User talk:Before My Ken/archives 11 Apr-May 2009

ARCHIVE PAGE 11: APRIL - MAY 2009

The Room

Hi. You might want to consider Semi-Protecting The Room because of Adult Swim airing it as a joke. dposse (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin. Try asking at AN/I. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I asked you since you seemed to be invested in editing that article, and im not. dposse (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I am not invested in the article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you edited the article more then me. I was only trying to give some friendly advice, thats all. Sorry i bothered you. dposse (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Allmovie title

A tag has been placed on Template:Allmovie title requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've converted article links to the template to "amg", and changed it to a redirect. Therefore there's no longer a reason to speedy delete. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted myself - apparently there's stuff going on at AMG regarding links that I wasn't aware of. In any case, I've restored the code and removed the CSD -- since the speedy deletion has been disputed, it's no longer a candidate for CSD. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has disputed the CSD at all that I've seen, and no one has put any dispute on that template itself. Also, as you created it, it isn't appropriate for you to remove the CSD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history, several people have disputed it by removing it. But fine, I've restored it to a redirect. No harm there, redirects are cheap, and the reasons given for CSD are no longer in effect.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No. One person "disputed it" by removing it and that was that psycho Bambifan101 using another IP to sock to mess around with me (see ANI), so obviously doesn't count. The other IP didn't remove, he added a second one (which was odd). I think having it as a redirect is fine, but I can't see why we would need two exact same templates. If folks don't like the old name, as noted in the project then renames should be discussed instead of making duplicates. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just easier to remember that the link to "Allmovie" is "Allmovie", rather than "AMG".

BTW, next time you add a CSD notice to a template, you might want to put it inside "noinclude" tags so it doesn't get transcluded and disfigure article pages. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I added it with Twinkle...usually it does those. No idea why it didn't this time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Waffen SS

Hi can you provide an edit summary when updating - thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all copy-editing unless I specify otherwise. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your comments Please do not reflexively uncode images, especially when editors have taken pains to size and position them in a way that contributes to the aesthetics of the page.
and
If you have specific problems with how specific images have been handled, that should be discussed on the article talk page
You did not follow this line yourself, another editor added the images etc and you did not discuss the changes on the article talk page and I see you reverted the changes again without any discussion --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone has a problem with an image placement or sizing that I've done, based on their concerns about the needs of the layout, the aesthetics of the page, or the overall visual impact, I'm more than happy to discuss it, once those concerns are brought to my attention. However, leaving every image the size of a postage stamp is not conducive to good layout or to providing our readers with a quality encyclopedia, and since it's specifically not required by the MoS, there's no need to discuss it unless it becomes an issue, as it did when you reverted the coding wholesale.

Also, I did not "reflexively" do anything. A perusal of my edits will indicate quite clearly that finding the best size and position was a matter of trial and error, doing and adjusting, not a wham-bam do it all at once thing. The quality of the choices is open for discussion, but not the fact that the choices were made after careful consideration.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For instance, 7 out of the last 10 main page featured articles have hardcoded images other than in the lede section, and if you include the lede section, 9 out of 10 have hardcoded images. This is not true in the last four the only hardcoded images are one that is reduced in size and another made a panoramic view

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2009 ,Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 12, 2009, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2009 AND Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2009--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to mention Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein as well but see you have changed that as well careful of the 3RR --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, it is appreciated.

Concerning the Waffen-SS article, you'll note that, given that the issue of sizing is in contention, I did not return all of the images to the sizes I previously had them at, but left several of them in their uncoded state. I'm still of the opinion that they would be better off slightly larger, but they are visible enough as is, so I didn't re-code them. Again, this is a decision-making process which involves some thought and consideration and is not in any way "reflexive".

