User talk:Light show

Archive 1 Archive 2

George C Scott

Your photo of scott adds nothing to the article as it is nearly the same (in terms of when it was taken) as one of the photos in the piece. My photo, taken later in life shows a side of him that is not otherwise shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfrankel (talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You can add the comments to his article talk page so others can reply? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi! I'm writing an article for my english class and I need to find people to provide some feedback on it. The article can be found here -->Takadimi. Thanks!Rajahsrider (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Publicity photos

Would the color shot of Fay Wray from [1], Leslie Banks from [2], Joel McCrea from [3] and Donna Reed from [4] be okay for upload? Connormah (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Also, any chance you could get some shots of some of the Wizard of Oz actors? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

They all seem like standard publicity photos, so should be fine. Personally, I'd pick the B/W of Fay over the color one, since it's more authentic for that period, when photos were tinted to be colorized. I'll add Oz to my todo list. With that star-studded cast, the quality of all their images should be improved. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - Which licenses should I upload them under? Connormah (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This example would work for those. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, where might I find the year that the photos were taken? Connormah (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's not included with the source, or from clues in the photo itself (i.e. a particular film), then web or book searching could help. I've listed dates as "circa" when the date range could be reasonably estimated, otherwise I put "date unknown." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Laraine Day

Hi, Wikiwatcher1. I just wanted to stop by and tell you that I think it is fantastic how you upload so many cool photographs of famous people here to Wikipedia. You have such good taste too you always make great selections. I was wondering would you mind giving actress Laraine Day's page a facelift and upload a picture of her from Dr. Macro to serve as her new headshot for the article's main picture? If so here's the link (http://www.doctormacro.com/Movie%20Star%20Pages/Day,%20Laraine.htm) and please upload the one on the left I think that would be beautiful. Thank you for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.27.96 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Great choice! Will work on it soon.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir! You are so fantastic in your photo choices and it is an honor to recognize Laraine Day this way. Thank you so much again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.27.96 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's always nice to get positive feedback. I'm glad to help out. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Norma Shearer

Would you mind giving a facelift to the Norma Shearer page? The picture they have the dominant one now is kind of mundane, if you can would you mind uploading this one from Dr. Macro here to Wikipedia? The link is:http://doctormacro.com/Images/Shearer,%20Norma/Annex/Annex%20-%20Shearer,%20Norma_17.jpg

Thanks if you can do it!Michael Power 2011 22:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Michaela Power 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela Power 2011 (talk • contribs)

Who owns copyright of that image? Amalthea 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure but Wikiwatcher1 is good at figuring out that information. I don't plan to upload that picture I just want to upload one of my own.Michael Power 2011 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela Power 2011 (talk • contribs)

It would be in the public domain, with a license rationale similar to Laraine Day. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my suggestion it turned out great! Michael Power 2011 00:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela Power 2011 (talk • contribs)

Elizabeth Taylor

I think many of the images you've uploaded are an asset to the articles you've added them to, but this one - File:Taylor, Elizabeth Velvet.jpg - looks like a problem. The source website states that it's under copyright. Could you please clarify. At face value, I think it should be deleted. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rossrs. I've dealt with similar issues for other photos and a few conclusions came out of them: All websites are automatically copyrighted, including blogs, as a creative product, and many will include a copyright notice somewhere; the images included on them, and their text, may or may not be copyrighted depending on their source (i.e. a lot of sites will simply copy Wikipedia); Time and Life -related websites always have their boilerplate copyright listed, regardless of the status of older photos; but even for Life and others, if a photo is reasonably a PD image due to its date, source, or subject, like publicity photos, it's stays PD regardless of where it's reposted or reprinted. So I try to be very careful to check before using and will upload as non-free if there's doubt. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. The logo in the bottom right on the photo is another issue though. Could you upload it again minus the logo? That really does draw attention to it. Lovely photos in Taylor's article now, by the way. Rossrs (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Good idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to give-up on Lester R. Brown edit ... notice Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin POV tactics history. ...

