User talk:Before My Ken/archives 6 Aug 2008

ARCHIVE PAGE 6: AUGUST 2008

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Julius Tannen SitR.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Julius Tannen SitR.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Added license. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Right Stuff

Hi, I'm just curious why you would want to restore a format that violated WP:MOSDAB. I have tweaked The Right Stuff to adhere to my knowledge of the official guideline, and I can't think of a good reason to make the article an exception. —LOL ^T/_C 22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it looks better the way I had it, is easier to read, and is more helpful to the user of the encyclopedia. MoS is not sacred writ, it's a guideline. When it doesn't work well, then we should do something better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who makes the decision about what looks better, what's easier to read, or what's more helpful? If the previous format was better, why doesn't MOSDAB use it instead? The current example at #Longer lists has a very similar body, so why aren't the subject area headings preceded by two spaces instead of one? If you want to change the format of The Right Stuff, I suggest you bring it up to WT:MOSDAB because I can't see what makes this particular article an exception to the official guidelines. —LOL ^T/_C 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask

I want you a favor to retract your comment at WP:ANI#User:Sennen goroshi's stalking and disruption because you quoting indef blocked user's malicious report. Besides, that is not relevant issue. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Too late to remove it, since it's been commented on, however, I've struck it out with a comment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

White space

I understand your dislike of whitespace. No one likes a gap in an article. The problem is that the presence of whitespace as you view the Bloomfield, New Jersey article is not a problem with where the infobox in question is located; it is a matter of your screen size, browser, resolution, text size, window size and all sorts of other variables that result in white space when you view the article. I see no white space in the article as it originally existed. I do have white space now that you have changed it. As the change you have made does not solve the problem for those reading it on any combination of viewing characteristics that differs from yours, and as it does not in any way improve the article, the change is unnecessary, at best. While I would love to solve the whitespace issue on Wikipedia, or even on this one article, this is not a solution. Please understand if the article is returned to its previous formatting. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What browser are you using?, because I've checked the article using Internet Explorer, Safari and Firefox, and while there is still a little whitespace under IE, it's nothing like the whitespace that was there under IE before. The other two browsers are fine at both widescreen and standard widths.

My concern is always what a page will look like to people who pop in with standard settings, pretty much out of the box -- other foilks can solve their own problems, it's the masses we have to make sure we present ourselves well to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and I have viewed the page on IE without issue. I do agree with the whitespace issue, but I'm unsure that any time should be spent in trying to solve the problem without creating others. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to do is to put the historical population box on the left side of the article, so it can move back up into the "demographics" section, but I've been unsuccessful in figuring out how to do that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to play with it as well. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

tt;cnr ?

What does this mean? LotLE×talk 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"too tiny; can not read" Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

thx :-)

Gene Kelly

Ed, please show some respect for your fellow editors. I gave a clear summary of why I edited "Academy Award" out of lead. You have no right to just revert it because you see fit. The Academy Award is one of several lifetime achievement awards he received during his lifetime. It's nonsense to treat the lead as though the Oscar was the only one of value. The previous editor that removed it gave the same reason, and you arrogantly reverted without so much as an edit summary. And you've done it again to me. Rather than force your viewpoint on other editors, just please try discussion. I've given a reason and unless you can give a reason for opposing my opinion, you don't have the right to just blindly revert. Rossrs (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IT has nothing to do with respect -- I pushed the wrong button and the undo went through when I was trying to type in my reason. Please AGF.

Kelly was an American performer, and the Academy Awards are the most prestigious award for American performers. Putting it in the lede is perfectly reasonably, unlike for movies, where "Academy Award-winning" could mean for makeup. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was referring to the undo of your edit. The IP editor gave a bogus reason "simplifying" the lede, when it was clear (from his contrib history) that s/he was just removing "Academy Award-winning". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To be accurate, the edit summary was "keep the first sentence pov and simple". I see nothing bogus in the edit summary as it stands. The anon put "pov" before keeping it "simple". I'm prepared to AGF, as you have reminded me to do, and I will assume that the anon thought the usage conveyed POV, because this is what he/she said. Regardless of the edit history of this anon, I agree with his/her edit in this case. I'm only discussing this edit.

You say it's not about respect. Well, yes it is. I put forward a viewpoint in the edit summary. You had put forward no viewpoint until that point, but instead of respecting that I had offered a viewpoint, you overruled it. AND you've overruled it again, even while this discussion was taking place. I find it a little strange that you're suggesting to me that I should assume good faith, while you are not extending me the same courtesy. You are assuming you're right, and that you've prevailed in the discussion before the discussion is completed. I know you hit the save button by mistake, and your edit summary was lost. I understand that because it's happened to me often enough. What I don't understand is why you felt it so urgent that it had to be changed to suit your taste before continuing the discussion, which brings me back to the beginning of this paragraph.

