User talk:Before My Ken/archives 10 Jan-Mar 2009

ARCHIVE PAGE 10: JANUARY - MARCH 2009

Re: Casablanca (film)- for Ed Fitzgerald and DrKiernan
I am posting this to both of your pages. I am a film lover and participant in many film discussions online, in chatrooms, and in real life, over the years. I recently stumbled upon the contretemps you two seemed to be having with some editors, most notably a fellow named 2005.

I am not a Wiki editor. This is my first foray, and likely my last. I just wanted to say bravo for standing up to what I see as bad policies regarding what constitutes "expertise" in certain fields. Most notably, in this argument, it regards Umberto Eco. While a noted novelist, he has done some film writing. Yet, the opposing editors seem to discredit his POV vis-a-vis whoever it is they deem experts.

As someone who basically has used Wiki as a resource to fuel my arguments pro or con about an actor or director or film, I have found the linkage, in articles, and in the links sections, most helpful. I have found many interesting articles, writers, and websites that were linked to a film or director page. And many of these were small sites, personal blogs, or things unassociated with Hollywood.

Perhaps either of you can tell me what it is with this obsession Wikipedia editors (present company excepted) has with denigrating those critics from small media outlets or blogs? After all, this seems to be the same bias Wikipedia faces vs. Britannica. The fact is that there are more credible opinions online than just in the Pauline Kael/Roger Ebert/Washington Post/New Yorker coterie of critics. I fail to see what makes Kenneth Turan, of the L.A. Times, more "authoritative" (according to 2005), than Joe Blow of the ____ film blog. Is it the fact that Turan cashes a paycheck? If so, what happens in a few years when all the newspapers cannot make a profit? Will Turan then just be another blogger? Is it becaus ehe, or others, belongs to some big city film critics circle?

As I said, I have discovered many wee written and thought provoking articles, writers and websites via articles on Wikipedia, yet often find the links missing if I go back a week or so later, for more info. Even someone as well known as Eco, apparently, is not "authoritative" enough to speak on this film. It's silly. This is just my opinion, but of Blogger X says something that gets to the very nub of a film or actor or scene, and Roger Ebert does not, in his review, then that makes Blogger X more "authoritative" than Ebert or Turan or Kael.