Concerning your comment about featured articles, I'm afraid I can't understand it, there seems to be a word missing in your sentence. Can you correct it so I can understand your point? Thanks.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that, your point is clear now. However, it's irrelevant whether the images were made larger or smaller, they were nevertheless hardcoded and not left to be formatted by user preferences. So, my point stands: Featured Articles make use of hardcoded image sizes. Recall that Wikipedia policies are supposed to reflect actual editing practice, and not to proscribe it, but that means they sometimes lag behind what editors are doing -- but looking at what featured articles do and do not have in them is a pretty fail-safe way of determing what actual currently accepted practice is. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, as long as we're talking about this article, I now think I was incorrect in telling you a week or so ago that the Bibliography should go after the Notes. I checked back on some older articles I worked on, and I had it the other way around -- which is the layout I got from an expert on the subject. (Plus books always have their notes first and then the bibliography.) I know that you've changed it back already in the Waffen-SS article, and I'm obviously not going to change it again -- even though I think a valid argument can be made that in a general-purpose encyclopedia, as opposed to an academic publication, the general reader is more interested in the bibliography than in the notes, so it should be closest to the body of the article. (Besides which, most of the time people get to the notes via the inline hyperlinks.) But that's moot, I suppose. In any case, I'm contemplating going back and changing the bottoms of a number of artices I worked on recently to Notes-Bibliography. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS and thumb images

I strongly disagree (as do others see the Montgomery Talk page with your interpretation of the MOS with regard to thumbs. Thumbs as opposed to in line images are intended to be a standard size with only a few exceptions,. I do not believee that any of these conditions apply in this case. See the list of exceptions. Dabbler (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That list is not exclusive, it's a list of possibilities. That's what "Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include" means, that hardcoding sizes in those instances is not required, nor is the list exclusive and the only time hardcoding is approrpiate. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So the fact thatyour force-sizing is disrupting other people's reading legibility as described by User:Leithp and contradicts the general principles of the MOS is irrelevant to your aesthetic sense? That seems to me to be very selfish. What about other people's aesthetic senses? Please resize your own default size for thumbs images and let the rest of us select how we do it for ourselves as is manifestly intended by the MOS section on the subject. Dabbler (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate your taking the time to share them with me. Any further discussion can take place on the article talk page, but I'm not interested in having it here. Bye. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

News media and the Vietnam War

Hi Ed, I've just restored the globalize tag to this article. When I added it I explained my rationale on the article's talk page (eg, that despite its title it only covers the US media and how the war was seen in the US). The article is basically the same as when I added it, so the tag seems to still be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Article moved to U.S. news media and the Vietnam War Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Small sig example.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Small sig example.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

license added Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Player poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Player poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

J. G. Ballard

Thanks. I just hated leaving that pejorative sitting there unchallenged; didn't realize it was a direct quote. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, I'm pretty darn sure it's a direct quote, sure enough to make that edit, but I'm gonna spend some time making sure of that. If I can't run it down, I'll revert myself. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Info you can use

Ed, If I might make a few suggestions, when you reply to that WP:MOS argument about removing whitespace on that other talk page, you might want to reference WP:LAYOUT, specifically this section, which contains: "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." Of course, as you are already aware, the same thing often applies to navigation templates for the same reason. You may also want to reference WP:BUNCH. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that is indeed an excellent suggestion! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, is there a specific other talk page you're referring to? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah darn...I didn't think you'd quote me directly... Tothwolf (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry -- I'll change it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, appreciate it. Didn't really want to get involved other than pass on some resources that might help clear up the conflict. Tothwolf (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw, when you get a chance could you see if you can work some magic on Chemistry and Law where the {{Wikipedia-Books}} template is transcluded? While doing some spot checks I noticed those two didn't seem to display properly in Mozilla Firefox. Most of the places where the template is now in use looked ok but there could be others since I've not checked them all. Tothwolf (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware that there are some CSS changes being discussed that will add margins, negating the need for extra whitespace. MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Navbox margin ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be great! I'll take a look. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely good to hear. This very issue came up on my own talk page back in February. I've worked around the issue for the time being by adding a do-nothing comment into the template itself. The downside is if someone introduces whitespace between stacked navbox templates it will lead to unwanted whitespace in the rendered version. Tothwolf (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at your BSA edits, checking the applicable guidelines and thinking that a technical solution would fix a lot of these issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As I think I've said before, if a technical solution were to be effected, I'll gladly put in the effort to track down the spacers I've added and remove them. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

