User talk:SteveCrook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
    • Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
    • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
    • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Contents

picture usage[edit]

Steve thanks, for setting up the P&P pages on wikipedia. Is it possible to use any of the images from your page

http://www.powell-pressburger.org/Images/44_ACT/index.html

in wikipedia? Are there copyright problems? They would be very useful here in wikiland. Eric A. Warbuton 06:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem that I know of. The copyright status of most of them is unknown so for Wikipedia I've loaded them up for some of the Wiki articles already using the film-screenshot template. SteveCrook 15:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Roger Livesey[edit]

Hi Steve. Roger's biography is looking a bit thin. Is there any chance you could include some of the info from your IMDb bio? I thought it was pretty good. JW 12:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

'Tis done (with a bit of tidying up & Wikifying) SteveCrook 12:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Norman Lindsay[edit]

What happened? The Bulletin is a publication title and thus would be in italics. Pepso 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it must have let me do my edits from an earlier version, before your recent changes. I don't recall seeing any warning. I'll put it all back to your most recent edit with the link I added for Age of Consent SteveCrook 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Olivier's accent in "Forty-Ninth Parallel"[edit]

There are regional variations within Quebec and there were in formerly francophone parts of the former, wider Northwest Territories: a Rimouski accent is distinguishable from a Chicoutimi accent and a Baie Comeau accent and a North Bay, Ontario accent and a Saskatchewan Métis accent and a Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan or a St Albert, Alberta, accent. None of these is anything like Olivier's hair-raising attempt. And Olivier's least critical partisans would agree that accents were not his forte. The comment should remain.Masalai 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Blimp picture[edit]

Hi - not sure about the picture - my formatting skills are a bit limited. I'll play about with it and see if I can do something. Arthur Holland 14:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes[edit]

Hello Doc, A question about succession boxes. You seem to have done a lot with them. The question isn't about the positioning of them, I have no problem with that. But I've noticed that when you reverted the positioning of the Oscar winners boxes you also took out the film that the winner won for. The preceeding and succeeding entries both say which film they won for. Why not have it shown for that year's winner as well? e.g. Jennifer Jones SteveCrook 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be honest, I have no issue with the film that the current winner won for being included, although it had not been originally. My issue was with placement and the user that made the massive changes not entering into any dialog or discussion that led me to make rvs without looking carefully enough. On a few, I noted that addition and left it in. My main issue is that when anyone is going to make changes to multiple entries, some consensus should be gained before making that many changes and/or use the edit summary boxes. Doc 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Just as this discussion has gotten started, it usually begins on a user's talk page, or in some cases on the talk page of an article. Then if enough discussion gets going there is usually some agreement on where to continue the discussion. This particular issue started because of several persons on a variety of issues posting to the talk page of a User and his failure to reply to any of the questions or messages. Doc 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link to the discussion being broached: Template_talk:Succession_box#Box_location_discussion_or_style_guide_or_policy.3F.

Doc 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

195.188.217.143 report on WP:RFI[edit]

I'm currently trying to see if there is a better way to deal with vandalism from schools (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Contacting_schools_Re:School_IP_vandalism). However for now I think it will have to be dealt with in the usual way: revert- warn - block (if vandalism continues past a recent test3/4 warning).

By the way, this report is being used for training purposes, I hope you don't mind!

Feel free to get back to me if you have any questions. Petros471 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with blocking IPs is that you also block any registered user who uses the same IP address, so blocks on shared IPs are usually kept short to prevent collateral damage.
The idea of blocking IPs from editing has come up many times, but has always been rejected. Blocking IP addresses would probably only make most vandals register, and unless a valid email address was required (which isn't going to happen) that wouldn't stop them. The new proposal to report vandalism to schools is up at WP:ABUSE.
I'm currently a coaching someone under the Esperanza Admin coaching program, which is designed to help people who want to become admins be prepared for it. I'm not sure there is any formal training for non-admin users, but there are plenty of places to get help if needed (such as Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.) Petros471 12:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Kerr[edit]

Hello Steve Crook. My in-person interview with Michael Russnow, a new acquaintance, took place just yesterday: so, no it has not been published. Our discussion covered his fond memories of the time when, in 1997/1998, he spearheaded (with his entertainment industry colleagues) a campaign to see that Kerr received recognition for her achievements from the British government. Back then, Russnow successfull enlisted letters being written promoting Kerr to the Queen and the Prime Minister by the likes of: David Bruce, former head of the Scottish Film Council, screenwriter Larry Gelbart, screenwriter John Gay, and screenwriter Daniel Taradash, whom all agreed with Russnow , that something needed to be done on Kerr's behalf. Later in approx. June of 2002, documentation of these behind the scenes machinations was published with such headlines as, "It's a shame she's no Dame" in the Letters to the Editor sections of the Evening Standard and the Independent. Russnow also enlisted the help of directors Elia Kazan, and Fred Zinneman during this period to also attempt to haveA.M.P.A.S. similarily acknowledge Kerr with an honorary Oscar here in the States. Russnow had met Kerr many years before all this and he has spoken with Kerr on numerous documented occasions since then--though now, as she is afflicted with Parkinson's, she is no longer open to correspondence. By the way, You can check out Russnow's credentials at IMDB.com. Thanks for your interest. All the best, Bill Keane aka Keane4.

Honesty[edit]

When referring to policy, please do not state that it says things which it does not say, as doing so puts your honesty and integrity in doubt. Hawkestone 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I stated facts. It's a shame they disagreed with your view but there's nothing I can do about that. SteveCrook 22:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the River Plate[edit]

Hello. HMS Cumberland appears in the movie only once, as she comes (very nice wiev, but unfortunately, she has artillery turrets removed). In later scenes, the three cruisers are STILL Achilles, Sheffield and Jamaica (I've just bought DVD ;-). Pibwl ←« 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that some people might count it as more than one scene because the Cumberland is seen on the horizon and then at various levels of close-up. But if you want to call that just one scene, I won't argue. The main point of the change was to say that she wasn't involved in the battle. BTW, what phonetic alphabet is that they're using when they read the Aldis signal back from the Cumberland? Apple, Nuts, Tommy, Isaac, Charlie ... ANTICIPATION. It's not any phonetic alphabet I can find any reference to. SteveCrook 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know either. Pibwl ←« 19:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


The Red Shoes[edit]