Anyway, just wanted to write and say I appreciate your standing up against this insanity. It's one thing to delink obvious spam or blatantly commercial ads, but to blanket state that a blogger or person from another field has an opinion not worth being mentioned, simply because of who they are, not what they actually state, seems to defeat the very purpose of Wikipedia, which I've always taken as getting as much relevant and "good" information to the public, regardless of where or who it comes from. Tally ho!Tankerzea (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your objection, and I sympathise, but unfortunately, the reality is that Wikipedia has a Big Problem, potentially a fatal one, and that is that while meat-world encyclopedia are put together by experts, professional writers, and skilled researchers, in the hope that their combined efforts will produce a work that comes close to accurately representing the real world, Wikipedia is put together by legions of editors who might be experts in their subjects, but probably aren't, and who could be good at communicating by the written word, but probably aren't, and who may be competent fact-checkers, but probably aren't. So, in an effort to present an encyclopedia that accurately reflects the real world, just like a printed one, using amateurs, wannabes and dabblers (and the odd expert or two), Wikipedia makes a fetish out of verifiability, the ability to confirm a fact through citation from a recognized, published source.  The idea is that the validity of the source's bona fides is passed along, and the fact is then rendered usable by the association. What that means, though, is that the project is always going to be biased against opinions expressed by its editors (whose authoritativeness is unknown or unproven) and material that's self-published, such as blogs and a lot of other websites.  There's really no way around that with the way things are structured here.  There are other ways to go about making an online encyclopedia, but with the choices that were made in setting this place up, I'm afraid there's very little chance that blogs and other such sources are going to be generally accepted any time soon. The good news is that there's a way into the fortress, and that's to use a blog as a jumping off point to start writing in other more traditional media outlets, whether online or printed.  Once you've got, say The Atlantic Monthly behind you, all of a sudden those opinions that, in the WikiWorld, weren't worth anything when you published them on your weblog, are as good as gold, because they're coming from a recognized and reputable source. The other possible entree would come when certain blogs reach a level of notability that ignoring them starts to be a distinct disadvantage to the project, and it's forced to accept them as Reliable Sources -- but that's likely to happen only to the most well-known bloggers, those whose names are generally recognized ny the media and the public.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rabbot
The virtue of being the first episode in a series is not an assertion of notability. If you can find sources to state as such, mazal tov. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the series is notable, than the first and final episodes of the series are ipso facto notable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's faulty logic. The first episode does not automatically get a free pass. It needs citations for its notability. Futurama's Pilot episode didn't get to GA on the virtue of being the first episode. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really inappropriate to oppose a redirect, and then refuse to discuss it with me by archiving said discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, last time I checked, AfD was for deletions. It doesn't matter that a discussion should take place on the talk page, you are the only opposition, and it just so happens that you are refusing to respond to me, and are flat-out ignoring me while continually standing on your platform of "every first episode is notable" without ever responding to me with any suggestion that that's even remotely true. You seem to be bitter over it being redirected more than anything. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By redirecting it, you are de facto deleting it. If you want the article deleted, nominate it for deletion, otherwise stop removing all the content of the article in favor of a redirect. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and please do not bring any further discussion here - all discussion should be on the article's talk page. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove again
Please see the talk. I feel you have mischaracterised the consensus reached in November. Do not wholesale remove tags like that, please. Instead, discuss the matter on the talk. Or better, FIX the fact tags by either finding sources, as required, or removing the items. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cam's RfA
A simple count of mainspace % edits can be very misleading, as it assumes something about the difficulty level of the edits in the various namespaces. The candidate has written three FAs in the modern era, which not many people have done with the rising standards, and a few GAs. Although these might only rack up 200 edits, it might take 30-40 hours to read up on the materials, whereas a person with a vandal-detecting machine, AWB, or doing mass category edits can rack up 200 in an hour without having to think much, and not doing anything that develops skills in WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V etc, which are very important when it comes to determining whether to block someone for POV-pushing or dealing with pagelocking. I would say the candidate has a better article-space record than 90%+ of successful candidates in the past year.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I have some questions about your recent edits to Frank McHugh. I have no particular interest in this article and accessed it only to add Her Cardboard Lover to his filmography after I created that article. While I was at it I cleaned up the McHugh article a bit, and you reverted some of my changes. I would appreciate your explaining why so I can get a better grasp of style and content guidelines.
 * 1) I reduced the image in order to remove an overly wide gap in the text. You re-enlarged the image to 240px and placed a gap within the filmography in order to avoid reverting the gap I had eliminated. Your edit summary describes this as a "better solution." How is replacing one gap with another gap a "better" solution? My solution seemed fine - the image was a reasonable size and gave a clear indication of what McHugh looked like.
 * 2) A couple of months ago there was a lengthy discussion about excessive wikilinks, if not on the film project talk pages then possibly at the theatre project talk pages, I'm not sure which. I do recall the consensus was birth and death dates and dates in credit lists no longer should be wikilinked, which is why I delinked all the release years in McHugh's filmography. Did I misunderstand the outcome of this discussion about excessive wikilinking?
 * 3) Why is it significant that Elvis Presley starred in East Come, Easy Go? I removed this info and you reverted it. No other film on this list mentions co-stars, and in general it seems rather irrelevant to mention any, since that information really has more to do with the film than it does McHugh.

Thank you in advance for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LM: Not ignoring you, just had a cataract removed so my ability to participate comes and goes. Hopefully later today. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to respond. Here's how I saw the situation:


 * The filmograpy was double-width (two columns), and the space it was taking up was wider that the space allow by the article's infobox. This forced the filmography down to be underneath the infobox, but allowed the section title ("Filmography") to be in its normal relationship to the article above.  This introduced a gap of horizontal whitespace between the section title and the filmography text, which, I agree, needed to be removed, as it is unsightly.


 * Your solution to removing the gap was to reduce the width of the infobox by reducing the width of the image. I did not find this a satisfactory solution, as 160px is just too small for an infobox image to have the impact it should.  Instead of reducing the width of the infobox, I reduced the width of the filmography text by utilizing a trick I discovered a while ago: if the  and  are put on the same line instead of on different lines as is usually down, the second (or third or fourth) column doesn't set up at a preset distance from the previous column, instead it sets up at the next available space.  Of course, this would put the columns uncomfortably close together, so I add a few non-break spaces to separate them to be visually attractive.


 * With the columns now taking up less width, they are no longer pushed down by the infobox, and there is no longer any horizontal whitespace. True, there is vertical whitespace, but that is inevitable with any columnization -- and it creates a great place to add an image should one become availabe.