woodpiles

Hi. Following this, what I said was neither "irrelevant" to the thread nor "quite odd." It had aught to do with metaphorical "woodpiles" (I guess you meant old timey Fifth column fearmongering), it was not put forth as a "political opinion" and I didn't care if it was "scrutinized." Only wanted to let you know I disagreed with everything you said about it, not a big deal either way though. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It was totally and utterly irrelevant to the moment, it was exceedingly odd, obviously "political" (can't see any other possible way for it to be interpreted), and quite disturbing to boot. You're an admin, a responsible official of Wikipedia, one who is generally, from my observaton, usually quite level-headed and reasonable. I suggest you keep it that way. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me your thoughts about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please keep up what I consider to be generally quite good work as an admin. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

JG Ballard

"You should log in and use your Wikipedia username when making these contentious edits"

I don't know what you're insinuating, but I don't have a Wikipedia username.

92.14.248.126 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you. 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

References -> Notes

You've changed a bunch of articles from "References" to "Notes" in a way which is contrary to the Manual of Style's recommendations at WP:REFNOTE. There you'll see that "References" is for sources, and "Notes" is for explanatory footnotes. Can you explain your variant usage, and why it's necessary to alter stable usage in this way? Tb (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations which descibes a "Notes" titled section only when separated from "References"; when all citations go in one place, it suggests "References" or "Notes and References". Tb (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see from your other pages that perhaps more than a simple citation of the suggestions of the Manual of Style would be helpful. Here goes. First, it is important that Wikipedia preserve a common appearance of articles, especially in relatively unimportant matters in themselves like tho ordering of sections at the end of articles, terminology like "disambiguation", bolding article titles at the beginning of a lead, and so forth. None of these are all that crucial in themselves--and in each case, a different decision could certainly have been made without much serious disadvantage. But while it is not so important which decision is made, it is quite important that a consistent decision be made. For all of these, there may well be cases where an exception applies, but exceptional cases are just that: exceptional and extraordinary, not the normal course of events. Across wikipedia as a whole, there is a strong preference for labelling sections with footnotes "References", and using the term "Notes" for explanatory textual notes rather than reference notes. Of course there may be exceptional cases where some different name should apply, and in such a case we should certainly go ahead and do whatever is right. But in the cases I have seen, I can identify no reason for the alterations you have made of References -> Notes, and, what is worse, you didn't even take a second or two to write an edit summary. And, you have done this with articles you have no history of editing or involevement, make it look very much like the "hit and run" technique you object to here at User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#Ownership. It seems (and please correct me for any inaccuracy) as if you have made a determination to alter this terminology when you see it without considering particular cases or worrying much about consistency. Tb (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, and for your explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

JG Ballard edits

Ed, I appreciate your contributions to the JG Ballard article, but could you please stop imposing your own style preferences on the established format of the article? Refer to the Manual of Style. I'm thinking now particularly of your replacing m-dashes with spaced n-dashes throughout, and also changing all parentheses to other formatting. (Some information is perfectly appropriate to keep parenthetical, and a footnote is by no means an acceptable alternative.) I hope we can avoid an edit war over format issues. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am quite certain that you and I, as two of the major contributors to the article, both want nothing but the best for it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I don't doubt that most of your changes are for the better. Not all, though, in my opinion. So to that end I'll probably change some of the things back, but only as part of more substantial improvements to the article. - Snarkibartfast (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I did want to comment briefly about parenthetical statements, though. A statement put into parentheses instead of being set off by commas or dashes is basically an aside - it's like an actor speaking directly to the audience, or two actors speaking to each other out of earshot of a third. As such, it's a personal statement, akin to saying "Oh, here's something I forgot to tell you" or "Here's something I find interesting that I want you to know."

Parentheticals are perfectly reasonable in fiction, or in non-fiction in which there is an authorial voice; they're even acceptable in an encyclopedia article which is written by or credited to a single writer or a small number of contributors. In a project like Wikipedia, however, which is written by a large number of people, in which there is no authorial voice, and which is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, most parenthtical statements are much better set off by commas or dashes or, even better, the sentences should be re-written in such a way as to avoid the need for the aside in the first place.