Happy to meet someone well versed in Powell and Pressburger. Your note about the Mercury Theater was enlightening--I have a followup question, tho. Not doubting your word at all, but how did they reconcile important ballet with recorded music? My edit of "neighborhood theater" was based on the miscue with the turntable rather than the appearance of the theater--tho since they asked permission of Boris to have Vicky appear should have been a tip-off (that they had his ear). Thanx from an American who loves British cinema.--Buckboard 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the quick reply. I saw Dame Marie Rambert's name in the credits as playing herself but I confess my ignorance (though not from lack of interest) in the British ballet. I quickly came around to the "Vicky jumped" school of thought, because it parallels the story and the ballet finale, but the Powell filmed it ambiguously. Vicky does not jump up on the ballustrade as many believe, and Powell cuts away just as she raises her arms skyward. When he returns she seems to collapse as much as flinging herself over. I love ambiguity, so to me its a great piece of film-making. I have seen this film advertised for years on Turner Classic Movies but never watched it--then earlier this year I saw The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp and fell in love with P&P (ironic, because I've always liked the Ealing comedies and so many of the great standards from that era of British cinema). Recently I caught both Black Narcissus (over the top but I think Powell intended it to be that way) and The Red Shoes. I DVR'ed The Red Shoes and have watched it many times since. I don't deny Powell has a way of depicting the radiance in the faces of Deborah Kerr, Moira Shearer, and Kathleen Byron and that grabbed my attention, but I rewatch Blimp and Shoes to see Anton Walbrook. Again, thanx for the inside information about the Mercury. --Buckboard 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoy your informative and interesting commentary on The Archers and their fine work. The exchange with Buckboard is a case in point. I myself just discovered Powell and Pressburger after hearing an intereview last December with Thelma Schoonmaker. Her regretful remarks about the disintegration of Powell's career following the reception of Peeping Tom enticed me into viewing the film, and I was hooked. I rented several more and have recorded some on Turner, using TiVo, since they are typically on early in the morning. Their variety is as astounding as their quality is immense! Anyway, your glosses are a further boost to my interest in this exceptional film-making pair. TrueC 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the follow-up and for the additional information and links. In case you have not heard the Thelma Schoonmaker interview I mentioned, it was with the exceptionally insightful and incisive interviewer, Terry Gross, on her NPR program, Fresh Air. (One reason I mention Gross and that program is for the perhaps parochial reason that my son spent a month interning with the show back in January 1989, when his school gave juniors a month off to work on a project or to get out in the world. Working for Fresh Air was an edifying experience for him, and after witnessing the operation behind the scenes, he was able to reveal the secret to the shows success: Gross reads and sees every relevant item before conducting an interview, spending her day in her office reviewing material germane to that night's broadcast. She probably does the same when she is not in her office. It certainly shows!) The Gross interview with Schoonmaker originally aired on May 25, 2005, and I heard its repeat broadcast on December 26, 2005; it is available online at the NPR website: [1]. TrueC 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for the additonal information! TrueC 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Karlheinz Böhm's father[edit]

Nazi or Nazi supporter? I guess the latter is worse, even if one is not a member of the Nazi party. I guess musicians as famous as Herbert von Karajan, Wilhelm Furtwängler, Richard Strauss could be called Nazis, though they didn't like other Nazis, unlike Karl Böhm. But it seems doubtful whether Karl Böhm really was "a Nazi supporter". If so, then why was he dedicated to operas banned as 'cultural bolshevism', and does his son, who is married a Black woman, have nothing to say about it?

Image tagging for Image:49thParallel.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:49thParallel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Helen Mirren[edit]

Hello SteveCrook. I had to leave a quick note saying that I had exactly the same reaction to the edit that you did. I almost typed your words into the edit summary line when I took it out and reading your note made me chuckle about it all over again. Thanks :-)) MarnetteD | Talk 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I have been following your discussion with the anonymous user on Helen's page and since, inremoving their edit, I was the instigator I just thought that I would drop a couple of ideas. My first reaction, and the reason I took the edit out, was that a) Most people who know her work know that she has never been bashful about stripping off and b)I agree woth you that noting just the one film seeemed awkward. Reading the comments of the anon user I have wondered if a sentence along the lines of "One of the features of Ms Mirren's career is that she has never been bashful about appearing nude in front of the camera if the role called for it". As I reread this I am saying ack as there has to be a better way to express this idea.
I guess the main reason that I am writing is that I don't want to shoo a new member of wikiP off. The last note seemed a little defeatist and, if possible maybe we can show that what they wanted to mention has some value. If you feel that I am overstating things or just disagree in general please don't worry about it these are just a couple of suggestions. MarnetteD | Talk 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Attenborough Antics[edit]

Hey SteveCrook. You're quite correct. I misread a citing for David as Richard (as I was searching for info on him). I'll remove it now.

Banned films[edit]

Where ever possible, I've linked back to the banned films page for further clarification. - User:Lugnuts 07:56 11/09/2006

Who the blazes is Allan Gray?[edit]

Hi, I've just done some work on Forty-Ninth Parallel, and wondered where you got the information (in your original infobox) that the music was by Allan Gray. According to the IMDb, the music was by Ralph Vaughan Williams (whose page notes that he was "talked into it by Muir Mathieson to assuage his guilt at being able to do nothing for the war-effort"). If there was an Allan Gray involved, he should probably be credited - however the Allan Gray linked to is the largest privately owned investment management firm in Southern Africa, so I doubt that they do many film scores.... TheMadBaron 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've now created Allan Gray (composer), moved the nasty bank and created a disambiguation page. TheMadBaron 17:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenonline[edit]

I was just asking around if screenonline.co.uk was notable when I saw this modification. If you are interested, Chessemite added many screenonline.co.uk links you may want to convert to template, and advice him how to use it to prevent our spam bot to catch him. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Scot David Niven[edit]

You asked recently what Qualifies David Niven as an Anglo-Scot. Well the definition of Anglo-Scot is anyone born or associated with England who has Scottish ancestry, as Nivens father was Scottish and his mother was of French extraction maybe he should be a Franco-Scot?. Although he was born in London (as was other 'Scot' Rod Stewart] His heart lay in the land of his father, he served as an officer in the Highland Light infantry and often would quote Scotland as his birthplace whilst alive (although this has been refuted after death) But the nationality of his father alone qualifies Niven as an Anglo-Scot. Thank you for your query. -- The Equaliser 23:45, 26 November (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:ValerieHobson.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:ValerieHobson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Personality disorders[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Personality disorders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. NeantHumain 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Powell[edit]

I asked for a ruling at the disambiguation page. There used to be a rule that you convert ambiguous names to a full name to aid in finding. I am sure people will still find the article. Searching for "Michael Powell" brings you to the disambig page and he is the only director listed. We can also reverse the change to a fullname if the disambiguation experts say to. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Black Narcissus[edit]

Steve, we know that the nuns are a) from England and b) Anglican. The English branch of the Anglican Communion is the Church of England. It's not been very long since I read Black Narcissus, but I believe this syllogism applies. Carolynparrishfan 21:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a bit of a reach, this being before the dawn of the "continuing" Anglican movement. Carolynparrishfan 19:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No nuns or monks in England after Henry VIII's split with Rome -- we are being misled by the accents, I'm sure. Rapotter 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Between the Reformation and the Oxford Movement would be more accurate. Anglican religious orders came into being during the Catholic Revival. Carolynparrishfan 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Does this show why they (both Rumer Godden in the novel and Powell & Pressburger in the film) kept it deliberately vague? So that the characters wouldn't be associated with any one order or organisation so letting those people claim to be misrepresented. It's Fiction, it doesn't have to be related to anything in the real world -- SteveCrook 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Felicity Kendall[edit]

Hello SteveCrook. Thank you for fixing the Who's Who link on Ms Kendall's page. I looked at all those on the disambig page and just couldn't figure out which one was the right one so I appreciate your knowledge and help in getting the link right. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

imdb[edit]

How did you find out the 242 tv shows that got rated 10/10, if you're removing the tv trivia section?