Onto the awards: ALL of the awards are listed in the awards section at the bottom of the article, and ALL are listed in the infobox. The value or merit of individual awards is not the point - they all have value, and in the eyes of a different beholder, a Kennedy Center Honor, for example, might be more prestigious, considering that it acknowledges excellence across a range of artistic forms. You say that the Academy Award is the most prestigious and, I agree that the publicity and commercial influence of the award may make it so, but it's not an absolute fact. It's an opinion, regardless of whether it's held by you, me or both of us. You're making a value judgement, and then forcing the value judgement onto the article, where it is no longer your value judgement, but Wikipedia's value judgement. Wikipedia should not be expressing value judgements, and where it occurs it is usually removed on the basis of not complying with our policy of NPOV. For the record, I disagree with your opinion, and I disagree with the way you've handled this situation. You have not convinced me. But, whatever. This is just for the record. Rossrs (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Making a lede is a process of selection. We say that Kelly is a dancer, an actor and so on, but Kelly was also a father and a husband, yet these facts are not mentioned. Why? Because they're not significant enough to warrant inclusion. Kelly also won many awards, but the most significant and prestigious is the Academy Award, which is why it merits inclusion. If, in some future world, the BAFTA Awards or the European Film Awards (if such a thing exists or is created) become the most significant awards in the English-speaking film world, then they will merit inclusion and the Academy Awards will not. In the meantime, in the real-world, the fact is that the Academy Awards are the most significant awards, especially for an American film actor. That's not an opinion, it's reality. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's an opinion, but we should move past that point. We've been at cross purposes. We've both referred to "the lead" but really the issue is "the opening sentence". According to the biography manual of style, the lead sentence should establish the identity and notability of the subject. The opening sentence is a "definition". In Kelly's case he was notable as a dancer, choreographer and an actor etc, but he was not particularly notable as an Academy Award winner. If the very first descriptive term in his article is "Academy Award winning" it is placing undue emphasis on it, and is also taking it out of context. It could be assumed by many people that he had won for a particular performance which of course is not the case. It's dealt with more effectively in some featured articles such as (Bette Davis, Judy Garland, Angelina Jolie, Diane Keaton, Vivien Leigh, Cillian Murphy, Satyajit Ray and Reese Witherspoon) that include mention of awards or award nominations, in context and without using "Academy Award winning". The lead here isn't particularly representative as a summary of the article, by the way. We should move forward. Rossrs (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've looked at your re-working of the lede section, and it seems well-balanced to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The same with your rewrite on Claudette Colbert. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bennett-Choreographer

Hi Ed, I noticed you removed the cat: Choreographer from Michael Bennett, the well known choreographer. It seems like a good idea to me. What are your thoughts on the removal? Thanks, and cheers--Cbradshaw (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. That makes sense. My only suggestion would be to include an edit summary as you make the change. Thanks again, and cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course, I should have. My excuse is that I was undoing a lot of those errant edits today by hand. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

thanks for informing me about the WP:AN/I report; but your summary of the events is totally biased towards the view of Romaioi - as didn't know about his smear campaign over the last month I had to read it all first and am speechless at the level of insults, insinuations and the lies he threw around over the course of the last month. I know my post is long, but it is for 80% a sample of the slanderous/insulting comments his made, but you should read it as it will make it clear to you that Romaioi has filed the WP:AN/I report for malicious and frivolous reasons. --noclador (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring over non-free images

Please stop mechanically undoing removals of non-free images. Those removals are covered by policy. If you wish to challenge them, the onus is on you to initiate a discussion and at least give a substantial argument what you think their crucial contribution to the article is and why you think they are indispensable. Adherance to NFCC will be enforced, if necessary with blocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that "edit warring" involves multiple reverts, I don't see how you can call a single revert "edit warring." No, what we have here is two different interpretations of policy, and you're on the other side from me. Considering that, it would be hightly inappropriate for you to use to tools to block me, since you are, indeed, "involved". So, please refrain from threatening me in an attempt to intimidate me from editing according to a legitimate interpretation of the rules, which does not involve mass deletion of any and every non-free image that the least pretext can be found for. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial undoing of multiple edits by the same user across multiple articles, and over the same issue, most certainly is edit-warring. And I am entitled to use my admin tools in an issue in which I have previously been active in an administrative function such as enforcing non-free-content policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion on my talk page. Please have a nice day. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Romaioi - Brunodam checkuser