 * This is what I think is a "better solution" overall.

As to your other questions, my memory of the discussion in question is different from yours. Since "Year in film" articles contain items about the birth and death of prominent actors, it was decided, I believe, that birth and death dates could continue to be linked to "year in film". If I'm wrong about this, please point me to the discussion and I'll be glad to relent -- I have no particularly strong feelings about this issue.

I don't believe I originated the "Elvis Presley" reference, but I did retain it when I revamped the article some months ago. It seemed to me somewhat significant that this actor, who's primarily associated with Warner Bros. films of the 20's, 30's and 40's, worked long enough to be in a film starring Elvis Presley. Admittedly, it's not major headline news, but I think it's a nice tidbit that enhances the article.

Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging
Thanks for uploading File:Matter of life and death David Niven lowres.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Added license. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tarrytown / Sleepy Hollow
Check out my post in the Sleepy Hollow discussion board. Its got some info for you. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Min.
No. I'm gonna keep doing it. That's what 90% of the featured article film articles used so I thought it would look better. HOOYA!–FunkyVoltron talk 15:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Adult Swim task force
You seem to be interested in Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and I would appreciate if you would collaborate on it at the task force, found here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll take a look. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Response
Ed, I responded to your question in my RfA. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you

 * And thank you, Ed, for taking the time to examine what I had to offer. Why do I want to be an admin? To help strengthen the content and character of Wikipedia and to help people bring forth the highest quality of editorial input imaginable for an Internet resource.  There are no other reasons. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)



Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Yes, I have reason to smile! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for cleaning up my articles -- yeah, I saw your contributions! I appreciate the help. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Hogan's Heroes Title Card.png
Thanks for uploading File:Hogan's Heroes Title Card.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