Question: does anybody know what the (I) next to an actor's name on imdb stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.82.201 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

49th Parallel[edit]

Hey, a quick note from a fellow wikipedian & enormous P&P fan -- I had wanted to add some things to the entry for Forty-Ninth Parallel (can't tell you how glad I was to swap my Brazillian DVD of the film, with terrible audio, for the new Criterion), specifically about the film's locations. Do you know where the Hudson's Bay scenes were filmed? I have heard the "Inuit" were hired & filmed in British Columbia, but must say that the locations, and some of the extras, sure look like Labrador Inuit to me. And do you know who the guy is who fires the shot that kills the German on the float-plane? The IMdB has some stuff on locations, but since these are so important in so many P&P films, I thought that I might focus on this area .... regards, Rapotter 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve, thanks so much for the info! Rapotter 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Powell, Brown[edit]

1. I got the Pamela Brown information from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: "She died from cancer on 19 September 1975 at 4 Lee Cottages, Avening, Gloucestershire, and was buried in Holy Cross churchyard, Avening". However, that isn't a 100% accurate source (I've found mistakes in other articles there), so if you have information to the contrary, feel free to undo my revision.

2. Frankie died in 1983; Brown in 1975. So the sentence "He also lived with actress Pamela Brown for many years after Frankie's death until Pamela's death in 1975" can't be true (unless we bring necrophilia into the equation). Biruitorul 07:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Powell & Pressburger categories[edit]

Hi Steve. Someone had listed Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger for speedy renaming at WP:CFDS ([2]). After surviving uncommented there a couple of days it was moved to the /working subpage for processing. As I was going through the rename process, it soon became apparent that not all of the films in the old cat suited the new one, and I put a halt on the processing for reconsideration ([3]). I would agree with you that the former categorisation title is an appropriate one, given the P&P partnership extended beyond directing. I'll be happy to revert those I had started and restore the category under its original title. Perhaps a more explicit description of the category's intentions could be written there, to avoid any future misunderstandings. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to further note, I have now reset everything back to the way it was before, and annotated the category's page and talkpage with info on that most recently-established consensus to alert any future rename proposal. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nightingales[edit]

The article is a 1 block/section. I thinks it needs to have some more section according to Wikipedia:Guide to layout, (Lead section, First paragraph, and Body sections). Then it will be more comfortable for readers. Thanks.--TheEgyptian 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I put my comment on the talk page. Thanks again.--TheEgyptian 01:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Canterbury[edit]

Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cast and crew of A Canterbury Tale had a clear "delete" decision, promptly re-creating the same title looked like pure mischief-making. However, on a quick glance, your new text seems perfectly acceptable, certainly it is not the listcruft we had before. A Canterbury Tale is not too long. I suggest you put your text, which I have emailed to you, into there. I repeat my comment in the AfD that a list of all the minor characters should be on an external website. -- RHaworth 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Black Narcissus.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Black Narcissus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:DVD-ToB.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:DVD-ToB.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG[edit]

I missed those two AMOLAD's at the bottom of the article. I was wondering why you stuck that in the intro. I've replaced them. I haven't run across the use of acronyms in other film articles and I'm really not crazy about starting here. Clarityfiend 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I take it back. I've done it myself in Star Trek: Deep Space 9, but in that case, it was used many times. If it's infrequent and easily changed, I prefer to take it out. Clarityfiend 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A Matter of Life and Death[edit]

See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#A Matter of Life and Death. Anthony Appleyard 05:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Red Shoes[edit]

How can you say this "was" a musical? Did it stop existing when the Broadway run ended? If it is revived there or produced elsewhere in the world, will it exist again? You seem to think the present tense is appropriate only if there is a current production somewhere. Sorry, but once a book, play, film, or musical is written, it remains such for eternity. Like Cats, The Red Shoes IS a musical now and forever. 209.247.22.164 12:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Non-free use disputed for Image:A_Canterbury_Tale.jpg[edit]

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:A_Canterbury_Tale.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DVD-Contraband.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DVD-Contraband.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Contraband-Veidt.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Contraband-Veidt.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:WeirdMob.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:WeirdMob.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit[edit]

Hello SteveCrook. I just wanted to leave a note saying thanks for your edit on the Laurence Olivier page. I had seen this kind of hidden message used on the Audrey Hepburn page but did not think to use it here. I will remember it in the future and we will hope that this everchanging set of anon IP's reads it and understands. I have been discussing this here [4] with Old Moonraker. If you have anything to add please feel free to do so and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: your note on my talk page[edit]

Hi again. Thanks for you note. I was somewhat (though not totally) aware of the diffs in infoboxes. Just in case you weren't aware they deactivated the notable roles from the infobox for actors a few months ago. Mostly on the grounds that there was too much POV in deciding what went in there. So even if an editor puts in that info it no longer shows up when you save the page. There are still a few persistant anon IP's that like to enter that info in and, while it isn't really a big deal, I just feel that it is a waste of space to type anything in there at all, thus my edit summary. Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my word - many apologies for not signing the above. I haven't forgotten the 4 tildes in a long, long time. Again my apologies Steve. MarnetteD | Talk 20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Beecham[edit]

re your edits to nationality, i think the changes you are making are fine, but i think the tone of your edit comments might be taken by some as a bit snarky. cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmm....how 'bout: "United Kingdom → British people". --emerson7 | Talk 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits from Banned Users[edit]

Wikipedia:Banning policy

Enforcement by reverting edits[edit]

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing.

It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-banned}} to mark such a page.

IP4240207xx 19:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Usage notes[edit]

Hi SteveCrook. Just a quick note to say thank you for taking the bull by the horns and adding the usage notes to the British films lists that I have been working on. My time for the last week has been almost entirely consumed by dealing with a problem editor who has since been banned. I did not have a chance to pull together the ideas for giving future editors some direction on these pages. You have done a good job of setting a standard. I may add a thought or two but you have got things going in the right direction. Thanks also for doing some alphabetizing where needed. I had planned on going through these lists and doing this kind of cleanup when I have finished doing entries from the British film categories (which still may take several weeks) and you have saved me some time by getting there before me. Thanks again :-) MarnetteD | Talk 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:49thParallel.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:49thParallel.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:OOOAIM.jpg, Image:Powell-Pressburger.gif, Image:RedShoes2.jpg, Image:SBR03.jpg, Image:GTE.jpg, Image:OhRosalinda.jpg, Image:BoRP.jpg, Image:IllMet.jpg, and Image:SilverFleet.jpg. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't know if you heard about this, but if you get movie trailers for movies from 1923 to 1977, they all qualify as public domain! (see here a little bit down) they can then go on Commons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Lion Has Wings[edit]

Why is this film categorized as a Powell Pressburger film? I don't see any credit for the latter. Enlighten me, oh High Priest of Archerdom. Clarityfiend 08:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Video-OOOAIM.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Video-OOOAIM.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Films[edit]

I will of course be adding the year links on the pages tomorrow -it will be like an index page rather than empty, Have no fear I know what I'm doing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:EmericPressburger.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:EmericPressburger.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sim signature[edit]

