User talk:Atafirst

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


Hello, Atafirst! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

March 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Yellow Wallpaper (film) has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ted Manson[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ted Manson, and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:AricCushinginPennyBlood1.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:AricCushinginPennyBlood1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Me M Moriarty and aric.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Me M Moriarty and aric.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Fut.Perf. 05:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Me M Moriarty and aric.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Me M Moriarty and aric.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. 05:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Help[edit]

Hi Atafirst, I noticed you've been running into a little image trouble. I had to remove the image you had of the movie poster over at Aric Cushing. The image is subject to copyright and we can only use it in articles where the poster or the movie would be the subject of critical commentary. in this case the film is just listed there. The image is still available on the movie page itself so people can still see it. If you have any questions about this image or others let me know and I'll help you out!--Crossmr (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Help[edit]

Hello Crossmr. Aric Cushing is the the owner and because he is one of the producers, the article image is subject to critical commentary of him as an individual.--Atafirst (talk) 9:00, 16 July 2011

Hi Atafirst, the problem is that currently in the article there is no actual critical commentary of the film. If a detailed section is ever added to the article discussing Aric Cushing and the movie together then the image could be used to illustrate the movie in that section. This would have to be a large section, and the image of the poster itself would need to be critical to understanding the section in order to add it. I know it's quite strict, but unfortunately that's the way the fair use laws in the US work and since our servers are there we need to follow them. If you want, you can have a look at our fair use policy here Wikipedia:Fair_use.--Crossmr (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Crossmr. That is good to know. I work for this company, ATA. I will wait because Aric is publishing two books that tie in to the film and Charlotte Perkins Gilman as an author. At that point, the critical commentary would be appropriate. So leaving it off is best. Thank you Crossmr. --Atafirst (talk) 12:00 p.m., 17 July 2011.

Logan Thomas article[edit]

Hi, I just declined your redirect request; what you requested wasn't really a redirect but instead the creation of a new article on Logan Thomas the director. You may find information on how to create an article at WP:AFC. But I must say that unless you can show that there exists significant coverage of Thomas in reliable secondary sources, he will probably be deemed non-notable and article creation will be denied. As an aside, I noticed that you spoke of yourself in the plural ("our account", etc.). Shared accounts violate Wikipedia's policies. Huon (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Atafirst. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 02:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability for films[edit]

I ended up deleting the article because ultimately none of the sources are usable as a reliable source. They were pretty much either blog sources or merchant sources. Many of them were either dead links or looked to be about the book rather than the actual film. In the end blog sources are almost never usable as sources to show notability. This is because among other reasons, they're considered to be self-published sources that have little to no editorial oversight. Anyone can open a blog and post a review. Even if the blog is popular, that popularity doesn't count towards the source being reliable. There are exceptions, but they're usually rare and are almost always when you have a blog that is written by a large organization such as the American Library Association's blog or similar. There's more at WP:BLOGS about it in general.

Now as far as the page existing on Wikipedia for years, that means little to nothing. A page can exist on Wikipedia but fail notability guidelines the entire time. Not only that, but notability guidelines change over times and things that have passed AfDs in the past have often been deleted later on down the line. In other words, the longevity of a page might mean that it got overlooked or got kept on criteria that is now obsolete and invalid. On a side note, this is why I've nominated your userpage for deletion. We strongly, strongly discourage userpages that are set up to look like articles in the mainspace because it's seen as deceptive and in many instances people have abused this as a way to get around the rules of notability for mainspace articles. As a result, pages like that are seen as promotional, which is why I've tagged your userpage for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The page did not pass notability guidelines. If you want, I can make a complete runthrough of the sources and explain in detail why they would not overturn the previous deletion discussion and are not enough to warrant a new AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There are published sources referenced at the bottom of the page. Newspapers and magazine (Pennyblood Magazine and Tolucan Times Newspaper to name a few), which are verifiable. The film meets all the guidelines from Wikipedia's film guidelines. If you want to remove blog resources, that is fine, but published, verifiable sources, such as the national publication which has gone to every college in America as (the Harbrace Guide to Writing) for study in college classes, is a verifiable source as well. Thanks. Also, there are enough extremely notable names to waive the verifiable resource condition per Wikipedia guidelines as stated. It passes notability guidelines by the famous people involved, if the verifiable sources are not enough (which they should be per wikipedia guidelines themselves.) Also Wikipedia clearly states that films are a case by case basis and the rules should be weighted on various aspects of notability, not just on published, Wikipedia deemed verifiable sources. But nonetheless, there is enough published sources to verify (hard copy published sources, and not just 'blog' sources). Thanks.

  • The problem is that most of them are blog sources, which can never show notability. The Tolucan Times only briefly mentioned the film in relation to something else. LetterboXD isn't usable as a RS because it's one of the sites that anyone can sign up and review for. The MidWest Book Review isn't really enough to overturn the prior AfD consensus for, as it's considered to be a trade and not really in-depth. I also have to question if it's actually about the movie or if it's for the book the film was based on. Goodreads, Amazon... none of those can be used to show notability and they're highly discouraged as sources in any context at all, as one is a merchant source and the other is a social media type site that almost anyone can edit. Pennyblood Magazine is the only one that looks usable, but it was on the prior AfD and it wasn't enough to keep the article. Nor were the brief mentions in the books that were predominantly about the original story. The only new source that is even remotely usable is the MWBR source, which isn't nearly enough to overturn the previous AfD. As far as association with notable people go, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The original book is notable, but that notability is not inherited- nor is notability by way of other people participating in the film. I'm sorry, but I will not re-instate the article. You can run this through deletion review if you so wish, but I can guarantee that if by some chance someone re-instates this, it will only be deleted via another AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You can ask for it at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but again- the film does not pass notability guidelines and none of the new sources are enough to overcome the previous verdict. I hate to say this, but I think that your time would better served by trying to work on articles about other films since this movie does not pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So what it seems you are mentioning here is that the only American film from an American famous short story, that is required reading in most high schools, with famous American actors, that can be identified on numerous internet sources, is not notable? Two famous studios have released it at this point as well.