'All About Eve'
(The selection at WQ is much more extensive - these are representative)...they why not edit WikiQuotes? Putting what you think is representative on the main page is original research. Lots42 (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's editing. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pamela Sue
Hi Ed, it kills me, but BS is r-r-r-right about this. The image doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion as it is of a living person, etc etc, which I think is a bit daft, because if Pamela suddenly left us we could use the picture even though its copyright status would not have changed, but that's the way it's applied. I wouldn't want to give BS any ammunition unless he/she is going to use it to shoot himself/herself in the foot. Rossrs (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, you're right, but when my ideological predisposition aligns with a chance to... well, you know. If you want to revert, I'll stand back, no problem. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you did. I also recall what happened with this.  My intention was simply to take out the Wikify tag, but accidentally reverted to an older version.  When I saw it I said "What the heck" and left it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's no big deal really. If it wasn't this particular editor...  this editor is one of maybe 3 at the most on the entire project that I cannot abide.   He/she has one of the worst attitudes I've seen, so my attitude is "give 'em nothing".   I see by this edit that he/she has Pam watchlisted so it would have been gone one way or another.  Rossrs (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Julie Haydon photo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Julie Haydon photo.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) 05:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This beautiful photo is not, unfortunately, in use. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Film template parameters
Hi, Ed - hope you're doing well! I noticed that you edited one or two of the talk page film templates to say "no" to the newly-retagged "needs-" parameters that AnomieBot has been working on. Just wanted to give you a heads up that unnecessary parameters should be deleted, otherwise they will categorize for that parameter. (Ie there is no functional difference between a yes and a no.) This will save both space and incorrect categorization. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed just a few minutes ago that you had deleted some of the "no"'s I had added, and had picked up that I should delete instead, but I was unsure why. Thanks for the explanation, I assumed it was a switch of some sort. I'll go and correct the other ones I've done, if you haven't gotten to them already!  Thanks again.  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you were just sayin'
I'm just sayin this: []. You may be interested. Toodles! --Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am, thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lorre
This edit is a conflict of interest for obvious reasons. The link fails WP:RS and WP:EL; it's a personal website with no editorial control. And, since the only reason you gave for undoing my edit was a wisecrack, I have no idea what your reason was for including it. I have removed it again. Besides which, I don't need to explain how it doesn't meet EL; you need to explain how it does. I see you were blocked quite recently for edit warring on a related article, so strongly suggest you stop now. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you want to delete it, you explain why on the article's talk page, not here. 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have to explain it anywhere. And if you put it back in, I will block you for spam. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You will block me for assuming that an editor added a link in good faith, and insisting that if someone wants to remove it they explain their reasoning, and not simply wave their hands and says "it fails EL"? You will block me for "spam" for restoring a single link to a single article?  That's what you're saying? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's what I'm saying. Restoring a link after you've been informed that it is spam (which I did, above) is considered vandalism. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Because you, individually and without consultation with anyone, determined all on your own that a link was spam, and said so, but refused to explain why' on the article's talk page, I am subject to being blocked by you, because that makes me a vandal. I understand. Very interesting to meet you, and to, at least in part, get the measure of you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So
You undo the edits of ip addresses. That's awesome. But I have every right to edit here to. Tags go at the top of articles. Unsourced information needs to be sourced or removed. Please don't blanket revert me because I choose not to create an account. 71.178.197.11 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're referring to, because I deal with the edits of IPs exactly the way I deal with the edits of people with accounts, so while you may believe you're being singled out, you are wrong. If I reverted your edits, it's because I thought they needed to be reverted.  Period. If you want to deal me what, exactly, you're talking about I'll be glad to explain my reasoning. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You stalking me there buddy? Why were you moving the tags to the bottom of the page on those articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.197.11 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have a good idea. Let's take this issue to dispute resolution!  What'ya say, there, pal?  Shall I go make a report and attract some attention to your IP? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are you threatening me? I just want to make what I believe are constructive edits. Can I ask you again, why were you moving the tags to the bottom of the page on those articles? Why are you keeping my ip address on a list? Why won't you let me add citation tags or remove unsourced material. I don't get it. You are being unreasonable and quite rude. 71.178.197.11 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Dispute resolution is the best place for this. Let's take it there. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why won't you answer any of my questions or cite any policy? Your behavior is very erratic and hard to understand. I feel like you have treated me very unfairly from the beginning. 71.178.197.11 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * {BTW, haven't we met before? There's something terribly deja vu about this conversation.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I've been mistreating you so badly, we should go file at Dispute Resolution right now, I think. That's the best way to resolve this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't you answer any of my questions? All you do is revert my edits with zero explanation. Please stop trying to goad me. Do you really have nothing better to do? 71.178.197.11 (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since your interest appears to be in playing the martyr and pretending to be a newbie (stuff we generally call trolling), I've got no interest in pursuing this with you. If you want to take our problem to Dispute Resolution, let me know, or file there yourself. I'm going to archive this discussion now, as a waste of my time. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cagney
