Archives

Archive from start to 8 Oct 2012

Hello,

I have a scrapbook from a Charlotte Miller. In this book is a page with Laura Devon and Robert Blake from the set of "Stranger" and "All the Comforts of Home" back in 1963...these shots appear to be taken from a personal camera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.215.210 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must be from episodes of "The Richard Boone Show", both actors were regulars. Jburlinson (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, needless to say, you committed no "misdeeds". Ridiculous. Cheers Tvoz/talk 06:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. There have certainly been some odd twists and turns on this long and winding road. Your contributions have been some well-judged moments of sanity. Best wishes to you. Jburlinson (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - sometimes I just shake my head and laugh. Tvoz/talk 17:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that we have an IRC chat room and you're welcome to come by! See the link for details. --Rschen7754 08:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you log in just now? Sometimes there aren't as many people who log in during the morning hours. --Rschen7754 18:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just logged in to check it out. Didn't really have anything to say, just wanted to peek in and see what was going on. Jburlinson (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your recent edits at Black people and Mormonism. The entire "Rationale" section that you added appears to be an original synthesis based on your personal selection of quotes from the primary sources. It's original research and we're not allowed to do that. The proper approach would be to identify the reliable secondary sources that discuss the church's rationale for the policy, and provide a balanced summary of those with only a very light reliance, if any, on primary sources. I think you ought to revert your recent changes and start over, with secondary sources as the foundation for the structure of your contributions, and making liberal use of the talk page to explain your approach and intentions. Please consider doing so, to forestall any potential conflicts or misunderstandings. (I recently read a solid academic paper on the topic but unfortunately can't recall exactly how I came across it—so if I can find it again, I'll post a link on the talk page in hopes that it'll be useful to you.) Thanks, alanyst 05:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations from Church leaders are rampant throughout the article, which even includes citations from the Book of Mormon. The "rationale" section is entirely in keeping with the approach taken throughout the article in general. Jburlinson (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of replacing/rewriting those parts too, with reliance almost wholly on secondary sources. That would help keep everyone from crossing the line into original research. I just posted the link to the article I mentioned, so that might be a good start for you. I know it's painful to discard the work that you've done, but I think a fresh restart would be the best way to make sure your own synthesis doesn't remain in the article. Best wishes, alanyst 05:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted the entire section on "rationale" but didn't touch a word of the rest of the article. This seems a bit one-sided. However, I've re-written the section using reliable secondary sources that make pretty much the same points. I will have to admit that the secondary sources do adopt a somewhat more restrained and less racially inflammatory tone than the primary sources. I'd be interested in working with you on taking a similar approach to the rest of the article, which suffers from the same reliance on primary sources as the first "rationale" section. I would think the following sections need to be revised along these lines: "Before 1847", "Racial policy under Brigham Young", "Young's personal views", "In LDS scripture", "Statements from church leaders", "Temple marriages", "Entrance to the highest heaven", "1880–1950", "1951–1977", "Racial policy ends in 1978", "Interracial marriages", and "1985 to present". Obviously, this will require a lot of work. I doubt that I can tackle all of this on my own. Would you be interested in divvying any or all of this up? Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't touch the article itself; someone else reverted it without my knowledge or encouragement. I do appreciate your willingness to redo the section with secondary sources, and I agree with you that it helps bring a more encyclopedic tone to the article. I disagree with you that the source I suggested is not suitable, but I'd be happy to agree to seek an outside consensus on that. As far as helping with the rest of the article is concerned, I'm afraid the bulk of my limited Wikipedia time is being spent getting Yasin al-Qadi under control. I'd recommend asking User:COGDEN for help; he's been editing for ages, knows his Mormon history, and is not an LDS apologist. You might also try User:Kww who has helped intervene in disputes on Mormonism topics. Either of these editors might also be able to refer others to recruit. I wholly support your desire to revise those sections though, and I appreciate your interest in bringing higher quality to the article. I might chip in when I can. alanyst 23:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the activity on the article and followed it here. This article has been bugging me for some time; I agree about the lengthy primary source quotes, and I've actually tried to cut them down a little. Rewriting the article has been on my to-do list for a few months now, but I keep getting sidetracked with other things.