You don't have to give-up on Lester R. Brown edit ... notice Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin POV tactics history. ... 99.109.126.27 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP

WP:BLP is our most strictly enforced policy. When someone removes something on BLP grounds, if you disagree, you do not revert them, but instead open a section on the article's talk page. Please don't make this mistake again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's sort of clear. But as you know you reverted someone's earlier edit stating it was unsourced, so I simply assumed you didn't see the source and pointed it out. Nor was any talk page opened on the subject. But I got your point. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

I haven't looked at the recent deletion requests other than to know that there are a lot of them and that you're upset, and I know it has been a couple of days since you made the posts, but you should remember that non-neutral comments such as this one are not allowed. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that per images filed for deletion, within the template's usage, there is a presumption that the image in the article should have a notice to request comments pending the deletion request. Since the tagger of 21 images failed to do so, I simply let regular editors stay up to date with a Talk notice in the effected articles. So I'm not sure if that's a form of "canvassing," as opposed to fulfilling a requirement for an image FfD. I don't think the word "subjective" is non-neutral, in case you were referring to that, and that was explained in the same notice. Can you clarify the "canvassing" and "non-neutral" issue so I'm clear? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, canvassing would be WP:CANVASSING (in particular "Campaigning"), and the phrases that caught my eye were, to a much lesser extent, the editorializing:

The rationale is that they do not "significantly increases reader understanding," which, being totally subjective, is not helpful.

but primarily the invitation for those who agree with you to vote:

If anyone wishes to comment that in their opinion it does add to the commentary, you can do so

(emphasis added). There's no problem simply leaving a message on the articles's talk pages about such deletion discussions, it's just the particulars of the message which are problematic. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and fixed on Carl Sagan so far. I'll revise the few others. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's much appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As wp:tea is blocked for IP Users, Thank you for your additions to Lester R. Brown.

As wp:tea is blocked for IP Users, Thank you for your additions to Lester R. Brown. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Split

My guess (hope) is that with a split, you will feel more comfortable reflecting some of the material that I have identified (in the event article). And I will certainly feel more comfortable in the deletion of material from the bio -- if it is moved to the event article. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Please see Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case. I don't want to fight, I prefer to read books. I simply think that cite those issues is relevant. The introduction should be shortened, though (or better, moved to DSK's article, and move the DSK's assault section into Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case)Yug (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, I feel really uncomfortable with your position. You support the need of an article, but you destroy each effort I make to provide content by massive deletions. I did tried to talkd to you on the talk page, you didn't reacted for... 8 hours. So I dare to restore, and you delete 4 full different sections with a clic and no argument. I feel like you are an adult asking me to speak, and hitting me hard each time I speak, then asking me to speak. Yug (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all covered on the article talk page. All of the deletions were explained there a number of times with rationales. I'm actually trying to be extra civil by explaining things in detail. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The will to delete "all" have been state, the careful consideration of the ~20 statements before deletion was NOT and never provide.

Your quick revert reverted my edit, including deleting the section #Consequences, and restoring the section #Conspiracies, which is quite gossip.

Now, those same relevant statements are coming back and accepted. The article is now containing (section #French reactions & #Resignation, economic and political impact) the very same sourced statements : reaction of the French opinion, Guigou law, consequence on the French election, crisis in the IMF... that you insistingly deleted when in former ection #Consequences. About the section #Conspiracies, that you looked as worthing, it have now almost been delete as being too gossips.

The current shape of the article show that following your simple POV (as everyone), you were harshly deleting ALL (full sections), including relevant content, and bitting randomly.

Please be more respectful of other users' opinions. A lot of time have been wasted with this useless deletion and following reconstruction. Yug (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Errant ^(chat!) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Simon

I have tried a compromise on the Paul Simon templates. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

your DSK redactions

Hi WW - I watchlisted the DSK articles a while ago and though I haven't been too active in them lately, and just noticed your redactions of FM's comments. Please remember that per the NPA guidelines, "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." A lot of the comments that you redacted were definitely not clearcut personal attacks, and a good number of them don't seem to be personal attacks at all. In some places you removed content that was not attacking you in such a way as to change the meaning of FM's comments. Please go back over your edits and reverse those redactions you made of material that was not a clearcut personal attack aimed at you. I can understand why you viewed some of FM's comments as personal attacks (and I agree with you that some of them were,) but some of what you removed clearly falls outside the scope of WP:NPA. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm aware of the guidelines, and even posted them before redactions, on FM's talk page. I reviewed the redactions made and found none that were obviously incorrect, although the overall message might have been altered, especially since I tried to carefully prune out material, and left prior and subsequent statements. So it would help if you could point out which redactions you noted were incorrect. If they were, I will obviously restore it. With this much pruning, mistakes would not be that surprising. The only point I tend to disagree with, is your use of the word "some" as opposed to "most." If the overall message has lost its meaning due to proper redactions, the burden would be FM's to rephrase. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Image gallery of counterfeit consumer goods