A checkuser was indeed run on Romaioi; It showed that the Generalmesse sock circus originated in New South Wales and Romaioi was registered by an IP from Perth, Australia. As Romaioi stated in one of his rants that he was in Brisbane for work I and other editors believe that while on this trip he created the socks (as Brisbane is in New South Wales) - this foresight makes me believe that the user behind Romaioi was expecting to run into trouble on wikipedia and also that this was not his first sock creation (the knowledge about checkuser and his demand to make one, point also in the direction that he already knew how checkuser works and that he knew it would turn up negative.)
As for Brunodam - the connection doesn't seem obvious as Brunodam usually edits from Broomfield Colorado, but Brunodam had/has a habit to create socks wherever he went - so new users popped up and would support him and edit exactly the same articles like he did with the same POV, but when a checkuser was run, if Brunodam was related to them the results were that he had registered in Colorado and the socks were registered in Italy or Florida or Georgia and so on... --noclador (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane is in Queensland. You are brilliant! Romaioi (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg

I personally think this image could be used in the article, but where it was at was just a bad spot. Plus, I even notice the other photographs used in the article are also slated for deletion. I think something needs to be done, so I will try to use my knowledge about fair use in order to make sure everything is OK. Sure, people know I don't like to use fair use if we don't have to, but in this case, we need to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Fur.Perf said NFCC requirement two is going to hurt us. NFCC 2 is the requirement that our use of the image must not replace the commercial value of the image. Given the photograph is the whole work, our way to meet that size is to use a smaller version of the image and put it in a lower quality. I tried to check the original source of the photograph to see if it was done by an archive of the Aussie Government, but the page, and photograph, is missing. But about this context thing I was discussing in the image; if we have just a small paragraph about how Dunstan was a mentor to Rann and Rann took his policies based on Dunstan's teachings and mentoring, the photograph can be easily used in the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please check my latest suggestion on the DRV, perhaps we can meet somewhere there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I will. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments to which Orderinchaos replied. I agree with them entirely. I am very glad for people like Zscout370 who are proactive and willing to work with editors on "grey area" images which are not free nor blatant bad faith copyvios. JRG (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert

Hi Ed, thanks for your note. I was happy to hear from you. It's OK, I understood that you were just doing a general clean-up. I've had Claudette on my watch list for a couple of years as the article goes through periods of very weird edits. She has one seriously obsessed fan. (although if you look at the edit and talk histories you would think she has 15 crazy fans, but it's just the one) When I saw the edit and your revert, I thought it was time for a rewrite, so there was certainly no offense taken. Rossrs (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the edit summaries for Imitation of Life. I think it's the same person. He/she is in Japan, I've discovered, and English is clearly not his/her first language. The edit summaries are very similar - the use of language is very idiosyncratic, and I'd be surprised if it's not the same person. It quacks, so I think it's a duck. The editor has been banned about 4 or 5 times, which shows how easy it is to create a new user and start again. (or to edit as an anon, which was part of the pattern at Claudette Colbert) Rossrs (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone to Watch Over Me

Apologies for the late reply! I intended to redo the moves before I went on my summer break, but forgot - it looks like it's been sorted though. Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A possible solution for American films by decade templates

Dear Ed Fitzgerald...I see that you want to keep the American films by decade templates. I came up with a compromise solution, a template that merged all of them into one. If you like it, just let everyone know on the TfD. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the TfD page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The proposed altertative created by moi (created by wikipedia for PC78 as none of us are individual contributors) is below. Just kidding. Let me know what you think.

♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just posted on the TfD page that if the consensus is moving to going to a single template, I can live with that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is set at default closed, it definately takes up less room than a see also section in my view. The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A Sequence of Unfortunate Events

This Jewffpw thing came as quite a shock. And believe me or not, but I did not even notice your comment on my talkpage (which I archived) until you mentioned it on ANI. --The High Commander (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hail Satan

Hi Ed, I replied to you thusly in the AfD, and am messaging you with a summary of the reply as part of it's not a matter for AfD. You said:- keep "if the article is cleaned up and its obvious POV is negated."