I was terribly young at the time, but yes, it was in person. As I recall, he signed quite happily - maybe his willingness depended on who asked (I was an adorable little moppet!) I do remember him seeming incredibly tall, but then again I was pretty wee. I still have it ... on the same page as Peggy Mount's, now I come to look at it. 86.157.139.140 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008[edit]

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Livesey[edit]

Hi Steve: thanks for clearing up the Livesey matter. I had bumped into a string of references to Sam as his father, and thought the existing info on wiki was an error. Theatricalic (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Red Shoes" references re-org[edit]

I like the re-organization you just did to the notes, bibliography and ext. links of "The Red Shoes", combining them together into a "References" sub-section. (I corrected a minor typo.) Is this something you've put in place on other Powell and Pressburger articles? Is it a coming standard? (Not a trick question -- I'm not looking for an excuse to revert. It took me a bit, but I do indeed like it. Just curious where it came from, in case I want to use the structure elsewhere -- will I run into trouble with status quo folks or will it be something recognizable to them?) Thanks for any info. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 11:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying it on Dr. Strangelove to see how it goes over there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, WP:LAYOUT is the guideline concerning end-sections. --Jtir (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Emeric and Michael[edit]

Steve, I've done a bit of editing (full disclosure here: on a subject I know nothing about} on the talented team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. Can you please oversee my edits? I am coming to these articles as a former reference librarian and what struck me was format issues with referencing, which I "touched up" but I did no really in depth study or further research. I have recently written two biographical articles on Wikipedia: Amelia Earhart and Alexander Graham Bell wherein I did some background reading. Do you want a similar treatment to the Powell/Pressburger articles? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Oops, forgot to mention that I am also an editor (by trade) and author... Bzuk (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
and I also forgot to mention that I am a filmmaker, directed two documentary films, screenwriter on two others, worked variously as an extra, gofer, grip, gaffer, consultant and on-screen actor on 10 films. BTW, the change didn't involve cutting the lengthy quote, merely a revision to paragraphing. Is the entire quote verbatim? ("Storm-troopers" is actually a compound word: "stormtroopers.") Note where the punctuation falls within quotation marks. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
It was a brief fling at directing in 2003 when as the screenwriter, I was enlisted to take over two films when the original director was called away to Chile on another project. Being a screenwriter on a documentary is a thankless task anyway and since I knew the context and focus of the documentary projects, I fell into directing. The first film, Bearing his Soul was the life of Gerry "The Big Bear" Barrett, an aboriginal comic starting out as a stand-up comedian that appears on local channels and an Aboriginal network at times. The second film, Zero Over the Prairies was a Canadian-American co-production with PBS. That one also still pops up on television and documents the recovery, construction and flight of a Mitsubishi Zero fighter aircraft. My first book was also made into a film and that one is everywhere, Avrocar: Canada's Flying Saucer (2004) was purchased by Discovery Channel, History Channel, Space Channel, ad infinitum... FWIW, I should have taken "points" instead of a commission/salary, that "flick" is shown all over the world... Bzuk (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Blimp[edit]

No problem -- I hadn't gone back to look at the totality of what I did and make whatever adjustments I thought necessary. Probably, you'll find some of them and fix them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, wonderful film, isn't it? One of their best. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that -- Red Shoes, Matter, Blimp are, I think, my top three P&P films. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That Howard book[edit]

I recently asked my public library for books on Michael Powell and received this slim volume by James Howard. I was about to consign it to the side as insignificant when I noted the back page "blurb" (it's a real word and is actually derived from an author whose last name was forever consigned to the back cover notes that she first popularized with her flowery prose) that indicated Howard had made the first "systematic appraisal of (Powell's) early work". I also googled and found the following review: "The James Howard book is essentially a handbook, a sort of 'Companion to Powell's Films.' it assembles copious data-about their production histories, their collaborating artists, their critical and box-office receptions, some cultural influences - and briefly indicates interpretative slants. In a way it's a scissors-and-paste job, but extremely useful, drawing on diverse and out-of-the-way sources. The comments are sensible, but sometimes try too hard to make P & P unique." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

The question is should we keep it as a reference source? I was about to use some quotes from the book. FWIW, the second notation was actually an outside review. Bzuk (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

One of Our Aircraft Is Missing[edit]

Steve, I've begin to tackle this landmark film. Please tell me if I am on the right flightpath, glidepath, bramble path... Bzuk (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

The Boy Who Turned Yellow[edit]

Hmm. Where do I start with this ([5])? The incivility in calling my edit "nonsense" while reverting it? The reinstatement of the copyvio? I'll go for the latter. Please do not reinstate copyvio material in articles. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the identital text at IMDB is attributed to you, so my apologies. As for the other, I've been cleaning up Norwich City F.C. and the section there led me to add the information at the main article. The content at NCFC was written by an editor in good standing. I've emailed him to ask him to confirm it's correct, as I can't find RS that say as much (and I've never heard of the film myself, never mind seen it). As an FA article, I want RS for the claim anyway. Sorry about this, but your edit summary reverting a good faith edit was distinctly unfriendly. It's unfortunate I missed the fact that you wrote the IMDB summary yourself. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Well, I'm convinced. I'll hack it out of the NCFC article. And given all that you say, I think it was fair enough to call it "nonsense". Sorry for being sniffy. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I have imagined the whole thing, but isn't there a scene in the movie where the boy (John) is talking to Nick in his bedroom and Nick asks why John has so many yellow things (like a scarf) and John replies that it is because he supports Norwich City? MLS Mls11 (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you imagined it :)
John's a Londoner, Why would he support NCFC? -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey... I'm a Londoner and support NCFC! Don't knock what you ain't tried ;-) --Dweller (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to knock it, just asking a question. But supporting sports teams has always been a mystery to me -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Age of Consent.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Age of Consent.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A Matter of Pop Culture and Trivia[edit]

I could put up with it if the examples were more substantial, but really, they're rather ephemeral. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the cover is okay. <gnash teeth> Clarityfiend (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:DVD-EotW.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:DVD-EotW.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:DVD-Blimp.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:DVD-Blimp.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:DVD-ToH.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:DVD-ToH.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Video-TEP.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Video-TEP.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Powell and Pressburger[edit]

I wanted to let you know, since you've been heavily involved with editing it in the past, that there's been some activity on this article in reponse to an anon users concerns. I've done a bit of rewriting and cleaning up, and thought you should take a look. The anon user had put a lot of "fact" tags on the article, but, after some discussion, replaced them with in-line comments, which you might want to read. Some of the comments I disagree with, but if you've got some citations to fill in the blanks for the source of some of the material in the article, I think that would be useful. Best, Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PamelaBrown.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:PamelaBrown.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Sheila Canterbury 2004.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sheila Canterbury 2004.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal National Theatre[edit]

I know. I wanted something to help place "National Theatre" for the reader, so I first went with "Royal" to help out, then realized that adding "London" would do the trick. With "London" in there, there's no need for "Royal". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Titles, schmitles[edit]

Hi Steve, the original title of "A Life in Movies" seems to be a graphic rather than a textual title and the general standard is for only main words (Main nouns) to be capitalised but even as soon as I say that, there are a plethora of exceptions to the rules, including ee cummings. FWiW, Steve, nice talking to you again, I was getting itchy to start up a dialogue. Bzuk (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Image:MichaelPowell.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:MichaelPowell.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:ACT Characters.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:ACT Characters.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:ACT Characters2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:ACT Characters2.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Boy Who Turned Yellow.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Boy Who Turned Yellow.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:A Canterbury Tale.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:A Canterbury Tale.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) 05:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

  1. Please do not convert date formats away from international Dating to U.S. Dating without good reason.
  2. See WP:DATE and especially recent discussion for more information.