Hi, Wikiwatcher1. I noticed you reverted my removal of the image gallery in Counterfeit consumer goods a second time. Apparently the discussion between us at Talk:Counterfeit consumer goods#Too many unnecessary images didn't really go anywhere. Would you mind if I listed this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment to get some outside input? —Bkell (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind. One of the reasons the gallery was restored because another editor had reduced its size, and that seemed like a reasonable change to keep. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

EAR

I've started a topic on WP:EAR that involves you. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Operation Entebbe

There is a discussion regarding some text you added going on at Talk:Operation Entebbe#RfC: Should Operation Eagle Claw Be Discussed In This Article and Do the Included Citations Support the Article? Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous info on [File:Kubrick-Lolita-62.jpg]

Wikiwatcher, that's a photo of Kubrick directing Doctor Strangelove, not Lolita!!!! Please ASAP both rename the file (or reupload under an appropriate name & delete this copy) and change the file info. (Aside from the fact that I've seen the photo in several books appropriately labeled, are there any scenes in Lolita with semi-automatic machine guns?)

Fixed. Commons file to be renamed by admin. I somehow picked the wrong "strange love."--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In spite of many caveats, your work on the Kubrick article is overall much appreciated.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Max Steiner

Did you intentionally remove the navboxes in this edit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the details were more clearly included in the Filmography section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have created most of the score and song award templates ({{Academy Award Best Original Song}}, {{Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song}}, {{Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score}}, {{DramaDesk Music}} and {{BAFTA Award for Best Film Music}} and all the subtemplates for shorter periods of time) on WP. I.e., all of them except for {{Academy Award Best Original Score}} and {{TonyAward MusicalScore}}. Basically, if there are two or three most people leave them and if there are more than three it is not uncommon for them to be collapsed into a template of the form {{Navboxes||title=Elton John honors|list1=}}--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dalai Lama Quote

While I admire the sentiments behind the quote on your user page, it is not in fact from the Dalai Lama, although it has been widely attributed to the DL, a student at Columbine, and comedian George Carlin. It is actually by Dr. Paul Moorehead, former pastor of Seattle's Overlake Christian Church. See [5].

 Fixed

Sorry about the mess re the Kubrick images. You have my sympathy. (But I tried to warn you.)--WickerGuy (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You did - thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the Status?

On WP if an image is nominated for deletion, it gets resolved in 7 days. There's been no discussion at all on the Kubrick images for a while, and the images are still around. Do you know what's going on?--WickerGuy (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Of the images decided on so far, they were kept. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I must not be looking in the right places on my Commons Watchlist. Where is the official record of this?--WickerGuy (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The separate photos tagged as kept by editors were noted on the image pages. I don't recall that any Kubrick images were revised.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So does that mean that the status of the Kubrick photoes is still uncertain? The discussion thread certainly seemed to be going against them. Wikicommons perhaps proceeds more slowly that non-free Wikipedia stuff.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I haven't dealt with the Commons that much. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Californians for Population Stabilization for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Californians for Population Stabilization is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Californians for Population Stabilization until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JFHJr (㊟) 03:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick and Conway

I thought you wanted the Conway material incorporated into Kubrick's biography. The material I added on Frank Rich was to give the material more weight, and the material in the original version (which you also deleted) on the response of Kubrick and his family is IMO essential to making the material notable at all!! You seem to have both removed the material that makes the Conway story non-trivial and then moved it to a section which you labeled "trivia". This is the very first edit of yours I have seen that seems to me to be significantly ill-advised.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be simpler to keep related comments on the same page. I'll copy this to the earlier section so things don't get split up. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg

File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Xijky (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP concerns re Natalie Wood death section

Hi, I've listed my concerns at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Natalie_Wood but I'm not so good at being articulate. The other two editors from Talk:Natalie Wood have weighed in there. Would you care to do so? You could do a better job than me. I have never listed anything there before. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathew: be very careful you don't get accused (rightfully or otherwise) of canvassing. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw your post there but I assumed that any editors who were interested would naturally have to go to the article section and talk page to get some perspective. I try to avoid being redundant. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Wikiwatcher1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. MER-C 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. When you recently edited Irving Thalberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Best Actress (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) 10:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Particularly good work on....

Stanley Kubrick's personal life, especially the sections marriage and family & "Settling in England" and "Desire for Piracy". Like most of the public, I've been more interested in the films than the man, sort of like so many Sherlock Holmes fans who could care less about Conan Doyle. Interesting but not surprising that he remained "at heart" a New Yorker his whole life.