That doesn't mean that I think parentheses should never be used in WP, there are places where they are quite reasonable and no other formulation works as well. These, however, should be the exception rather than the rule, and the vast majority of parenthetical statements should be reworked in some manner, either changed to be set off by commas or dashes (and I use N-dashes because the MoS says not to use M-dashes with spaces, and I find that very hard on the eyes), or be reformulated to avoid a subsidiary statement entirely. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't entirely agree with that analysis of parentheticals, but I'll spare you the quibbles. There aren't that many instances where I think it's so clearly preferable that I'm going to bother to reinstate it, so you can see what you think.

I understand your preference for spaced n-dashes, although I don't share it. In any case, Wikipedia policy is to stick with the established article format, and this article has used m-dashes almost constantly for the last three years. (Prior to that it was much shorter and had only one instance of spaced m-dashes.) I'll also check the quoted sentence to see what the original text has; it would be preferable to reproduce the original punctuation exactly. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Usage of dashes doesn't seem to me to be the kind of dispute that it's worthwhile risking a collegial editing atmosphere for. In terms of text presentation, however, I would think it would be best to find a good rephrasing that works for everyone rather that reinstating parenthetical asides which presents information in a way that's something less than ideal. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Shanghai International Settlement

Ed, You're welcome. I read about it in a book called 'Shanghai: A Crucible for Modern China' about 15 years ago. I remember that the French didn't want to join in, and that they kept their own concession separate. But I'm pretty sure that the French treaty terms in relation to China were the same as in the case for the British and the Americans. Even if the French ruled it from Indo-China it wouldn't have altered that reality. Kwanchowan, to the best of my knowledge was the only full French colony in China. David Tombe (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Leftist Shoot Statue of Christ

Thanks for all your thoughts regarding the image. I would have to disagree that their is any basis for deleting it or even doubting is authenticity. The fact that it was widely circulated by Nationalists in now way means it was staged. Is there any credible source which says that its authenticity is doubtful. I do recall that one of the histories which I read and used as a source in my edits on related articles used the photo. I will locate it. In the meantime, unless there is some credible and reliable source which casts real doubt on the image, I can see no reason why it should not be used. That such an image would have been captured is not surprising. Desecration of religious sites was widespread. The the article on the Spain's Red Terror. Mamalujo (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've copied this response to your talk page, to keep the discussion together in one place, and I've responded there. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ben Bailey

I reverted your addition of a birthdate to Ben Bailey. Unfortunately, IMDB is not a WP:RS as they publish information submitted by fans without verifying this information. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Is IMDb a reliable_source? This doesn't mean the information is not factual, it's just that we can do better for sources, which is why I didn't remove it completely, just commented it out. Note that for some individuals, we may never be able to find a WP:RS for a birthdate. Why you may ask? Some individuals want to keep their birthdate private, for example, due to fears of identity (e.g., see WP:BLP). It does not appear to be the case here, but I believe we can find a WP:RS. Thank you for your edits and believe me I did do "3 secs of research" on this issue. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDB does verify information. Thanks for the condescension. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Blowup Poster

Bravo for replacing Blowup DVD cover with superb theatrical poster. All best --Jumbolino (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, cheers for that! Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciate! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Art of War

Not to press the point too much, but a documentary still falls into the media category of Television. It does not have enough relevance to the article to merit an entire section. Please either create a category under "In Popular Media" which meets your preference, (such as "Documentaries"), or restore the entry to the Television category. Best regards. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 05:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've done just that just a moment ago. It's not in the popcult section, but at the top, in its own "documentary" sub-section. If you're OK with that, it's fine with me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It was a suitable compromise. Cheers. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 05:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Incidentally, it wasn't in the TV section to begin with -- I wrote it from scratch. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be excellent information, so thanks for your contributions. If you'll check the history section, you'll notice that I spent the afternoon cleaning up pop culture items. This just happened to appear as I was finishing. About once every 3 months or so, this section outgrows the article and has to be cleaned up. Best regards again. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 05:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're reading my mind: the revision history is where I just was, and I saw your edits. Unlike some editors, I'm very much in favor of popcult stuff being part of Wikipedia, but I also recognize that they've got to be watched closely to keep them from growing like Topsy. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