Anyway, what I came here to say is that if you want a high-quality secondary source, All Abraham's Children by Armand Mauss is the best source I know of on this topic. It's a bit dense (kind of like reading a 277 page research article) but his research is top of the line, and he has helpful Conclusion sections at the end of each chapter if you prefer skimming. It's a little pricey on Ebay/Amazon ($33) but I'll bet you could find a copy at a library. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and guidance. I looked into Mauss' book and you're right, it does seem to be a good source. I appreciate the pointer. I might continue to make adjustments to the existing article, but, unfortunately, I don't have the time now either to dedicate to a thoroughgoing revision. I might ask for your advice from time to time, if that would be OK. Thanks again. Jburlinson (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you were getting hit with edit conflicts but I think I got like 5 of them today. So sorry about that if you were getting them. Also, just in case you weren't counting, I noticed that you're at 3RR, so you may want to tread carefully for a bit. Just a heads up. Thanks for being willing to talk it through on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you edited the Beatles mediation page earlier, you wiped out a comment I'd placed. When you get an edit conflict message you should check to see why it came up, as just hitting save on your version will erase whatever else had been edited in the meantime. Cheers. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 09:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm just pointing this out to you since you appear to have done the majority of fantastic work on the Bunuel page, but I have not gone back to see who added this photo. It seems to me that the person in this photo standing in between Dali and Lorca is clearly not Bunuel.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dali, Bunuel and Lorca.gif. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#RfC closure questions about Newyorkbrad's closure of the RfC about whether to use upper-case "The" or lowercase "the" in mid-sentence in articles about (t/T)he Beatles. You are receiving this message because you were involved in the mediation case that led up to the RfC. Some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the caveat in Newyorkbrad's close that "[t]he suggestion that editors should try to structure sentences to avoid unnecessary mid-sentence use of "the Beatles" remains a valid one", and the discussion is focused on how that caveat is affecting the editing decisions in Beatles-related articles. There is also the opportunity to discuss other aspects of the close should the need arise. Please see the points at the top of the discussion thread and leave a comment if you think it is appropriate. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jburlinson, this is just to let you know that I removed your comment at my talk. I can see how making a suggestion like that could help you blow off steam, but I think it was only making the atmosphere at the thread more tense, so I thought it best to remove it. Did you ever read WP:SARCASM? It's worth a chuckle, but there's a lot of truth in there as well. Let me know if you have any questions about my actions, or about anything to do with the thread on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. It's totally OK to delete my comment. I was out of line. Just a little frustrated that we seem to be in a reductio ad absurdem situation here. I have a question, though. Do you think that the current discussion taking place on your talk page will lead to a revision of the closure statement? I had thought that we had an agreement to abide by the judge's ruling. I'm not sure I understand how this controversy can be officially countenanced any longer. Once again, good to hear from you and best wishes for a happy holiday. Jburlinson (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only have a moment, so this will be a quick reply. I really don't know if this discussion will lead to a change in the close or not - that's really up to Brad. If Brad doesn't want to change the close, then the only other option is going to WP:AN. I've said a little bit more about this to Gabe at the main thread. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 01:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daisy Corning Stone Spedden, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article La Strada you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and for your willingness to review the article. Please let me know if you have any questions about it or would like to discuss. Jburlinson (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring La Strada to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is this your first GA? Thanks for taking on such an important film--whether it's your first or your seventy-first, I hope we'll see more like this from you! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar and for your excellent effort on the GA review. The article is a lot better now than when it started the review process.

This is the first article I've nominated for a GA. Due to some health problems, I have some extra time now, so I'm planning on working on the WP Core Film list in an effort to get articles out of "stub" and "start" class and into GA (or at least B-class). There are currently 22 "stub" class articles, so that's where I'll try to devote my attention.

Also, I was thinking of doing some GA reviewing myself, but am having a bit of a problem getting started with the recruitment process. An editor called Ed! has agreed to recruit me, but he seems to be very busy, so I'm not making any progress. I hate to bug him about it. Is it necessary to go through the recruitment process? If not, is there anything you might be able to recommend to help me learn how to do a good job as a reviewer? A self-study program?

Again, thanks. And best wishes. Jburlinson (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a GA mentor, too, and I'd be happy to take you on if you like. Ed's a super nice guy, and I'm sure wouldn't mind you switching. Up to you--you'll be in good hands either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm really excited to hear that you'll be continuing work on the Core Film articles. Good luck, and do let me know if there's any way I can help. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time to recruit me, that'd be great. It looks like Ed already has a recruit, so it might work better for him if he didn't have to deal with two at a time. You did a super job on the La Strada review, so I'm eager to work with you, if it'd be OK. Should I contact Ed to let him know? I don't want to be pushy, though; so let me know if you foresee any problems. Thanks.Jburlinson (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no problems. Do go ahead and drop Ed a few words letting him know that I can take you as a mentee (I'm certain he won't mind, but just to let him know). I definitely have the time. I'll set up a mentorship page for you in just a minute... more in a sec. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article La Strada you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:La Strada for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ТимофейЛееСуда: The five files are only orphaned because they were removed by editor Werieth before an NFCR was completed, or even started, for that matter. Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_37#Luis Buñuel. This is why images under consideration at NCFR should remain in place in their articles until discussion is complete. Jburlinson (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ТимофейЛееСуда: I now see that you have done a "non-admin closure" on these images. May I ask your justification for this action? You say that "Consensus is non-free images listed below fail WP:NFCC#3." What consensus? There have been only two or three editors total who have contributed to the discussion at all. How can you determine a consensus based on that? WP:NAC states: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous." I submit that there is controversy as to the merits of these images and it is not clearly unambiguous that they should be deleted. I challenge this determination. It is not appropriate that this NFCR be closed by a non-administrator. Jburlinson (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the top of the page of WP:NFCR, it says explicitly that discussions can be closed by a non-administrator when there is clear consensus. Consensus is not a popularity vote, but instead is a conclusion based on discussion merits. Plain and simple the discussion was backed by policy (WP:NFCC#3a & WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#1). Policy backed consensus is obvious. If you disagree with my closure process (not the outcome), feel free to find an uninvolved administrator and I am more than happy to work with them on this perceived issue. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screencap of film produced by Filmofono S.A.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of the staff of the MOMA film department, c. 1940.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screen capture from Los olvidados.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J, I hereby dub thee a full-fledged GA reviewer. Your work has been high quality so far and I've no doubt it will continue to be so; thanks so much for agreeing to volunteer your time here!

Here's my official stamp of approval:

This user was taught how to review Good article nominations by User:Khazar2 through the Recruitment Centre.