Sorry about the loss of the last photo (even though I voted for deletion). It was a good photo, even if by Wiki-standards superfluous.

More anon--WickerGuy (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Light show. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

quick note on GG p.

Ww, please note the ratings of the p.

I realize I didn't sign the above. I was eating breakfast and realized that "tomorrow" is the end of the picture; "i'll never be hungry again" ends act 1.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Should I assume your saying you were eating breakfast, followed by "I'll never be hungry again," was a Freudian slip ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In skimming your talk page, I noticed you did some work on Max Steiner who of course composed the score for Wind. Appropriate to our discussion! I think he mostly worked with W.B. though, not mgm, Right?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. But what always amazes me is how most of America's classic film composers came from Europe and Russia. Dmitri Tiomkin tried to explain some of the reasons.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes and that so many of them were E. European Jewish refugees who directed, etc., pictures about American interests and culture! And in most of them, there wasn't a Jew in sight. Have you read Neil Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood? If not, you'd love it. As Bette Davis is reported to have said, "There would be no Hollywood without the Jews and homosexuals". I'm going right to your link. Thanks for attaching it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm thrilled you're working on the Stanwyck p. which is really bad, I think and does little justice to her extraordinary work and contribution to cinema. The p. really needs to be rewrtten. I contemplated working on it but 1) there's just not enough written about her 2) I'm exhausted by GG work and no time to get consumed by another. Have you seen new Stanwyck bio though? Haven't read but focus looks to be on her films. Still, has probably updated information/knowledge/insight. A major editor at Knopf, Victoria Wilson(edited Barry Paris' 1994 GG bio), has been working on a big Stanwyck bio for more than 10 years. I've been keeping up with her progress but seems stalled. Anyway, if she ever gets it done, it should be brilliant. take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

About the new Callahan bio (2012), I added some brief early years material from it. Callahan made it clear a number of times that one of his reasons for this bio was to correct a lot of erroneous gossip-oriented material that Madsen's bio relied on. Madsen is the key source for most of the current article. I might be able to do some more work on it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good. Very glad for Callahan's intentions. Madsen's bio is hopeless. Much of it is just faudulent. Yeah, do some more on it if you can!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright searching

The online copyright search at copyright.gov only goes back so far and doesn't take into consideration all copyrights filed since the office began. Only more current copyrights appear in their online search. The best place to start looking for older information about whether an item was renewed is here : Catalog of Copyright Entries. It's organized by year; search the year before as well as the year the renewal was due, as some companies filed before time was up. Their pages are trustworthy for the timeframe they deal with. We hope (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Dick Clark - ad.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dick Clark - ad.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

We hope (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I had to tag the Dick Clark image and had said I didn't think it would work, and that you should have your say and we would let a third party make the decision. However, it looks like my original post disappeared in cyberpace. We hope (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

May I Suggest?

Hi, Wikiwatcher1! Love your picture choices, may I suggest a picture tune up for the pages of Jane Greer, Rue McClanahan, Arlene Dahl, and John Gavin. They really could use a tune up and poor Arlene has no pictures on her page at all. Hope you'll consider. Have a good one!Carlton30458AZ (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Added Arlene, will do others if possible. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Garbo image

WW, why didn't you either talk to me (since you know I and another made the first choice) or raise as a discussion point first about making this big change? The whole point of the other image is to show her laughing! This was the big tag-line and it was her first and only 1 of 2 comedies. It's very important to the article because it shows her range. Can you explain why you made this change? So with due respect, I'm going to revert again and unless you can persuade on discussion page, we really should keep the choice Fat&Happy and I made several weeks ago. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

NEVERMIND! I'm so sorry. I didn't go all the way through. Now, you don't think the page is overcrowded with images? I do. But will check with fat&happy to get his opinion. Anyway, I'm not wedded to it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

it's me again. Another problem is that it's 2 pics from the same movie. There are so many other classics that are not represented, the most importyant being Queen Christian. You want to check on some of those?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

uhhh. Christina :))

No problem. I'll keep an eye out for the queen. But if we add a photo of "Queen Christina," it will have to go in the section titled "Queen of MGM." Are such double crowns allowed? :) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:))!

