User talk:Light show/archive-3

George C Scott

Your photo of scott adds nothing to the article as it is nearly the same (in terms of when it was taken) as one of the photos in the piece. My photo, taken later in life shows a side of him that is not otherwise shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfrankel (talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the comments to his article talk page so others can reply? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Hi! I'm writing an article for my english class and I need to find people to provide some feedback on it. The article can be found here -->Takadimi. Thanks!Rajahsrider (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity photos

Would the color shot of Fay Wray from [1], Leslie Banks from [2], Joel McCrea from [3] and Donna Reed from [4] be okay for upload? Connormah (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Also, any chance you could get some shots of some of the Wizard of Oz actors? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem like standard publicity photos, so should be fine. Personally, I'd pick the B/W of Fay over the color one, since it's more authentic for that period, when photos were tinted to be colorized. I'll add Oz to my todo list. With that star-studded cast, the quality of all their images should be improved. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - Which licenses should I upload them under? Connormah (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This example would work for those. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where might I find the year that the photos were taken? Connormah (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not included with the source, or from clues in the photo itself (i.e. a particular film), then web or book searching could help. I've listed dates as "circa" when the date range could be reasonably estimated, otherwise I put "date unknown." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laraine Day

Hi, Wikiwatcher1. I just wanted to stop by and tell you that I think it is fantastic how you upload so many cool photographs of famous people here to Wikipedia. You have such good taste too you always make great selections. I was wondering would you mind giving actress Laraine Day's page a facelift and upload a picture of her from Dr. Macro to serve as her new headshot for the article's main picture? If so here's the link (http://www.doctormacro.com/Movie%20Star%20Pages/Day,%20Laraine.htm) and please upload the one on the left I think that would be beautiful. Thank you for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.27.96 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great choice! Will work on it soon.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir! You are so fantastic in your photo choices and it is an honor to recognize Laraine Day this way. Thank you so much again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.27.96 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to get positive feedback. I'm glad to help out. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Shearer

Would you mind giving a facelift to the Norma Shearer page? The picture they have the dominant one now is kind of mundane, if you can would you mind uploading this one from Dr. Macro here to Wikipedia? The link is:http://doctormacro.com/Images/Shearer,%20Norma/Annex/Annex%20-%20Shearer,%20Norma_17.jpg

Thanks if you can do it!Michael Power 2011 22:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Michaela Power 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela Power 2011 (talk • contribs)

Who owns copyright of that image? Amalthea 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure but Wikiwatcher1 is good at figuring out that information. I don't plan to upload that picture I just want to upload one of my own.Michael Power 2011 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela Power 2011 (talk • contribs)

It would be in the public domain, with a license rationale similar to Laraine Day. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking my suggestion it turned out great! Michael Power 2011 00:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela Power 2011 (talk • contribs)

Elizabeth Taylor

I think many of the images you've uploaded are an asset to the articles you've added them to, but this one - File:Taylor, Elizabeth Velvet.jpg - looks like a problem. The source website states that it's under copyright. Could you please clarify. At face value, I think it should be deleted. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rossrs. I've dealt with similar issues for other photos and a few conclusions came out of them: All websites are automatically copyrighted, including blogs, as a creative product, and many will include a copyright notice somewhere; the images included on them, and their text, may or may not be copyrighted depending on their source (i.e. a lot of sites will simply copy Wikipedia); Time and Life -related websites always have their boilerplate copyright listed, regardless of the status of older photos; but even for Life and others, if a photo is reasonably a PD image due to its date, source, or subject, like publicity photos, it's stays PD regardless of where it's reposted or reprinted. So I try to be very careful to check before using and will upload as non-free if there's doubt. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks. The logo in the bottom right on the photo is another issue though. Could you upload it again minus the logo? That really does draw attention to it. Lovely photos in Taylor's article now, by the way. Rossrs (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to give-up on Lester R. Brown edit ... notice Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin POV tactics history. ...