Thank you. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have changed them back if you'd given some reasoning. Although shouldn't this be done in conjunction with templates death date and age and birth date? -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Minor changes, all of them. When the templates output the date in an incorrect format, I simply paste in the correct date. Feel free to reinsert the templates if you can get them to output correctly. --Pete (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
See David Farrar (actor). Templates death date and age and birth date can both have a "df=yes" parameter added to make them show the day first as default. I see your changes are also removing the links from dates and years. People like them to see what else happened on that day or that year -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Year-linking has been deprecated for a long time. Linking of full dates is now optional. --Pete (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
But do you have any objection too the templates death date and age and birth date with the "df=yes" parameter? -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That's OK. My problem with the template is that it defaults to U.S. Dating format. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Not if you add the "df=yes" parameter where they aren't US people :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

David Nixon[edit]

You recently removed a source citation and replaced it with a "citation needed" tag at the end of the sentence saying Nixon and Patick Macnee were cousins. Your edit summary says the referenced page doesn't mention Macnee, but when I looked at the page in question a moment ago it definitely stated "He was the cousin of Avengers actor Patrick Macnee". I'm therefore puzzled by your edit. If you want to question the reliability of the source then that's another matter - maybe I'd agree with you if you were saying it isn't rock solid infallible. But it does mention the relationship to Macnee.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I'm sure it didn't say that when I looked at it the other day. The page has a "last modified" date of a short while ago. But says so now so you should change it back. I'm far from sure that they were cousins, but it says so on a web site and that's enough of a citation for Wikipedia's low standards :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I changed it back -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Shame the Pirates lost to the Swindon Robins on Thursday :) But it was a great meeting with some very exciting racing -- SteveCrook 03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello friend, very sorry i didn't reply sooner, I haven't been on the net for a long while.

Yes it was a shame but I heard the meeting was cracking.

Sorry again for the late reply, always nice to meet fellow speedway fans! :)

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLester (talkcontribs) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London[edit]

Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12


Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

Luna de Miel[edit]

Steve: I think I've done what I can with this article -- I hope the changes meet with your approval. I would say that the plot section still needs to be trimmed down about by half, but I didn't want to tackle that since I've never seen that film! Also, I didn't know if you were planning on doing articles on Antonio and Rosita Sergova, so I kept them wikilinked until the very end, and removed those redlinks in two seperate passes, so you can revert them easily if you want to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to do something for Antonio, Rosita and not forgetting the lovely Carmen. That flamenco she does really is the sexiest bit of dancing I've ever seen. There are quite a few Spanish dancers called Antonio something-or-other, but there's only one Antonio. Rosita & Carmen were members of his troupe and they did quite a few world tours. They were all classically trained but they could bring a bit of Spanish flair to their dancing -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this Antonio was Antonio Lopez (per IMDB). Sorry about the musicial/sculptor link, I obviously never clicked through. I've have to keep my eye open for this film, the parallels to The Red Shoes are obvious, and I'd like to see that flamenco dance by Carmen! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

Thanks. — American Eagle (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice[edit]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:SBR03.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SBR03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nazi? That's a step too far. Please retract. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Steve - I live in New York City, been here for over 30 years, when I moved in from the suburbs. I've noticed that the police department here goes through different phases in its relationship to the citizenry. When there's a mayor who's very pro-police, such a Giuliani, the police can, at times, be extremely arrogant and rude to people, showing a smug and superior attitude. Then, when there's a mayor who's less automatically supportive, or when the department goes through one of its periodic coruption- or police violence-related scandals, the cop on the street become much easier to deal with, less hauty and arrogant.

Here on Wikipedia, we have our own "image police", the deletionists, and they're currently riding high thanks to a generally large level of copyright paranoia around the place. As with the NYPD when they're on top, there's a certain smugness and arrogance about their behavior, and, as with the NYPD, there's also a clannishness that manifests itself as a "thin blue line": us against the world. These behavioral traits are, I believe, part of the social psychology of police everywhere, and because of that, there's no need to reach for extreme language to describe what they do. I don't hate or dislike the NYPD, in fact I respect them and think that, generally speaking, they do a pretty damn good job overall, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing their behaviorial quirks clearly. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We keep trying to improve this system and some people keep erecting barriers to make it harder and harder. I think I'll give up. They don't deserve my knowledge and expertise. I'll find other ways to share it with people who actually care about information -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
A couple of days ago, I would have argued with you that the end result, a free (i.e. no-cost) encyclopedia available to anyone, what could be the primary source of quick and accurate information on the net, was worth going through the hassle of dealing with people like that, but I really can't bring myself to make that argument now. I'm discouraged and depressed and feel like just disengaging and walking away. And you're absolutely right, they simply make it harder and harder to put together good articles. I'm finding it quite difficult to cope with the rampant authoritarianism and dogmaticism that permeates this place, and the resounding disinterest in the quality of the project's content. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be that they have particular trouble with images. I have changed the details many times to fall into line with their constantly changing standards. But then they keep changing the standards -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think you'll find that that is changing, there is now or will be soon, a de facto standard: no fair-use images. That's what is being enforced by admins, who have seized from the community the power to regulate images. Being an admin is supposed to be "no big deal", but that's hardly the case once they usurp what was once the community's power to decide policy matters - and since the community appears to have little or no interest in reigning them in...

But it's all part of a bigger problem, which is that Wikipedia's undergoing a content crisis. Too many admins don't really do content work and spend their time on process matters - it's clear that "civility" weighs more on their minds then whether the articles in the encyclopedia are good or not. That's part and parcel with past choices to allow all sorts of internally-oriented things which the reading public has no interest in to appear on article pages: clean-up tags, merge requests, citation tags etc. etc. The emphasis is on the editors and not on the public. Unfortunately, while the reading public will put up with bad design and a certain amount of obstruction (which they're used to from sites with advertising), once the quality of the content falls below a certain point, they'll start going elsewhere for their quick information, and they won't give a damn if it's "free" (no copyrighted material) as long as it's free (no outright cost to them). I can't predict if we're ever going to reach that tipping point, but unless the project's emphasis generally switches from internal procedures to the quality of content, it seems like it will inevitably come. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Images nominated for deletion[edit]

Steve: Thanks for your note about the image from The Small Back Room being nominated for deletion. I'm afraid it's all my fault. I've made the mistake of being too vociferous in my complaints about a deletionist admin, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and these IfDs seem to be part of the retaliation from that crowd. Check my talk page for other images that are under attack -- I've put notices about them on the talk pages of the articles in question: Age of Consent (film), The Battle of the River Plate (film), The Boy Who Turned Yellow, and Steamboat Bill Jr.. You can find the discussion of my complaints (such as it is, at this point it's mostly deletionists rallying around their own) here and here. I'll be posting detailed rebuttals on the IfDs later on today, right now it's too early here for me to do anything involving real brain power.

