User talk:Easchiff

Archives

 * Topics concluded prior to Jan. 1, 2009: User:Easchiff/Archive1
 * Topics concluded from Jan. 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2011: User:Easchiff/Archive2
 * Topics concluded from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2014: User:Easchiff/Archive3

Citizenfour editing
You might like this. I thought of using it in the Citizenfour article but decided it was a bit too marginal. I still don't know how those awards panels figure out what the editor did as opposed to what the director did. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible for the voters for Oscars, etc., to figure out who did what with editing. Thanks to you, I now know that - just once - the editing of a documentary was singled out for an Oscar nomination (for Hoop Dreams). As far as adding that interesting citation, I'll add it to "Further reading" in Bonnefoy's article. This is just a placeholder for your find. I don't have time right now to revise the Citizenfour article to accommodate the new information. Since Bonnefoy shared the Oscar for Best Documentary, I trust that she's pretty happy anyway. Thanks for pointing the article out - cheers, Easchiff (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was a nice addition you made to the Bonnefoy article. One of the commenters in the Film Experience article pointed out that Woodstock (1970) also got a best editing nomination, so you might add a mention of that.  Separately, here is a discussion about film editing between Laura Poitras and Joe Bini that you might find interesting.  I'm appreciative of any help with the Citizenfour article, especially from the cinematic side which I'm very ignorant about.   50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Helena Wolińska-Brus
The Biography section is too short, it should describe her work. Now the subject of the extradition dominates the article. My English is too bad to edit the article myself.Xx234 (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article is actually about the case brought against Wolińska-Brus. I have been updating the references, which were incomplete and had suffered badly from linkrot. There's only a little more that can be added about her life. I was lured to this article because a character in the film Ida is based on her. Unfortunately, it may be some time before I can do anything about expanding the article. Easchiff (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Conversation poem
Hi Easchiff, Six years ago you asked for objections to your unreferenced assertion that Wordsworth's "Lines written...Tintern Abbey" is "generally agreed" to be a conversation poem. Only by you, it would seem, unless you have now written something accepted by academic peers on this subject. I'll also write to Lucy Newlyn, who is just coming up to retirement, to see if she agrees with this extension of a block of poems by one author into a Romantic genre. As of now, I'm objecting but wanted to check with you before editing the passage out. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I confess my memory on this is very foggy. I don't object to your rectifying any error of mine, and in particular you should feel free to delete unreferenced assertions. Or draw my attention to the specific passage in question, and I'll take a look again. Easchiff (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply and apologies for not directing you to this remark Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC) I just checked my emails too and got this reply from Lucy Newlyn: "I'm not alone in seeing 'Tintern Abbey' as the culmination of those conversation poems which went to and fro between Wordsworth and Coleridge in 1797-8 (evolving out of earlier ones by STC). I wrote about all this in a book long ago -- Coleridge, Wordsworth, and the Language of Allusion." So it seems the idea has academic backing, although "generally agreed" may be taking it too far! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Great that you tracked down a real authority. I don't recall writing the text about conversation poems that's now in the article, but in any case you should revise it to reflect your own research, and Newlyn's remarks. Good luck! Easchiff (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Danford B. Greene
I was looking over Oscar editors and one you did contribute to was Danford B. Greene, it seems that some were linked also to Danford Greene, which I just created a redirect for! Just wanted to point this out, make sure you look around for names like that. (One reason I have trouble with adding editors is that they have so many pages they might link to) Wgolf (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! Another editor created the article, which may have made me a bit more neglectful than I like to be. The fact that Greene had died recently didn't make it to the first cut of the article, so I'd wanted to fix that for sure. Also fixed that on de.wikipedia . Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Du erhältst einen Orden!

 * Schön, daß du den Artikel gewürdigt hast. Danke für den Orden! Easchiff (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

List of emissivity definitions
I saw that you moved the mathematical definitions of the Emissivity article to a new article List of emissivity definitions, which I think is not a good idea, since That is why I'm going to move back the mathematical definitions on the Emissivity article.
 * 1) The new article is hard to reach (without looking into the history of the Emissivity article I thought you had completely deleted the mathematical definitions).
 * 2) The mathematical definition of a physical quantity should always be on the main article (like in every other Wikipedia article), this is not a detail, this is the most important part.
 * 3) Every radiometric quantity article has its mathematical definitions on the main article so it breaks consistency.
 * Maggyero (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)me a


 * Thanks for your note. I'll try to continue a conversation about this on the article's talk page in a few days - you've caught me at a busy time. Regards, Easchiff (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Durham boat on the St. Lawrence
Thanks so much for the reference! I was given a copy of the image by another researcher who did not remember the source. Have been looking for it for some time. GullyWalker (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Access date
In this edit you updated the ref with an accessdate of 2015-08-25. I'm thinking you meant 2016-08-25, but I'll leave it to you to correct if that's the case. &mdash; Ipoellet (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, of course, and I've fixed that. Thanks, Easchiff (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Bad link on 'False-color satellite photograph of the central portion of Green Lakes State Park'
Ea Schiff, This portion appears to have a bad link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Lake_National_Natural_Landmark#/media/File:GreenLakesSPap04.jpg In the line that begins with 'The source URL is:'. and ends "Retrieved January 15, 2007." 2604:6000:D982:5000:251E:E42C:8FD0:A58C (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC) V/R DaH
 * I've added an archive URL for that webpage. Thanks for your message. Easchiff (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Greenough
Hi, thanks for your message; yes, I agree. I may not have noticed that there were that many citations at the time I looked at the article. Always good to have a second pair of eyes and to know more about DYK nominations. Thanks again.--FeanorStar7 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Committee for Jewish Refugees (Netherlands)
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Marfield Prize
Hello, Easchiff,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Marfield Prize should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Marfield Prize.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

 Onel 5969  TT me 17:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. I've re-incorporated this image into the film article as an example of the home media packaging for the film. Easchiff (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

familysearch.org?
Thought this was spam at first. Why link to a genealogy site? Is it really considered WP:RS? I couldn't find a record in RSN. At minimum it seems problematic per WP:ELREG. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 06:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I understand your concern. In brief: I try to incorporate the parents of notable people into their articles when possible. In this case, FamilySearch does have Joyner's parents listed; her published obituaries did not. As you note, FamilySearch is not considered a highly reliable source, although in this particular case the information there is linked to primary sources. Anyway, because FamilySearch is not considered generally reliable, I didn't give a direct inline citation, but included it in "External links". As a related example, for film articles we often link to IMDB in External links because the links are useful, even if the source is not uniformly reliable. I'll argue that we should give more leeway in External links than we'd require for inline citations or for 'Further reading'. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

File:VernaFields1975.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VernaFields1975.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:VernaFields1975.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)