23 Skidoo

Thanks for the message! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral AfDs

Ed, I like the way you think. But you'd be remiss not to weigh in on this one, where some rather feeble attempts at claiming notability have actually been made. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Skeptic (film)

Re your edits there and your edit summaries. You added links stating "restored standard film article links" however per Film project consensus and WP:EL, just because those are "standard" links does not mean they should be included automatically if they do not actually add any content beyond what the article already has. Those links were specifically excluded because of the lack of content beyond plot summary and cast/crew, which is already in the article. Please explain how you feel they add significant value to the article?

Re your naming of the References section to Notes stating "enumerated in-line citations are universally called "notes", a specific form of reference" - um, no they are not. Notes are used when a note section is purely actual notes, for a mix of notes and references, or if you are using the shortened form of notes with full references in a separate section. This article is using full, in-line citations. No where in any guideline or policy have I seen requires a full, in-line citation section to be called "Notes" nor has it ever come up in any FA or FL discussion I've ever seen where sections are always called References. In the end, it is still pretty much personal preference, and per WP:CITE, "the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected". So please do not change this again, as per the existing guideline. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In the real world, not in the wacky Wikiworld, enumerated in-line references are called "Notes". If they are listed at the foot of the page, they are "Footnotes". If they are listed at the end of the book or article, they are "Endnotes", or, in either case, they can be called just plain "Notes". They are never called "References", which is a generic term encompassing various forms of information germane to the sourcing of a book or article. A note is a specific kind of reference, as is a citation, an entry in a bibliography, etc.

Wikipedia shouldn't exist in a world of its own, separate from the real world. It can make up its own definitions if it wants, like Humpty-Dumpty, but it only serves to make it look silly to people who already have a tendency to look down on it. There's no reason in the world to give them further ammunition. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The ELs add content to the article by dint of being links to standard and widely used websites for film information. We serve our readers by providing these link for their convenience. Not only that, but the information there is not static, it changes over time, so while at the moment there may not appear to be strong reasons to include them, as active repositories of data, it's more than likely that value will be added to them. Not only that, but even now, while the information there at the moment may be of the same type as is included in our articles, it also has the potential to differ in scope or specific content. Giving our readers a place to double check what we say is only reasonable and, again, convenient for them, as well as beneficial to us (since we can be more easily alerted to problems in our information).

The bottom line is that these standard film article links have every reason to be included, and our guidelines (not rules to be followed slavishly and dogmatically) allow them. Please do not remove them again. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to the article's talk page, where it should properly be. Any further discussion should take place there, and not here, please. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

List of items in Irvington, New York

Hi Ed,

As explained in MOS:BOLD, boldface should not be used except for table headers, definition lists, and volume numbers. These sections could be changed so that they include an embedded list of definitions, as shown in Wikipedia:Lists#Definition lists, in which case boldface would be appropriate. But as they are now, boldface should not be used.

Let me know what you think. J. Finkelstein (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

J. - I think that something is necessary in that particular circumstance to help the name of the each place of interest to stand out from the surrounding text (one of the disadvantages of my expanding that section in the complete overhaul of the article which I undertook between January 23 and February 18 of last year). While the MoS calls for italics, that doesn't really work well, since visually italics tend to get swallowed up as well, which is why I used bolded text.

Remember that the MoS doesn't lay down hard and fast rules which must be followed without deviation, it's simply a set of guidelines to help us in editing. In this specific circumstance, I think the bold is necessary, and works well, and would prefer that it remain.

