can do is put a smile on the face of the reader. It's a marriage related quote from Rooney in the "Marriages" section of Rooney's article so, isolated it or not, I believe it perfectly fits there. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The best it can do is put a smile on a reader's face. He was also a known comic with tons of lines like that, "I’ve been married so many times I’ve got rice marks on my face!” So if you can add some cited context about his attitude or feelings about marriage and women, with a quote that supports that context, feel free. --Light show (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I saw the summary and, if I'm here, it's obviously because I don't agree with that reason. I don't see the harm of having a quote in an article, especially this one which shows Rooney's humor regarding marriage. The worst is can do is put a smile on the face of the reader. It's a marriage related quote from Rooney in the "Marriages" section of Rooney's article so, isolated it or not, I believe it perfectly fits there. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the edit summary, an isolated quote with no context was out of place there. --Light show (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Your Edits to the Suzanne Somers Article
I noticed that you recently reverted my edits to the Suzanne Somers regarding her previous business partnership with John Y. Brown, Jr. which I learned about while reviewing the article I previously created on Brown, although I was not sure of which section of the Somers article to include the information in, and I was wondering if you feel that the information could be re-added to the article in another section, or do you feel that the information is irrelevant to the article. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further thoughts regarding this matter. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that the "Personal life" section, where it might normally go, is way too brief to include any details about her business investments. --Light show (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--JOJ Hutton 23:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Albert Einstein
I had to undo your edit because of two issues. First, the reference list was broken for the first two entries, and second, you removed some of the quote and added a link to an alternate NY Times article that does not match the original newspaper article being cited which is behind paywall and now has a link to the abstract. Your local library may be able to provide you access to the NY Times archives, some even give online access remotely through your library card. WilliamKF (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently the NYT published a series of articles called "On This Day." So it looks like they rewrote famous events and biographies, sometimes in the form of pseudo-obituaries like this one. It's got plenty of useful details worth citing.--Light show (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
ITN for Eli Wallach
--SpencerT♦C 17:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say - thank you for bringing this article up to spec! Challenger l (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Peter Sellers
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_Ban_User:Light_show_from_editing_at_the_Peter_Sellers_article (permanent link since that will be archived), you have been banned from working on matters related to Peter Sellers. Let me make it clear that your contributions on other topics remain genuinely welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Complete ANI discussion --Light show (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
What happened to the photograph of Anne Bancroft's headstone?
I just noticed that the photograph of Anne Bancroft's headstone is missing from her Wikipedia article, and you are the person who made the edit. I don't know who you are or where you're from, but I don't understand why the photo isn't there anymore (Don't tell me that the sculpture of the angel is copyrighted). I'm the person who made the original upload of this image, and this is an excellent example of why I no longer waste any of my time making contributions to Wikipedia. Too many of my photos have been deleted for no apparent reason, and a lot of my true, factual edits have been reverted because the information wasn't sourced. From this point on, I use Wikipedia only to retrieve information.
Anthony22 (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- It got replaced with a good close-up photo of her. As the article is fairly short, it didn't seem, IMO, like there was another spot for the headstone photo, without cluttering up the article. --Light show (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That's the silliest reason I've ever heard of for deleting a photograph. A close-up portrait photo of a person has absolutely nothing to do with a gravesite image of the same person. Also, the inclusion of the headstone photo certainly will not clutter up the article. I don't know how people arrive at some of their opinions. I have come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time and effort to contribute to Wikipedia.
Do everybody a favor and reinsert the image of Anne Bancroft's gravesite.
Anthony22 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
AfD
It might be a good idea to change your 'oppose' to 'keep.' On AfD's the style is to say 'keep' or 'delete'. Thanks for supporting the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
For solving a problem instead of being part of the problem. The Key Facts addition was absolutely brilliant. Well done, you. Thank you! SW3 5DL (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC) |
- No problem. Thanks for the snack! --Light show (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Map
Thanks for the map on the U.S. article, Light Show. It's exactly what was needed. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was wondering if you could make lede images for the other countries, Guinea, Sierre Leone, and Liberia, that look like the one you did on the U.S. article that includes the casualties? It would be good to be consistent. These articles do have good country maps somewhere within their articles, and I so like the one you did on the U.S. article, it would be great if they all looked like that. What do you think? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea. That shouldn't be too hard. --Light show (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Maybe you ought to try putting your map back into the article. Since two other editors have complained about the one there, it might be time to change back. What do you think? Also, I just looked at the RfC you posted, I think it was a good idea to get things sorted what with the admin moving the page like that, etc. But it looks like nobody else thought so. :( I do admire that you allowed it to be closed rather than arguing the point, especially as you had a good point to argue. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
-
title
I was thinking the same thing about Ebola disease in the U.S. an editor, somewhere on one of these pages, had earlier pointed out that Ebola disease cases was more neutral. Ebola disease in the U.S. seemed to him to be too broad, as if it were a common thing. So he said it needed 'cases.' I'll look for that diff. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think they're right. I'll update the talk page on that. Thanks for pointing it out. --Light show (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I agree, it is more neutral. I'm going to wait to comment until everybody else is done because I don't want anybody saying I'm doing this just to get the title I want, etc., what with all the disruption the article has been through. I don't mind what the title is just so long as it is a title that can stay there for a good long while. Obviously, if there is an epidemic, we'll change. Also, we need to get with Xqxf because he has a lot of good ideas too. He doesn't like the idea of using cases, but maybe in this context he will. Don't know. I'm sure this will all work out. Night. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me; I've laid out my reasoning about not using "cases" on the article talk page. Hopefully that will be helpful. Xqxf (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I like Ebola cases in the United States. Maybe add 2014 at the end so that it's clear this is a first time thing? SW3 5DL (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic HERE. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
George Clooney controversy
Rfc has passed a month now, would you like to ask for a closure? Noteswork (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hi. You have been mentioned at ANI in section Long-term copyright concerns: User:Light show. Your participation would be very welcome there. Please note that with current archive practices it will archive after 36 hours of inactivity. After its archival, the conversation will be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861 or later. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Light show, I am sorry to report that the community has overwhelmingly agreed to topic ban you from uploading images. I have logged this ban at WP:Editing restrictions. Please note that indefinite does not mean infinite and I urge you to engage in positive discussion with the experts, including Moonriddengirl and possibly the legal experts at the Foundation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Complete ANI discussion. --Light show (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You are now subject to a topic ban
I have closed this AN discussion regarding you with the following sanction:
Indefinite topic ban from all articles related to Stanley Kubrick, broadly construed.
