Jump to content

User talk:Amortias/Archives/2015/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Please comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:California wildfires

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:California wildfires. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The West Coast Photographic Movement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The West Coast Photographic Movement. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christian egalitarianism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christian egalitarianism. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Velliscig

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Velliscig. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Does ten years' experience count for nothing?

Zzuuzz says there is no socking. Why do you disagree (your post at AN a few minutes ago)? 81.157.50.164 (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

And unfortunatley the majority of other editors seem to disagree. The way the conversation is going your better of backing off. Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Denali

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denali. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm A Certain Lack of Grandeur. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Melanie O'Reilly, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. a CLoG? | unCLoG 19:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bulgarian Turks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bulgarian Turks. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome to the arbitration clerk team!

Hi Amortias. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C#Personnel (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the clerks team, Amortias! Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
This closure message on AN/I - I've had a long day, and that made me smile. Thank you :) samtar (msg) 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

i'm glad you're amused. Please put back my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.100.132 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Query

amortias:

Who are you? What are your qualifications for eradicating my corrections to "I Wanted Wings," which were correcting a very obvious and glaring error in it?

This movie was released in March, 1941.

The U.S. was NOT at war in March of 1941. The movie most assuredly was NOT a "morale-boosting" American World War Two film. It was an anti-isolationist, anti-Hitler, pro-interventionist, pro-Roosevelt and pro-British film, deliberately and consciously so, and I believe it should get the credit for being this, instead of being relegated to the hundreds of "morale-boosting" films which followed it once the U.S. had entered the war.

"I Wanted Wings" was designed to counter the widespread argument that it was hopeless for the U.S. to fight German air superiority, specifically to come to the aid of Britain whose RAF was singlehandedly repelling the Luftwaffe attacks on England, then in their second year fighting Nazi Germany alone.

This is historical fact. Its screenwriter, Richard Maibaum, who lived to write twelve of the best James Bond films, was a New York native and a University of Iowa graduate who was particularly proud that he had written a film which was the FIRST in the United States to alert its people that aviation training would soon be needed in the days ahead. As I had just written before you erased it, the U.S. Army Air Corps was little-known at the time, while the RAF and Luftwaffe were, by 1941, quite famous. And they would become extremely important.

The U.S. did not have a separate air force until 1947. It was the Army Air Corps who flew the bombers in World War Two - and this film was the first to tell America about the Air Corps. And I sourced that correction, and this background information, picking two of the countless histories and biographies which reference the conflict between isolationists and interventionists, and of which anyone who knows the actual history of World War Two is well aware.

The factual truth is that it took the United States two years to join Britain's battle against Hitler (the war in Europe began in Sept. 1939 and the US entered in Dec., 1941) and this delay was entirely due to powerful American isolationists, led by Lindbergh who was traveling the country in 1939-1941, addressing rallies and radio audiences alike with a pro-German, defeatist and often pro-Nazi message, supported by the US German Bund, who refused to sing "God Bless America" at their rallies because it was written by a Jew - Irving Berlin. This is a matter of public record, widely reported at the time: Lindbergh had visited Hitler more than once, he admired the Nazis, particularly their Luftwaffe but also their philosophy of anti-Semitism and eugenics, he had been seated behind Hitler as his guest at the 1936 Olympics and so on. This is essential background to this particular movie: Lindbergh was the most famous aviator in history and he was saying the U.S. military couldn't handle the Luftwaffe. This film was the first one to counter that propaganda, propaganda purposelly designed to keep America out of the war and allow HItler to defeat Britain.

The conflict between the isolationists, generally but not entirely rightwing Republicans from agrarian and Southern states, and Roosevelt and his Democrat supporters, which included virtually all of Hollywood, intensified after his election in 1940, when FDR dropped his pretense of neutrality and used every means he could to support Britain. This is detailed in every history of the United States that covers those years and months leading up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, when the U.S. declared war on Japan And, I might add, even then, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee planned to continue their hearings against the anti-Nazi films. Only when Hitler declared war on the United States, three days later, on Dec. 11, 1941, did the committee drop their agenda. That's also when America First, the leading organizers of isolationism, closed up shop.