Thanks for your thoughts, and for your contributions to the article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Due to your continued insistence on trying to rename that section from References to Notes, I have brought up the question Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Section Name, though it seems from your user page you are pushing a personal philosophy rather than actual Wikipedia guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing" anything except universal practice. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Skeptic

I have a feeling you might be as frustrated with User:Collectonian as I am. She claims this image of the poster for the film [1] is not a reliable source for its credits. How can it not be? She says her sources don't mention four producers but I feel that just because they're not all named in the articles she used as references doesn't mean they don't exist. She also keeps reverting my grammar and punctuation corrections. As a film project coordinator she should want film articles to be as accurate and well-written as possible, so I don't understand why she's being so stubborn about this. Should I just give up and let her have her way? Thank you for your advice. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

209: Generally, Collectonian is a good editor and contributes greatly to the encyclopedia. In particular, she deserves our thanks for expanding The Skeptic (film) when it was in danger of being deleted. However, I do think she has a tendency to get overly hung-up on the Manual of Style guidelines, and treat them as invariant absolutes instead of what they are, guides to help us in our editing. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I do agree with you concerning the poster. The "billing box" information on a film poster is determined and controlled by contractual agreements with the various guilds, unions and individuals, and represent the official credits for the film. If a film poster is deemed to be eligible to appear in the article's infobox, the information on it should be considered reliable, since it comes directly from the source. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Godfather

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Godfather. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please be aware of the three-revert rule. Thank you. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've suggested on your talk page, you should probably take a look at WP:DTTR. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded to your comments on my talk page. As a regular, you should understand 3RR then. Thank you. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

List of items in Irvington, New York

Hi Ed,

As explained in MOS:BOLD, boldface should not be used except for table headers, definition lists, and volume numbers. These sections could be changed so that they include an embedded list of definitions, as shown in Wikipedia:Lists#Definition lists, in which case boldface would be appropriate. But as they are now, boldface should not be used.

Let me know what you think. J. Finkelstein (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

J. - I think that something is necessary in that particular circumstance to help the name of the each place of interest to stand out from the surrounding text (one of the disadvantages of my expanding that section in the complete overhaul of the article which I undertook between January 23 and February 18 of last year). While the MoS calls for italics, that doesn't really work well, since visually italics tend to get swallowed up as well, which is why I used bolded text.

Remember that the MoS doesn't lay down hard and fast rules which must be followed without deviation, it's simply a set of guidelines to help us in editing. In this specific circumstance, I think the bold is necessary, and works well, and would prefer that it remain.

Thanks for your thoughts, and for your contributions to the article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I'll let you know if I come up with something that will satisfy both of us. J. Finkelstein (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to seeing what you have to offer. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Operation Repo

May I ask why you lept reverting the edits I've made to the article? I haven't changed the subject matter but the way it's written is practically an attack on the show. We are beating a dead horse by the extra verbage. From my perspective it takes a lot of the nuetraility from it. Let me know what you think, I'm interested to see your side.HellinaBucket (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

at the very least we should at least add the disputed nuetrailoity template to the article.HellinaBucket (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just now left you a note on your talk page. Let's have the discussion there. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on May 12 2009 to The Godfather

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

So this is all a bit odd. You're a sensible person, what is with all this edit warring?

Also... you just can't get away with this stuff [3]. We have css to adjust layout, I suggest you find whoever writes the skins and talk to them. Or write your own. Littering wiki with refs to your own personal spacing style is intolerable. Obviously. When you block expires, please don't add any more without getting and OK from somewhere vaguely authoritative.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't contest the block - I got carried away, sorry about that; but I have to say that I disagree with pretty much everything else you've written here and at WP:3RRN. There's nothing "intolerable" or "bizarre" about what I did, it's simply an attempt to deal with a real problem, and there's nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia policy (as opposed to guidelines, which are not policy) which forbids it. If I'm incorrect in this, I'd appreciate your pointing me to where it says so. Then, you can point me to the policy which says that an editor needs permission from someone on high to make edits which improve the encyclopedia. That concept, control from above, is entirely antithetical to the way Wikipedia is structured, as I'm sure you're well aware.