If you violate this ban you will be blocked as an enforcement action. Also, if you continue the same disruptive behaviour the ban may be extended or they may be blocked or banned indefinitely. If you have any questions please feel free to ask on my talk page. You may appeal this sanction at WP:AN, however I suggest you don't appeal for at least three months of no violations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Complete AN discussion --Light show (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Elizabeth Taylor photo
Hello Light Show. I would like to upload a photo of Elizabeth Taylor in which she is posing nude. You might already know of this photo. It was taken in 1956 and was revealed after her death. I don't think the image might have any copyright. So I basically just want to ask can I upload it? And also can I save the image from any random website and upload it here or on Commons? Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Unless you have some proof that a photo, in print or from a website, is not copyrighted, it can't be used. --Light show (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Bob Simon
Thanks for your input on Bob Simon. I still disagree with you so I will submit it for WP:3O.Patapsco913 (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Chaplin
Hi Light show, as you are an active editor on Charlie Chaplin I thought we should tell you about this Saturday's editathon in London. The main focus will be the Tramp as it comes up to the centenary of its release, but other Chaplin related articles may well get changed, especially as the Chaplin Association has promised to allow us to photograph some of the exhibits that they have loaned to the museum. There will be some film experts and several experienced Wikipedians at the event, and there is a talkpage for any queries, special requests for photographs or things to check in the reference sources available at the museum. And of course if you are anywhere near London you would be very welcome to come along. Regards Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Madonna (entertainer)#Infobox image
Please join this discussion if you are interested. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Mass deletions replied to
Possibly unfree File:Don Murray 1956.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Don Murray 1956.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Anne Bancroft - 1964.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Anne Bancroft - 1964.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Rosemary Clooney 1954.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rosemary Clooney 1954.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Al Jolson photos
File source problem with File:Marshall-giving-medal-of-merit.jpg
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20150719181620im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thank you for uploading File:Marshall-giving-medal-of-merit.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. damiens.rf 21:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Was this movie published without a copyright notice? --damiens.rf 00:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- It was only 30 seconds long, a single awards event news clip, so copyright unlikely. No renewals of anything related found for 1978. --Light show (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm lost. If I understand it correctly, "published without a copyright notice" is a different case of "copyright not renewed". Which one are you claiming here? --damiens.rf 14:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can't recall the source of the photo, but I wouldn't have used it if it had a copyright notice anywhere relevant to the photo. I'm not sure if this was a government photo or video. However, a search for any films of that name being renewed showed no results. If you want to change the license to not renewed, that's fine with me. Or if you feel safer with non-free, being that it has supporting commentary in the article, that's fine also. --Light show (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- You should have had provided source information at upload time. You understand we can't just really on your testimony "I wouldn't have used it if it had a copyright notice". I'm afraid the source will have to be found if this image is to be kept here.
- Also, having I can't figure out a valid fair use rationale for this image. First of all, the existence of a source part of the criteria. Second, the image is currently used just to decorate a unreferenced paragraph in an article, describing the event purportedly depicted on the picture.
- Do you plan to find a source or we can just delete it? --damiens.rf 17:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Source updated. --Light show (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can't recall the source of the photo, but I wouldn't have used it if it had a copyright notice anywhere relevant to the photo. I'm not sure if this was a government photo or video. However, a search for any films of that name being renewed showed no results. If you want to change the license to not renewed, that's fine with me. Or if you feel safer with non-free, being that it has supporting commentary in the article, that's fine also. --Light show (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm lost. If I understand it correctly, "published without a copyright notice" is a different case of "copyright not renewed". Which one are you claiming here? --damiens.rf 14:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
File:Al and Erle Jolson, 1946.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Al and Erle Jolson, 1946.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. damiens.rf 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like I have most of the source material for the images you've tagged. Please create subsections for each of them below so I can respond. For some I have nearly identical images from PD sources which you or someone can upload. However, they're in older printed publications which I have, since such old publications are not on the web. Also, is it necessary to again blitz tag multiple questionable old images at one time? The last time you did that kind of mass tagging of 24 images over a few minutes there was naturally no time to reply and they all got deleted. --Light show (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I had to copy your other Patton Commons tag info here to reply, along with subsequent tagged images. --Light show (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)