Hi there! I seem to have forgotten to ask you for your opinion, bad me! Anyway, I've pretty much done the James Cagney article, so i'd really appreciate your opinion. I know the lead needs quite a bit of work, if not a complete rewrite, but at least the content is there to base it on now! So comments gratefully received, either on my talk page, or preferably, the article's talk page! Cheers, and Happy New Year :) --Ged UK (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been watching, with approval and great respect, what you've been doing with the article as you've been working, so I know that it's in good shape. I will take a look at it in toto sometime this weekend, and post whatever comments I may have. Thank you for asking, I appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Editors
For what it's worth, I agree with you. I know that part of the spirit and culture of Wikipedia are wrapped up in the concept of "anyone can edit". But at the same time, consider the huge amount of time that is soaked up every day in repetitive tasks that would not be required (or at least not as badly) if everyone had to have an email verified account to edit Wikipedia. I for one, would love to be able to find time to work on the article that has sat and gathered dust in my sandbox for more than a year now while I spend day in and day out cleaning up vandalism and blocking it's offenders. Trusilver 08:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it takes up so much of my time just going through my watchlist for vandalism etc., that I haven't done any substantive work on an article for months -- and that's the part I enjoy, and with which I think I can make a real contribution to the project. Personally, I don't think the requirement of registering is such an onerous burden that it contradicts the "anyone can edit" trope. People are used to registering for all sorts of sites, it goes with the territory for being online these days. Perhaps one day, the lingering remnants of libertarian culture will loosen up enough to allow this to happen here, but I'm not holding my breath. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I'm not your favorite guy in the world, but I'm with you on that. I also agree that the indignant IP from earlier has spent a lot of time playing the martyr, and (even though I think his edits were valid) for all the time he's spent moaning about being put-upon, he may as well have registered an account. Kafziel Complaint Department 10:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
I just wanted to check to make sure that you were aware of this discussion which I started, as you have been involved in previous discussions on the subject. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Guest: I've been somewhat peripherally aware of the conversation going on, but haven't delved into it at all. I start rehearsal for a new project tomorrow, and have been doing mostly mechanical editing lately as I prep for it, rather than anything requiring any brain power.  I hope that in a day or so, I'll be able to contribute something.  Thanks very much for the notice. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ida Lupino
Your reversion of my edit without giving valid rationale was very disappointing. Do you have ownership of this article? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talk page, not here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented here on your page about an action you took, not content. I also asked a question about you. Your evasion is noted. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No evasion. Explanation on the article talk page, where it belongs. Goodbye. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitespace
Ed, I hope it is not too forward of me to ask of you to stop adding whitespace to articles on purpose with <! --spacing, please do not remove -->. It is not part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Miami33139 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, this is fundamentally your personal preference. It does not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which says that issues of blank space should be left to the site wide style sheet and not manually manipulated in articles. ("Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be specified in articles except in special cases." "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, such as introducing unwanted white space in read mode.")
 * Your examples only apply to your browser at your video width. Style issues and personal preferences do not translate universally to other devices which is why the MoS specifies that this should not be manually manipulated. Forced whitespace is very distracting to myself and others and we may have particular circumstances in in our personal abilities and browser environment.  Your presumption about style and output is very annoying. Miami33139 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your analysis, which is wrong. I've checked this situation with IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera under full screen and partial screen set-ups.  Despite the geek's preference for other browsers, more people will access Wikipedia with IE (out of the box, with no special settings) than with any other browser, and therefore this problem needs to be addressed.  You got a way to fix it, be my guest, in the meantime... Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, you need to bring your concerns up on the talk page for the manual of style. When we first discussed this several months ago, I was under the impression that it was specific to the Metropolis page and that it created significant readability issues, but that obviously isn't the case. I've reviewed your subpage regarding this, and there is nothing wrong when your HTML spacers are not used. Slight differences, nothing even close to being a problem. Numerous people disagree with you on this, as do the official Wikipedia styles. I don't think you're intentionally refusing to get the point, but this truly is a personal preference of yours, which is contrary to accepted Wikipedia formatting, that you're enforcing on a page by page basis. I'm not going to hunt all these spacer comments down, but I am going to remove them as I see them. Again, if you feel strongly about this then please bring it to a policy talk page. I sincerely hope that we don't butt heads over this in the future. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, this is incorrect, it has nothing to do with my personal preference. As the screenshots show, all these spacers do is present Wikipedia pages under Internet Explorer in exactly the same way they already appear with other browsers. That means it has nothing whatsoever to do with the manual of style. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no provision for HTML comment based spacing in the MoS, despite discrepancies in browser rendering. These spacers make noticeable changes to the white space in the page. If they didn't then I wouldn't have noticed the one, wouldn't have been bothered by it, and wouldn't have removed it. You're trying overcome slight rendering differences between various browsers on a page by page basis in a tedious way, instead of taking it the policy pages that define layout. If this isn't a MoS issue, then where does it belong? Do you really think the best solution here is to actually go through every article and add an HTML spacer? You have to live with the way the browsers work... you don't have to live with the way Wikipedia defines formatting. I don't see why you refuse to go to MoS talk. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your comments, which I will seriously consider. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy of a Murder
You put changed a reference so that there is a form error. Happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Stan