Sometimes, the truth makes people look bad, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Or unimportant. Or biased.

On this committee, I sourced "Charmed Lives" Michael Korda's 1979 biography of his uncle, Alexander Korda, who worried about being subpoenaed by this specific Senate committee, particularly since he actually was working under specific orders from Churchill - but though this aspect of the isolationist battle is somewhat less well-known, it's mentioned in the authorized biography by John Russell Taylor of Hitchcock, in several other Hitchcock biographies, in Charlie Chaplin's memoirs and his biographies, in the memoirs of several members of the British government who were working for U.S. intervention at the time, as well as those of directors such as Frank Borzage, who made anti-Nazi films in the late '30s up to 1941.

Everything I wrote was not only true, but an important and I think intriguing part of the background of this film. But most importantly, "I Wanted Wings" is most demonstrably was NOT what you have reverted to here: "well received as another of the morale-boosting films of the period that focused on the contributions of the military."

It was not "another." It was the first, and it was not 'morale-boosting." It was fighting the interventionist battle. It was publicizing that America had fighter pilots too.

You have replaced my corrections with an historical error.

I am baffled why someone who prefers error over truth is given the power to prevent accuracy and historical context to an otherwise forgotten film. Its role in the isolationist vs. interventionist battle is precisely what makes "I Wanted Wings" important, indeed - unique.

If it's a bias to be against Nazism -- well, i guess you have me there. Maybe you're the grandson of SS men.

But - in fact - this is still not bias. My facts are entirely accurate. It is not bias to report a difficult and conflicted background when that background is, in fact, the truth and an important and fascinating one. This film is an important example of pro-interventionist filmmaking -- not WW2 US propaganda. To give the film its due, I must explain the history which I know from teaching my college students, few young people will know. The Hollywood studios did, in fact, do all they could to support Roosevelt and fight Hitler, while under threat of Senate censure. And people like you still want to punish them for it. It's amazing, really. 

If my bias is for the truth - and that qualifies as 'bias"? - then i think Wikipedia is in very very big trouble.  Because World War Two, and the lead up to it in the 1930s, has a tendency to make racist, pro-Fascist, anti-Semitic and isolationist forces look bad. But that's not bias. They look bad in retrospect. That's truth.

And Paramount was getting ready to fight the war to come. That's why the Army Air Corps gave them so much support. BEFORE the war. Or rather, before the U.S. entered the war.

This is the second time that I've corrected glaring errors and misconceptions about the role of rightwing isolationists attacking filmmakers in World War Two and had my changes entirely - not specifically - but all of them - taken away. This isn't about my bias - but yours. Someone out there wants to erase the Isolationist's impact on American history.

It's not bias to be accurate about this. It's bias to eradicate it. I'm not sorry the isolationists lost their fight to ignore World War Two. But it was 70 years ago. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.100.132 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your statements need to be backed up by reliable sources to confirm that what you are saying isn't just synthesis of sources or {{WP:OR|original research]]. Some of the statemnets made also skir very close to neutrality issues. Reviwe those links then consider making the changes in line with those guidelines and theres a better cahnce they'll be accepted. Amortias (T)(C) 21:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

are you telling me that i have to source that the United States was neutral in World War Two until the attack on Pearl Harbor, dec. 7, 1941? Really? I have sourced that this is the first Hollywood film to promote the Army Air Corps and that this was done so consciously in light of the upcoming war - if you will notice.

Do I need to source LIndbergh's well-known isolationism and support of German air superiority? Is this really not common knowledge?

I fail to see what its biased here. American neutrality and the isolationist forces behind it are not bias. Really - this is getting weird.

I don't have access to a serious library at the moment. But you will notice that this "well-received as another morale boosting" etc. is not sourced either. If it is "another" - then let that be sourced. Their isn't "another" - it was the first, I've sourced this- and I cannot fathom what the issue is here. My corrections that you keep deleting are far more sourced than anything else in this article. I've sourced a lengthy excerpt from the Atlantic Monthly from July, 2013, which is precisely on this subject: the battle between isolationists and interventionists in Roosevelt's administration, by Susan Dunn - which I put in my earlier and much longer correction.

