User talk:Jburlinson

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Jburlinson}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive from start to 8 Oct 2012

Laura Devon

Hello,

I have a scrapbook from a Charlotte Miller. In this book is a page with Laura Devon and Robert Blake from the set of "Stranger" and "All the Comforts of Home" back in 1963...these shots appear to be taken from a personal camera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.215.210 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must be from episodes of "The Richard Boone Show", both actors were regulars. Jburlinson (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good to the last drop

Just for the record, needless to say, you committed no "misdeeds". Ridiculous. Cheers Tvoz/talk 06:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. There have certainly been some odd twists and turns on this long and winding road. Your contributions have been some well-judged moments of sanity. Best wishes to you. Jburlinson (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - sometimes I just shake my head and laugh. Tvoz/talk 17:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HWY/IRC

Just letting you know that we have an IRC chat room and you're welcome to come by! See the link for details. --Rs chen 7754 08:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you log in just now? Sometimes there aren't as many people who log in during the morning hours. --Rs chen 7754 18:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just logged in to check it out. Didn't really have anything to say, just wanted to peek in and see what was going on. Jburlinson (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

I've seen your recent edits at Black people and Mormonism. The entire "Rationale" section that you added appears to be an original synthesis based on your personal selection of quotes from the primary sources. It's original research and we're not allowed to do that. The proper approach would be to identify the reliable secondary sources that discuss the church's rationale for the policy, and provide a balanced summary of those with only a very light reliance, if any, on primary sources. I think you ought to revert your recent changes and start over, with secondary sources as the foundation for the structure of your contributions, and making liberal use of the talk page to explain your approach and intentions. Please consider doing so, to forestall any potential conflicts or misunderstandings. (I recently read a solid academic paper on the topic but unfortunately can't recall exactly how I came across it—so if I can find it again, I'll post a link on the talk page in hopes that it'll be useful to you.) Thanks, alanyst 05:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations from Church leaders are rampant throughout the article, which even includes citations from the Book of Mormon. The "rationale" section is entirely in keeping with the approach taken throughout the article in general. Jburlinson (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of replacing/rewriting those parts too, with reliance almost wholly on secondary sources. That would help keep everyone from crossing the line into original research. I just posted the link to the article I mentioned, so that might be a good start for you. I know it's painful to discard the work that you've done, but I think a fresh restart would be the best way to make sure your own synthesis doesn't remain in the article. Best wishes, alanyst 05:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted the entire section on "rationale" but didn't touch a word of the rest of the article. This seems a bit one-sided. However, I've re-written the section using reliable secondary sources that make pretty much the same points. I will have to admit that the secondary sources do adopt a somewhat more restrained and less racially inflammatory tone than the primary sources. I'd be interested in working with you on taking a similar approach to the rest of the article, which suffers from the same reliance on primary sources as the first "rationale" section. I would think the following sections need to be revised along these lines: "Before 1847", "Racial policy under Brigham Young", "Young's personal views", "In LDS scripture", "Statements from church leaders", "Temple marriages", "Entrance to the highest heaven", "1880–1950", "1951–1977", "Racial policy ends in 1978", "Interracial marriages", and "1985 to present". Obviously, this will require a lot of work. I doubt that I can tackle all of this on my own. Would you be interested in divvying any or all of this up? Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't touch the article itself; someone else reverted it without my knowledge or encouragement. I do appreciate your willingness to redo the section with secondary sources, and I agree with you that it helps bring a more encyclopedic tone to the article. I disagree with you that the source I suggested is not suitable, but I'd be happy to agree to seek an outside consensus on that. As far as helping with the rest of the article is concerned, I'm afraid the bulk of my limited Wikipedia time is being spent getting Yasin al-Qadi under control. I'd recommend asking User:COGDEN for help; he's been editing for ages, knows his Mormon history, and is not an LDS apologist. You might also try User:Kww who has helped intervene in disputes on Mormonism topics. Either of these editors might also be able to refer others to recruit. I wholly support your desire to revise those sections though, and I appreciate your interest in bringing higher quality to the article. I might chip in when I can. alanyst 23:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the activity on the article and followed it here. This article has been bugging me for some time; I agree about the lengthy primary source quotes, and I've actually tried to cut them down a little. Rewriting the article has been on my to-do list for a few months now, but I keep getting sidetracked with other things.