Cheers, and thanks for all you're doing and will do, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	GA Reviewer Cake
	GA reviewer cake is a rich chocolate concoction, soaked in rum, not available to the broader public. Enjoy! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jburlinson, I notice you're adding images to lots of infoboxes. This is fine, but could you avoid using the thumbnail template? It looks pretty messy in infoboxes. You should be adding the caption to the "caption" parameter. Regards, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. We disagree a bit about use of the template. I tend to prefer the way it looks because it ties the caption more closely to the image. Using the "capton" parameter separates the text from the image in a way that, at least to me, almost disconnects the two. Matter of taste, I guess. Cheers. Jburlinson (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a matter of using the template. Template:Infobox person#Usage specifically says only to insert the filename in the image field:

{{Infobox person
| name        = <!-- include middle initial, if not specified in birth_name -->
| image       = <!-- just the filename, without the File: or Image: prefix or 
                     enclosing [[brackets]] -->
| alt         = 
| caption     = 
}}

If you disagree with how the template is used, please discuss it at Template talk:Infobox person and seek to form a consensus for change. Until then, please follow the consensus on how the template should be used as set out in the documentation. —sroc 💬 07:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request of an editor uninvolved with the discussion, I have expanded the explanation of the consensus in the discussion that I previously closed. The discussion is: Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#Luis Buñuel. The consensus of the discussion, nor have my closure have changed, simply the explanation has been extended to include the individual images discussed. I am notifying you because you rightfully should be made aware when anything is changed regarding to a discussion you participated in. No action is required. As I have stated many times before, if an uninvolved administrator finds fault with my closure, I am more than happy to reopen the discussion. If a situation of that nature should arise, I will once again notify all parties involved in the discussion. Thanks for your hard work and happy editing! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for amplifying on the reasons for your closure. If I understand you correctly, however, in your opinion the entire issue is closed and no further discussion is possible. I object to this procedure. You, yourself, state: "First, the consensus of the discussion is that the article itself has too many unnecessary non-free files, and therefore fails WP:NFCC#3a. This applies wholly to the discussion, and individually to the images. There was no discussion if a lesser number of free images would be acceptable with respect to WP:NFCC#3a, simply that the status of non-free files prior to discussion was unacceptable." In other words, the individual images were not considered separately and they still are not being considered separately. They have all been deleted in an "all-or-nothing" package and there is, according to you, no recourse for any of them to be considered individually. This is unacceptable. I request that each image be considered separately, because a different justification can be provided for each of the images. In addition, any discussion that has taken place so far has been illegitimate, since the images were deleted from the article before the discussion even began. As a result, readers of the article who saw the banner concerning the NFCR would have no idea which images were involved, because they were (and still are) all absent from the article.

In addition, your closure as a non-admin was based on a supposition that the discussion resulted in a consensus that was clear and unambiguous, with no remaining unresolved controversy. This was not the case. Non-admin closure was inappropriate and a retrospective explanation of the closure with no opportunity for response is equally inappropriate. I'm pinging @SlimVirgin: to ensure that the administrator is in the loop. Thanks for working with me on this and here's hoping for a satisfactory outcome. Jburlinson (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Werieth: @ТимофейЛееСуда: @SlimVirgin: It turns out that the images from the film Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan are moot because the film is in the public domain, as confirmed by retrofilmvault.com. So I intend to change the data on licensing for the images using the Template:PD-US-not renewed. I'll have to decide whether or not to pursue some of the other images based on the amount of time and energy I have to devote to this. In particular, the screenshot from the Filmofono film would be good to include in the article and it's also probably public domain as well; but I'm not sure I want to spend $165 with the Library of Congress to verify this. The image from Los olvidados has its own separate justification, so I'll probably continue to argue for its inclusion on a fair-use basis.

I do believe you misunderstand the closure still. There was an individual consensus for each image, they each failed one point of WP:NFCC. In addition to individual image consensuses, there was an overall consensus that the article fails WP:NFCC#3a. I think you should re-read the closure and WP:AGF with my actions. I absolutely 100% do not care what the outcome is. This is why, as an uninvolved party, I closed the discussion. Please understand that I am not against you, the article, or the images. I am simply trying to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