 * I think it's fixed now, thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:1 Cagney best 800 crop.jpg
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the Copy to Wikimedia Commons template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1 Cagney best 800 crop.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen external link section clean up
Thanks for cleaning up after me, I should have thought of it myself. Have a nice day! LA If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 08:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
As you uploaded The Godfather picture and no one has removed it, I also want to upload the picture of a film director (it is non-free) from a newsmagzine to illustrate the article....is it legal ? please tell...Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Final version
As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 22:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Toddst1 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice, it's appreciated. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Queen of the Gypsies
Hi there! Please make yourself familiar with current structure of film infobox before undoing edits. Parameters webpage, imdb_id, amg_id are depreciated, see Template:Infobox Film. It's also considered to be good manners to provide summary of your edits, except when undoing vandalism. Please also notice the correct usage of language template. Henry Merrivale (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with them, thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering
Was this a tongue-in-cheek reference to stage one of WP:GRIEF? No offense intended if I'm mistaken (and of course I know it's not your link or anything) but the similarity made me laugh. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would that it were, but it wasn't - I hadn't seen that page until you pointed it out. Sounds like it might be useful gag for the future, though! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Filmography
WP:ACTOR endorses the use of a table for filmographies, unless there is an indication not to - like maybe too few appearances. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, though I do wonder why he chose to number the films and didn't use rowspan to eliminate the duplicate film years. I'm going to ask him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Questionnaire
Hello, Ed! Hope everything is well. I was wondering if you had any interest in taking the WikiProject Films questionnaire? Your input would be greatly appreciated. — Erik (talk • contrib) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, I've posted my responses. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your time! I know that we probably seem bureaucratic in your eyes, but that's what we want to fix.  I know that you strongly advocate article-building.  I just feel like the WikiProject could make an effort to reach out and involve editors in a more communal sense.  My pipe dream is an editor being able to request help working on an article, and a half dozen people come by to chip in with their various skills. :)  Anyway, thanks again!  If you see any other film article editors who may not have participated, please let them know about the questionnaire! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Erik: It's not bureaucracy, per se, but a question of focus: I see too much time spent nit-picking guidelines and templates and not enough time spent editing articles. But who am I to speak?  These days I spend most of my time going through my watchlist, and very little time doing real article-building. *sigh* Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lancaster's children
Seems pertinent to me, but have it your way. I mainly objected to the completely unsupportable notion that the majority of celebrity's children marry the children of other celebrities. I know hundreds of celebrities in my line of work and can't name one whose child married another celebrity's child. I'm MARRIED to a celebrity's child, and my folks are complete unknowns. You obviously prefer the information about Lancaster's child marrying Kovacs's child not to be available to WP readers. I kinda prefer it to be available but won't get nuts about it either way. But your pertinence reason is way better than your "most celeb kids marry others" reason. Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The information would be pertinent in an article about either of the children (if either was in some way notable and deserving of an article), but unless someone can show some relevance, it's really not pertinent. (I wouldn't, for instance, object to a mention of Eugene O'Neil's daughter marrying Charlie Chaplin in the article on the playwright, because it's pertinent to O'Neil's life.  There's no indication that anything like that is the case with Lancaster's kid.  If someone's got info to the contrary, that's another story - they can post it and the situation's different.)  In the meantime, a celebrity's child marrying a celebrity's child is not particularly notable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Imitation of reality
Is it time for an AN/I report on this person? I left a very strong note on the user talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In a more perfect world, an ANI report would be justified and the obvious next step, but I'm somewhat less convinced that in the actual Wikipedia world we dwell in such a move would end up with the (obviously) proper result, the blocking of such a disruptive editor. It's just as likely to result in a slap on the wrist to him (her) and a warning to us to AGF, behave better, or whatever.  I've seen that happen much, much too often.  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Imitation of "it's life Jim, but not as we know it". Ed, I agree with your edits, choice of poster image and use of Beavers/Colbert image.  What is with this Claudette Colbert obsession?  It's always about her and her films.  I think we should AGF in the ANI process.  My GF for BS is sadly lacking.  I suspect a user check would reveal that this editor has been around for quite some time, and has already been banned.   It's very tiresome and clearly you have vexed him/her and have become a target.  I empathize as I've been in your shoes (assuming it is the same editor).   I'm not very active here at the moment, but I'll support your choice if you decide to go further with this or if you don't.  Rossrs (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'm up to my ears in the real world at the moment - editing time here is being stolen from the sleep I should be getting. Let's see how this progresses.  If it escalates, then pure self-defence will probably require some kind of response, and I'll just have to make the time to make that happen -- certainly, there is evidence galore in the editor's contributions to support a complaint. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Real life is taking most of my time at the moment. Of course, the fact that both images are now listed for deletion could be seen as an escalation.   Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I mentioned before about maybe checking the user. I've have a strong feeling that this editor has been using Wikipedia under about a dozen different user names for more than 2 years. I see his English gradually improving over time, but it is still idiosyncratic. The attitude is unchanged, and many of the articles edited here, and on Commons relate to Claudette Colbert or her films. He recently reverted a comment from Wildhartlivie, dismissing it as guesswork. "Guesswork" is a common enough word, but when you see it used in a similar context elsewhere, but with a similar incorrect context, it becomes idiosyncratic. A couple of edits using the same: guesswork and guesswork. He's called you a crazy film fan as if the fact that you are a fan of something negates your opinion. These edits were directed at me Vivien Leigh's fan = Adhesion anti, Vivien Leigh's fan = Adhesion anti, Vivien Leigh's fan = Adhesion anti, This article is being almost written with Vivien Leigh's fan. If you follow the convoluted path of editing across numerous identities, these editors are the same as some others who were banned for tendentious editing, and then further user names were banned as socks. Copying and pasting comments and being pedantic about images is another similarity. I uploaded numerous film trailer images on Commons. I "designed" a template for the image description page. Some editors, including "this one" copied it, that's fine - but when another editor challenged him on it, he immediately copied the warning message onto my talk page, and acted like a spoilt brat. If you read [Movie screenshots, you will see that it was almost immediately copied onto my page [Rossrs Commons - section 8 - Movie screenshots. Rather than try to defend himself he took the other approach of trying to take me down with him.   There's a bunch of stuff.  I can't prove anything, but I feel that it's the same person.   How many individual people would tendentiously edit articles related to a long retired actress in the same manner.  It stretches credibility.   I don't know how a check user is done.  I've never had anything to do with it before.   Someone told me in February 2007, to be patient and this person will wind down and move on.  Two years later and it hasn't happened, so it now seems unlikely.  [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that mentioning the similarity of the two editors would provoke someone to do a checkuser. Is there some way I can beef that up? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes to it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me, but as I said, I've never been involved in this type of situation.  I would hope that someone would think to do a user check, but I don't know.  It depends on the person who responds, and whether they see enough to look deeper.  Your updated comments should prevent it being overlooked.  Rossrs (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Imitation of Life poster2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Imitation of Life poster2.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Britneysaints (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Imitation of Life screenshot.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Imitation of Life screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Britneysaints (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Klink image
Hi! I was involved in a discussion about the rationale for fair use of the you uploaded. Rather than seeing it eventually deleted, I moved it to the Klink section of the Hogan's Heroes article. I hope you don't mind, but I do believe that the copyright police would have eventually caught up with that. §FreeRangeFrog 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to make a fuss over it, but I frankly don't understand the rationale by which the image is usable in Hogan's Heroes and not in Werner Klemperer. The image is, of course, under copyright, but a fair-use justification under U.S copyright law is just as valid for the one article as the other, as I understand it.  What is it, specifically, that prevents it from being used in the actor article? (This is primarily for my own information, I'm not planning on reverting or moving it back.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that the justification applies less to the actor's bio than to the article about the show, given that the screenshot portrays a character of the show, not the actor himself. In the end though, justifications shmustifications and all that, I just thought the image would attract less attention if it was in the show's article. I don't like stepping on other editors' shoes, in all honesty if you'd like me to undo the changes, just let me know and I will, no problem at all :) §FreeRangeFrog 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, let's leave things are they are for the moment. To be honest, three headshots of Klemperer in his article was probably a bit excessive. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Space in Girl article
Why is there a space in that article and why shouldn't it be removed? It's not that much of a big deal or anything since it's just a space and all but it would look neater if the space wasn't there. What is the purpose of that space? Zachorious (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. See User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor
The major re-arrangement is necessarily, notice Cassin and Downes being mentioned in two separate instances for the same information. Also, notice how the Japanese strategy and "waking the sleeping giant" is mixed in with the material damage inflicted. GoldDragon (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not discuss this here, discuss it on the article's talk page, and get consensus there to make the changes you want. If it's so obviously necessary, that should be no problem.  Please do not respond herr again. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:WP Kinsella photo.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:WP Kinsella photo.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Peripitus (Talk) 11:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. Curses to the clueless soul who came up with the ridiculous phrase "or could be created" in NFCC #1 – the catch-22 of that clause. I have an idea for a short story. It concerns a Wikipedia editor who has labored to create the perfect article about his idol, a publicity-shy writer who almost never comes out in public.  The editor finishes the text, but needs an image for the infobox.  After an extensive search he can not find a free image, so he adds a non-free image to the article.  Another editor comes across it and labels it for deletion, as the author is still living.  Our hero argues his case -- the writer is practically a hermit, he hasn't been photographed in his entire adult life, there's just no way that it's ever going to be possible to get a free image of the man -- all to no avail.  