User talk:Light show/Archive2

John Muir cites

Technically speaking, using the {{rp}} formatting style is acceptable; however, it's very rarely utilized and, to many users, a detriment. I personally find it confusing and unnecessary, and prefer to format my citations by hand. I've written 8 Featured Articles to date, and all of them are done this way. The main issue I see with its usage at John Muir is that the article currently mixes and matches styles, which is an issue. Citation formatting needs to be consistent throughout, which is what I attempted to do with my previous edits. However, as I stated on the article's talk page, many of the sources are missing pertinent bibliographic information, if the above warning is correct, there seems to also be an issue with plagiarism. Perhaps cite formatting is the least of the article's issues at the moment. ;)

If you would like some help with Muir, I would be happy to lend a hand. When FirstLight was planning an overhaul, I offered them my considerable Wiki experience, but it seems they're largely inactive now. Muir's article should certainly be a top priority, and I have previous experience with researching and writing FA-class conservationist bios (Bob Marshall (wilderness activist) and Robert Sterling Yard). Of course, Muir will need a lot more work than either Marshall and Yard, but it's doable. Just let me know, María (habla conmigo) 20:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to either place is fine, although I have less tendency to forget about a conversation if it's posted directly to me. I see you've replaced a majority of the citations with the {{rp}} style, so this is probably a moot point, but here's my opinion anyway in case you're interested. I personally despise {{rp}} and believe it to be, as I said above, confusing and unintuitive. Were I reading an article, came across an inline citation, and clicked the link, it would lead me down to the "References/Notes" section, where I would see the full bibliographic info for a work that's, let's say, 250 pages long. Of course I wouldn't remember seeing, in tiny print, a page number before I clicked the link, so I would have to scroll all the way back up the article, possibly forgetting where I was previously (especially if it's a long article with numerous citations, like Stephen Crane); by that time I've forgotten the biblio information, and so I scroll back down... ad infinitum. See the problem? With a typical, short-hand style citation, the "References/Notes" section is quickly followed by a "Primary/Secondary sources" section, which includes the full bibliographic info of each source. In a shorter article, there's almost no scrolling from one to another. I find this to be far more intuitive, since it's closer to academic sourcing that is found in books and journals. Again, this is just my opinion. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No scrolling is ever required with the template:rp with the "Back" key. I agree that for someone most familiar with regular hard-copy book and journal cites, it's less intuitive (at first), but for those used to the web, it's intuitive. It does not require either inline citing (author, page#, and with Muir, title), or the simple footnote that requires the reader to turn to the index and chapter, and then search, sometimes with ibid. Once the online reader knows that the number next to the footnote is the page#, then citations are 1-click both directions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Vampire article

Since you are the one making the actual change, you're the person who should bring it up at the talk page first, not the people reverting you. Especially considering the fact that it is a featured article, and it's the very lead you are trying to change.

Mythological implies just that - you don't know - hence using the word "fictional" is counterproductive. It is very much POV, as is calling the demons, which Stoker drew from, "imaginary". Do you call God, Satan, Kali, Pan, etc imaginary as well? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to Bram Stoker for multiple references to the fictional nature of his work. The terms "fictional" and "mythological" were cited terms from impartial sources, whereas "legendary" was not cited and is vague in any case. A "feature article" can still benefit from clarity and further improvement. I've added some more background to the Stoker article also.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Bram Stoker has little to nothing to do with the mythological or folkloric vampire. Even the modern version he helped inspire owes far more to Murnau, Universal, and Hammer than anything actually in his novel. The stuff on Stoker is more confusing than clarifying.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kiss

I suggest you to explain your reasons before deleting other users' work, instead of inventing non-existing rules. Thank you, Nemo 11:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, and you may be interested in reading Dmitri Vrubel and WP:OWN. --Nemo 11:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a detailed, but brief, explanation of the problems when it was removed on Nov. 10. It still has the same problems stated before. However, since you want a fuller discussion I'll add some more on the article talk page so others can give their input and to avoid any WP:OWN issues which are not intended. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

3rr Warning on Roman Polanski

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Roman Polanski. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They were discussed on the talk page. As a prior deleter yourself, you stated that there was "consensus" supporting your reversions. However, you have failed after a direct request, to provide any such proof of consensus to your edits. Playing the 3RR card does not substitute for backing up statements. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski POV tag (Talk page NPOV dispute topic?)