In addition to this, I'm glad you have found some proof that some images are in the public domain. That means the system works. You were able to find information others weren't which allows the images to be used appropriately forever. I'm sorry you think you are being singled out, but you aren't. And the fact that you were able to find information to show public domain means that by initiating the non-free discussion, although the outcome of the discussion was not what you wanted, you took additional steps to give even more use of the images. There are no restrictions on the use of public domain files. As for the other images, I would not spend money verifying the copyright has not been renewed. There are users who are active at WP:NFCR who know locations to look for copyright renewal online for free. Maybe @Stefan2: or @Dianna:? I'm not sure if those editors are correct, but hopefully someone can help you. If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to reach out. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You can find renewal information here. The renewal should be 28 years after the film was published, but occasionally the renewal was made during the 27th year and occasionally renewals made at the end of the year appeared in the book for the following year, so you will have to search the "motion pictures" volumes for several year. Also note that the films from France, Spain and Mexico didn't need any renewals unless the films were published in the United States within 30 days of the first publication in France, Spain or Mexico, due to URAA. Therefore, all films from France, Spain and Mexico will have to be assumed to be unfree unless you have very exact information about publication dates in the source country and the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the beauty of Wikipedia. Within the space of single day, my re-adding these images has resulted in my getting a barnstar from one user, a demand from another that I load the images on Commons so that they can be used by everyone more easily, my being congratulated that I've helped make "the system" work because now they're in the public domain, and just now a notice that the images are again under embargo until I prove that they are also in PD in Spain or that someone showed the film in the US within 30 days of its release in Spain. This might prove to be a bit difficult, since the film was banned in Spain first by the Republican government and then by Franco throughout the decades during which he presided as dictator. I think I'll just waive the white flag and withdraw. It's been delightful. Thanks to all who make editing on WP such an invigorating experience. Jburlinson (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For you work transforming the Luis Buñuel article - what could be more appropriate?! Thanks for improving this important (and brilliant) filmmaker's article Loeba (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A surreal barnstar -- classic! Muchas gracias. Jburlinson (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! I notice the problems you're getting over using screenshots. I really sympathise with your frustrations - all you want to do is illustrate the article with his work and make it more useful, but Wikipedia is annoyingly strict with images (stricter than US law, which allows "fair use" for educational, non-profit purposes). It has driven me mad at times as well, I just can't understand why the rules are so strict. But please don't let it be enough to drive you off WP. The article is still great and very informative with or without the images. Surely you can find some that satisfy the fair use criteria, since Bunuel has several very famous images in his films (the eyeball slit in Un Chien Andalou, the "Last Supper" in Viridiana, the toilets round the dinner table in Phantom of Liberty...many more)? As long as the scenes are discussed in the text (with proof that they have been widely analysed), and you clearly link to this in the file description (and ideally the caption), you should be safe.

Are you going to complete the "Second French period" section? That's where most of his best films come, IMO, it would be great to see it expanded. --Loeba (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message -- much appreciated. Yes, I had planned to finish the Bunuel article with an extra paragraph or two about his Mexican films plus an expansion on his final period. I've run out of steam a little, though, and, frankly, all this bother about the images has discouraged me. It's all so subjective! When many of the remaining images are deleted, which is in the works, the article that will remain will be diminished severely. I appreciate your suggestion about some of the "iconic" images and might give them a try, but my experience with NFCR has not been happy and I dread having to deal with some of these people again. I have a strong feeling that I'm on "the list" now and can expect to face resistance on anything I try to do, especially regarding images. Oh well. I hate complaining, so I'm going to stop.

On a different topic; I have to say that your encouragement is especially meaningful to me because your article on Katherine Hepburn was an inspiration, demonstrating just how good a wikipedia article can be and how valuable WP can be to a reader. I had thought of contacting you to ask a couple of questions, but didn't want to presume on your time. So it's good to hear from you and hope we can stay in touch. Jburlinson (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a lovely comment. I must say, it's comments like that that make contributing to Wikipedia worth it. :) I'm lucky that I was able to add lots of images to Kate's page because she was American and their clause that anything pre-1978 had to have its copyright renewed means so much stuff is out of copyright! Finding usable images for anyone non-American is a lot harder, unfortunately. I completely understand your dejection though - images add so much to a page, and it's a real shame not to be able to include them. Just try as hard as you can to reconcile yourself to the fact and know that the text is the most important thing anyway (anyone can put "Luis Bunuel" or the title of one of his films into google and get tons of pictures, after all). I'd be very happy to help you in anyway I can! he's definitely one of my favourite filmmakers; still have a fair amount of his stuff to see (to date, I've seen 11 of his films), but I love his style and the messages in his films. He was a genius, no doubt. --Loeba (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want, I've had enough. Jburlinson (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever your want. I've had enough. Jburlinson (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screenshot from Las hurdes, tierra sin pan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screenshot from Las Hurdes, Tierra sin pan.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marie Dressler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Diamond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tal Brenev. I've recently left a message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force, in an attempt to revive the WikiProject. I will try to send a message to everyone on the list of participants, so as to get more suggestions and/or ideas. If you would like to participate, leave a message at the WikiProject Talk Page, or on my talk page. Thanks!

---Tal Brenev (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some how found your draft of Daisy Spedden Polar The Titanic Bear Wikipedia page and I want to say thanks and would be happy to help you, if you need any.