Wikipedia Guidelines: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.

Wikipedia Guideliens: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

The Harbrace Guide to Writing books (both of them, published and distributed to colleges throughout the U.S. referencing the film) falls under credible and authoritative books.

Since I am a long-term donor of Wikipedia, it seems that this is a direct violation of what Wikipedia professes their site is. 'The Free Encyclopedia'. An Encyclopedia is a reference for documented, written sources. Together, all the sources add up to an article, which deems notability as referenced above. I am not trying to be argumentative, but factual in what Wikipedia claims they are as a source, and what they have told me they are in terms of my donations as a supporter over the years.

With the extra reference you have acknowledge above, the third reference of the Harbrace Guide to Writing (100,000 print copies) is yet another verifiable source. Again, this is not a confrontation. thank you. Plus, I don't want to ask for a deletion review, when I was thinking, we could figure it out now. That was my thought anyway.

  • Yes, essentially I am saying that a film adaptation does not inherit notability from its source material. No matter who is in the film, what the film is based on, who releases it... that doesn't give it notability. It only makes it more likely that something will gain coverage, but it is not a guarantee and the presence or relation to anything/anyone notable does not give notability in and of itself. The problem here is that the sources that you are leaning heavily against right now are considered to be WP:TRIVIAL in nature since the mention in them is incredibly brief. It's not enough to establish notability. The books can show notability for the original story, but they do not show enough notability for the film to give it enough notability to keep. As far as you being a donor, I'm not sure why you mentioned that. Donating money does not mean that you get special treatment. This might not have been your intention, but when you say "I give money" it gives off the impression that you're saying that if you don't get your article you will stop donating. Donating money means nothing and will not keep an article.
Now when you say that the absence of sources doesn't mean it's not notable, what that policy actually means is that you cannot automatically assume that something is non-notable just because the article doesn't have sources. Basically put, that policy says "if the article doesn't have reliable sources currently on it, look for them because they might exist". It does not mean that something can lack coverage in reliable sources and still pass notability guidelines. I looked and there was no coverage for the film in places we could use as RS.
I'm sorry, but the answer is still no. I will not reinstate the article and none of the sources are enough to show notability for the movie. The sources you are currently trying to assert are enough were not enough in the previous AfD and they are not enough now. The film fails notability guidelines. As someone who has created and edited over 100 film articles, I can say that with more than a bit of conviction behind this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Bluntly put, deletion review is your only option here. I am refusing and will continue to refuse to reinstate the page based on the lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In response to your statement: You have misinterpreted my previous comments on donating money, clearly. Donations come from a Wikipedia site that clearly states it is a site based on facts. We have provided numerous facts, but you are deeming them 'not good enough', or 'not in depth enough'. So apparently the facts are being interpreted by administrators, such as yourself. Your comment saying 'you don't get your article you will stop donating' clearly is evidence of bias on your part, when I was merely stating what Wikipedia professes they are as a site, being an Encyclopedia, is really biased, and they should say 'we are a site based on facts, deemed by independent administrators, who will determine whether the printed resources are 'good enough'. Printed references are printed references, no matter how in depth, or not in depth they are. Numerous printed reference indicate coverage, even if they are brief in mention. Your refusal is basically going against the Wikipedia guidelines themselves, and because you have mentioned you edited 100 film articles, is a clear example that you 'feel' you are in the know about what is deemed verifiable and non-verifiable in terms of a film, by the mere fact you have edited 100 articles. So, per your suggestions, I will take it to the next level. But see below.

This is from Wikipedia's FILM GUIDELINES:

The film passes item #1 of the main guidelines (The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.) That is 1.

Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. Some inclusionary criteria to consider are: The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)[5] The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.[6]

Also, please let me know if you are paid by Wikipedia. Thanks. You have turned this into a personal attack, by what you have written above, in terms of my comments on donations and what Wikipedia professes their site to be. I wish you hadn't turned this into a personal attack by comments that are factual in basis.

  • No, I am not paid by Wikipedia. I was merely stating that there was no reason for you to mention that you donated to Wikipedia and that many have used this as a way to try to justify page retention, so it is extremely unwise to mention that you donate to Wikipedia when you are trying to argue for a page's retention. Again, deletion review is your only option at this point, as I concur with the AfD's findings as well as with the editor who tagged the page for deletion. You're quoting policy, but the thing is that all of that boils down to in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, which your film does not have. I will not reinstate the page and no amount of arguing with me on your talk page will change that. I'm fairly tired of trying to explain why your film fails notability policy and repeating that I will not restate it, so I'm going to try to not respond here. Take it to deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I am not arguing with you, as you have stated above. But in the future, when you quote policy, you should reference Wikipedia's own guidelines, as I have done. I will take it to deletion review. Please do not respond to this, as your responses lack references from Wikipedia, and are not helpful in any way. If you are an administrator, please rely on facts. An administrator should quote facts from the Wikipedia guidelines, as I have done. Thank you for taking yourself out of this discussion. Also, I would not fall back on an editor who originally deleted a page, whom is currently under fire, by many contributors, by purporting the same ideals you have exhibited on this very same conversation, and who was being paid by Wikipedia (or other paid sources) -biased, unfactual, and not following Wikipedia's guidelines. Please do not respond. This entire conversation has been copied for further use. All of your responses lack the appropriate references, which is the basis of Wikipedia. I suggest you remove yourself as an administrator.