In any event, thanks for the involuntary break. I've been trying to read the second volume of Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, and I keep getting distracted by the siren call of Wikipedia. Maybe tonight I can really break the back of it. Cheers. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Our discussion

Hey take a look at my talk page when time allows.HellinaBucket (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm taking a little enforced break, but I'll try to look it over tomorrow-ish. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok cool, whenever you hve a chance.HellinaBucket (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on City of Ember

Personal Attacks Directed at a specific editor Will Not be Tolerated as seen here "Ernie, one working guy to another, you've got to get a wikilife of your own and stop following me around - it's not good for your self-respect, you know?" on this edit summary [4]. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 03:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Dillard421, but that's not a personal attack even by the broadest of definitions: it's a suggestion to another editor about their behavior, and a statement by me of the existence of a provocative situation caused by that behavior.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Spacing and policy

Re [5]. I disagree. We have css and skins to manage this stuff. Doing it manually is (a) hopeless (there are far too many pages) (b) wrong (exactly the same effects can be achieved by skins; no I can't tell you how) and (c) doomed (because people will object). This is all going to end in tears unless you realise you can't keep doing it. As a bare minimum, before doing any more, find some WP page where people like to discuss spacing and layout issues and get some buy-in there William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

William - Your comments are quite reasonable, I don't deny there is truth is what you say. However, I will point out that you've failed to cite anything whatsoever in Wikipedia policy that speaks against my actions (not the 3RR, obviously, but the other matter). Still, you'll perhaps be glad to know that I'm nonetheless seriously reconsidering the way I go about this. Best. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Question re: Block

It's no big deal, but I'm curious about this: according to my blocklog, the 24 hour block was laid down at 17:00, but according to the message that comes up when I try to edit, the block is scheduled to end at 19:55. Where does this disparity come from? As I said, the three extra hours (2:55) isn't a big thing, but I'd still like to know where it comes from. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ikip (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for alerting the rest of us as well. a little insignificant 17:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional kudos from Alex. Especially since we're not entirely on the same page in this issue. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to get a good sampling of editors involved. Too often this stuff gets decided by those hot on the subject and a few random people passing by. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I See a Dark Stranger

Hi Ed. I see that you changed the standard image in the article to a non-standard one. The film is mainly known and listed under the British title, and showing an image using the British title is the approach used by most sources, including IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, the two other main resources for film that people are familiar with. I can see some value in having the American poster used in the article, though perhaps the more familiar image is more appropriate in the lead section? SilkTork *^YES! 07:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The image that was there was a DVD cover that was not contemporary with the release of the film. I do agree that it's less confusing if the ibox image uses the same title as the article, but films often have multiple titles in different places, and they are all, in one way or another, legitimate as the "title" of the film. I certainly would have preferred a British poster, but the American poster was what I could find, and given the visual quality of it, the fact that its contemporary with the film's release, and the improvement over the DVD cover, I think it's the better image to use. No only that, but quite often, I've found that posters in different countries are variations on an original, so it's quite possible (although I obviously don't have any evidence for this) that the American poster is similar to the British one.

I'll take another look to see if I can find a British poster image, but in the meantime I'd be opposed to restoring the DVD cover image. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the original British one, and it's an odd thing with two men fighting in a room. Not attractive. I'll see if I can track it down. SilkTork *^YES! 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do -- I looked again and the only two imagess I found were the DVD cover and the American poster. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I found what I saw - but it's not the full poster - it's a lobby card - [6]. SilkTork *^YES! 17:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about being "odd" - a strange choice of images for this film, which is so centered on Deborah Kerr's character. I have to assume that there were other lobby cards in addition to this one. In any case, I cleaned it up, fixed the keystoning on it and put it into the article. I took a look at it in the infobox, but it just didn't look very good to me in comparison to the American poster, so I put it down lower.

There must have been some better UK advertising image that carried the original title, don't you think? (Whether it's lost or available on the Web is another question entirely.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:274851934 bfe9d6728c b.jpg

File:274851934 bfe9d6728c b.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Los Angeles River.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Los Angeles River.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the call in the article Los Angeles River to the Commons name. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Move Survey: Your Opinion is Requested

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Opinion

Thank you for voting, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the part where you said you didn't understand, because by voting means you

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the dog term in the article, he stated that if someone were to search "Bitch" trying to find the dog term, they would get the insult page

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not refactor my comments or delete them again, it's very rude.