Cheers

Leighton — Preceding unsigned comment added by LHCiii (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good article review
Thank you, mystic opera lover, for quality articles and contributions such as La Strada and "surreal" Luis Buñuel, and for diligent inspiring good article reviews, trained by the chocolate concoction master, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 777th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 777 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddi Reader, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Douglas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daisy Corning Stone Spedden, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polar the Titanic Bear, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Laura Devon screen shot.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this cocktail of maintenance tags you placed at the top of the article, best practice is usually to write a talk page post outlining what the problems are and what needs to be done to fix them. In this case, a talk page discussion would be helpful because after looking at the sources in the article I'm apparently not seeing what you are. Sure, there are sources that could be improved, but looking through the citations I'm seeing lots of good secondary sources as well. Perhaps the best path forward would be to tag the sources individually, rather than have an ugly generic tag languishing indefinitely at the top of the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. To that end, I've started a section on the article's talk page labeled "Maintenance tags". I hope you will join in the discussion. And I also hope you will believe me when I say that my purpose is not Mormon-bashing. I was brought up a devout Mormon and I have many mormon friends and relations. As a result, I have a lot of first-hand knowledge about Mormonism -- I lived it for around 17 years, and I took it seriously, reading lots of Mormon literature and scripture. I no longer practice it, but I don't hate it. I am totally interested in making sure that the lay reader have access to reliable, unbiased information about the good, the bad and the ugly. The priesthood ban was part of the bad and the ugly; the reversal of policy was part of the good. --Jburlinson (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. I'll join the discussion on the talk page, and I'll try to help fix some of the problems in the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hang 'Em High, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Johnson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susannah York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quartet (play). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loves of a Blonde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Best Foreign Language Film. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loves of a Blonde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page If.... Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loves of a Blonde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Hatch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you wrote on the review page it should take you less than seven days to complete the review, I wonder if you maybe had forgotten all about it? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me longer than expected to review the article. I've done a preliminary review now. Please take a look and let me know if you have questions or comments. Thanks for your patience.--Jburlinson (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I really do appreciate you taking the time to review the article and I really intended to finish it with you. However, real life commitments have been draining me for energy and sleep the past week and I simply have not had the spirit to finish it. With that being said, you're review was very thorough and also very helpful. Once I have the time to submit to my Wikipedia addiction again, I will make the final changes and improvements outlined in your review. What I'm trying to say is that once that is done, the third GA-review of the article should be a walkover because everything is done. I'm hoping to collaborate with you then. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and Merry Christmas. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Sorry the demands of real life and the holiday season are taking their toll -- I completely understand how that can be. I agree, the article isn't too far from GA status; the third time will be the charm, I'm pretty sure. I may do a little editing of my own with a point or two in the meantime, but nothing to jeopardize my possible status as a reviewer for the next go-around, which should almost be a slam dunk. Best wishes!--Jburlinson (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luis Buñuel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Schneider. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a smaller pain and took some hours, but I've made the final improvements to Lives. I located the reviews and sources from Boy's Life and Variety as well as added a sub-section regarding the discrepancies between the movie and book from Reid's book. I believe that all the work is done now and that the article is ready to meet its third (and hopefully) last GA-review. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 02:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Loves of a Blonde you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Autograph signature of Mickey Mantle.gif.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure as to what the problem is. The image is used in the article on Mickey Mantle and has been for at least a year or more. I just checked, and it's still there. It does appear that there's been some vandalism on this article and a couple of editors have been going back and forth reverting the bogus edits. Could that have generated some sort of automatic message on the image file?--Jburlinson (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some Mediawiki bug, it seems... The article was missing from the "File usage" section on the file information page. I made a null edit to the article, and then the file usage section was fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Loves of a Blonde you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Loves of a Blonde for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Loves of a Blonde you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Loves of a Blonde for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for working on weird grammar issues that drive people nuts. HullIntegrity\ talk / 00:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since last time you reviewed the article for GA you said you'd be up to review a second nomination, I thought it was a good idea to update you about the status of the article. A few months ago, I expanded it with the info you said was missing, and it its currently undergoing copyedit to be finished soon. I'll nominate it shortly for GA, so if you feel like giving it another go as a reviewer, I sure would appreciate it. Anyway, just letting you know (of course, I don't mean to say do it - I'm more than aware that there's not always time for everything on Wiki).--GDuwenTell me! 19:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gene Raymond page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I address this to you rather than in the 'talk' space of the postings about the subject. No sense clooging up the more public space. I do so because you seem to be someone interested in the quality of Wikipedia. I do so also, because in your recent posting, you seem to make assertions about my efforts that had a tone of irritation. Don't wish that, but the postings about Spring Byington's sexuality are inaccurate, without foundation, and should not be on Wikipedia. Let me explain.

You note that there are a number of published references to her being gay. You note that as FACT. Agreed. It is certainly a fact that the publications exist and that certain words are used. But I have to ask whether you have actually read the same referenced publications. I have. In the references, the words used to describe her as being gay are words such as "ostensibly", "claiming", "widely reported", and "said to be". With respect sir, if you actually read the publications, you would know that these are the words used. These are words of speculation and gossip, not words of evidence or proof.

You noted that my postings were simply my opinion. That's not accurate. What I have done is note that the words in the publications offer no evidence or proof that she was gay. You have challenged me to prove that she was not gay, but a negative can not be proven. I have asked that you provide 'proof' as evidence that she was. I don't think that this is an unreasonable request, since the words used in the publications do not offer proof as evidence.

I do realize that Wikipedia relys on referenced documentation to support statements made, rather than personal knowledge. Don't disagree with that. But I can provide publications, including congressional testimony, that our government was behind 911. Does the fact that they exist make it true. Would Wikipedia accept that as valid proof? Don't say this to be snide, only to point out that there can be pulications that contain all manner of innacurate data. Simply being in a publication is not provable evidence. Equally, noting that a historian put the publication together says nothing about the quality of the publication.

I do realize also that Wikipedia does not accept personal knowledge. I understand that. Its the right thing to do. But I have to note that I was acquainted with Spring Byington and her sister for many years. I knew her background and interests. Now, I know that you would not accept my statements about her thinking or interests. Understood. Its personal knowledge, not in a publication. But I do have a fair amount of knowledge about the men she preferred and some of her relationships. Its just not something you would accept.

So, I respectfully request that if you or anyone wants to post information about her being gay, you do the due diligence and actually find proof of evidence rather than rely on words such as 'ostensibly' and 'claiming'. Those words don't prove anything. And without some sort of proof, the statements should not be made on Wikipedia.