I said, "I'd be interested what you consider to be POV, as half the article is concerned with how the phrase is considered evil, naff, mockworthy or related to crime.:)" I don't think the inclusion of Ramirez etc, vandals and so on, the phrase maybe leading to evil acts, and being associated with freaks, means the article can be POV. But I'd appreciate the details of your opinion. Sticky Parkin 21:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I sympathise with your position on, even though I disagree with your interpretation of, WP:CANVAS and actually I would have been inclined to agree that a restart of the AfD might have been the best course of action. However, notifying those Christian projects which you have contacted 'in retaliation' is only being disruptive to prove a point. I'd urge you to reconsider with that in mind. Coldmachine^Talk 09:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, there was nothing in the least POINTy about it, as it wasn't done for the sake of making a point, it was done to help counter the votestakc of Sticky Parkin. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AN

See AN for a proposal I made (separate thread) about a point system. 5 points in a year and you use sysop tools for a year but automatically get them back. The community would decide on what bad behaviors lead to getting a point. HRCC (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

Thought you might be interested in helping out with improving The Lord of the Rings, so I'm letting you know about Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RannDunstan picture

I'm not happy with the outcome of the DRV on this image. Another biased user in league with Fut Perf and the deletionists, as far as I'm concerned. The mention of the non-commercial replacement is not true either - there is nowhere on the DRV that says that one was available. Any suggestions about what to do next? JRG (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me understand: do you mean that there was not a similar usable photo on the campaign site that was mentioned? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The photo referenced is at [1] and it looks very red to me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the redness the only problem? Because if it is, I can fix that. What's the image's copyright status? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted, but not sure whom the owner is. I assume it is Rann until his office says otherwise. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's another fair use situation? I can upload the improved version of the photo (stripped of its red patina), but someone's going to have to provide the FUR for it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions of fair use rationales? I'm not sure about what is good. JRG (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on the ANI

It was not hostility and [apologies -- you never mentioned hostility; that was another user], it was not "topic drift." Certain editors were having an off-topic discussion regarding the merits of an article -- and that description is generous. A more apt description is that certain editors were making silly comments and others were trying to make witty responses, none of which were related to the topic at hand, which is an allegation of an admin misusing their admin tools. If that discussion belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, which is itself questionable, it's on the relevant article talk page, user talk pages, and email. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Godfather

Imdb lists The Godfathers as drama / thriller. so I thought adding thriller would help. Contact me back please InuYoshi (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Godfather ii árt

TCM uses Drama, Action, Period, Crime)

ROTLMFAO The Godfather is more of a thriller than action. But let's keep it a crime drama then —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Luna de Miel

Ed, have you seen Powell's film Luna de Miel? I've created a page for it, mainly by copying in a review I did for the P&P email group. But it's probably too PoV in many places for Wikipedia. However, it is a start. Can you please cast your eye over it and feel free to change it where you think it needs it. Thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tales of Hoffmann (film)

Can you see the poster on the page for The Tales of Hoffmann (film)? I can't. Although if I go to [2] then I can see it there. Odd. Could it be the size you've set on it? -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I *think* the problem with the Hoffmann poster image is a repeat of the problems WP was having the other day, when images wouldn't resize properly. I upload a cleaned-up version of the image, which I would see at 226px (after a long wait) and at 215px, but which doesn't seem to want to come up at 225px, which is the largest I like to put infobox images at. I'm going to play around with it again, and I'm also considering uploading a different version of the poster, which is laid-out in portrait dimensions rather than in landscape dimensions, which means the text will show up better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a Wikipedia problem. I just uploaded another image, and it won't even show up on the image page. I've left notes at AN/I and the Village Pump/tech. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I just edited a random article with Template:Infobox Film and changed the image size; subsequent previews showed either a red X or took too long for me to wait. I suspect something in MediaWiki's/Wikipedia's image resizing engine is temporarily broken. I don't think fiddling with the ToH image will fix it. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is exactly what happened before. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Someone to Watch Over Me re-redux

Looks like they've been moved back again (by the same editor). These pages are an endless source of entertainment :P EyeSerene^talk 08:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexLevyOne

He's back, editing again - maybe he'll be better this time, who knows. I'll try to keep an eye on him but thought you'd be interested with the update. JohnInDC (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll check out his edits. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvanix AfD

Can you please expand on your Keep vote in the Nirvanix AfD debate?

