User talk:Hellmistress

Welcome!

Hello, Hellmistress, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Doug Jones

Thanks for expanding the details - you are clearly a big fan. Can I assume you are using his biography with permission as it is nearly a straight lift from his homepage. (Emperor 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I'm a big fan, and I am also Doug's Webmaster for his official site, which I both own and run - all of the information from the site is copyrighted to me, so there are no worries about the information being available on Wikipedia. Thanks for showing a concern though, but as an archivist I'm pretty keen on correct copyrighting procedure. My only worry is that I'm inputting info correctly on Wikipedia as I'm a wee bit of a beginner as yet!!! --Hellmistress 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifcations. Don't worry too much about getting everything 100% right as (as well as being impossible) there are other editors who will come along and tweak things - most things you'll pick up over time. I've mentioned this on Doug's entry but its work drawing to your attention here - what you will have to do is clarify the licensing of the image of Doug that you used as someone will eventually pop along proposing to remove it unless its 100% clear. In cases like this I find the following tags are handy: promotional and withpermission (wrap them in double curly brackets) and if there isn't one a link to the source of the image is required if it is online. Should avoid any future hassle. Keep up the good work. (Emperor 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Click~logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Click~logo.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:HBanimated~logo2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HBanimated~logo2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and POV concerns

Hi, I'm one of the editors that watch Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Recently, you converted a valid citation about Doug Jones being in the film to a citation from the Doug Jones Experience, the official site that your user page says you maintain. I'd like to inform you about #3 in links normally to be avoided, which states one of the things to avoid being linked: "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." I just wanted to inform you about that. --Erik 01:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Erik, that's fine - I'm a beginner at this, so I'm happy to be kept right! But I also wanted to correct information that is erroneous on the page. Fox has not decided who will provide the voice of Silver Surfer at this point, and will probably not do so until the film goes into post. So, how is that changed? Because it IS an error, and the reference is an error too. I maintain Doug's page and his official website and I can't abide inaccuracies, so is there any way that can be sorted? Advice would be much appreciated. Hellmistress 06:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Man

Just saw your info about the Pale Man on the Pan's Labyrinth talk page. I've had a quick google but can't work out where you got the info from: did you write it yourself? Would be a really interesting addition to the main article, I think. Do you think that the pile of shoes in the Pale Man's lair is a direct reference to the Holocaust? How do you think this connects, if at all, with the Goya influence? --Jim (Talk)

Hi Jim, I wrote the information myself, with info from DDT themselves and an excellent article on the design of Pale Man and The Fauno from issue #63 of Makeup Artist Magazine, pp. 45-49. I hope to have images of the design from DDT fairly soon to put up on Doug Jones' site, but if you think the information is relevant then it can go on the main page - unfortunately, I'm not terribly talented with the workings of Wikipedia, and usually make a mess of it!

Knowing Guillermo, I have no doubt that the shoes are a reference to the Holocaust (ref. Auschwitz Museum) but whether that ties in with the Goya reference, I have no idea. You could leave a message for Guillermo on the DelToroFilms.com message board if you like, and ask him. Hellmistress 11:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Jones

Hi. Please do not add sources to articles that do not support the material in question, as you did with this edit to Doug Jones, as it is not consistent with our policies of No Original Research and Verifiability. As per Wikipedia:Citing sources, please make sure you include reliable, verifiable sources when adding material to articles that support the material in question. Nightscream (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is VERY verifiable and EXTREMELY reliable - I run Doug's site, but as I am not allowed to post the official page on his official site about his involvement in this film, why not check out the official site for GAINSBOURG: VIE HEROIQUE. He is mentioned in the illustrated filming log done by the director, Joann Sfar, as are David Marti and Montse Ribe of DDT Efectos Especiales. If YOU are able to post the page on Doug's site, then please do so - and I will keep on restoring this section as to not include it in Doug's filmography is nonsense - it is a major film in which he has fourth billing. Here is the link to his official website page on the film - and while you're at it, watch the first video and you will see Doug as La Gueule. His website is THE reliable source for all things Doug Jones, and nowhere else on the web will you get such verifiable info as it comes straight from the source - the actor himself - but I can't post it, because of Wiki's ridiculous rule regarding 'self promotion.' You will allow dubious references from even more dubious websites, but not from one which tells the facts. http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/gainsbourg.htm