Anyway, what I came here to say is that if you want a high-quality secondary source, All Abraham's Children by Armand Mauss is the best source I know of on this topic. It's a bit dense (kind of like reading a 277 page research article) but his research is top of the line, and he has helpful Conclusion sections at the end of each chapter if you prefer skimming. It's a little pricey on Ebay/Amazon ($33) but I'll bet you could find a copy at a library. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and guidance. I looked into Mauss' book and you're right, it does seem to be a good source. I appreciate the pointer. I might continue to make adjustments to the existing article, but, unfortunately, I don't have the time now either to dedicate to a thoroughgoing revision. I might ask for your advice from time to time, if that would be OK. Thanks again. Jburlinson (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you were getting hit with edit conflicts but I think I got like 5 of them today. So sorry about that if you were getting them. Also, just in case you weren't counting, I noticed that you're at 3RR, so you may want to tread carefully for a bit. Just a heads up. Thanks for being willing to talk it through on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts

When you edited the Beatles mediation page earlier, you wiped out a comment I'd placed. When you get an edit conflict message you should check to see why it came up, as just hitting save on your version will erase whatever else had been edited in the meantime. Cheers. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 09:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dali, Bunuel and Lorca.gif

Hello, I'm just pointing this out to you since you appear to have done the majority of fantastic work on the Bunuel page, but I have not gone back to see who added this photo. It seems to me that the person in this photo standing in between Dali and Lorca is clearly not Bunuel.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dali, Bunuel and Lorca.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Dali, Bunuel and Lorca.gif. 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) 05:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Newyorkbrad's closure of Beatles RfC

Hello. This is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#RfC closure questions about Newyorkbrad's closure of the RfC about whether to use upper-case "The" or lowercase "the" in mid-sentence in articles about (t/T)he Beatles. You are receiving this message because you were involved in the mediation case that led up to the RfC. Some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the caveat in Newyorkbrad's close that "[t]he suggestion that editors should try to structure sentences to avoid unnecessary mid-sentence use of "the Beatles" remains a valid one", and the discussion is focused on how that caveat is affecting the editing decisions in Beatles-related articles. There is also the opportunity to discuss other aspects of the close should the need arise. Please see the points at the top of the discussion thread and leave a comment if you think it is appropriate. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at my talk

Hi Jburlinson, this is just to let you know that I removed your comment at my talk. I can see how making a suggestion like that could help you blow off steam, but I think it was only making the atmosphere at the thread more tense, so I thought it best to remove it. Did you ever read WP:SARCASM? It's worth a chuckle, but there's a lot of truth in there as well. Let me know if you have any questions about my actions, or about anything to do with the thread on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. It's totally OK to delete my comment. I was out of line. Just a little frustrated that we seem to be in a reductio ad absurdem situation here. I have a question, though. Do you think that the current discussion taking place on your talk page will lead to a revision of the closure statement? I had thought that we had an agreement to abide by the judge's ruling. I'm not sure I understand how this controversy can be officially countenanced any longer. Once again, good to hear from you and best wishes for a happy holiday. Jburlinson (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only have a moment, so this will be a quick reply. I really don't know if this discussion will lead to a change in the close or not - that's really up to Brad. If Brad doesn't want to change the close, then the only other option is going to WP:AN. I've said a little bit more about this to Gabe at the main thread. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 01:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daisy Corning Stone Spedden concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daisy Corning Stone Spedden, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of La Strada

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article La Strada you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and for your willingness to review the article. Please let me know if you have any questions about it or would like to discuss. Jburlinson (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring La Strada to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is this your first GA? Thanks for taking on such an important film--whether it's your first or your seventy-first, I hope we'll see more like this from you! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar and for your excellent effort on the GA review. The article is a lot better now than when it started the review process.

This is the first article I've nominated for a GA. Due to some health problems, I have some extra time now, so I'm planning on working on the WP Core Film list in an effort to get articles out of "stub" and "start" class and into GA (or at least B-class). There are currently 22 "stub" class articles, so that's where I'll try to devote my attention.