You don't have to give-up on Lester R. Brown edit ... notice Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin POV tactics history. ... 99.109.126.27 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

WP:BLP is our most strictly enforced policy. When someone removes something on BLP grounds, if you disagree, you do not revert them, but instead open a section on the article's talk page. Please don't make this mistake again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of clear. But as you know you reverted someone's earlier edit stating it was unsourced, so I simply assumed you didn't see the source and pointed it out. Nor was any talk page opened on the subject. But I got your point. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I haven't looked at the recent deletion requests other than to know that there are a lot of them and that you're upset, and I know it has been a couple of days since you made the posts, but you should remember that non-neutral comments such as this one are not allowed. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that per images filed for deletion, within the template's usage, there is a presumption that the image in the article should have a notice to request comments pending the deletion request. Since the tagger of 21 images failed to do so, I simply let regular editors stay up to date with a Talk notice in the effected articles. So I'm not sure if that's a form of "canvassing," as opposed to fulfilling a requirement for an image FfD. I don't think the word "subjective" is non-neutral, in case you were referring to that, and that was explained in the same notice. Can you clarify the "canvassing" and "non-neutral" issue so I'm clear? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, canvassing would be WP:CANVASSING (in particular "Campaigning"), and the phrases that caught my eye were, to a much lesser extent, the editorializing:

The rationale is that they do not "significantly increases reader understanding," which, being totally subjective, is not helpful.

but primarily the invitation for those who agree with you to vote:

If anyone wishes to comment that in their opinion it does add to the commentary, you can do so

(emphasis added). There's no problem simply leaving a message on the articles's talk pages about such deletion discussions, it's just the particulars of the message which are problematic. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and fixed on Carl Sagan so far. I'll revise the few others. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's much appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As wp:tea is blocked for IP Users, Thank you for your additions to Lester R. Brown.

As wp:tea is blocked for IP Users, Thank you for your additions to Lester R. Brown. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split

My guess (hope) is that with a split, you will feel more comfortable reflecting some of the material that I have identified (in the event article). And I will certainly feel more comfortable in the deletion of material from the bio -- if it is moved to the event article. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please see Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case. I don't want to fight, I prefer to read books. I simply think that cite those issues is relevant. The introduction should be shortened, though (or better, moved to DSK's article, and move the DSK's assault section into Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case)Yug (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwatcher, I feel really uncomfortable with your position. You support the need of an article, but you destroy each effort I make to provide content by massive deletions. I did tried to talkd to you on the talk page, you didn't reacted for... 8 hours. So I dare to restore, and you delete 4 full different sections with a clic and no argument. I feel like you are an adult asking me to speak, and hitting me hard each time I speak, then asking me to speak. Yug (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all covered on the article talk page. All of the deletions were explained there a number of times with rationales. I'm actually trying to be extra civil by explaining things in detail. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The will to delete "all" have been state, the careful consideration of the ~20 statements before deletion was NOT and never provide.

Your quick revert reverted my edit, including deleting the section #Consequences, and restoring the section #Conspiracies, which is quite gossip.

Now, those same relevant statements are coming back and accepted. The article is now containing (section #French reactions & #Resignation, economic and political impact) the very same sourced statements : reaction of the French opinion, Guigou law, consequence on the French election, crisis in the IMF... that you insistingly deleted when in former ection #Consequences. About the section #Conspiracies, that you looked as worthing, it have now almost been delete as being too gossips.

The current shape of the article show that following your simple POV (as everyone), you were harshly deleting ALL (full sections), including relevant content, and bitting randomly.

Please be more respectful of other users' opinions. A lot of time have been wasted with this useless deletion and following reconstruction. Yug (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Errant ^(chat!) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Simon

I have tried a compromise on the Paul Simon templates. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your DSK redactions