I'll put that back in. If that's the problem. But this automated response is less than helpful in making me guess precisely what the objection is. And treating my lengthy response as a joke is not helpful either. I didn't write it to be funny. I wrote it to explain my position, while you have not explained yours.

I have sourced my information, and of course I can source every sentence, if that's what you need. Do I need to source that B-17s were used in World War Two? Or that Paramount was pro-FDR, and pro-intervention, which is also common knowledge?

And I really would like an answer as to who you are and what are your qualifications are for preventing the correction of the one historical detail for this otherwise unknown film?

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.100.132 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, statements that person X was X or had opinion Y should be backed up where the statement is made, the section on referencing has detail on this.
My qualifications on what should and should not be included are based on an understanding on policy on what should/shouldn't can/cannot be included in Wikipedia, information that does not meet the criteria for being included should be removed to prevent the articles becoming unwieldly, biased or factually unverifiable. Amortias (T)(C) 22:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Also can you please add new comments to the end of this section and not half way up my talk page as it makes it harder to read and having to correct it becomes unwieldly. Amortias (T)(C) 22:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wardrobe malfunction

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wardrobe malfunction. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed text

Hello Amortias, thank you for your effort, here is the same text that was deleted now supported by reliable sources:

Shaked is known for her strident (some would say extremist) views regarding Palestinians and the enfeebled Israeli left. In July, in a controversial post on Facebook, the then-member of the Knesset posted the text of an article by the late Israeli writer Uri Elitzur that referred to Palestinian children as "little snakes" and appeared to justify the mass punishment of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. The post has since been deleted, but an archived version remains.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/07/israels-new-justice-minister-considers-all-palestinians-to-be-the-enemy/

It was not her first controversial comment about Palestinians. Asked during a 2012 Israeli television interview if she hoped her husband - an Israeli airforce pilot - "would be pounding the Arabs hard with bombs" when he flew, she laughed and then replied: "Yes.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11599932/New-Israeli-justice-minister-notorious-for-anti-Palestinian-rhetoric-given-bodyguard-after-Nazi-death-threats.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasawneh41 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PlayStation 4 system software

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PlayStation 4 system software. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Please comment on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Inappropriate title-soft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Inappropriate title-soft. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

McDonalds

Hi I believe my edit continues to be deleted under the Mcdonald's Advertising page. I wanted to know as to why it is deleted. It was not a test edit. Wad my source incorrect? Its unclear what you mean by test edit?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvenheit X (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion closed early ?

Thanks for closing this motion here.

Was the motion closed a bit too early? I see that one Arbitrator was counted in the end as an "Abstain", but hadn't yet addressed the response from my mentor The Rambling Man ?

Also, could you please wikilink the article, Typewriter in the Sky, in the locations where you posted the motion ?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion reached majority so was no need to keep it open longer than nessecary. Request was made by arbitrators to enact it as majority had been met and 24 hours or more ahd passed since this point.
I'll see about getting the Wikilinks in asap but am having to keep both eyes and then some on another issue that's cropped up at Case requests so no guarantee It'll be in the next hour or two. Amortias (T)(C) 02:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. It's a shame it was recorded with the one "Abstain", however, without giving that particular Arbitrator a chance to reply to the substance of the comment by my mentor The Rambling Man. Thank you for implementing the motion. Yeah, I'd appreciate the wikilinks. Good luck with whatever other Case request issues you're working on, I know it can be a lot to handle. And thank you for your service to our Wikipedia community in this sometimes thankless task !!! :) — Cirt (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Amended at your talk page, AN and Arbs Notice board. If you think I've missed any then shout. Amortias (T)(C) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Last one, I think, is the case page here ? — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

And this one ? — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Done and done. Amortias (T)(C) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much ! — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Word limit

Is that enough now, or do I need to cut more? I wasn't sure whether the answers and replies counted as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

600 tends to be the top limit without exemptions, responses do count to the limit so need to be considered as well. Amortias (T)(C) 11:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roger Waters

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roger Waters. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Case requests

Any reason you're asking Giano to refactor his comments on the case page instead of his talk page? That was the tradition in the past (e.g. User_talk:NE_Ent/Archive/2012#Evidence) NE Ent 22:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

My bad, misplaced, will move now. Amortias (T)(C) 22:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter

September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar!