My apologies. I should know better than to rile up the overlords. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 11:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't any form of retaliation- you actually said yourself that you would be happy for an uninvolved admin to take a look. I had never even talked directly to FPAS when I started reviewing your edits, so I'm pretty sure that leaves me 'uninvolved', and I wasn't reviewing Steve's edits at all- I simply saw the image on an article I was reviewing. J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said, your image got caught in the crossfire. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 12:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments such as this will lead to a block in the future if such behavior continues. Calling other users "nazi's" is entirely inappropriate and disgusting. Please retract the comments immediately. seicer | talk | contribs 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been corrected. But they weren't being called a "Nazi", they were being called an "Image Nazi" in the same way that someone would be called a "Fashion Nazi" if they were over officious about fashion and decreeing what other people should do -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Those nominated images[edit]

Steve: Just so you know, I decided to stick around (don't quite know why), and I've made "Keep" arguments for the 4 images which have been nominated for deletion. You might want to take a look and chime in with your opinion -- maybe I'm off the mark? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve: I see you added a "Keep" comment on the SBR image, but did you note that there are three other images just above it (go past the 2 Stepford Wives images) which have also been nominated for deletion, all coming from P&P articles? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw them, but I had the strongest argument for the one from SBR -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfotunately, a lack of "keep" !votes, with or without strong arguments, could very well see those images deleted. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a lack of keep or delete votes have nothing to do with it. There were two votes to keep it. No other votes, beyond the initial request, to delete it. But still the arbitrary decision was made to delete it. Well if these people want to destroy Wikipedia, there's nothing we can do about it. I've got more important and more interesting things to do than to bang my head against that particular wall. But they won't be benefiting from my extensive knowledge any more -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the decision to delete these images had little or nothing to do with the IfD discussion, but I do not plan to take them to deletion review, as I see no chance for them to be restored, given the circumstances and the people involved. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi...[edit]

Steve: I have your user page/talk page watchlisted, so I noted the comment you added to it today, and I wanted you to know that I sympathize with what you wrote and empathize with the frustration the behavior you wrote about causes. I've integrated your comment into my own page of thoughts about Wikipedia, here. I hope that at some point you'll return to helping Wikipedia with the knowledge you have. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Move of Luna de Miel to Honeymoon (film)[edit]

Just in case you didn't note it, this move was made w/o discussion. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. It's been moved back now and I've reverted the other changes made during the move. Strictly speaking, it should be Lua de miel, not Luna de Miel. But that's a minor problem compared to what we've just had -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

One of Our Aircraft is Missing[edit]

The quotes in the article certainly generated a lot of attention lately. This is the last response I made to the editor Fram: "As you say, problem solved, this time. Unless I or other readers missed the very obvious statements embodied in the quotes, then a reasoning should and could be provided. However, quotes that are self-evident should not be summarily dismissed in a "broad brush" campaign to eliminate quotes. Having an "crusader" about (forgive the over-the-top hyperbole) is not conducive to editing, especially when the long-time editors involved have an impeccable track record of creating and developing articles. I reiterate that if the quotes section is to be a continuing controversial issue, then a clearly enunciated statement as to the use of quotes should be instituted. In looking at the rationale that was provided and efforts to engage others in the villagepump, only a few editors expressed interest in the subject. That alone indicates that continuing a campaign made be of dubious value. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)."

Thelma Schoonmaker and linkspam[edit]

Ordinarily, I would agree with you about the article found at that link - however, the article was added in by Morgands1, who had just added in a raft of links to items written by a "David Morgan" at that site. I called all the reverts linkspam based on the username, plus the fact that the user had previously been warned about WP:COI edits by DreamGuy but continued to do nothing but add links to what appear to be articles that he wrote, hosted on his own website. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so let's say you removed it as linkspam. But then I added it as a link to a useful interview :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


The Beiderbecke Tapes‎[edit]

Thanks for the correction to my edit regarding The Beiderbecke Tapes‎. I should've known better. I was born in Leeds and raise on Moor Grange. Cheers, Chilkoot (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


I certainly will Sir, the play is an excellent portray of life "oop Noorth"... I'm sure there are many locations yet to mention. Cheers. Chilkoot (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Red Shoes in the Mercury Theatre[edit]

Have you got a source for this? If so, it might make a nice addition to the Mercury Theatre, Notting Hill Gate article which now exists. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I was away for a few days. By an odd coincidence, I had gone to see The Red Shoes at a film festival so I saw the Mercury Theatre on screen just recently :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That's nice. I've never seen The Red Shoes myself, but I now think I'd like to, Feel free to enhance the Mercury Theatre article if you know of anything suitable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:A Canterbury Tale.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A Canterbury Tale.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGatalk 23:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Archers[edit]

I'm not convinced of the value of funnelling those two distinct gentlemen into a single point. I considered that when I wrote the page, and rejected it.

By the way, how did you find Arts Books so quickly since I only just started that page this week?

Varlaam (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for pages that linked to Michael Powell and not to Michael Powell (director). It's a search I run regularly. The two links to Powell and Pressburger were for films that they signed jointly as "Written, Produced and Direct by ..." so I thought that the single link was more appropriate. But if you want to separate them out again, feel free to do so - just link Powell to Michael Powell (director) this time :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not inseparable. They have their separate careers at other times. That's how I see them.
It also sets a precedent for me, and I edit a megabyte of film pages now with too much to do.
Anyway we'll let it sit there for now.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they were separate and had separate careers - but when they did the films like The Red Shoes they were working together, along with the rest of The Archers, and the whole was greater than the sum of the parts -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Powell filmography[edit]

I just wanted to write that the revisions I made in regards to the year of release of Michael Powell's earliest films were referenced from Ian Christie's excellent book 'The Cinema of Michael Powell'. I have not read any studies that cite his well researched filmography as inncorrect. But I'm willing to give your edits the benefit of the doubt, as I believe you have more knowledge on the subject. Thanks Chadwholovedme (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of whether you record the year in which the film was made or when it was released. The dates you gave were mainly the years in which the films were made, but it didn't make that clear and it's more usual to give the years when they were released. Maybe we should add a note to say that's what the years represent. I don't have my copy of "The Cinema of Michael Powell" to hand and I probably didn't check the filmography in it. I should check it some time and see if any other errors have crept in. Some have in his filmographies in the past. Ian's very good, and a very nice bloke, but he isn't infallible (none of us are) -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Video-TEP.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Video-TEP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
  • If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Beiderbecke Affair[edit]

My mistake, however in the book (released the same year as the series) he's only a Superintendant. NtheP (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the books are good. But they don't have Barbara Flynn in them :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Only a cover photo :-( Mind you I was fairly smitten by Alison Skilbeck (Helen of Tadcaster) and I think the book of Tapes is better than the series. I was a student in Leeds and remember them filming round Clarendon Road and Wodehouse for the first series. NtheP (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I love Tapes, the TV version. What with the trips to Amsterdam and Edinburgh and the Honourable Order of Elks who are "looking for a bit of action". Then of course there's also the man with no name called Mr Peterson, John the barman who died but is much better now, Dave the wimp, Charlie the gravedigger and the oldest swinger in town. A brilliant cast of characters and some great performances from all of them - but it's Alan Plater's writing that shines through this and the others in the trilogy. Although Tapes doesn't have Hobson and the lazy detectives, Big Al & Little Norm or much of Mr Wheeler -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Tapes wasn't a bad series but I think the book is better. As you say Plater's writing is excellent throughout. I'm glad I have the complete set on DVD - the VHS were wearing thin through repeated viewings. And of course one thing the TV series have over the books is the soundtrack. NtheP (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Powell[edit]

Re: "Any reason for reverting the use of the 'cite book' template in Michael Powell's bibliography? -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)" Yes:

  1. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers.
  2. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and newcomers (not you!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
  3. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
  4. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
  5. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
  6. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded.