OK, google garbo queen christina "images." Look at first two. 2nd one of the most famous shots in cinema history. First slightly better quality. I think either would be a much better choice than having 2 pics from the same movie. What do you think? I'd post it but don't know how to deal with copyright rules.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

o yeah, F&H also questioned the wisdom of having 2 from same movie.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I found one that is public domain. The ones you found came from blogs which wouldn't be allowed.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bravo! Much better I think. And brings out her often-cited androgyny, part of her unique screen persona, which adds something to the p.

You're fast, man.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings- about images in musicians' articles

I've been crazy busy this week. I hope you'll be patient a little longer? Some years ago I found so few musicians' biographies (my focus) missing images, that I ended up 50% half-sidetracked from editing obtaining photos, & since then I've uploaded at least 1,500 photos since then. But the templates, policy, rules, and style I learned I either memorized or stashed someplace on my userpage or in a sandbox there. I'll look for the origin, ASAP. Basically, infobox photos should be of the best quality a recent date. (In the case of Bruce Springsteen, placing a photo from 30 years ago may easily confuse a reader who is newly familiar with him, and not recognize him from long ago is just one reason that comes to mind. There is also the problem of fans editing and placing photos of people they were attracted to years before, as with Mick Taylor or Cat Stevens who are eager to show the artist as they remember their "pin-up" days. After the infobox, images should be used to reflect the text and/or expand the reader's comprehension of points being made. With few exceptions, biography articles flow chronologically, and photos should illuminate text from the time period. See Wikipedia:IMAGE RELEVANCE.. it's taken me years to realize how to begin to look for inspired policy to produce much better articles! I'll try to get back to you with more policy sources. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Roman Polanski". Thank you. --Psalm84 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, (UTC)

I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a notice that I replied to your statement in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edith Peinemann

this is one of the best articles I've seen all day. Thank you for writing it, and keep up the awesome work! Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sasoon refs

dont use the current format because its a lot of work for you and reflinks provides more data, ill run the rool on the page.Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Query, Wikiwatcher1, please respond

Sorry, Wikiwatcher1, for communicating this way, but user-email is not enabled. Anyway, for a music project about Irving Berlin in Berlin we need to find the source of the Irving Berlin portrait photograph that you have uploaded on English Wikipedia. I bought the book that the caption says contains the image, but it doesn't. So would you please provide the correct source of the image, so I can use it or re-scan it for print publications etc.? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onigorom (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the lead image, that was from a library book, so I'll first try to find it and double check. But if you meant another photo, let me know. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Roman_Polanski infobox picture

• - Talk:Roman_Polanski#The_infobox_image

Hi - regarding your revert of my edit - I have opened a talkpage policy discussion - please join in there - thanks - Youreallycan 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Media copyright questions#File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg

• - Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg

Hi - I have opened a discussion regarding your claim of public domain on this picture - please comment there - thanks - Youreallycan 17:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hi - I asked you a question - Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg - pleae reply - thanks - Youreallycan 16:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Irving Berlin Portrait - please clarification

Hi again, Getty Images has this photograph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BerlinPortrait1.jpg) listed, and they claim to have a license (unfortunately). Upon uploading you have listed this image as license-free public domain. I would be thankful if you could inquire on that or give proof that it is public domain etc. The Getty listing can be found here: http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/circa-1945-studio-portrait-of-russian-born-composer-nachrichtenfoto/51240089 The photographer is unknown. Getty wants to charge money for this image being used in a music performance context, and I wonder what is the case here. --Onigorom (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Getty places a copyright notice on all their photos, regardless of whether they have a registration. A search found that this image, if it ever was copyrighted (doubtful - see film still article, was not renewed and nothing similar has been renewed. Because Getty, like Corbis, is a stock photo house, they charge for their services of providing the images in various resolutions. I have the source book on order, and should have it later this week. However, note that the image you're inquiring about is small and low resolution, so for print publication it would only be a bit over an inch square, about the size of a postage stamp. A photo like this one can also be used if you contact the web site for its source and check with them also, along with doing your own copyright search. It will print up to 9" x 12" at print resolution.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Orange bar harassment

Repeated harassment is easily neutered:

.usermessage
{
 display: none;
}

Drop that in User:Wikiwatcher1/common.css, and begone. Then you can check for messages when you feel like it, kinda like with email. It will also kill some of teh joke bars. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

no problem. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your help would be appreciated

The message this replaces was an effort to contact you from a banned user, Excuseme99. Please remember that Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids taking editing directions from banned users, so I strongly urge you to ignore the contract request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.—Kww(talk) 05:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers 1964 heart attack