Hi WW - I watchlisted the DSK articles a while ago and though I haven't been too active in them lately, and just noticed your redactions of FM's comments. Please remember that per the NPA guidelines, "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." A lot of the comments that you redacted were definitely not clearcut personal attacks, and a good number of them don't seem to be personal attacks at all. In some places you removed content that was not attacking you in such a way as to change the meaning of FM's comments. Please go back over your edits and reverse those redactions you made of material that was not a clearcut personal attack aimed at you. I can understand why you viewed some of FM's comments as personal attacks (and I agree with you that some of them were,) but some of what you removed clearly falls outside the scope of WP:NPA. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm aware of the guidelines, and even posted them before redactions, on FM's talk page. I reviewed the redactions made and found none that were obviously incorrect, although the overall message might have been altered, especially since I tried to carefully prune out material, and left prior and subsequent statements. So it would help if you could point out which redactions you noted were incorrect. If they were, I will obviously restore it. With this much pruning, mistakes would not be that surprising. The only point I tend to disagree with, is your use of the word "some" as opposed to "most." If the overall message has lost its meaning due to proper redactions, the burden would be FM's to rephrase. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image gallery of counterfeit consumer goods

Hi, Wikiwatcher1. I noticed you reverted my removal of the image gallery in Counterfeit consumer goods a second time. Apparently the discussion between us at Talk:Counterfeit consumer goods/Archives/2012#Too many unnecessary images didn't really go anywhere. Would you mind if I listed this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment to get some outside input? —Bkell (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. One of the reasons the gallery was restored because another editor had reduced its size, and that seemed like a reasonable change to keep. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EAR

I've started a topic on WP:EAR that involves you. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Operation Entebbe

There is a discussion regarding some text you added going on at Talk:Operation Entebbe#RfC: Should Operation Eagle Claw Be Discussed In This Article and Do the Included Citations Support the Article? Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous info on [File:Kubrick-Lolita-62.jpg]

Wikiwatcher, that's a photo of Kubrick directing Doctor Strangelove, not Lolita!!!! Please ASAP both rename the file (or reupload under an appropriate name & delete this copy) and change the file info. (Aside from the fact that I've seen the photo in several books appropriately labeled, are there any scenes in Lolita with semi-automatic machine guns?)

Fixed. Commons file to be renamed by admin. I somehow picked the wrong "strange love."--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of many caveats, your work on the Kubrick article is overall much appreciated.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Steiner

Did you intentionally remove the navboxes in this edit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the details were more clearly included in the Filmography section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created most of the score and song award templates ({{Academy Award Best Original Song}}, {{Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song}}, {{Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score}}, {{DramaDesk Music}} and {{BAFTA Award for Best Film Music}} and all the subtemplates for shorter periods of time) on WP. I.e., all of them except for {{Academy Award Best Original Score}} and {{TonyAward MusicalScore}}. Basically, if there are two or three most people leave them and if there are more than three it is not uncommon for them to be collapsed into a template of the form {{Navboxes||title=Elton John honors|list1=}}--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama Quote

While I admire the sentiments behind the quote on your user page, it is not in fact from the Dalai Lama, although it has been widely attributed to the DL, a student at Columbine, and comedian George Carlin. It is actually by Dr. Paul Moorehead, former pastor of Seattle's Overlake Christian Church. See [5].

Fixed

Sorry about the mess re the Kubrick images. You have my sympathy. (But I tried to warn you.)--WickerGuy (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did - thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Status?

On WP if an image is nominated for deletion, it gets resolved in 7 days. There's been no discussion at all on the Kubrick images for a while, and the images are still around. Do you know what's going on?--WickerGuy (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the images decided on so far, they were kept. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must not be looking in the right places on my Commons Watchlist. Where is the official record of this?--WickerGuy (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The separate photos tagged as kept by editors were noted on the image pages. I don't recall that any Kubrick images were revised.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that the status of the Kubrick photoes is still uncertain? The discussion thread certainly seemed to be going against them. Wikicommons perhaps proceeds more slowly that non-free Wikipedia stuff.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I haven't dealt with the Commons that much. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Californians for Population Stabilization for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Californians for Population Stabilization is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Californians for Population Stabilization until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JFHJr (㊟) 03:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrick and Conway