The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there!

Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Microsoft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microsoft. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ZERO1 (nonprofit)

Hello Amortias,

I am unclear as to why my changes to the ZERO1 (nonprofit) page have been removed. I am currently in the process of editing and adding references. It is true that I work for ZERO1, but I am just trying to update the information so that it is current and correct. Please let me know how I can get my work back - it has taken me all day to update this and seeing it disappear is quite disheartening.

Best, Castle zero1 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


Your username makes it appear that you are affiliated with the organisation in question which causes you to be considered to have a Conflict of interest. The edits made to the page contained information that read as being promotional - ZERO1 aims to fully explore what's possible tomorrow we spur new ideas, spark experimentation, and seed creative strategies today. reinforces the COI mentioned previously with the we statement. The section headings (text starting and ending with ===) should not include links, the links pointing to external websites also add to the theory of promotional content. External links should be used sparingly and in line with this policy.
The links you have used to confirm the statements are also covered under this external linking policy and should instead be inserted as references - information on including them in this manner can be found here. Links to back up claims also need to be of a third party source and considered reliable per this policy.
If you feel you can amend the edits you have made to conform with these then I'll happily undo the removal of the content but you will need to read and declare anything relevant to the COI policy mentioned earlier first. Amortias (T)(C) 00:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Amortias,

Yes, I can make those changes. Is there a way to get my work back and have it saved as a draft? It would be great if there was a way to get your approval before publishing once the corrections have been made.

Best, Castle zero1 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately drafts don't allow changes to be made in that fashion, your best bet would be to undo my change using the undo button on the view history link on the page ensuring you put an edit summary advising od this discussion. Then get to work fixing the links and ensuring your edits don't appear promotional. You will also need to address the conflict of interest I mentioned earlier. Be honest if one exists as you will find people prefer you to be upfront if you work or are involved with an organisation. You will also want to request a change of name asap else you might be blocked for breeching the username policy. Amortias (T)(C) 00:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amortias,

Thank you for your feedback. I will do as you instructed.

Best, Castle zero1 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amortias,

I have been doing as you instructed. I have read the comments on the "view history" section and I am still not sure why my content is being taken down. What I have written is fact. There was a comment about one item being written in first person and that was not my intention. The sentence in question I believe was "It’s also about what we can build to ensure that what’s next matters..." Meaning "we" as humans. Please let me know how I can rectify this. The text that has been deleted is a chronology of ZERO1's past exhibitions. It is very relevant to the wikipedia page.

Awaiting your instruction, - Aiaxr (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

note:

Thank you. — Ched :  ?  19:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New York Public Library

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York Public Library. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed content

Compromising

Hi Amortias, I am doing some work on Odd Child's social media and was just giving this an update and tidy up Itslondonmusic (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, when you are adding/removing/changing information on Wikipdeia there is a box under the content section that allows you to explain what it is you are doing, your previous edits did not include this. This sets all sorts of alarm bells off much in the same way as if someone walked up to your house picked up a flowerpot and walked off. If they provided an explanation for what they were doing you might be willing to accept their explanation and let them carry on with what they were doing. If you include edit summaries your edits have a higher chance of being kept. If you are working for or on behalf of the organisation whose page you are updating you will be best advised to read this section to make sure your edits fall within the guidelines for editing. Amortias (T)(C) 12:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amortias, Thank you for letting me know, fairly new to all of this! Also thanks for the article - I am only making sure the information is displayed well and up to date that is alright isn't it? Itslondonmusic (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

As long as you can back up the changes with reliable sources to confirm the claims being made by the changes. Amortias (T)(C) 12:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amortias, Thanks! Also how do I prove that we have permission to use this picture from the photographer? I am struggling to understand it all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Etta_Bond.jpg Itslondonmusic (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to copy the text in the box on this page to an e-mail fill in the sections mentioned and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ensuring you or the copyright holder of the photographer understands the terms of releasing the image. Amortias (T)(C) 12:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias/Archives/2015/October&oldid=1210431528"