Also, I was thinking of doing some GA reviewing myself, but am having a bit of a problem getting started with the recruitment process. An editor called Ed! has agreed to recruit me, but he seems to be very busy, so I'm not making any progress. I hate to bug him about it. Is it necessary to go through the recruitment process? If not, is there anything you might be able to recommend to help me learn how to do a good job as a reviewer? A self-study program?

Again, thanks. And best wishes. Jburlinson (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a GA mentor, too, and I'd be happy to take you on if you like. Ed's a super nice guy, and I'm sure wouldn't mind you switching. Up to you--you'll be in good hands either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm really excited to hear that you'll be continuing work on the Core Film articles. Good luck, and do let me know if there's any way I can help. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time to recruit me, that'd be great. It looks like Ed already has a recruit, so it might work better for him if he didn't have to deal with two at a time. You did a super job on the La Strada review, so I'm eager to work with you, if it'd be OK. Should I contact Ed to let him know? I don't want to be pushy, though; so let me know if you foresee any problems. Thanks.Jburlinson (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no problems. Do go ahead and drop Ed a few words letting him know that I can take you as a mentee (I'm certain he won't mind, but just to let him know). I definitely have the time. I'll set up a mentorship page for you in just a minute... more in a sec. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of La Strada

The article La Strada you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:La Strada for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg. 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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ТимофейЛееСуда: The five files are only orphaned because they were removed by editor Werieth before an NFCR was completed, or even started, for that matter. Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_37#Luis Buñuel. This is why images under consideration at NCFR should remain in place in their articles until discussion is complete. Jburlinson (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ТимофейЛееСуда: I now see that you have done a "non-admin closure" on these images. May I ask your justification for this action? You say that "Consensus is non-free images listed below fail WP:NFCC#3." What consensus? There have been only two or three editors total who have contributed to the discussion at all. How can you determine a consensus based on that? WP:NAC states: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous." I submit that there is controversy as to the merits of these images and it is not clearly unambiguous that they should be deleted. I challenge this determination. It is not appropriate that this NFCR be closed by a non-administrator. Jburlinson (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the top of the page of WP:NFCR, it says explicitly that discussions can be closed by a non-administrator when there is clear consensus. Consensus is not a popularity vote, but instead is a conclusion based on discussion merits. Plain and simple the discussion was backed by policy (WP:NFCC#3a & WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#1). Policy backed consensus is obvious. If you disagree with my closure process (not the outcome), feel free to find an uninvolved administrator and I am more than happy to work with them on this perceived issue. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg. 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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screencap of film produced by Filmofono S.A.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screencap of film produced by Filmofono S.A.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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Photo of the staff of the MOMA film department, c. 1940.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of the staff of the MOMA film department, c. 1940.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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen capture from Los olvidados.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen capture from Los olvidados.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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gradumation

Hey J, I hereby dub thee a full-fledged GA reviewer. Your work has been high quality so far and I've no doubt it will continue to be so; thanks so much for agreeing to volunteer your time here!

Here's my official stamp of approval:

This user was taught how to review Good article nominations by User:Khazar2 through the Recruitment Centre.

Cheers, and thanks for all you're doing and will do, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And cake!

	GA Reviewer Cake
	GA reviewer cake is a rich chocolate concoction, soaked in rum, not available to the broader public. Enjoy! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images

Hi Jburlinson, I notice you're adding images to lots of infoboxes. This is fine, but could you avoid using the thumbnail template? It looks pretty messy in infoboxes. You should be adding the caption to the "caption" parameter. Regards, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. We disagree a bit about use of the template. I tend to prefer the way it looks because it ties the caption more closely to the image. Using the "capton" parameter separates the text from the image in a way that, at least to me, almost disconnects the two. Matter of taste, I guess. Cheers. Jburlinson (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a matter of using the template. Template:Infobox person#Usage specifically says only to insert the filename in the image field:

{{Infobox person
| name        = <!-- include middle initial, if not specified in birth_name -->
| image       = <!-- just the filename, without the File: or Image: prefix or 
                     enclosing [[brackets]] -->
| alt         = 
| caption     = 
}}

If you disagree with how the template is used, please discuss it at Template talk:Infobox person and seek to form a consensus for change. Until then, please follow the consensus on how the template should be used as set out in the documentation. —sroc 💬 07:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Buñuel