MediaMob (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Softball

While I respectfully disagree with your take on tags, I see no purpose in edit warring over the matter. Nonetheless, is it possible in future occasions to move tags to the bottom with an ugly level five heading "tags:"? Also, I removed the wikify tag: it seems sufficiently linked given the context, and doesn't warrant massive links to articles currently devoted to the baseball version of softball concepts. Kelvinc (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant to write that I should move them without a level five heading? I used to do that, but I added the level five heading in order to have it show up in the ToC, thus giving the editor looking at the top of the page an indication of their existence below. I know that's not ideal, or pretty -- I'd prefer some kind of icon in the top corner which would alert the editor to their being tags, and then the tags themselves either on the talk page or on a seperate tab -- but it's less unsightly than tags at the top.

Your advice would be to leave off the header? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it's an aesthetic thing, though I suppose placing the tags on the bottom is also an aesthetic thing (versus the issue of drive-by tagging, which is an editorial problem). I find anything smaller than a level three heading doesn't "mesh" well and looks out of place, as if a random anon put it there. But that's just my thoughts on it. I think you can probably use a standard level two heading, since the tags' significance is about equal to something like external links or references, and the tags are certainly not subordinate to any other section. Kelvinc (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts. I will fool around a bit with it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu

Thank you for your work on the article Historical inaccuracies in the film Zulu.

I notice that the article contains the following construction:

<!--spacing, please do not remove-->

Is it necessary to retain this tag?--Jonathan Drain (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lion Has Wings‎

Thanks for the heads-up, the photo that was removed was from another article and not my photo. I have no idea why it was deleted but it strikes me that the image cops have been at work again. I really don't get the "single purpose" editors who are on some crusade, oh well, each to his own... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Psst - that wasn't a fix! :-)

See here and here. :-) All sorted now, but that caused a lot of head-scratching on my part. Only noticed it because the WP:1.0 bot noted it here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's that damn "1=" parameter, which I have the hardest time remembering -- I have to go back to the template documentation almost every time, because there seems to be reason for it (I'm sure there is, but it's not apparent on the surface). It looks like this time was once that I didn't check, unfortunately. Sorry about that.

I am confused, though, about why in its current corrected state the Shell won't collapse? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. You could ask here. Sorry to have named you there as the "culprit". :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's a fair cop. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

'dem tables with or without?

Hi Ed, yes, it twas I who used tables for cast lists; not my invention by the way, just something I came across when surfin'. As to usage, I have and have not used them. Where a cast table made sense was with a short article wherein there was not much to say about the cast. If I initiate an article and it is a beginning piece or a stub, I tend to make things fairly "tight" and I see the cast table as more or less a simplified list, while If I come across a film article already underway, I stay with the format already in place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stepford Wives 1975 dvd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stepford Wives 1975 dvd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

More Powell films

Ed, I've just done some articles for the Michael Powell films Smith (film), Herzog Blaubarts Burg (Bluebeard's Castle) and The Queen's Guards. If you could cast your beady eye over them I'd be obliged. Thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do, probably tonight. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Spacer in Clark Gable article

This may seem like a trivial matter, but I'm wondering why a spacer is necessary in the Clark Gable article (i.e. right after the opening). Featured articles of entertainers don't have spacers in the opening; thus, I'm wondering what the exact reason is for the spacer in that article. -- Luke4545 (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The spacer is necessary to correct a problem in the way that Internet Explorer renders the page. Without it, the end of the lede paragraph (or the laast paragraph of the lede secton) butts up against the Table of Contents in a way that is visually disconcerting and makes it difficult to read. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with SockPuppets

Ed,

Who's side are you on?

If you read:

Wikipedia:Sock puppet

Help:Reverting

You will find that all edits from a repeat banned user are to be reverted without issue.

92.8.x to 92.14.x is:

User:HarveyCarter

He has been a sockpuppet that has used over 50 user names and around two hundred IPs, even going so far as to change providers.

A user like him has lost all credibilty.

Why would you side with him? He is a repeat liar who just talks talks trash to stir the shit. Unless you have personally read the addition citation, it should be removed without prejudice.

If you read Help:Reverting all edits from HarveyCarter can be revert without violating the WP:3RR.

Please help out Wikipedia, follow the rules, and REVERT all edits from 92.8.x to 92.14.x (mainly to film related actors).

207.69.139.156 (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Whose side am I on? I'm on the side of making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

And while you've repeated your allegation, you still haven't presented me any evidence to support it. On what basis do you say that this IP is this banned user? Have you filed a report on AN/I, or a sock puppet report, or asked for a checkuser? If you have, or someone else has, or there's archived information, please give me the link and I'll definitely check it out. But in the meantime, if an edit improves an article, I don't much care where it comes from. If the IP is a sockpuppet of a banned user, you've done the right thing by reverting his edits, thus upholding Wikipedia policy and discouraging sock puppetry, and I've done the right thing by restoring them, thereby improving articles.