The closing admin deletes the image on the grounds that the author is living, and a free image could be created. Crestfallen and depressed, our hero goes off the deep end, and decides that the only way to get an image into his perfect article is to kill the author -- once he's dead, the non-free image will be usable.  He plans, and carries out, the assassination of his idol (forgetting, in his madness, that if he can get close enough to kill him, he can get close enough to take his photo), and is caught and brought to trial.  His lawyer has a novel "diminished capacity" defense, the so-called "Wikipedia defense", and presents to the court extensive information on the stress of editing Wikipedia, the outbreaks of incivility among otherwise polite people, the users who get kicked out and set up extensive sockpuppet farms, and the widespread acknowledgment that even the most balanced of editors need an occasional "Wikibreak" to stop the place from getting to him.  The jury finds our hero not-guilty by reason of temporary mental defect, and he returns to editing Wikipedia. Afterwards, a committee representing PEN, the Screen Actors Guild, AFTRA and an ad hoc assemblage of celebrities and near-celebrities petitions Wikipedia to remove "or could be created" from NFCC #1, so that non-free images can be used whenever it's shown that no free images are available, thus taking away the motivation for Wikipedia editors out of their heads to kill celebrities. (Just a story... no threat implied or should be inferred.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Question on 'Dr Strangelove (film)'
Hello Mr F. I see that you've taken a bit of responsibility for the 'Dr Strangelove (film)' article so I've a question for you. I have recently viewed the film again on television, however I would like to know where in the film is the B-52 crew referred to as "The Leper Colony"? I have seen several versions of scripts (many containing elements that were not filmed) that mention it, but at what point in the film is it seen or mentioned? The B-52 doesn't seem to have WWII type nose art with the name ala 12 O'Clock High. The reason I'm asking you is that you seem an authority and this may be some myth that has been started on the internet then copied and perpetuated. Thank youFoofbun (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just speed-watched the film again, concentrating on the scenes in the B-52, and I couldn't see anything that labelled the crew or the plane as "The Leper Colony". I'll remove the reference.  Anyone who wants to re-add it should have a citation to support it.  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
What is going on with File:Imitation of Life poster2.jpg? Wasn't the image that had the deletion discussion the version with the cream colored background? Since the discussion conclusion was keep, why is Britneysaints still trying to get rid of it, and what's up with the new version? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. The "new" version he has uploaded, is actually a poster I had in the article before the cream-colored one  -- but another editor, User:Hru692, objected to it and edit warred to remove it, all the while being unwilling to discuss anything (sound familiar?).  My battle royale with Hru692 ended when I replaced that poster with the one with just a picture of Colbert on it. My knee-jerk response was to revert BS's edit back to the poster that was there, but then I remembered the history, and decided to self-revert back to the other poster, which is actually the one I preferred because it was more colorful, and had images of other cast members on it. I think that perhaps BS (or should I say Hru692?) is a very confused person. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on the Leper Colony removal
Thank you, sir. I'm rather worried about the current trend that something repeated 5 times on the internet is true/gospel/fair dinkum. I'm greatful for your and other people's stewardry of articles!Foofbun (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I traced the information back, and it's been in the article almost simce the beginning. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:I Married Veronica Lake photo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:I Married Veronica Lake photo.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) 05:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:I Married a Witch screenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:I Married a Witch screenshot.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) 05:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Godfather ver1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Godfather ver1.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) 05:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien FAR
nominated J. R. R. Tolkien for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Pawnbroker poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Pawnbroker poster.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) 05:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Troyster87
An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad girl art
Please join the discussion on this article you have contributed to. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

James Cagney GA
Hey there, just thought I'd let you know that James Cagney has been promoted to Good Article! Thanks for all your help on this article! Featured article, here we come (eventually)! -- Ged UK  09:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Good Fairy cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Good Fairy cover.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) 05:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New Madrid Seismic Zone
Hey Ed! You deleted two images from the article because you did not see the relevance they convey. I have undone the deletion and re-inserted them. Here's why they are very relevant, although not of good quality. The images show how the location looks today where the Mississippi River was before the quakes. This is how it looks like now, after the big muddy river had changes course in the 1811/12 earthquakes. Where this tiny little creek is now, there once was a big river which had changed course and now flows in its new bed east of that location. The images are relevant to show the big change an earthquake can make in the geology. Usually, TN and AR are separated by the big river, due to the change, the old state borders are still intact and you can almost jump over the river from AR to TN.

You might refer to the article Reverie, Tennessee, which was put on the other side of the river after the quake, that is where the pictures were taken, the article contains a map that shows the before and after situation. I admit, it is complicated to describe the circumstances in a few words in the caption of the image, maybe you have an idea how to make the relevance clear in fewer words.

Take care and have a great day, doxTxob \ talk 04:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The pictures convey none of the information you just did, and, as such, they are meaningless to the reader. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)