Question: Do you intend to create a Talk:Roman Polanski topic as support/adjunct to the tag (or add subtopic to last one)? (Or are you implying the discussion for that will be at WP:BLPN)? I ask, because there has been much contention regarding POV tags, and WP:NPOVN states there should be a talk page topic created for the tag. (I understand you've given your reasons elsewhere on the page, but they should be stated in NPOV dispute topic). Proofreader77 (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX on Polanski

The flag "visible=yes" means a comment on the page is made visible, not that the page is visible in search engines. Why did you remove flag? Proofreader77 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how they got removed. I only added the bottom reply. That's a strange one! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikigremlins! :) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Did you get an edit conflict warning? (Looks like what might have happened. And yes, sometimes there can be a glitch and not get warning if timed "just right.") Proofreader77 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there was nothing unusual.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edit undid my flag change and Rossr's last comment, while adding yours. (Probably not what you meant to do. :) Don't know why you didn't get an edit conflict warning, but such is technology at times. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there were no closely-timed edits around mine. And that noindex change at the top is far from the others.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's your edit that undid my flag change, undid Rossrs's message, and added yours. That would happen if you had the window open to edit before we made our edits, and then you saved your message. You should have gotten an edit conflict message. Don't know why you didn't. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Will cite it in a future Wikey's Believe it or Not article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Polanski - slow

You have arrived and taken many actions in haste. I respectfully request a bit slower would be more fitting the circumstances (i.e., given the past two months). Proofreader77 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask you respectfully to slow down and "get the lay of the land." We will get the article to FA status in future ... I have already suggested on the page to try to get it from B to A. In good time. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The article, IMO, is going in the opposite direction from B, and is no longer a "B" article by any BLP criteria as stated clearly in the discussions. I have seen no attempt by anyone else to improve this article as a bio., something I'm at least trying to do. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dear wikiwatcher1: You continue to rush your interpretation of BLP into implementation, ignoring many editors balancing of POVs on this. Clearly you believe your interpretation is correct, but your actions are presumptuous given the givens of the past two months (and ongoing). Please take pause to consider all ... especially during the holiday season. (I have seen gracious acts in the past two days. Let there be more.)

  Note edit conflict): There are many reasons the article is in stasis - including issues to resolve. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's more in a state of rapid and accelerating decay, not "stasis." It's becoming a clear subject for WP:AfD as every attempt to bring it to standard bio format is being actively blocked. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonas Salk

I posted on the Jonas Salk talk page. I noticed a couple of photos are scheduled for deletion. I think the photo of the poster child and the one of "Thank you, Dr. Salk" are both too important to be deleted. They accurately represent the zeitgeist, the strong emotions related to polio. To keep the photos, I am working on tracking down the source and ascertaining if they are both now in the public domain, and if not, I will work to get permission. Is there some way to put the deletion on hold for now? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Whew! Glad to hear it. Thanks so much for responding.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic, new WHO press conference now available

Hi Wikiwatcher1,

The audio and transcript for the weekly WHO press conference (today's conference Dec. 3) is now available.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/multimedia/swineflupressbriefings/en/index.html

Cool Nerd (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Time permitting, I will try and post a response regarding the length of the article.

ITN for Paul Samuelson

On 14 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Paul Samuelson, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

That was impressive, thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it's OK. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you get File:Samuelson1950.jpg from the net? If you did, could you add the address to the file summary? --BorgQueen (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reminder. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nudity

Do i see a nipple [1]? Unless i'm hallucinating. Zexial (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Film studio publicity shots

Advice on how to establish non-renewal of copyright would be useful to User:Woogee in this discussion at WP:MCQ. Jheald (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bergman

I'd be glad to. Thanks for asking. You might want to ask Rossrs too. He's interested in this article and is usually prone to giving well thought out, intelligent commentary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism

Could you post evidence of the plagiarism you say you've found at War? If it is indeed plagiarism we need to remove the material and warn the editor(s) who included it. Fences&Windows 11:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But I haven't watched the article over the last month since the problems were noted on the talk page, so I'll get up to date. In the meantime, could you add your request to Talk:War#Possible plagiarism so others can review comments? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK! The whole article is a wreck, btw. I posted to MilHist to see if anyone wanted to revamp it. Fences&Windows 01:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bram Stoker

