User talk:Igenlode

Re: Jessie Matthews
I agree, I would not have thought that was her name either, i.e. Jessica Tandy was born as Jessie Alice Tandy. However, the name Jessica was already there so I assumed it was correct and used it. Feel free to change it back to Jessie, but make sure you do so in a consistent way. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sonnie Hale images
All good questions. The image used for Jessie Matthews is not a good example. I uploaded it, but upon reflection it's not within our aims to use images without attributing the copyright holder, although there are numerous images used in the same manner, which seem to have acceptance. I think the best thing would be to use an image where the copyright holder is known, and support the use of the image with a fair use rationale. If you find something you think would be suitable, I would be happy to help you. I would also like to apologise to you for the tone of the comments at the WP:ACTOR page. To be truthful, it was a sketch of Simon Baker that I found particularly unsuitable, and it just happened that I saw your Sonnie Hale image on the same day I saw the Simon Baker image. My main objection to the use of sketches is that they often don't represent the person equally to everyone who looks at it. For example, I thought the Simon Baker image looked nothing like Simon Baker and was therefore not useful. Another editor commented on what a good likeness it was. Some of the comments, including mine, were very unfriendly and tactless, and I wasn't thoughtful enough to consider how the person who created the image/s would feel to read such a discussion. I'm very sorry about that. Rossrs (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to stop and say hello and assure you that I haven't forgotten or ignored your message. I've been giving it some thought, and I've also been looking around through some websites.  I'm not sure what is the right answer to your question.   I think if a free image can't be found, the best option is to use an image with a known copyright, correctly attribute it and provide a suitable fair use rationale.   It's no guarantee that it would be challenged, because there are various interpretations to our fair use policy.  I've seen images deleted that I thought were fairly used, and I've seen other images retained on the flimsiest of rationales.   You can only do what you think is right, and do your best to comply with policies.  I'm certain you can't use the image in your user space and there are bots that routinely identify and remove those images.  You won't get into trouble over it, unless you make a habit of it, but the image would be lucky to survive more than a couple of days in your user space.   I'll give this some more thought and send you a comment if I think of anything else.   Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about those photographs. They're usable, but I agree that they're not the best quality.  The problem is that once a free image has been contributed, regardless of the quality, it can't then be replaced by an unfree one.  I suppose if you uploaded one, you could consider it an interim measure and hope that a good quality free image becomes available.  It's always possible.  Sometimes photographs are donated from collections and we end up with unexpected access to good quality images.  For example near the end of 2008 a number of Los Angeles Daily Times images were uploaded and I think they had been "handed" to the public shortly before.  (example)  There is also a school of thought that says publicity images were never registered for copyright in the first place.   For example, see the infobox image for Jean Harlow and the image description page for that image.  You might even wish to contact the uploader of that image for an opinion.   Mr Hale's family may indeed be able to provide a free image and it may be as simple as asking.  The copyright issue may not be muddy.  If it's a family photograph, it could be usable as long as they indicate that they are donating it to the public domain and that they hold no copyright on it.  Easier said than done, but it's possible.  Rossrs (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Kay!
Thanks so much for your edits to Oh, Kay!. I thought that the information that you added was very helpful. I kept most of it and streamlined it a bit to retain the most important info. You certainly did explain the reason that the song was moved, and your excellent explanation gave me enough information to conclude that the detail about why the song was moved is not really needed in the article. I also alerted another Wikipedian, User:MarianWilde, who has done a lot of work on this article, to look over what you and I did to see if she agrees with me. If she thinks that the detail should, in fact, be included, she will put it back in. But if you feel that I was wrong to delete the detail, simply write on the article's Talk page to explain why you think most encyclopedia readers would need to know this, and then we can all discuss what is best for the article. One of the most difficult things to get perfect in editing this encyclopedia is the relative weight to give facts in order to achieve the right balance. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I tried to give you a good response over at Oh, Kay!.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like User:MarianWilde retired from Wikipedia. Too bad!  In any case, go ahead with "Oh, Kay".  If you want to look at some high quality musicals articles for ideas, see Carousel (musical), Flower Drum Song, and Hair (musical) (that one does have probably too much stuff in it, but it's got lots of good ideas).  See our project guidelines at WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)