So, please do pass along that information for me to check out, and in the meantime, please check your attitude at the door when you post here. Many thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you revert these edits now, you're not reverting the edits of this alleged sockpoppet, you're reverting my edits, and 3RR definitely applies -- unless you're planning on claiming that I'm a meatpuppet of this person. If so, I wish you good luck, since it's not true. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

my edits to the erwin rommel page

ok ed! I am a published military historian with some specialisation in the relevant period. I also have on my shelves here, all the work that has been published on Rommel, all work that was published by rommel and notes from the rommel family. I also have access to major university archives (as a reader/researcher) and, as required, access to corps and divisional war diaries (german and english). i am a german linguist. where wikipedia opens itself to ridicule from serious historians and university-based research faculties is in its willingness to accept contributions from unqualified/relatively uneducated people who just 'mouth-off'. The Erwin Rommel page is excruciatingly badly written with sloppy (amateurish) style, syntax and presentation, which seems to have escaped your attention (even if you have the page on a watch list). I looked at (say) the first 4 paragraphs last night. None of it deserved to escape the blue pencil. What exactly do you object to as 'POV'. Before reverting my edits, perhaps it would have been better to have registered your objections first, so that I could take a look at them. lets have your 'POV' now!Miletus12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources, repost the stuff with sources attached. Simple, done, no problems. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Interesting that I filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Betacommand just three days after he was blocked. i wasn't aware. In my view he is the biggest threat to content that we have and it concerns me that he is speedying content without allowing things to develop. What I don't understand is any other editors would have been blocked indefinately by now but people seem to tolerate his errors and misjudgement again and again The Bald One ^{White cat} 08:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is odd

Something is odd at the Criterion Collection page for the essay in question. I actually read this essay for Pandora's Box about six months ago which led me to purchasing the film. Now, as you say, the only thing there is the intro. I will take a look at it from time to time and if the entire essay ever shows back up I'll add back the link but you are right that there is no need to have said link as long as it goes to the page the way it is now. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Our messages crossed each other. I don't think that it is a subscription thing. I get their newsletter so I am a subscriber - of sorts - and I don't see the essay either. Oh well maybe somebody at the CC messed something up - who knows? Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up to date on all the followup that you are doing. It is a shame that it wont come up. I can say that the essay is part of the printed material that comes with the DVD and I can recommend getting this particular one. The four different soundtracks are very interesting to listen to and the supplemental materials including an extended interview with a very forthright, elderly Louise Brooks. This is one of the best CC releases - in my opinion - OOPS! a little POV slipped in there - my apologies. Take care and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 14:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Breath holding

Nah, my face goes red and my eyes bulge! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's recent unblock

I thought so too, at first, and changed it - then changed it back when I realized that plus meant "in favor of retaining the block". I also posed that point at the top of the section, just so we're clear on the matter. I think his block would have expired by now anyway. Such a nuisance all this is, yes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I can't believe this whole drama has played out this long -- whaddya we in, Act 5 now? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image police

Ed, what's the best way to keep the image police (to use the polite term) happy to let us use that picture from Herzog Blaubarts Burg as an illustration for Norman Foster and Ana Raquel Satre? There aren't many pictures around of either of them. I'm also hunting around for more information about both of them, and about Antonio etc. from Honeymoon -- SteveCrook (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added detailed Fair Use Rationales for both of them. Feel free to add mroe information to them if you think it will help. I have not as yet added the image to their articles -- I'm about to leave for the day and won't be back for 10 hours or so. If you haven't added it to them by that time, I'll do it then. I hope this will be sufficient to keep the photo in use, but we'll see. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, FYI, I've added a redirect to the article from Bluebeard's Castle (film). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 12:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry

i am sorry. can i help?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaxz (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Baby Boomer page