Please contact me for more information on the @%$#*# cite templates which I tried fruitlessly years ago to have their developers revise into the more standard publishing format of the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide, most often used in the referencing of biographies (Michael Powell, for one), histories and social sciences. I established the MLA style guide for the bibliographic notations of the Michael Powell article so that further submissions would have a consistent style guide to follow. The actual cites themselves are written in Harvard Citation style of "author(s) (last name only) date (most recent publishing date), page accession format." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

BTW, I can rewrite the cite templates into proper formatting, but it takes so much editing that it isn't worth it, so I find that writing in text is the easiest and most efficient solution: simple, identify all the key elements of the reference notation: author, title, publisher, date. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Although not strictly the convention in writing bibliographic notations, I see no problem in adding "clarifying" information such as a bracketed autobiography note. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Norman Foster (bass)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Norman Foster (bass) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The stub is unsourced since its creatioin in 2008. Te listed external links provide extremely scant information. The subject's date of birth and possible age today are not known. No other sources have been located that can provide this information or additional details that assert notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser[edit]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry[edit]

Bzuk (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia![edit]

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 11:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Behold a pale horse[edit]

I thought that according to WP:LEAD, the lead of an article should be pretty much a concise overview of a topic and its most important aspects. production, scoring, and reception are important aspects.

"Already mentioned in the 'Reception and release history' section" - that rational could be used to delete everything from the first paragraph, since there's really nothing in the first paragraph that isn't repeated (in more detail) later on.

So, perhaps I'm wrong, but if so please respond here saying why.

Thanks----Violarulez (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything is a matter of opinion. What are the "most important aspects" (to quote WP:LEAD) of the film? Personally I don't think that those are the most important aspects of the film -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
alright. I kind of disagree, but also happen to not be that interested in that page, so whatever...--Violarulez (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


Operation Crossbow (film)[edit]

Steve, as I had just finished watching the film, I thought I would look it up on Wikipedia only to to find this very crudely cribbed article, derived from the IMDb site. Instead of scrapping the whole thing, I will attempt to make some changes. FWiW, take a look at the new changes as I saw you were attempting to make improvements as well. Bzuk (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

That's certainly a lot better than it was. It is a highly fictionalised account which normally puts me off a film but this one is done fairly well. Emeric wove a good story around the basic facts and there are some very good and convincing performances in it, especially from Tom Courtnay & Lilli Palmer. I also like Barbara Rütting's performance of that fascinating lady, Hannah Reitsch - hate her politics, admire her skill. Keep up the good work -- SteveCrook (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Jean Simmons[edit]

thanks for your note on the Jean Simmons contract situation - what you say makes sense. The biography channel should have said 'pascal arranged for her to sign a 7 year contract with Rank..' not 'Pascal signed her to a 7 year contract' as it did say. I've seen many photos of her with Gabriel Pascal and I remember a radio interview she gave Gloria Hunniford in which she said he had dreams of her playing Shaw's Saint Joan " but it never happened" she said, and then her voice trails off kind of sadly and she repeats, "it never happened". He obviously played an important role in her early career , parallel with Ranks influence. If the article isn't too badly misleading as it stands I think I'll leave it for now until I can find out the situation more surely - if Pascal didn't work directly for Rank, Rank obviously gave him some kind of permisision to work/discuss further projects with Jean . She certainly was dominated by powerful men - Rank/Pascal/Hughes/Granger - blimeySayerslle (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Peeping Tom scene.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Peeping Tom scene.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ACT Characters.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ACT Characters.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 are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It was legal according to the rules in place when I uploaded it. But the rules have been changed so often that I gave up caring about Wikipedia, especially as regards images, long ago. Wikipedia started off as a good idea but is rapidly destroying itself and making it impossible to add any decent information -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see my reply at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 28#File:ACT Characters.jpg. I don't know what the rules are that you say have changed since 2007; as far as I know, the copyright law of the United States has not changed significantly since then. Some Wikipedia procedures may have changed, but the question here is not about Wikipedia procedures or policy, it's about the actual copyright status of this image under United States law, and I don't think that status has changed in the past five years. —Bkell (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I've long lost any interest in trying to justify the rationale as to why an image is allowable on Wikipedia. Whenever I justify it, according to the rules in effect at the time, someone changes the rules. It's happened loads of times. The copyright law in the US of A might not have changed, but the rules on Wikipedia certainly have. As far as I'm concerned you can delete every single image on the site. That's what it has been heading towards for some time now. I only keep a watching brief on the site to correct any of the extremes of vandalism that the site is still plagued by. I just monitor a few pages that I'm particularly interested in. I don't care what happens on any other pages -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me try to clarify again: There is nothing wrong with the rationale, and this image is not in danger of being deleted. The only question is whether this film is in really in the public domain in the United States. I am only trying to clarify the copyright status. The image is not going to be deleted either way. —Bkell (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well the answer to that question is, "Who knows?" America has such peculiar copyright laws I can never figure them out. I have enough trouble figuring out the copyright laws here in the UK. A Canterbury Tale is a British film that was released in 1944 (in the UK, it was released in 1949 in the States). What are the chances that it's still in copyright in the States? -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Anything published on or after January 1, 1923 can potentially still be under copyright protection in the United States. That's why I'm asking people at WP:PUF to see if they can clarify the situation. The tag on the image right now, {{PD-US-no notice}}, makes the claim, "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice." That claim should be easy enough to verify if true, right? I am suspicious of this claim because (1) it's a British film, not an American film (so presumably we need to be concerned about its British copyright protection too, not only its American copyright protection), and (2) it would be unusual, I think, for a film like this one not to have a copyright notice. —Bkell (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I can tell you that it's still under copyright in the UK. But copyright law in the UK is totally different to copyright law in the US. In the UK (& much of the rest of the world, signatories to the Berne Convention) it varies depending on what the work is, books, music, films etc. It's basically that every piece of work created is automatically under copyright for a length of time - usually something like 50 years from the death of the creator. It's only in the US and a few "American colonies" that you have to apply for copyright. It's all very complicated, especially when you take into account that a film can be "published" (i.e. released) in a different country and so fall under the copyright laws in that country. A British film can be under copyright in the UK but public domain in the US of A. Lawyers get rich trying to sort out this mess :) Copyright law has yet to catch up with the internet -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The United States has been a party to the Berne Convention since 1989, and all works created on or after January 1, 1978 and published on or after March 1, 1989, with or without an explicit copyright notice, are automatically copyrighted in the United States for 70 years after the death of the author. You haven't had to apply for copyright for over 20 years now. See [6] for a good chart of this complicated mess. I understand that it's complicated, but let's try to figure it out here instead of just admitting defeat.
In the description page for File:ACT Characters.jpg, you say that the image comes from your own DVD copy of the film. So, can you watch the first few minutes of the film and see if there's a copyright notice on the title screen? Or, alternatively, maybe there's a copyright notice in the credits at the end. If there is (and it seems likely to me), then clearly the film was published with a copyright notice, so the {{PD-US-no notice}} tag does not apply. —Bkell (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a one line notice saying "© 1944 Independent Film Distributors, Ltd." See Screen grab. That's on the British DVD and the American (Criterion) DVD and the French DVD. It's on the original 35mm print. It is followed by the cast list. But what sort of copyright is that being asserted? Is that the distributors asserting their copyright on this distribution rather than the creators of the work asserting their copyright? -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That is clearly a copyright notice, so I am going to remove the {{PD-US-no notice}} tag. As you have pointed out, creative works are automatically copyrighted in the United Kingdom without the requirement for a copyright notice, and as far as we can tell the film was released with a copyright notice in the United States (hence satisfying the requirements for copyright protection at the time), so we have no reasonable basis to claim that this film is in the public domain in the United States "because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice." —Bkell (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Edit summary[edit]