Per the request of an editor uninvolved with the discussion, I have expanded the explanation of the consensus in the discussion that I previously closed. The discussion is: Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#Luis Buñuel. The consensus of the discussion, nor have my closure have changed, simply the explanation has been extended to include the individual images discussed. I am notifying you because you rightfully should be made aware when anything is changed regarding to a discussion you participated in. No action is required. As I have stated many times before, if an uninvolved administrator finds fault with my closure, I am more than happy to reopen the discussion. If a situation of that nature should arise, I will once again notify all parties involved in the discussion. Thanks for your hard work and happy editing! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for amplifying on the reasons for your closure. If I understand you correctly, however, in your opinion the entire issue is closed and no further discussion is possible. I object to this procedure. You, yourself, state: "First, the consensus of the discussion is that the article itself has too many unnecessary non-free files, and therefore fails WP:NFCC#3a. This applies wholly to the discussion, and individually to the images. There was no discussion if a lesser number of free images would be acceptable with respect to WP:NFCC#3a, simply that the status of non-free files prior to discussion was unacceptable." In other words, the individual images were not considered separately and they still are not being considered separately. They have all been deleted in an "all-or-nothing" package and there is, according to you, no recourse for any of them to be considered individually. This is unacceptable. I request that each image be considered separately, because a different justification can be provided for each of the images. In addition, any discussion that has taken place so far has been illegitimate, since the images were deleted from the article before the discussion even began. As a result, readers of the article who saw the banner concerning the NFCR would have no idea which images were involved, because they were (and still are) all absent from the article.

In addition, your closure as a non-admin was based on a supposition that the discussion resulted in a consensus that was clear and unambiguous, with no remaining unresolved controversy. This was not the case. Non-admin closure was inappropriate and a retrospective explanation of the closure with no opportunity for response is equally inappropriate. I'm pinging @SlimVirgin: to ensure that the administrator is in the loop. Thanks for working with me on this and here's hoping for a satisfactory outcome. Jburlinson (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Werieth: @ТимофейЛееСуда: @SlimVirgin: It turns out that the images from the film Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan are moot because the film is in the public domain, as confirmed by retrofilmvault.com. So I intend to change the data on licensing for the images using the Template:PD-US-not renewed. I'll have to decide whether or not to pursue some of the other images based on the amount of time and energy I have to devote to this. In particular, the screenshot from the Filmofono film would be good to include in the article and it's also probably public domain as well; but I'm not sure I want to spend $165 with the Library of Congress to verify this. The image from Los olvidados has its own separate justification, so I'll probably continue to argue for its inclusion on a fair-use basis.

I do believe you misunderstand the closure still. There was an individual consensus for each image, they each failed one point of WP:NFCC. In addition to individual image consensuses, there was an overall consensus that the article fails WP:NFCC#3a. I think you should re-read the closure and WP:AGF with my actions. I absolutely 100% do not care what the outcome is. This is why, as an uninvolved party, I closed the discussion. Please understand that I am not against you, the article, or the images. I am simply trying to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