Is that unreasonable?? Desert Habu (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Desert Habu[reply]

Would you mind opening the third GA-review? All you in theory would have to do is open it ... and then simply pass it as all your comments from the second GA-review has now been answered. Regards, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your additions of text for the late period...wonderful!!! But, one more big thing... I have put an addition to the link we have been discussing on the talk page (see my detailed comments there), recommending that we go to chronological order (rather than national order) for the sections covering 1954-1977. That is the last thing the article needs to ascend to the fullest level of greatness. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the new title headings for the later periods (see detailed discussion on talk page). I think that you will like them, but if you have any problems, let me know--I would perfectly understand. I brought up a few more tidbits there. But, those would be slight changes to what is, otherwise, a wonderful body of text. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	By the way, here is something to show my appreciation with your work on the Luis Bunuel article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you work on the Luis Buñuel extensively. Someone has linked the term "découpage" in that entry to the "cut-up" technique of experimental filmmaking. It is not that at all. It is a French term for planning the shooting of a film. Unfortunately, there is no entry on découpage in the English Wikipedia. If you search for it you are automatically directed to "continuity editing", but it is not that either.

Perhaps the link from découpage to the cut-up technique in the Buñuel entry could simply be removed.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pick your own (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Wayne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• characters. Not these weak queers."<ref>Scott Eyman. ''John Wayne: The Life and Legend''. 2014), p. 293.</ref> By the time of his last film ''The Shootist'' (1976), Wayne refused to allow his