I thought you wanted the Conway material incorporated into Kubrick's biography. The material I added on Frank Rich was to give the material more weight, and the material in the original version (which you also deleted) on the response of Kubrick and his family is IMO essential to making the material notable at all!! You seem to have both removed the material that makes the Conway story non-trivial and then moved it to a section which you labeled "trivia". This is the very first edit of yours I have seen that seems to me to be significantly ill-advised.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be simpler to keep related comments on the same page. I'll copy this to the earlier section so things don't get split up. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Xijky (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns re Natalie Wood death section

Hi, I've listed my concerns at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Natalie_Wood but I'm not so good at being articulate. The other two editors from Talk:Natalie Wood have weighed in there. Would you care to do so? You could do a better job than me. I have never listed anything there before. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew: be very careful you don't get accused (rightfully or otherwise) of canvassing. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post there but I assumed that any editors who were interested would naturally have to go to the article section and talk page to get some perspective. I try to avoid being redundant. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, Wikiwatcher1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. MER-C 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mutiny on the bounty.jpg

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. When you recently edited Irving Thalberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Best Actress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly good work on....

Stanley Kubrick's personal life, especially the sections marriage and family & "Settling in England" and "Desire for Piracy". Like most of the public, I've been more interested in the films than the man, sort of like so many Sherlock Holmes fans who could care less about Conan Doyle. Interesting but not surprising that he remained "at heart" a New Yorker his whole life.

Sorry about the loss of the last photo (even though I voted for deletion). It was a good photo, even if by Wiki-standards superfluous.

More anon--WickerGuy (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Light show. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quick note on GG p.

Ww, please note the ratings of the p.

I realize I didn't sign the above. I was eating breakfast and realized that "tomorrow" is the end of the picture; "i'll never be hungry again" ends act 1.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I assume your saying you were eating breakfast, followed by "I'll never be hungry again," was a Freudian slip ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In skimming your talk page, I noticed you did some work on Max Steiner who of course composed the score for Wind. Appropriate to our discussion! I think he mostly worked with W.B. though, not mgm, Right?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But what always amazes me is how most of America's classic film composers came from Europe and Russia. Dmitri Tiomkin tried to explain some of the reasons.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and that so many of them were E. European Jewish refugees who directed, etc., pictures about American interests and culture! And in most of them, there wasn't a Jew in sight. Have you read Neil Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood? If not, you'd love it. As Bette Davis is reported to have said, "There would be no Hollywood without the Jews and homosexuals". I'm going right to your link. Thanks for attaching it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thrilled you're working on the Stanwyck p. which is really bad, I think and does little justice to her extraordinary work and contribution to cinema. The p. really needs to be rewrtten. I contemplated working on it but 1) there's just not enough written about her 2) I'm exhausted by GG work and no time to get consumed by another. Have you seen new Stanwyck bio though? Haven't read but focus looks to be on her films. Still, has probably updated information/knowledge/insight. A major editor at Knopf, Victoria Wilson(edited Barry Paris' 1994 GG bio), has been working on a big Stanwyck bio for more than 10 years. I've been keeping up with her progress but seems stalled. Anyway, if she ever gets it done, it should be brilliant. take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the new Callahan bio (2012), I added some brief early years material from it. Callahan made it clear a number of times that one of his reasons for this bio was to correct a lot of erroneous gossip-oriented material that Madsen's bio relied on. Madsen is the key source for most of the current article. I might be able to do some more work on it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good. Very glad for Callahan's intentions. Madsen's bio is hopeless. Much of it is just faudulent. Yeah, do some more on it if you can!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright searching

The online copyright search at copyright.gov only goes back so far and doesn't take into consideration all copyrights filed since the office began. Only more current copyrights appear in their online search. The best place to start looking for older information about whether an item was renewed is here : Catalog of Copyright Entries. It's organized by year; search the year before as well as the year the renewal was due, as some companies filed before time was up. Their pages are trustworthy for the timeframe they deal with. We hope (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use of File:Dick Clark - ad.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dick Clark - ad.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

We hope (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I had to tag the Dick Clark image and had said I didn't think it would work, and that you should have your say and we would let a third party make the decision. However, it looks like my original post disappeared in cyberpace. We hope (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]