In addition to this, I'm glad you have found some proof that some images are in the public domain. That means the system works. You were able to find information others weren't which allows the images to be used appropriately forever. I'm sorry you think you are being singled out, but you aren't. And the fact that you were able to find information to show public domain means that by initiating the non-free discussion, although the outcome of the discussion was not what you wanted, you took additional steps to give even more use of the images. There are no restrictions on the use of public domain files. As for the other images, I would not spend money verifying the copyright has not been renewed. There are users who are active at WP:NFCR who know locations to look for copyright renewal online for free. Maybe @Stefan2: or @Dianna:? I'm not sure if those editors are correct, but hopefully someone can help you. If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to reach out. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find renewal information here. The renewal should be 28 years after the film was published, but occasionally the renewal was made during the 27th year and occasionally renewals made at the end of the year appeared in the book for the following year, so you will have to search the "motion pictures" volumes for several year. Also note that the films from France, Spain and Mexico didn't need any renewals unless the films were published in the United States within 30 days of the first publication in France, Spain or Mexico, due to URAA. Therefore, all films from France, Spain and Mexico will have to be assumed to be unfree unless you have very exact information about publication dates in the source country and the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the beauty of Wikipedia. Within the space of single day, my re-adding these images has resulted in my getting a barnstar from one user, a demand from another that I load the images on Commons so that they can be used by everyone more easily, my being congratulated that I've helped make "the system" work because now they're in the public domain, and just now a notice that the images are again under embargo until I prove that they are also in PD in Spain or that someone showed the film in the US within 30 days of its release in Spain. This might prove to be a bit difficult, since the film was banned in Spain first by the Republican government and then by Franco throughout the decades during which he presided as dictator. I think I'll just waive the white flag and withdraw. It's been delightful. Thanks to all who make editing on WP such an invigorating experience. Jburlinson (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For you work transforming the Luis Buñuel article - what could be more appropriate?! Thanks for improving this important (and brilliant) filmmaker's article Loeba (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A surreal barnstar -- classic! Muchas gracias. Jburlinson (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! I notice the problems you're getting over using screenshots. I really sympathise with your frustrations - all you want to do is illustrate the article with his work and make it more useful, but Wikipedia is annoyingly strict with images (stricter than US law, which allows "fair use" for educational, non-profit purposes). It has driven me mad at times as well, I just can't understand why the rules are so strict. But please don't let it be enough to drive you off WP. The article is still great and very informative with or without the images. Surely you can find some that satisfy the fair use criteria, since Bunuel has several very famous images in his films (the eyeball slit in Un Chien Andalou, the "Last Supper" in Viridiana, the toilets round the dinner table in Phantom of Liberty...many more)? As long as the scenes are discussed in the text (with proof that they have been widely analysed), and you clearly link to this in the file description (and ideally the caption), you should be safe.

Are you going to complete the "Second French period" section? That's where most of his best films come, IMO, it would be great to see it expanded. --Loeba (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message -- much appreciated. Yes, I had planned to finish the Bunuel article with an extra paragraph or two about his Mexican films plus an expansion on his final period. I've run out of steam a little, though, and, frankly, all this bother about the images has discouraged me. It's all so subjective! When many of the remaining images are deleted, which is in the works, the article that will remain will be diminished severely. I appreciate your suggestion about some of the "iconic" images and might give them a try, but my experience with NFCR has not been happy and I dread having to deal with some of these people again. I have a strong feeling that I'm on "the list" now and can expect to face resistance on anything I try to do, especially regarding images. Oh well. I hate complaining, so I'm going to stop.

On a different topic; I have to say that your encouragement is especially meaningful to me because your article on Katherine Hepburn was an inspiration, demonstrating just how good a wikipedia article can be and how valuable WP can be to a reader. I had thought of contacting you to ask a couple of questions, but didn't want to presume on your time. So it's good to hear from you and hope we can stay in touch. Jburlinson (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a lovely comment. I must say, it's comments like that that make contributing to Wikipedia worth it. :) I'm lucky that I was able to add lots of images to Kate's page because she was American and their clause that anything pre-1978 had to have its copyright renewed means so much stuff is out of copyright! Finding usable images for anyone non-American is a lot harder, unfortunately. I completely understand your dejection though - images add so much to a page, and it's a real shame not to be able to include them. Just try as hard as you can to reconcile yourself to the fact and know that the text is the most important thing anyway (anyone can put "Luis Bunuel" or the title of one of his films into google and get tons of pictures, after all). I'd be very happy to help you in anyway I can! he's definitely one of my favourite filmmakers; still have a fair amount of his stuff to see (to date, I've seen 11 of his films), but I love his style and the messages in his films. He was a genius, no doubt. --Loeba (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want, I've had enough. Jburlinson (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever your want. I've had enough. Jburlinson (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Screenshot from Las hurdes, tierra sin pan.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screenshot from Las hurdes, tierra sin pan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Screenshot from Las Hurdes, Tierra sin pan.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screenshot from Las Hurdes, Tierra sin pan.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marie Dressler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Diamond (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) 08:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Classical Music, Composition Task Force Revival

Hello, I'm Tal Brenev. I've recently left a message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force, in an attempt to revive the WikiProject. I will try to send a message to everyone on the list of participants, so as to get more suggestions and/or ideas. If you would like to participate, leave a message at the WikiProject Talk Page, or on my talk page. Thanks!

---Tal Brenev (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Spedden & Polar The Titanic Bear

Some how found your draft of Daisy Spedden Polar The Titanic Bear Wikipedia page and I want to say thanks and would be happy to help you, if you need any.

Cheers

Leighton