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agnes Moorehead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eddie Fisher. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leopold and Loeb may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• would garner public attention, and confirm their self-proclaimed status as "supermen".<ref>Higdon (1975, pp. 150-54</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jburlinson, I am sorry but I had to undo your revision of Bernard Haitink. You standardized "Concertgebouworkest" to "RCO", but the point is that there was no RCO when Haitink was chief conductor. His departure in 1988 coincided with the conferring of the "Royal" title by Queen Beatrix. Since 1999 he is honorary conductor of the RCO. Hartenhof (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this which you might be interested. If you have any additional questions/answers to add, please feel free to do so. I hope to make a centralised FAQ with more questions and perhaps multiple answers from experienced editors. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hai, could you re-assess this film article Loham. Currently rated as C-Class in WikiProject Film.--Charles Turing (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot from Un Chien Andalou.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Playbill Cover for The Children's Hour at Coronet Theatre.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jburlinson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, commercial sites like this are not WP:RS. They've been previously removed from Dog Soldiers and related articles. Please do not re-add them, or other sites with essays or articles that have no reliable sourcing. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from The Trouble With Angels.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) 18:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not upload copyright-protected images of living persons under a fair use rationale. Images of living persons cannot be claimed under fair use policy as they nearly always fail non-free content criteria number 1, specifically "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." As long as it is possible that there could be a free image of the subject available for use, or there could be one available in the future, then fair use cannot be claimed for the copyrighted images. Thank you,--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from The Trouble With Angels.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) 17:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have negative intentions, what is the interest, in an international biography, to include a quote from an unnamed musician? In 25 years of work with the Montreal Symphony, one cannot summarize with a comment of the sort, even from the New York Times. Apparently this article was published without the opportunity of a response from Dutoit. In all fairness, these comments are malicious and should not appear on Wikipedia.Gabala (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Dutoit did respond to these criticisms -- he did so by resigning his post and citing the rancor as part of the reason. This is explained in the passage which you deleted from the article. I have reverted this deletion again. The information is reliably sourced and is germane to the subject of the article, explaining why a long-term collaboration came to such an abrupt end. This was widely reported in the classical music press at the time, and there's every reason it should be included in this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- not a collection of puff pieces. If you wish to dispute its appropriateness, please do so on the article's talk page, in accordance with WP policy. Thank you. --Jburlinson (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Jburlinson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this BLPN thread. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on the blog are just as acceptable as the original blog, which were posted textually in the Guardian. Please do not delete again.Petrov2017 (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect about this. Please see the section on the Dutoit talk page for my full rationale for excluding blog comments. Anyone who runs a blog knows that the comments posted by readers are unverifiable. I advise you to make your arguments on the article's talk page and not here on my talk page. If we cannot reach an agreement about this, we will need to turn to a dispute resolution process. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more details. I suggest that we try a moderated discussion on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Jburlinson (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your report at the dispute resolution noticeboard, not because you are doing anything wrong, which you are not, but because DRN cannot deal with an editor who has not discussed their edits. The objective of DRN is to facilitate compromise, not to force editors to discuss. My advice is to warn the editor who is persisting but not discussing, and then file a report at the edit-warring noticeboard. Thank you for trying to use dispute resolution, but the failure to discuss appears to be edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, it seems as though you are one-sided when it comes to editing of Charles Dutoit. Allegations do not belong in a paragraph of artistic achievements. Allegations are not accusations, therefore not proven. I am sure Wikipedia would agree with me on this point. Very best, Petrov2017 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The "lead" of any Wikipedia article is the first section of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section where there is a detailed description of what belongs in the "lead". It reads, in part: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." It is NOT a "paragraph of artistic achievements" -- it is a summary of the entire article. The allegations concerning Dutoit's sexual misconduct are a major part of the article and need to be mentioned in the lead. Again, it is best to discuss all of this on the talk page for the Dutoit article, so other editors can have a chance to express their opinions. Please do not change the article again until this and other matters have been discussed fully on the talk page. That is standard Wikipedia practice. Are you familiar with the use of the "talk" page of an article? If you're not sure what the talk page is, please let me know. Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mr Burlinson, I would appreciate your help. I see that you have been in contact with "Freshacconci" who succeeded in having me blocked yesterday, mentioning "vandalism". My edits were nowhere close to any vandalism and I suspect that you, as well as Freshacconci are against what I am posting. But before I take any further actions, I want to remind you that my edits are referenced, are according to credible sources (at least, as much as many that have been printed in error....I can send you a few by the Guardian in London that keeps mixing cities, instruments, events, etc...) So, as soon as I will be allowed, I will put back the prizes, honours, etc....that are real and referenced, even if you don't like it, and I will post again the newspaper quote that discredits one of the witnesses of one of the alleged "sexual misconduct". These are real and documented and there is absolutely no reason why you should dismiss them... Thank you. I am still quite inexperienced with wikipedia but will learn. Petrov2017 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling you might be new to Wikipedia and I can understand how frustrating it can be to want to contribute and to have your edits reverted and criticized. I would strongly urge you to learn the basics about how to work in the Wikipedia environment. One good way to do that is to take the online tutorials that are listed near the top of your talk page. Especially, pay careful attention to the module on "how to edit" and "citing sources." In the "citing" tutorial, for example, you will learn: "Do not use: Blog posts or Press materials intended to show something in a certain light." Personally, I have no problem with your adding information about additional honors, prizes etc. accumulated by Maestro Dutoit. Just add them to the section of the article titled "Honors" or "Prizes". As for the "newspaper quote that discredits one of the witnesses", if you're talking about the reference to the World Wide Socialist Web, I'm not sure that's the most authoritative source in the world and the reference is quite vague: it's not at all clear which accuser is being discussed. Also, there is a clear bias in that article, which, at least to me, invalidates it as a reliable source. Finally, one of the very most important aspects of Wikipedia is NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. All editors should strive not to let their biases affect how they edit. If you're a fan of Dutoit, well and good. I, too, have enjoyed his recordings, especially those with the Montreal Symphony. However, the fact that I like Dutoit's recordings should not affect how I contribute to his article. Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view very carefully: it is one of the most important policy statements there is. I wish you well as you continue to learn and participate in the wonderful Wikipedia project.--Jburlinson (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will look into the tutorial of Wikipedia when time allows. Soon. You speak of some sources I use as references: I believe this is also your POV. We are not here to discuss who is good or not....or reliable for that matter. Journalism is not what it used to be and writers don't check their sources anymore. So many mistakes have appeared recently in papers. Just look down, for example, at the woman Mary Lou Basaraba. Quotes are all over the place from so-called "reputable" papers. I intend to point this out when I am "unblocked". But what I am most interested in, since you are an "experienced" Wikipedia writer, is the attitude of Freshaconcci who has written about me: "intervention against vandalism". I would like to understand how someone can do this? Thank you.Petrov2017 (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a very specific meaning. Please read the article on Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information. Specifically, here's a quote from that article: "The unexplained removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." The key word here is UNEXPLAINED. You have repeatedly been asked to discuss your edits on the Dutoit article's talk page and you have never done so. This has probably led for other editors to consider your edits "vandalism". Using the talk page would be a sign that you are not a vandal but are trying to improve Wikipedia by using the various tools available to all editors. Let me make another point: we are here to discuss what is reliable. Please read the article Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for detailed information. Examples of non-reliable sources are reader comments to blog posts and material demonstrating a clear bias. I see that you have already started changing the Dutoit article in the same old way as before. Don't be surprised if you get a negative reaction from other WP editors and administrators. Once again, please use the Dutoit article talk page to discuss all this. Sending me messages on my talk page won't get you very far.--Jburlinson (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inner Sanctum Mystery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Poster for the film El, by Luis Bunuel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale provided for El (film)--Jburlinson (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Screenshot from L'Age D'Or.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of William Shakespeare screen adaptations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Barnett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Burlinson, I am re-writing Charles Dutoit's biography with some new details. I have added a position he has just been offered, with references, and given some information that has been misquoted in different newspapers. I don't understand why you don't accept this. Wikipedia has even written on Dutoit's page that the chapter on "allegations" is too long and should be condensed, which I will get to. There is also another mention from Wikipedia saying "tabloid journalism" is not accepted. For all people being accused of allegations, it is important to mention there is no legal action taken against them. Wikipedia is supposed to give the correct image of a situation. You do not help by reverting my edit. 96.20.91.120 (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the Charles Dutoit talk page to make your points. Do not simply post to my talk page. By posting to the article's talk page, you will engage the entire wikipedia community. This is how wikipedia operates. It is how to engage all potentially interested editors who want to contribute to making the Dutoit article better. I have repeatedly asked you to use the article's talk page. Why don't you do so? Please see the "Talk:Help" page at WP:TP. Read it carefully and watch the video. You will learn that use of the talk page is "the main way for editors to communicate with each other about improving and article." BTW -- "Wikipedia" has not written on Dutoit's page about the "allegations" section being too long -- a single user added this template late in August. This is only one editor's opinion. It too must be discussed on the talk page before any action is taken. It is NOT "wikipedia's" opinion. As for "tabloid journalism" -- The Guardian, USA Today, the BBC, the Boston Globe, and others are not tabloids; they are legitimate, responsible news media. I will continue to revert your edits until you engage with other editors and myself on the article's talk page.--Jburlinson (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry about updating the article with information about the St. Petersberg appointment -- I've already done that.--Jburlinson (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jburlinson, I've been working on expanding the article on the 1990 Experimental horror film Begotten via a separate "revision draft" (My usual M.O when doing mass expansion edits on articles) with the goal of getting it up to FA status. However, I have come into a bit of a road block in terms of acquiring sources for the article, I have a list that I posted on the revision draft's talk page which I need to use but I can't seem to fin them (they are literary sources after all). I was just wondering if you could either help me with that or other tasks with the article. Please let me know if you're interested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jburlinson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nathalie Baye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Concept album, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liederkreis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Luis Buñuel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Luis Buñuel you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Luis Buñuel for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg. 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) 19:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg. 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) 17:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Luis Buñuel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Luis Buñuel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations for the GA on the Luis Bunuel article. As it just so happens, last night I was watching Simon of the Desert, so it came at a good time! Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have recently made a request for an assessment of the article Puppetry of the Penis on WikiProject Theatre. I have been editing this article for over a month, adding almost 3000 words, new sections, an infobox, media and more references for verifiability. I noticed you were a very active (and helpful) editor of WikiProject Theatre, and was wondering if you had the time if you could have a look at the article and provide me any feedback. Any general feedback would be much appreciated and possibly an assessment of the article for importance and quality. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