I see you do a lot of work to his article, so this is a heads up. Sellers didn't have a heart attack on the set of Kiss me Stupid and almost certainly didn't have 13 heart attacks. My explanation for the edit I did can be found here.[6] Cheers!...William 17:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers - peer review

WW, please do not simply revert alterations without first researching why the "extreme" removals and edits are taking place. It has absolutely nothing to do with WP:OWN - a policy you seem to be slightly obsessed with of late. Please see [the image review] which has been conducted by J Milburn; an excellent and prolific image reviewer at FAC who has identified a number of serious issues with a lot of the images within the article. SchroCat and I are putting a lot of time and effort in to this in order to get this upto FA standard and we think this is certainly achievable if we recieve the correct guidance at PR. Such guidence may result in a number of substantial edits taking place so as to remove problematic issues which could potentially hinder Sellers chances at FAC. Surely even you want Sellers to achieve the highest status possible so I beg you, please work with us and not against us, as we only have this articles best interests at heart. If you have an issue with the image review, feel free to approach the image reviewer. I just hope you do your research before you do though, because they will run rings around you if you don't. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I just did that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I really do appreciate your understanding and I'm sure JM will provide a definate answer once and for all. For the record, I would happily keep all the images, but they do come with thier problems and Sellers would be kicked out as soon as it was listed if these problems are not fixed now. We really want Sellers to have a smooth transition from complete obscurity to being the best WP has to offer so its not about OWN. By the way, If you have any comments at PR we would love to hear from you (excuse the cheeky plug ;-) -- Cassianto^Talk 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the message you left on my talk page, if we can prove that, firstly, the image was published in the US between those years, and, secondly, that it was published without a copyright notice, then I naturally have no objection to its use. We assume images non-free until proven otherwise. (Whether it's used in the lead, elsewhere or at all is up to you- I'm just concerned about copyright.) Right now, it's not clear that the image is definitely PD; regardless of how appropriate you feel the image is for the article, the copyright concerns have to come first. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Marshall-giving-medal-of-merit.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marshall-giving-medal-of-merit.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. We hope (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sellers in hospital.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sellers in hospital.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. We hope (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Wikiwatcher1)

Hello, Wikiwatcher1. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1, where you may want to participate. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bullets

I bulleted parts of your comment at Talk:Peter Sellers#Place of birth and possible misuse of BRD to make the text more accessible (per WP:LIST). Hope that's OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Kay Christopher

Hi, Wikiwatcher1,

A new page has been created today in honor of actress Kay Christopher.

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Christopher

We are hoping you'd like to do the honor of posting some photographs of her on her page since you are such a respected uploader.

Hope you'll consider.DinahIsMyGal (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Caren Marsh Doll

Wikiwatcher1, If you would like another picture project actress Caren Marsh Doll dosen't have any pictures on her Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caren_Marsh_Doll

Perhaps you could add some image for her when you can.MissPhyll (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Julie Christie

The photo you put up there is nice, but it's virtually identical to the screenshot from Doctor Zhivago under the career section. I clicked on your image and saw that it was from eBay. Can you upload another photo from ebay, perhaps this photo, to use instead of the pic that's on there right now? Shipofcool (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's from the same film, so I'll change the caption on the lead. I think the lead image is much better for her bio's image, so will delete the screen captured one. I'll keep my eyes open for some others, but the one you found won't work since it's a reprint without any border details. BTW, Doctor Zhivago is now playing at some major theaters nationwide along with the first runs - seems to be some classic film promo, but can't tell. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

bad warning

You're wrong, I was removing vandalism. Take a look at my edit to John Muir again, then remove the warning from my page. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Myrna Dell page

Today a page was created for the late actress Myrna Dell and we thought you'd like to honor her by uploading a photo for her infobox.

Here is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrna_Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theystillremember (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A complaint about your edits of Denis Avey has been filed at WP:AN3

Hello Wikiwatcher1. Please see WP:AN3#User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. It is interesting to see that a similar issue was discussed at the BLP noticeboard in 2011. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification of edit warring report re: Denis Avey

Hi Wikiwatcher. This is to notify you that a I have created a report on the edit warring noticeboard [7] as I informed you I would if you continued what I see as your edit-warrior activities on the Denis Avey page. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC) As another editor of Denis Avey I would comment that the use of Wikiwatcher in a user name seems to me to conflict with Wikipedia:Username policy section Misleading Usernames. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954