Hello Wikiwatcher1. This edit [2] that you made to the Bram Stoker article has come into question. The research that I did this morning (short of spending $200 bucks to buy the "1988 Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual" from Amazon) confirmed that the info is legit. There was a slight discrepancy in the total number of manuscript pages between your original post and the item that I found about it, but, I think that there a several explanations for this. I have changed the total to match the source I found. Feel free to change it back or, perhaps, add a footnote explaining the difference. If there is any info that you would like to add to this section on the talk page Talk:Bram Stoker#Found in a barn in Pennsylvania please feel free to do so. Thanks for the research in your original edit and for your time in reading my post here. MarnetteD | Talk 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yonatan Netanyahu

bad move. You should discuss these things first. And FWIW, you're not supposed to move articles by copy and pasting. This removes the whole editing history. --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. That's why I waited a day after posting a suggestion on the talk page. There were no comments. Hopefully you can comment there with rationales. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bergman

No, it was deleted [3]. The bottom line here is that the statements are source and the IP seems to have no issue with using that book to reference everything else it references, so he has nothing to stand on in disputing this specific fact, unless he has a prejudice about Jewishness. Nothing to support his view or the removal of the content. In fact, it's sort of tendentious, isn't it? I'd tend toward opening a WP:RfC about this and if the IP continues, take him to AN/I or WP:3RR about it. The content is validly sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be simpler to just insist that they respond to the Talk before any more similar edits, since they cover the issues. Unless they provide some valid rationale, besides a personal opinion, there seems to be no other choice but restoring well-cited material. I put that in the Talk last time. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting during an RfC

Please refrain from reverting while an RfC is in progress. It is very bad form and shows bad faith. You have been reverted by 2 different editors. This shows your edits are disputed and you need to get a consensus for them before implementing them. This is how we do things in wikipedia. You seem to have been around long enough to know that. Athenean (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Please read WP:Edit warring. You appear to be edit warring on at least two articles. If this continues I will raise the issue either at ANI or the 3RR board, whichever seems appropriate. Note that I am not referring to the 'bright line' 3RR rule.I will of course not block you myself but will simply bring your edits to the attention of other administrators. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Avey, Denis.jpg

Thanks for the note. The primary reason that this was deleted was replaceability: Avey is still alive, so it's reasonable to assume that he might be photographed by someone would could license the image freely. We've made exceptions for a few people who are extremely hard to find — the nonfree policy specifically permitted this image to be used at J. D. Salinger even when he was alive because he was amazingly reclusive. However, I don't see Avey as being in this situation. If you disagree, you can ask me to clarify my reasoning, or you can file a request at WP:DRV, where others may disagree with me and overturn the deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Garbo comment

I really liked your comment here. The same is true of the Mae West article, particularly the main portrait in the info box. It is almost scandalously trite. Any ideas? SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to find something better, PD, and upload it. Should have something by tomorrow. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful photo! Can it be uploaded to Commons for use elsewhere? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you might want to wait a week or so in case anyone has any questions. But it can still be used anywhere in WP now. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to use it here for example unless it can be found at Commons. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

After a week it would be OK to copy it to the Commons. You can also tag the image and an admin or other editor can make the change. That's the way I've seen it done before. Although I'm surprised that Garbo hasn't been transferred yet. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you help with this now, or should I ask an administrator at Commons? SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already tagged to be put on the Commons, so yes, you can ask an admin to move it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad news! Any ideas on what to do now? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll add some thoughts to the discussion there. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kinski

Glad you added a source, but that source seems a Wikipedia mirror. Debresser (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the source later on in that same paragraph says clearly "Quincy Jones, who she lived with for four years until 1995". So I updated the article. I hope we are both satisfied now. Debresser (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I Wonder

Wow -- I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

I don't think the image is inappropriate for the article. You wrote "circa 1960" but the photo, obviously, was taken at least three years earlier. All the shots on her page are from her teenage years. The woman lived to be 43, can't we at least find a picture of her in her 20s or 30s?Closeminded8 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The photo was a film promo, taken in 1960. It fits well with the text. But feel free to find any other images and add them also. The other material you removed, could have been rephrased, as they added valuable insight. Please try to add sources when making changes, as they were done based on your own information. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked, obviously, but the photos are disasterously inappropriate. Jane Fonda and Ali MacGraw, both older than Natalie Wood, have way more recent photos on their respective pages than from their teenage years! And since when is it necessary to list how long she was married to someone in the lead paragraph? It can be calculated from the infobox. I tried this on Sandra Bullock's page, and Wildhartlivie reverted it saying "it can be calculated". The same should apply to Wood.Closeminded8 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Splinternet

The article Splinternet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CosmicJake (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Paulmuni still.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.