I quoted Strauss and Howe, who are two pretty reputable sociologists, so I am wondering what you thought was "undo weight" about including them. The start year of 1943 is a somewhat common sentiment amongst other sociologists as well, and their book is a best-seller on the topic. Also, the Doug Coupland endpage is taken directly from his book, already mentioned in the article before the edit. Why is it unreferenced? Ledboots (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Straus and Howe notion is a minority one, which is why I reduced it to a footnote, where it still is. A second mention of it is not warranted, as it gives it undue weight. The description of the Coupland book is simply unnecessary, and doesn't add anything to the article that I can see. If I'm wrong, let me know. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's true, it is a less-popular analysis. But it is an important one and here's why; S&H's analysis of Gen-X is very widely accepted. I think if history shows that those born in the early 60's are more aligned with post-boomers, their analysis of Boomers by default becomes more tenable. The Coupland excerpt goes on to show that he was considering those (born after 1957) better known as "shadow boomers" or "trailing edge boomers", rather than "younger boomers" or "cohort #2 boomers" (born after 1955). Some may see a big distinction. Ledboots (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's "widely accepted" then get additional references to support it and add it to the article in a substantive way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What about my second point? Ledboots (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One other credible source that defines Boomers from 1943-1960: "Generations at Work" By Ron Zemke, Claire Raines, Bob Filipczak. I believe this is a best-selling publication and found in Google Books: "...our research finds that people born between 1943 and 1946 have similar values and vews..."(p3). Ledboots (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1943 doesn't sound right. There's a reason it's called the post-war baby boom. I also wonder about extending it to the 1960s, but that's what the stats show. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The non-free image scuffle

User:Calliopejen1

your undoing all of my contributions

Please follow the instructions on the image tags. Instead of removing them, you must add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}. This will be reviewed by the admin that assesses them later. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way

This is just silly. Come on, clearly there are free images of Russian Australians (such as the two already there!). Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If such free images are so easily found, get some and replace the non-free images with them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding images to pages where I removed them

At least if you do this, please add a non-free image rationale as is required by policy. When you add them back without even explaining why you believe they contribute to the article, it appears that it is just knee-jerk reversions of my edits. I was going through a lot of images today, and many of them I reviewed and left as they were. The ones I removed I genuinely believe violate wiki policy, so it would be courteous of you to at least explain why you disagree rather than just reverting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The images I restored I did so because they were appropriate to the articles they were in. If you think they violate image policy, then bring them up for IfD where that question can be discussed and a consensus reached, but do not get rid of them via a back-door by deleting them from articles so they can then be automatically deleted as orphaned non-free images. The fair-use suitability of an image is determined by community consensus, not by the views of one editor acting independently. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing a non-free image from an article has nothing to do with "back doors". It is a normal editorial move that can be done boldly by anybody at any time, just like any other edit

thought to improve the encyclopedia. If somebody removes an image giving a reasonable rationale for doing so, and you disagree, the onus is on you to initiate discussion and provide arguments for why you think the images are necessary. Instead, you have been engaging in a sterile mass-revert war across multiple articles, which is clearly blockable disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm much too busy right now to have a conversation with you. You see, I'm posting notices on the articles that include images that your friend CJ1 has been nominating for deletion, because she never bothered to do that. I don't know why she didn't -- after all, notification of an IfD on the article page would bring more concerned people to the discussion, which is what we all want, right? When I'm finished, we can have a nice chat concerning your rather strange ideas about what is and isn't blockable behavior. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reported at ANI. By the way, there is no requirement for an IfD nominator to give notification on article talk pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but it's certainly the polite and civil thing to do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free stuff

Hi Ed, I have to agree with some of the comments above. Generally, non-free images that are already used in articles linked from sub-articles should not be duplicated - if we have a non-free image in the article for "Fred Smith (Footballer for Team X)" then that image should not be duplicated in the article for "Team X" unless there is some overriding reason to do so. Similarly in articles such as Fender Starcaster, a non-free image could easily be sourced for this (might be worth asking at Commons). Thanks, Black Kite 23:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather suspicious when people say "a free image of X will be easy to find", because that is not my experience at all. Perhaps it's because I do a lot of work on film articles, but, generally, I have found it extraordinarily hard to find free images. In any case, if, in an editor's opinion, it will be easy to replace a non-free image with a free one, then what the editor should do is find that easy-to-find free image, upload it and replace the non-free image! In that way the aricle doesn't suffer and the non-free image is eliminated. (Questions of quality of images are more complicated, since in some cases I've seen, free images have been vastly inferior to the existing non-free images.) What the editor shouldn't do is delete the image with a lot of hand-waving about how easy replacing it will be. If it's easy... do it.