Hello Wikiwatcher1. Mystichumwipe is the person who filed the edit warring complaint against you, with the title "User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: )". Per this I have closed the complaint with no action. My assumption is that you and the others will now participate in good faith at Talk:Denis Avey and abide by whatever consensus is reached. If you are not satisfied with whatever result is found there, you can consider the other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Any of the editors can ask for this complaint to be reopened if they believe that the edit war has resumed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging from this edit, perhaps my closure was premature. Do you think that anyone on the talk page is likely to support your change? EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Resumption of edit warring at Denis Avey

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Denis Avey. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Light show (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The edit warring closure was obviously premature. Socks have been made an issue so that any apparent consensus was and is questionable, which I mentioned in the ongoing discussion. Note also that it was the other editor(s?) who restarted edit warring by replacing their own material to the article in clear violation of the mentioned NPOV, OR, and unusable sources.
The block on the sock was lifted while my restoration to the non-POV soapbox has led to me being blocked instead. In any case, the note on my talk page about the closure was posted while I was trying to repair the bio. I do not believe that the goal of a block should be to allow previously blocked socks to restore their material, which was quickly done. Because this was a BLP content dispute, it should have been listed with an RfC or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard post, rather than blocking of a key contributor. Addendum: I noticed that Thorium-based nuclear power has received a lot of attention today. An editor has requested that I add some of his cites to balance the article to remove the POV tag they added, which would be a good idea. The editor might think I'm reneging on adding them. Can I have the block removed if I don't edit Avey for a few days and the others agree to refrain from adding any more unreliable sources or otherwise adding to the problems noted? Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(1) You edit warred. That is sufficient ground for the block, apart from any other consideration, such as whether your edits were "right", whether other accounts were sockpuppets, or anything else. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, in essence "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right and others are wrong". (2) You have made it abundantly clear that your purpose is to suppress content that you don't like, and your entirely specious arguments about reliability of sources are an attempt to justify your editing for a point of view. You refer to "attempt to undermine the bio by essentially defaming Avey by alleging he faked his story", and seem unable or unwilling to grasp that what is being done is recording the fact that there is a controversy, which has received substantial coverage. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to assess whether the doubts expressed are justified, as you are doing in repeatedly asserting that it is "defamation": if reliable sources record that doubts have been raised then we record the fact. We neither suppress the information nor try to give it less prominence because we personally think that the doubts are unfounded. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:Sceptic1954, User:Mystichumwipe User:Griz999 and are not socks of one another and you are welcome to ask them for their opinions. (Griz999 is not active since 2011). You seem to be very determined to exclude from the lead even a single sentence to indicate that Avey's claim of breaking into Auschwitz is controversial. There seem to be an abundance of reliable sources on that point. You simply revert and you make no effort to persuade anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That is nearly the opposite of the history of the edits. The cites and mention of the "controversy" were included, despite my also noting that their sources violated a number of guidelines, another one being their given obvious undue weight, including prominence in the lead. I have never gone against consensus, but have only removed invalid material. Feel free to read the earlier history of discussions, all of which are a rehash of the same attempt to undermine the bio by essentially defaming Avey by alleging he faked his story. If trying to balance the bio of a celebrated British war hero by removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material which defames him, results in my being blocked, what can I say? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the article lead removed the only mention in the lead that there were people who doubted Denis Avey's story of breaking into Auschwitz. The report was sourced to Reuters. The same edit also removed an entire section that was sourced to the New Statesman, among others. Is the New Statesman a tabloid? EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Reuters article was partly supported by the Daily Mail's own tabloid opinion article: But a subsequent investigation by the Daily Mail quoted historians'. As for the New Statesman, which claims to be a non-neutral publication, their Avey article was simply another essay also by Guy Walters giving his opinions, and he included, ". . . Avey's story was highlighted by myself and my co-authors, Jeremy Duns and Adrian Weale, in the pages of the Daily Mail . . ." A writer's contentious and defamatory opinions, even if repeated by a few other publications, should not undermine and turn a person's bio into an article focused on an alleged "controversy." Walters' article in the Mail was already given too much prominence, although his tabloid essay was still kept in.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1, I am certainly not trying to discredit a British War Hero, as far as I am concerned he deserves his award for having smuggled cigarettes to Ernst and I have put this first. I can't speak for the motivation of the authors of the sources used, but nobody is outright accusing him of lying, and although I don't want to stray too far into discussion of the subject matter and I couldn't use it in the article because it is OR it might help your mood to look at False Memory Syndrome. I agree that because it is BLP there shouldn't be undue weight to controversies, and I wouldn't want to see this. If you look at my discussion with Mysticumswipe you will see that that user wished to give rather more space to controversies than I do. I would like to put the uncontroversial material first followed by the controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement, I am certainly not trying to discredit a British War Hero, is the opposite of your edits. All of your, and User:Griz999, User:mystichumwipe, User:Hardicanute and User:SherlockHolmes249's edits, have been involved with doing exactly that.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely Wikipedia is here to present reliable sources and allow readers to make up their own minds. As far as I can tell many people have doubts about aspects of Avey's story. You could look at reader comments in one Daily Mail article, before the Guy Walter's article. In fact all mainstream media reaction was positive, but before publication of the book readers showed disbelief at articles in Telegraph and Daily Mail. That's quite likely what made the Daily Mail want to carry the Walters article. You would normally expect that paper to be in favour of honouring war heroes. Wikipedia looks a bit silly if it doesn't reflect that. Maybe I need to give Wikipedia my email so I don't have to talk politics on your UserPage, if I did want to see anyone discredited in this it wouldn't be Avey. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954