Hello, Light show. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious

I was wondering what is wrong with File:Natalie Wood, 16.jpg that it needs to be removed? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know we can find much better early career photos. This one looked like a brownie snapshot, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's interesting. It isn't posed, it's a candid shot. Also, be aware that probably a good 90% of content on YouTube violates some portion of copyright law. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a candid. But it seemed that the replacement image was more interesting, in that it came from her first major role which made her a child star. It struck me as more significant in the bio than the candid. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Janis Joplin

Erm, that image you uploaded is a really great photo, but it is actually the cover art for the Farewell Song album. It is one of my favorite Joplin albums and it is sitting on my album shelf. It's got a rationale for use only on the album article and WP:NFCI precludes its use for identification. The one you uploaded is a duplicate. Just thought you should know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too, as a favorite album. The photo came first and was used by record company for the cover. That was typical on a lot of records. The original is at the R&R HoF, and they show it here, a much better original. I think with the legacy material citing them, their photo should be OK. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dalai Lama

His paradoxes are due to complexity when scaling up systems, especially We have more degrees, but less sense; More knowledge, but less judgment; More experts, but more problems. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright question

You recently uploaded File:Mae West LAT.jpg as being in the public domain as its copyright was not renewed. Does the book indicate that its copyright was not renewed or do you have any other reason to believe that the L.A. Times did not renew the copyright? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, from going through old printed copyright records and from more recent records online, I don't recall seeing any newspaper ever renewing a copyright. In fact, most newspaper copyrights came from their common law protection that they got from having the copyright notice in the original paper, but that was it. I actually did a random survey for my own curiosity of the percent of books and magazines that had a renewal filed. It came to 5%. That 5% was for the publications that actually filed an official copyright notice, and wouldn't even include the many newspapers and magazines, etc. that relied on common law.

As for the source of the photo itself, it supports that fact. The book states that most of the photos it included came from old negatives and from a massive amount of archival photos going way back. The kinds of news photos that had renewal, or even official, copyrights were photos of major historical events, like the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald getting shot, etc. - headline images. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that many older photos were not renewed does not presume that all older photos are not renewed without additional supporting evidence (such as that you've provided for the promotional stills). I also know for a fact that, for example, the New York Times renewed copyrights (see here). I'm currently trying to figure out what name the L.A. Times registered their copyrights under in the 50s so I can search for renewals and see if they renewed anything. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so apparently Times-Mirror filed copyrights back in the twenties and while they renewed books and the like, they didn't start renewing the newspaper until the 1958 issues, per http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html. Would you mind putting some reference to that page as evidence that the copyright wasn't renewed or shall I? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You can do it since you did the research. Good job. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've made a note, but apparently someone at commons has some other concerns (in particular that it might not be an LA Times photo) which they've voiced at the talk page there. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that File:MaeWest still.jpg was tagged for PUF, but didn't see that you were ever notified. Thought you should have a heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Farewell Song

I will have to hunt out my albums and take a look. Do you mean something like a photographer's credit? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably something descriptive about time and place, to allow some commentary along with a photo.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I went to add a comment and the section disappeared. I left a new section comment and was informed to check the archives. I am pretty new at many things but it dissappeared in the middle of a edit with no comment on a move or archive. If you would be so kind as let me know about this. Otr500 (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Hello WW1 and thanks for your comments on my page—I'm glad that I didn't do too much of a hatchet job trimming the entry. You added a lot of valuable detail and also some good sources that the article needs—very well done. You're right, the Personal life section could use some retooling. I'm not sure how to go about this, as I feel that the entry as a whole still speaks in different voices, but reworking this part may be a start. PS was a complex individual, and perhaps it's only fitting that his entry requires a lot of work. I cannot commit fully to this, however, as I increasingly get to spend less time on WP, but I'll try to get involved, render opinions, as much as possible. Thanks again. Malljaja (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll try to put some effort into it, so feel free to rephrase as needed. Thanks for commenting. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Moses

Hello. In April, when you added the quotation section (which really belongs in WikiQuote, not in the article) you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [4]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 00:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll find some better sources and add the cites. Thanks for the heads up. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I replaced a source used in Elia Kazan with the original news story they took the text from. It's not only Wikipedia they copy from! Fences&Windows 23:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There were a few others which I noticed and just replaced them with accurate ones.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cease your vandalism

This is your formal notice that I will post a complaint against your vandalism if you do any more of it. Our prior dispute (the one you launched without first discussing it with me) was resolved against you. Your deletion of my valid Variety obituary citations for famous people is unconscionable and indefensible.