Hi Steve, re: this edit summary: that timestamp got in there because I accidentally pressed the wrong button in my text editor. Graham87 15:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Easily done :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Derek Twist, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The 39 Steps, After the Ball and Murder Will Out (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, all fixed -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:ThelmaSchoonmaker.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:ThelmaSchoonmaker.jpg, which you've attributed to http://wayback.archive.org/web/20090529200809/http://powell-pressburger.org/Trips/Cannes/20090515/Report.html. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

ThelmaSchoonmaker.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your efforts with this image. I'm sorry that my transfer of it to commons.wikimedia has caused you some work. I think it's a delightful and valuable image, and I enjoyed the story that goes with it (as described in your Powell & Pressburger website). I've recently used your photo at List of film director and editor collaborations. Easchiff (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

IAAF Hall of Fame[edit]

You made contributions to the IAAF Hall of Fame#Other athletes who match the criteria section that has been removed by User:Prolog. The conversation first went to User talk:Prolog and is now moving to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#IAAF Hall of Fame where the discussion apparently will now continue. Your participation is invited. Trackinfo (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Red Shoes (1948 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Powell, Michael (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hirta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Powell, Michael (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Moira Shearer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Powell
Raymond Durgnat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Powell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment on the Ralph Richardson talk page. I see from your user page that this is your area of expertise, and I imagine we shall find your comments borne out by reliable sources. If we do, we ought, I think, to get the Commons details altered and we should also tell the Imperial War Museum that their files are wrong. In my experience, museums and galleries are scrupulous about dealing with suggested corrections to their info. The NPG leapt into action a year or two ago when I pointed out a minor error in a caption in one of their rooms. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Already done & done, last night  :)
I've told the IWM and I've corrected the comments on the image in the Commons. I've removed the image from the Ralph Richardson article and added it to the article about The Volunteer -- SteveCrook (talk)
Good grief! I'm lagging miles behind you. Thank you so much for dealing with this. I hope the IWM will be as efficient as the NPG were for me. I suspect that of all the people who have ever read this article, or ever will, you are the only one who has actually seen the film. That's one of Wikipedia's strengths: we have experts in everything. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It's an extra on the Criterion DVD of 49th Parallel  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of English Heritage blue plaques in London may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | [[Ambrose (bandleader)]]<br/>(1896–1971

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you so much for your recent work on the plaques. I'm grinding my way through Camden offline. I created 8 Melbury Road a while back, some P&P connection indeed. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. But the book "The London Compendium: A Street-by-street Exploration of the Hidden Metropolis" cited as saying that scenes for Peeping Tom were filmed inside the house - is incorrect. All interiors were filmed in the studio. Mark & Helen's house was 5 Melbury Road, since demolished. The scenes with young Mark (Columba Powell) in the back garden were filmed at number 8, but that's all that was filmed there. But that's Wikipedia for you, if you can cite a printed work then they accept that rather than the truth  :( -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Fascinating...this is why I sympathize with experts. I've written some articles on Monaco and would greatly appreciate a sprinkling of P&P references on Opéra de Monte-Carlo etc. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a good place for experts. I mainly just keep an eye on the P&P articles to make sure not too many untruths are added. The obvious P&P connection to Opéra de Monte-Carlo is The Red Shoes which was partly filmed in Monte Carlo. We see the railway station and the exterior of the Hôtel de Paris Monte-Carlo but although they are meant to be staging the ballet at the Opéra I'm not sure that they ever actually filmed in there. Both Léonide Massine and Ludmilla Tchérina had been members of the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo and Michael owned La Voile d'Or at Saint Jean Cap Ferrat and they used The Villa Leopolda at Villefranche-sur-Mer which are all in that area. When we were invited to the première of the digitally restored print of The Red Shoes at the Cannes Film Festival in 2009 my friend the lovely Natacha & I, two huge film fans, ignored the biggest film festival in the world the next day and went exploring up the coast to visit La Voile d'Or & The Villa Leopolda  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours

Weihnachtsschmuck.JPG

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

An Airman's Letter to His Mother[edit]

Hi Steve. The article needs a photo from the film for the infobox, but I have not found any contemporary poster or theatrical advertising to use. The plot also could use some expansion, but the YouTube video that I had once seen is no longer available, so I can't do much about adding to the plot. There must be some information about the production but neither Powell or others has much to say about the making of this film. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Not easy. It's only a 5 minute short film where the letter is delivered and John Gielgud reads it out as the unknown actress playing the mother looks through the airman's things. There isn't really much to be said about it -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Steve, take a look at the revisions I recently made. I still think an infobox image should be added; any suggestions? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find one, but generally I have given up on images on Wikipedia. I have added many, following all the rules - only to have some genius change the rules and delete the images I submitted -- SteveCrook (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Tell me about it, I have two of the photo police systematically removing any of my non-free images that I have added to film articles on the flimsiest of rationales, all the while, quoting the "regs", but I think their MOA is only an excuse to support their deletionist tendencies. One of their favourite tactics is to "orphan" an image and then a bot comes along to remove it. Their usual templated rationales that are cited are the same and when challenged, the excuse is that a reader does not need the illustration to understand the topic. Sorry for the rant, but I am increasingly frustrated by these folk. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That's why I have basically given up on Wikipedia apart from keeping a watching brief to revert the vandalism or obvious errors in articles I'm particularly interested in. It was a great idea but has been spoiled by allowing changes by unregistered users and the various cliques and mindless bots -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear SteveCrook,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").