Do you consider this a reliable source to defame a war hero, a captured Brit soldier in his early 20s who risked his life only to witness the unbelievable? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is not whether Avey broke into Auschwitz or not but that many people doubt that he did so that for the purpose of balance this has to be reported. This was the first article in mainstream media to question it and the most widely circulated and it's available online so it's okay to question it. I don't know how you are so certain that did what you say he did. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954

I left a comment on JamesBWatson's talk page regarding your unblock request and my changes to the article as of today. If you are unblocked and allowed to edit the article again please don't revert wholesale, because there are some changes which I am sure you would approve. I'd certainly discuss with you and Mysticumswipe more material in the article, but I'm not sure you would like too much the things he would like to put in. I think greater brevity is called for to make the article more accessible and have asked for comments from other editorsd and administrators on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick photos

There are more free use Kubrick photos you might find useful at Flickr. Use the advanced search and choose content able to be used commercially to find photos that have Creative Commons licenses acceptable to WP. If you upload any photos through one of the Commons Flickr bots, they won't let you upload any which aren't license compatible. We hope (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Parker, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Wharton and Billy Hayes (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) 11:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Seriously? I don't want to have some long debate over which photo to use. The black and white one that you insist upon using is awful. She looks older than her age in it, and it looks way too old-fashioned, and there's another photo from "Penelope" that looks virtually identical to it. Please just put the color photo from 1973 back on there. Existskiss (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Garbo pic

Hi Wikiwatcher1, curious about why you changed Grand Hotel pic. Advantage of the one you replaced is that it captures her emotional state in the movie. With JB, can't see her face. Is the pic no longer available in the commons? Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on the Garbo talk page in case others want to comment. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WW; we'll see if anyone weighs in.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Carl Sandburg

Although your upload of the Bette Davis/Carl Sandburg picture was deleted at my instigation, I do wish to convey my thanks for alerting Carl Sandburg editors (well, at least me) to the existence of Sandburg on Broadway. That fact has made it into the article and will soon be in at least one other article. Again, thank you. Choor monster (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Any Intrest In The Following?

If you wanna give a picture facelift to a few more articles, Rock Hudson, Martha Raye, Joan Caulfield, Virginia Mayo, and Jayne Meadows could use a touch up.Whatbecameofjustice? (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:First Day Cover - JS.jpg
• File:Marshall-giving-medal-of-merit.jpg
• File:Pissarro-portrait.jpg

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Recommendations

Bobby Van, Claire Trevor, and Dorothy Lamour haven't had a photo update in awhile; I'm sure you could do them good should you accept the challenge.This Week's Scheduale (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kubrick-photography.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 19:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Jack LaLanne 51b.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jack LaLanne 51b.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. EditorE (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Steiner postage stamp.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Steiner postage stamp.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles that need photos + one recommendation

The following pages Gloria DeHaven, Sylvia Sidney, Marsha Hunt (actress, Betty Hutton, and Joan Blondell need lead images as they have none. Also, Yvonne De Carlo needs a photo upgrade for her page has not had an update in over a decade. Also, could you upload and crop/trim this picture for Laraine Day's page? This would be wonderful for her: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Laraine-Day-Promotional-Photograph-The-Laraine-Day-Show-ABC-TV-1951-/350809882574. Hope you can help, it would be much appreciated!