I am restoring the Variety citations you deleted. They are the first step in adding more facts from the Variety obituaries to the pages of those entertainment celebrities.

I sincerely suggest you use your energy for something constructive, such as contributing facts to the pages I have cited. The Variety Obituaries reprints are out of print, but since you know about Amazon, I suggest you buy the books there, as I did. Since I have a few duplicates, I’m willing to send you one if you promise to use it to contribute facts to Wikipedia.

Finally, it is my sincere hope that this settles our previous disagreement. Ask yourself how you will benefit from an edit war with me or anyone else.Aardvarkzz (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

None of this, as you well know from the ANI discussion, is vandalism. I was trying to correct apparent Citation spamming. Nor was it "resolved," by the discussion - it was simply avoided. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, before adding more Wikilinks to articles like William Randolph Hearst, you might want to take at least as 1/2 second to make sure there isn't a "Death and legacy" section with actual cites, such as "The King is Dead". You've already added about 1,000 wikilinks to your article, Variety Obituaries, and you're only up to the letter M. It might save you some work. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I take some of the suggestions made to me by Wikipedians, such as yours about seeing if there’s a better place for the Variety obit citation than at the top. In most of the latest ones (such as John Marley, James Mason, Raymond Massey, Louis B. Mayer and Leo McCarey), I have put the citation in proximity to the sentence dealing with their death. That is something you could have suggested without launching a complaint against me.

However, you moved the Variety citation for Charles Laughton to the end of the sentence, “The cremated remains of Charles Laughton are interred in the Court of Remembrance courtyard, at Forest Lawn - Hollywood Hills Cemetery in Los Angeles, California.” It’s unlikely you read Laughton’s obituary before moving the citation because the obit does not state where he is buried. Accordingly, I moved back where it was previously — next to his occupation and death date, the usual place I park the citations, because the obit does state those things. Later on, I will move many of the citations to better places.

I happen to have the Variety Obituaries volume for 1957-1963, and well as most of the other volumes of that series, which has been discontinued and is out of print. Amazon isn’t the only place those books can be bought nowadays, but it’s one of the most likely places. When I won several volumes by bidding on eBay, some of them duplicated books I already had, which is why I offered to give you one. You can email me if you still want it; I’ll just charge you for shipping by media mail.

One other Widipedian expressed concern to me (not to Wikipedia) that my citations didn’t have page numbers, so from that point I included page numbers from the magazine where I’m able to determine them, even though I have none of the weekly magazines that far back. Virtually everyone who uses the citations will look up the obituaries in the reprint books. The citations I have restored, as well as the latest ones, are “reusable,” which will make it a lot easier once I begin putting facts from the obits onto Wikipedia pages. There’s nothing to keep you or anyone else from doing that except for lack of access to the original magazines or the reprints.

My bookshelf has one of the most substantial privately-held collections in movie reference books in the world, and most of that information is not online. The NY Times Film Reviews is among the few exceptions.

You think I’ve “already added about 1,000 wikilinks to” Variety Obituaries. You could use Special:WhatLinksHere to count the exact number. I haven’t done so, but my guess is around 200. If you make the count, let me know whose estimate is closer.Aardvarkzz (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer - that's very generous. I'm just trying to keep the leads free of unneeded cites, especially for basics, unless there are no obits already cited in the body. Most actor articles already have links directly to IMDB, which gives the birth and death dates. Your collection sounds like a great potential asset to a lot of actor-related articles. If you come across any source info to support an actor list like this one, adding them would be a real improvement. Let me know, also, if you see any actor-related articles that need fixing, and I'll try to help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Julius Weiss categorization

Do we have evidence that Weiss actually composed anything, let along ragtime?