The article in queston begins "Bitch, a term for the female of a canine species in general", so there is indeed mention of the term in realtion to dogs. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Smoking

I realize this is of virtually no help, but I have this nagging recollection of an editor that was doing this same kind of stuff a couple of years ago, especially the part about removing anything that seemed to be "anti-smoking propaganda". It's too bad there isn't some kind of mechanism to do a word search on the entire database history. Or is there? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have commented further at ANI, since the IP has a partial point, even though he's mostly wrong and is also being a jerk about it as usual. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs on this one. This guy is being a real jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horneldinkrag (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Beware of making personal attacks. In other words, don't be like me. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry Baseball Bugs. I'll try better next time. You've got the right attitude on this one though. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horneldinkrag (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK feature

I saw your note about this (and on Chesil Beach). Can you explain more and if possible provide an example. I have looked at Chesil Beach, but can't find the one you seem to dislike. I suspect the problem is not with the template but with the interaction between it, images, and the TOC, which I have encountered myself. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I never saved any of the problem versions - when I saw the big block of whitespace in preview, I didn't save it.

The problem is this: with other infobox templates, if you put images directly after the infobox text, they display on the right side right under the infobox, in a stack. The text of the lede section is displayed on the left side, as normal. With "infobox UK feature" the text of the lede section was held back until the bottom of the infobox had cleared.

I know that's less than clear, so what I'll do is go back and save a bad version and immediately revert it, then post the bad version here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, take a look at this and compare it to the current version. The only difference between them is that the first uses Template:Infobox UK feature and the second uses Template:Infobox UK place. In the current version (second) the text displays correctlty, while is the first version (with the "feature" template) it doesn't display until the infbox has been cleared. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - that is crystal clear. What I have been doing is moving the [image] down to achieve

what I want. But, I agree it should act the same as UK place (and I did intend that). I will investigate. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I checked and the difference is due to the position of {coord}, UK place has it in the infobox; I had it after. I have made the change and Chesil Beach is now working as you expected it to. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for taking the time to work that out. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 16:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Paris Holiday dvd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Paris Holiday dvd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK to delete. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:AaronJBiterman

This User does not appear to want to listen to how to appropriately add this category, as he is continuing to add them to articles that don't support the Libertarian designation. -->David Shankbone 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I filed a report on WP:ANI, but forgot to notify him -- thanks for doing that. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In some respects it is unfortunate, since Biterman is Secretary to the Liberty Caucus, and he is exposing a void we have in covering Libertarian views on BLPs; however, his edit to Bill Maher's article also shows he is POV-pushing, since some Libertarians don't consider Maher to be one by one standard or another. -->David Shankbone 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a problem with the coverage of libertarianism on WP? That surprises me, considering its origins and the general strength of libertarian feelings in the online world. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Imitation of Life 1959 Lana.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Imitation of Life 1959 Lana.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Image was replaced by free image in article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Chester A. Arthur

The title of CAA's homepage on Wiki uses his middle initial, rather than his full name. Links to his homepage should be "Chester A. Arthur" rather than his full name, unless the content of the article "justifies" using his full name. In the Madison Square article, I don't see why his full name should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.134.83 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Chester A. Arthur" gets over 172,000 Google hits, but "Chester Alan Arthur" gets over 102,000, so it's hardly a slam dunk to choose one over the other. I have no objection to the WP article using the initial instead of the full middle name, but I believe that during his lifetime Arthur was more often referred to using the full name, while the initial has come into use as a standardized form in more modern times. Since the call to Chester Alan Arthur is redirected to Chester A. Arthur, I see no need to change the Madison Square article, especially since the statue in question uses "Chester Alan Arthur". Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Tagging for File:Glad Rags to Riches Temple.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Glad Rags to Riches Temple.jpg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "List of image copyright tags" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I've changed the tag on this picture to a more up-to-date one which will at least give you some time. I think the tag I've changed it to is the right one, but it would also help to link to a site that states the film as being in the public domain. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thought - don't worry about it. I found a site confirming its status and have added that to the image page. Rossrs (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, it's appreciated. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)