I have rewritten your recent contribution to the Dali page. My concern is to avoid the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting a commercial enterprise. There is no need to mention Netflix. All that needs to be said for this article is that there is a television show called Money Heist in which characters wear Dali masks and that the Gala-Dali foundation objected to this. The sources you cited are also of dubious authority, being mainly entertainment websites repeating promotional material from the streaming provider. (You can go on the netflix media site and check this.) Unfortunately in this day and age we often get multinational media companies creating their own news and "global phenomena" (particularly when a new series of a show they are promoting is about to start) so any claims need to be fact-checked by citing authoritative sources (such as reputable news media sites). I read through your links and the one I retained was the most sensible as it questioned the motives behind the Dali masks and quoted some of the actors for their opinion on its meaning. Personally I doubt if there was any meaning behind it other than to find a cool looking mask inspired by V for Vendetta. (It's weird that the characters sing a Communist Partisan anthem while wearing the mask of a supporter of Spanish Fascism.) But my opinion is irrelevant: we need authoritative sources. If you disagree with my recent edit I would be happy to work with you to get some agreed wording. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your downright rudeness towards members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is disgusting and wrong. Your utter refusal to even try to engage is respectful dialogue is most outrageous. You have specifically been asked to cease and desist from using the name of an ancient prophet to incorrectly refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rudeness is all on your side, I'm afraid. It's rude to insist that people who don't share your beliefs are "unprofessional", "disgusting" and "wrong". Many, many believers (in all sorts of religions) condemn non-believers as "wrong". It should not be necessary or even expected that WP editors must accept your Church's proclamations in order to do a "professional" job of editing.--Jburlinson (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I see you harassed this user yesterday in addition to calling me a bigot. Please stop this trend of personal attacks. ––FormalDude talk 10:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bethel Leslie.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) 17:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at my article Fred Russell which is down in a long backlog for GA nomination? Do you have time (or inclination) to review it? You reviewed an article I contributed heavily to 3 years ago, Earl Scruggs. Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gran Casino film 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. --B-bot (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

It's very frustrating to me because the photo is very obviously not from about 1950, but from around 1980 or so. I suggest you look for yourself. How about simply removing the date from the caption or replacing the photo altogether with one with a correct date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.231.142 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As wikipedia editors we cannot base our actions on personal perceptions or determinations -- such things are considered "original research": "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Please see WP:OR for more detail. If you have a reliable source that supports your belief, please provide it. The image in question is stored in Wikimedia Commons and is considered public domain because "it was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice." If this is not true, then a reliable source should be identified that challenges the statement. And then, if it is indeed post-1980, the image would need to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia altogether to comply with copyright law. I, personally, have no particular love for the image, and I did not add it to either commons or the wp article. However, I also have no proof that it is not what it is purported to be. --Jburlinson (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, thank you for your GA review at Talk:Jans der Enikel/GA1. Can I ask if you are finished, and what happens next? As far as I can see, you didn't make any recommendations that require action from me. (I wasn't the nominator, but sort of have the article under my wing.) Not wanting to hassle you, since we all have day-jobs. I appreciate you taking the time. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done anything at these two reviews since January 1: Talk:William Chaney/GA1 & Talk:Jans der Enikel/GA1. I consider these two Reviews abandoned.
Also. You indicated in 2b for Jans der Enikel that "I added a couple of references where they seemed appropriate." but you did no edits to that article.
And. You indicated in 2b for William Chaney that "I added a couple of references where they seemed appropriate." but, again you did no edits to that article either. A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Two abandoned reviews about your abandoned Reviews. Shearonink (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have made no progress on these two reviews. I'm afraid health problems have seriously limited the time I can devote to a number of things, including wikipedia. Much as I'd like to pursue these reviews, it might be best for me to withdraw from the process, since I will continue treatments for the forseeable future. Apologies to all who have been anticipating a better response.--Jburlinson (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just get better and feel better. I can at least take on one of the GA Reviews - I figured something Real Life had come up for you. Come back when you can. Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my edit to Public Universal Friend. I had seen the talk page before editing, but I didn't see the consensus. If I had, I wouldn't have made the edit. Thank you for alerting me to itStephanie921 (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]