Perhaps Category:Jewish American musicians would be safer. Or Category:19th-century musicians. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he would fit the "musicians" label, but was likewise unsure what category to use. I'll do some more checking, but let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you found the right category. I agree that Category:Music educators fits here. Thanks, --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Funeral guests

How is it relevant to list a group of actors, almost all of whom were 20-40 years older than her, that attended her funeral? It already says there were thousands of people. I don't see why we need to specifically list those actors. They have nothing to do with her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.180.103 (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I already answered those questions on your talk page, but you decided to delete it instead of commenting. Are you interested in monologue or dialogue? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thorium

Hi Wikiwatcher, the thorium nuclear fuel part is overwhelming the rest of the thorium article. As there is no thorium fuel cycle, no thorium breeder reactor working and most of the thorium mined is deposited as unwanted material it should not be the main part of the article. Most of the research done for the thorium fuel cycle looks more like a advertising campaign from the nuclear industry. For me it is not clear that there will be a thorium fuel cycle ever. Up to know we had an abandoned test of the fuel cycle which looked promissing, but was never started. All the breeders were small and more tech demonstrators than real power plants. The only country trying to use thorium is india and they do not have a real fuel cycle jet, so all these applications point to the future. I would suggest to transfer a little more of the article into the subarticle Thorium fuel cycle.--Stone (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It does look out of balance at this point. I'll trim and relocate some of the news-related items, but feel free to edit. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I already trimmed the lead. You added a lot of the content and so it looks always a little unfriendly when you move a lot of the content to a less prominent article with only a few readers. --Stone (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing Commons files

Hi there Wikiwatcher1, just a note, if a file is being hosted at Commons, it should be categorized there, not here on Wikipedia. Categorizing images here makes the page eligible for speedy deletion under F2. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

polanski

Hi, you just beat me to that edit, I was going to make the exact same one, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Irving Berlin

Are you stalking my edits or something? If you continue to just undo revisions instead of correcting them, don't bother. Are you offended he was Russian or something? It has nothing to do with national pride, I'm not even Russian, but he was born in Russia and spoke both Russian and Yidish. You previously said him being Russian had nothing to do with his biography (Genius assertion) because there was not an element of Russia in his career. I guess, Al Jolson, Louis Mayer who were the highest paid entertainer and the highest paid movie executive, respectively, have nothing in common, right? Their upbringing had everything to do with who they became, there's a reason Russian Jews established "professional" Hollywood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.128.144 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were all on my watchlist since I worked on them previously. They were reverted since they were all incorrect, as noted in the summaries: In general, you changed or added names of persons and countries of origin without a source, and which contradicted the same details in the body text and the infobox. You incorrectly deleted basic facts about nationalities. For some, even your unsourced additions were spelled differently in different sections of your own edits. Note also that your changes were all done this way to the lead paragraph of significant biographies. Since you just started editing Wikipedia (I assume,) I'll add a template to your page to help out. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the source info for much of those articles was in itself terrible and speculative. Just because you publish information from a source that is published, does not make it correct, ie conspiracy books. You are the one who is incorrect about nationality and names, since you do not have an understanding of geopolitics of those times. Calling any one of them Ukrainians is erroneous, as none of them spoke Ukrainian or embraced and part of the culture. They spoke Russian and Yiddish, and later English. Origin is inconsistent with other pages on wikipedia, ie Yul Brynner's page. You can say these people did their work and prospered in America, which they did, but trying to make their origin vague is simply bias. Louis Meyer and Jack Warner were the most famous studio heads of that era, even all time. They both were Russian Jews, is that a coincidence? David Selznick was born here, but his father was from Russia, and he is lauded as the greatest movie producer who lived. According to you, if I were a german born in Gaul during the time it was part of the germanic empire, I would be french? Even if I do not speak the language and have nothing in common with the french other than being a homosapien? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.128.144 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are often disagreements about defining nationalities, but the MOS is a good place to start. In any case, a reliable source is required instead of personal opinions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fraternities: social and otherwise

I'll go along with your restoration of what I consider a non-relevant fact (it earlier had been stated that Mark Zuckerberg was raised Jewish), but you might want to edit Fraternities where it says: On most college campuses fraternities are divided into three groups such as social, professional and honorary. I was a member of both social and honorary fraternities in college and know the distinction, and I think it's quite revelant to mention that Zuckerberg's AEPi is a social one, considering that his fame is in Internet social media. Casey (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and I don't disagree. I was just describing it from the general (dictionary) viewpoint, as a "men's student organization formed chiefly for social purposes." In any case, the fraternity article also explains that they "can be organized for many purposes, including university education, work skills, ethics, ethnicity, religion . . .," so giving the religious aspect implies the "social," as opposed to "professional" and "honorary" types. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Light show. You have new messages at Talk:Ravi Shankar.
Message added 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zsa Zsa Gabor

