User talk:Barrysalt
Image tagging for Image:Melstud2.gif
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Melstud2.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:CadutaW1.gif
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:CadutaW1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Melstud2.gif
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Melstud2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:DemillW1.gif
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:DemillW1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 13:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Your edits
[edit]Please read WP:MOS. Your use of indentations and caps aren't within the manner of style for Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The file File:VitlkW1.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
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) 01:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:QuovadW1.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
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) 01:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Pathcam1.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
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) 01:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The file File:InferW1.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
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, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
[edit]
Hello, Barrysalt. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Mr.Ollie,
I don't see that there is "Conflict of Interest" in my contributions to the "History of Film" article of the kind described in your note above, anymore than there in anyone else's contribution. My contributions appear anonymous to the reader, as do all articles in Wikipedia. The anonymity of my contributions means that they do not increase my fame, nor can I make any money from them indirectly, so there is no self-promotion involved. (Further explantion of this point is available if necessary.) The necessity of reference to my own published writings (though as I said a reader of the article will not know they are mine) can be illustrated by the reference I tried to includede to my published article on early Danish Cinema. I am the only person who has written subject about this in English, based on the viewing of all the surviving Danish films of this period, and I think it is important for widening the scope of the "History of Cinema" entry beyond American cinema, as some people are requesting.
Please let me know what you think about this.
Barrysalt Barrysalt (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Barrysalt, Listing your own works and name in the further reading is a conflict, though. If you are the only source on a given subject, per WP:UNDUE that is a good indication that the Wikipedia article should not cover it. MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Ollie,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I will leave out the general reference to my books. However, it is probably important that Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis is a standard text book, having gone through 3 editions, and sold many thousands of copies. I am proposing to fill in some of the citations requested for the History of Film article with some references to it. The WP:UNDUE guidelines that you mention are directed solely against minority views. My opinions on early Danish cinema, and indeed other early cinemas, are obviously the majority view, since they have never been challenged after three decades or more.
please let me know what you think.
Barrysalt
- If someone else has supported your views, that would be a secondary source and would be the source we should use. If no one else has written about your views, than means they are WP:UNDUE (and a primary source and should be omitted. - MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Barrysalt and Mr. Ollie, I think I understand both your concerns. I'm not sure which particular content is discussed here, but I think I wrote some of it and may have put a "source needed" with it because I didn't have any reliable reference at hand. I realize that such a request is also used to flag disputed content, but I more often use it when I would just like to see a useful source. Barry Salt's book seems like a proper source and I would probably use it as a ref if I had access to it. Barrysalt obviously wasn't personally involved in the historical subject at hand and didn't exactly introduce fringe theories, so I wouldn't say his work is a primary source for a view that was already in a wikipedia article. Are there any clearer rules about providing one's own publications as a ref? Is it really not allowed, not even if it is peer reviewed or if you are clearly a trusted authority in the field? If I was Salt's friend or his student and use his work as a ref at his request for him to avoid conflict, that would be a very easy loophole. If Barrysalt's wikipedia name didn't resemble his real name, Mr. Ollie wouldn't even have recognised him as the author (and even now we cannot really be certain that he is). I would very much like to see more trusted experts work on wikipedia articles, in this particular case even if it means nothing more than referring to a very pricey source book. Joortje1 (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)