Hellmistress (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hellmistress. First, please do not revert edits without providing a valid, policy-based rationale in an Edit summary, as it's considered poor form. If you're going to revert edits please make sure that you do so according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and that you can accurately cite the relevant policy or guideline when doing so. As for the url you provided to support the material, I did indeed check out that site, and I did see the film's trailer, and as I pointed out above (and in my Edit Summary), it makes no mention of the information you added to Jones' article. I did not notice him in the trailer (indeed if he's under heavy prosthetics, this would be problematic), and if he has "fourth billing", he's not mentioned on that webpage, which only lists the names of three of the films' star. The trailer itself doesn't name any of the actors in it, let alone the date when cameras starting rolling on the film, which you included in your edit. I even entered the site, and Jones' name could not be found on that page with my browser's Find feature, nor on the site when I tried using the site's own search engine. This means that source you provided has failed verification. Merely putting a link to a movie's site does not, in and of itself, constitute verification, if it does not support the information indicated by your edit. If, however, you can provide reliable, verifiable sources that actually support the material according to the WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS policies, feel free to do so. But please do not insist that you will keep on restoring the material that you previously did, as Wikipedia is not your personal site, and has certain editorial rules governing the addition of material to articles. If you wish to continue editing here, please learn and respect those rules, and provide a rationale for your edits that properly adheres to them. If you continue to violate Wikipedia policies by making edits that ignore these policies, and/or without explaining how your edits are allowable under those policies, those edits will simply be reverted, and you risk being blocked.

As for getting info "straight from the source", while Wikipedia does not consider self-published information to necessarily be of the best reliability for material that may have a self-aggrandizing aspect (See WP:V#SELF), I don't think mentioning this would be a problem, so long a the primary intent and effect of doing so is not self-promotional, and it actually supports the material, which the film's site does not. It's obviously relevant, and if there really is a video of him there, and the movie is coming out soon, I don't think anyone would mind it, especially if the material is worded attributively (i.e.: "According to his official website he will appear in the upcoming film...."), so feel free to add it to the article. But please do not add things that are not mentioned at that source but come from your own personal knowledge, as that would be Original Research, and is prohibited.

As for the notion that I "will allow dubious references from even more dubious websites", I do not know what websites you're referring to, but if you dispute any of the sources I've added to the article, or any of my edits, feel free to let me know. If you have any other questions about editing or policies, do not hesitate to leave a message on my Talk Page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nightscream.

The site DOES mention Doug, as I said, on the illustrated blog by Joann Sfar - check out page 63 onwards. It also includes a ref to DDT, David Marti and Montse Ribe. It even explains a little about how the character was done. http://www.gainsbourg-lefilm.com/bd/t3/index.html

Doug's website has a quote from Doug himself about making the film.

I get intensely frsutrated by Wiki's (Not your) tendency to accept any source as long at it has the subject's name in it, and doesn't check whether the info itself correct - such as when Doug made Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, when it was commonly thought the character was completely CG - I have photos on Doug's site which PROVE otherwise, and that is final - no dispute. Yet I can't link to it because it is 'self promoting.' I'm not into self promotion - I'm into FACTS. That's the whole reason I do this, as I cannot ABIDE misinformation, and neither can Doug. The information I get is not 'personal knowledge' - it is verified, accurate information from the actor who made the film (and often the filmmakers themsleves), the subject of this page - and if his information isn't acceptable yet misinformation from some gossipy website IS, then I think Wiki has its priorities wrong. Sorry to be so antsy, but this drives me nuts. Hellmistress (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellmistress, if there's some portion of that site that mentions Jones, that's all fine and well; the problem is, that's not the portion of the site you initially linked to. If a certain page on a site supports the material you want to add, then that's the url you have to cite as the source.

I can understand how some might find WP's rules labyrinthine or frustrating, but as I mentioned above, sources are not prohibited solely because they may have a promotional aspect. The reason Jones' site may be problematic is because it's a self-published source. I even linked you to the relevant policy above. Didn't you see this? I don't know if photographic documentation of his SS part would've been unreliable, but if someone removed it under rationale, I would disagree with that. Had I known about it, I would've challenged it; not all editors speak with one voice, after all, which is why we frequently have disagreements here. I can say that if you're patient, and learn some of the relevant core policies, it's not that hard to have fun editing here, and contributing to the sum of human knowledge. For future reference, if you need help editing, or advice regarding the proper interpretation of policies, feel free to contact me. Obviously I'm just one editor/administrator, but my point of view may prove helpful in situations like that.

Whether the information comes from the actor himself or the filmmakers is not the point. As I mentioned above (and again, I get the impression from your posts here that you're not really interested in even understanding Wikipedia's policies, let alone learning them), the issue is whether the information is published in reliable, verifiable sources independent of the subject. If you care so deeply about the "factual" nature of the information, then I assume you can understand why, from Wikipedia's point of view, the sources cited in the article have to corroborate that material, and why generally speaking (depending on the material) secondary or tertiary sources not connected with the article's subject that has editorial control over its content and some form of credentialing for its staff (an article in the New York Times, Daily Variety, a TV spot on E!, a review by Roger Ebert, a movie rating from Rotten Tomatoes) is more desirable than material from the article's subject, right?

Just out of curiosity, though, why do you insist on placing the Gainsbourg: Vie Heroique material after the mention of Sockbaby 4, which came out in 2007? Doesn't Gainsbourg come out in 2010?

In any event, thanks for adding the url from Mr. Jones' site. Happy Thanksgiving! Nightscream (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]