Hi. I was just curious about your reliance on the "ZsaZsa website" re her maternal grandparents. Losing one's maternal grandparents in the Holocaust is something pretty enormous yet none of the Gabors appears to have ever acknowledged it. I can understand privacy, but this site looks like it's just a mirror site to which Gabor has never contributed. Anyway just wondering,. Yours. Happy New Year! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree totally and am neutral on the topic. But it seemed like a cite tag in the middle of the sentence was confusing since the ending cite was left and covered the same facts. If it's not a valid source, then any tag should probably be at the end to be clear. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Polanski

Could you please add refs to your latest edit? I'm sure you know that wiki articles need verification to stand-alone and shouldn't be verified by other wiki articles (which might also change over time). Thanks.

Further, while trying to stay away from this somehow contagious article, I'd like to give you my input regarding the info-box. Since Polanski's fame and notability is based on his work as a director and the criminal charges are only notable because of his high profile I don't think those should be in there [We use criminal offenders info-boxes for persons notable for such in the first place] . The way we usually tread and handle such cases (like Polanki's) is in the body of the article , not the info box (which, again, for good reasons we only use for BLP's of criminals). Take Martha Steward or even more O.J. Simpson as an example. Their convictions are clearly mentioned in proper weight in the article's body but not in the info-box since their main notability doesn't revolve around their legal difficulties even if imprisoned now or at some point in their life. Polanski wasn't even convicted nor imprisoned in the most common sense of it and no matter how outraged some feel about his actions we shouldn't try to apply our personal judgments when writing any article especially about living persons, being saints or devils or else. Feel free to use my input the way you feel fit at your disposal and discretion although I prefer not to comment and get involved in that article in a more direct way.TMCk (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I'll add some sources. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.TMCk (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Major religious groups. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You also abused Twinkle, so your access to it may be revoked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, this edit, in which you label good-faith edits as vandalism, demonstrates a misuse of Twinkle. If you continue to use Twinkle improperly, your access to the tool will be revoked. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP Guidelines: "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring;" "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring;" When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons." All of these were done per talk, warning that continual deletions would be considered vandalism, and seems a logical use of Twinkle. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not appropriate. Per what vandalism is not #3, Shii's edits—like yours—were edit warring, and thus a content dispute and not vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn what vandalism actually is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack LaLanne image

Hey, I replaced the Lalanne/Arnold photo with one that is not under speedy dispute. I'm not familiar with fair use debates, so I can't chime in yet, but if you do manage to have it kept, I think it would be perfect for the Timeline:Awards section. Ocaasi (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Weekly World News as a source?

I can't let it stand. Tvoz/talk 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe in Bat Boy. Tvoz/talk 22:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not a great source, but as it was based on interviews during a public event, the statements quoted did seem "accurate -Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this was the only place I found him talking about chemicals and drugs. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, they might be legit, but to say we can't rely on WWN's accuracy is the understatement of the year. That's why I removed only the citations, not the actual quotes, to give us a little time to try to find acceptable sources. But if all we have is WWN, I think we have to sacrifice the quotes. Truth is, we should have better sourcing even for Bat Boy - some reliable third-party sources that talk about WWN's unique editorial mission and Bat Boy's role in it. But we have to do better in LaLanne - as it is we rely too heavily on his website and not enough on third party analysis or commentary or reporting, but ok. Weekly World News as a source will just embarrass us. And I do find it surprising that this is the only place he talked about drugs - so much so, in fact, that I'm starting to wonder if the quotes are real after all. Tvoz/talk 23:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have to agree. In fact I'm even having doubts about the WWN article following it, "Runner vanishes off the face of the earth as stunned men watch." I may cancel my subscription. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You can always read it while on line at the supermarket :) I'm going to put a pointer to this section on the article talk page as I see it was added again. Tvoz/talk 18:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job on the new edits - it reads better than it did, and is properly sourced. Thanks for doing that! Tvoz/talk 23:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

3rr thing

• 1st revert: [5]
• 2nd revert: [6]
• 3rd revert: [7]
• 4th revert: [8]

im going to use ANI as a form of dispute resolution. Shii (tock) 05:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the trouble.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Image discussion

Hi. Sorry I don't have any more to add regarding that photo. I would have just said that I thought the admin closed rather quickly and didn't reply to my vote to "keep". But I seem to have missed that opportunity, as the discussion has closed. Thanks and good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)