In any case, thanks for your opinion, I appreciate your sharing it with me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even need to be easy. Our rules are very explicit about this: it is sufficient that there is a possibility that a free image could be created. It is not required that a free alternative is already available, or is "easy" to get. And we don't leave non-free images in until somebody actually gets the free replacement. Quite to the contrary, we remove them so that people will have an incentive to go and actively try to get a free one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus encouraging the replacement of esthetically good photos with paparazzi-style snapshots and such. Yeh, that really enhances wikipedia, yah, shur, you betcha. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the quality issue I was referring to. One of Calliopejen1's edits was to replace a good non-free picture of an SS officer with a smudgy and poor free one of the man. I'm pretty sure that there's actually no copyright on the original picture, and I worked hard to try to establish that, and failed, which meant I had to leave that very bad free image in. The question that raises is "when is a free image so deficient in quality that one can use a non-free image in its place." I'm pretty sure that absolutists would say "never", but that's not a reasonable answer, and hurts the quality of the encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I was commenting on the hand-waving people do when deleting images that they are "easily replacable" or some such words, most of the time that's just not so. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Turns out there's two free Fender Starcaster images at Commons; I have put one of them into the article. Black Kite 00:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, that seems to be a different instrument, see Starcaster by Fender and the section "Re-use of Starcaster name". Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so it appears. Oh well. I wonder if there are any free pictures of the guitarists mentioned in the article with their Starcasters? (i.e. Image:Radiohead-Jonny.jpg, sadly I don't know the difference...) Black Kite 00:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about! "Easily replaced" is easy to say, harder to do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are this, this, this and this images of the original instrument? They look like it to me. They're not free either, but they're proof that such instruments exist still and photographs can be made (even if they are rare collector's items). One could try asking the flickr photographers for a free release. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

More non-free images. Very helful. "Easy" Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'm not a great fan of RfCUs, being personally aware that they can be abused, but I will take a look. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yankee Doodle Dandy 4 Cohans.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yankee Doodle Dandy 4 Cohans.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yankee Doodle Dandy Cagney.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yankee Doodle Dandy poster.jpeg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle Dandy images are not orphaned

They were "orphaned" briefly when some idiot IP address blanked the article page. That was reverted, but the 3 are still showing as orphaned, which is not correct. I posted a question about this to WP:ANI because there must be something I'm overlooking, or else the program is not working right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A user did a dummy edit on the article and then it relinked the 3 pictures. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User page

Nice work, but I wanted to let you know that you've got typos throughout. I would fix them for you, but I suspect you would prefer to do it yourself. The worst one is in User:Ed_Fitzgerald#The_nature_of_Wikipedia: "onfusion" is missing a "c". Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't rule out the possibility that he's doing it on uprpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

hat 'srigh Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Typos throughout" ... I corrected the eight typos/spelling errors, one per section. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Caine Mutiny (film)

You have once again removed my so-called "POV" material. I would be interested to know in what way it is POV, since most of what I added are direct quotes from the film itself.--Marktreut (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We've had this conversation before, and I'm not particularly interested in having it again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your changes don't appear to be detrimental. One problematic thing removed is the "back-stabbing" comment, which is a purely editorial remark and an unencyclopedic colloquialism, as well as being overkill (pardon the metaphor). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also the use of "home truths" as an expression, which is both POV and unnecessarily colloquial. There're other problems as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen that "home truths". I had never heard of that expression before, and don't know what it's supposed to mean, but I suspected that it was suspect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problems are that conclusions are being drawn about the motivations of the characters. They may be correct, but they're undeniably interpretation, which has no place in a plot summary. which should simply and accurately describe the story of the film. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. Conclusions could be posted if they cite a reliable source, e.g. a professional reviewer. Summaries by wikipedia editors have to stick to what's in the film's script. Meanwhile, just what does "home truth" mean? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A dictionary says "A key or basic truth, especially one that is discomforting to acknowledge." The impression I got was a harsh truth that Grandma laid on you that Mom and Dad wouldn't say. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hence it's an editorial conclusion and doesn't belong in the article without a citation from, say, Siskel & Ebert. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

amg_id

please stop removing the amg_id's when cleaning up the infobox. That's not a constructive edit, and if you do remove it, could you give a reason why you do it? Also when doing release dates, maybe it should follow MOS:FILM more too. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The formatting I use for release dates is clear and concise.

In general, the AMG listings for films, while useful, do not have the quality and quantity of information as do the IMDB and TCM listings. It's therefore best to simply have the most useful of the links, the IMDB, in the infobox, and put the rest in external links. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Caine Mutiny (2)

Thank you.--Marktreut (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm still not completely comfortable with "double-cross" because it still seems somewhat conclusionary about Keefer's motivations (which I think the film leaves open), but I have no plans to change it. I've made a minor edit to make it clearer that Keefer was the one who did the "double-cross". Ed Fitzgerald ("unreachable by rational discourse") ^{(t / c)} 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)