User talk:WickerGuy/Archive4

Greetings of the season to you and yours!

Happy Holidays, WickerGuy! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• And many thanks for the return greeting. MarnetteD | Talk 01:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:2001Satellite.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:2001Satellite.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Van and dog.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Van and dog.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes and a question

Hi WG. Just wanted to stop by and wish you all the best in the year ahead. I also wanted to check your film memory/knowledge. I have had conversations both on and off wiki over the years about film credits dealing with the move of them from the start to the end of a film. Citizen Kane is the earliest film {not counting early silents) that I am aware of that opened with just the title of the film. Then Kubrick did the same (not counting the name of the studio of course) beginning with 2001. Then Star Wars came along and the move of the credits to the end of a film spread throughout the industry. I am wondering if you know of any mainstream film(s) - big/small studio, influential or not - between Kane and 2001 that also had minimal/no opening credits? Thanks ahead of time for any info that you can impart and once again I hope that you have a great 2011 (Gregorian calendar of course) and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the edit at The Great Dictator. I've always felt that there were enough traits of the Tramp in "The Barber" that it was a bit of a misnomer to say that Modern Times was his "positively final" appearance. But this is as much POV on my part as it was of the IP that entered it so I didn't think that we could leave it in that form. BTW one of the extras on the recent Criterion Collection release of Modern Times had a illuminating extra showing how Chaplin filmed through a matte painting to make the roller skating scene look so wonderfully dangerous. With all that computers can now do I feel sure that this film technique will become a lost art form - if it hasn't been already. Lastly, I have amended my above request in the hopes that you won't take up to much of your time (unless you want to of course) in researching the credits item. I keep encountering younger people who have little awareness that films used to have all of their credits before the film began. I am curious what other ones there are out there pre 2001 that fit the bill. MarnetteD | Talk 03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I caught it and I think that the section looks great and is very informative. I learned a lot from it. So I'll simply pass along heaps of more thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 04:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Please stop adding information that has no sources. You can't just put stuff up. Read the guidelines.

Challenged or likely to be challenged Main page: WP:SOURCES

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

contentious

con·ten·tious/kənˈtenCHəs/Adjective1. 1. Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial. 2. Involving heated argument

--SevaSevaSeva (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Michel Lerner has been posted on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

--SevaSevaSeva (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation needed - Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately.

Wikipedia:Citation needed From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Page semi-protected The template aims to promote accountable discourse. A complete version of this documentation is provided at Template:Citation needed.

To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an uncited claim by inserting a tag.

   Example: Most people believe in ghosts.[citation needed]

• Exercise caution before relying upon unsourced claims.

• IF you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source. You may leave the copyediting to someone else, or learn more about citing sources on Wikipedia.

• If someone tagged your contributions with "Citation needed" and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's discussion page.

• Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately.

--SevaSevaSeva (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Lerner (rabbi)

Mind 3RR and please stop edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but please take a look at the article's edit history for the past two days. You and SevaSevaSeva have been edit-warring. Please stop. There is no deadline. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Chabad and ultra-Orthodox Rabbis study at Rabbinical Yeshivas (seminaries) full time for years, then get rigorously tested, then get a Rabbinical certificate.

I don't know if your aware, Chabad and ultra-Orthodox Rabbis study at Rabbinical Yeshivas (seminaries) full time for years, then get rigorously tested, then get a Rabbinical certificate.

The quote by Lerner is simply false.

Lerner has the equivalent of a mail order diploma from a diploma mill based on life experience. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Solar New Year to you as well.

Happy Solar New Year to you as well.

I could be wrong, but the Conservative (non orthodox) Rabbi talking about his educational qualifications goes to to heart of Lerners credentials. All the major denominations; reform, conservative, and orthodox, as well as the minor; reconstructionist, humanist have rabbinical schools. They have educational qualifications, testing, etc. I believe that the rabbi was saying that if you have no rabbinical educational qualifications, then you don't really have anything. The renewal movement is not and does not claim to be a denomination, they are a movement. The chasidic movement is not a denomination either, they are a movement.

Haredi rabbis do require formal semikhah/smicha. They have been studying Torah full time for 15 to 20 years or more, they start at age 3, most don't get smicha at least until their early 20's. They are tested, it is not always easy.

As far as the other renewal rabbis, you have a point. I might edit them soon when this edit cools down. In the world of Judaism; reform, conservative, and orthodox don't agree with the renewal ordinations and are not generally accepted anywhere. People want to say it's only the orthodox, but the liberal reform also agrees. It's like accreditation for colleges, without an accreditation, a degree does not mean much. If there is no renewal school, then being a renewal rabbi has no formal educational requirements.

To everyone outside the renewal movement - rabbinical educational qualifications count as credentials. Just like in most other fields. If you are a medical doctor, you needed educational qualifications and to pass a test. If not, you can still call yourself a doctor, but it mostly won't be accepted.

Thanks for the dialogue, please feel free to write me again. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

My first Barnstar! Coming from a diligent, source-finding editor like yourself that means something. Keep up the good work!Shirtwaist (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Van and dog.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Van and dog.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

William Blake: sources

Hi WikerGuy, Categories need to be sourced. I can see no reference to Blake's anarchism in the present article. If you want to add a ref'd section on his anarchist activities and then add a category, then great. Span (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2001

What exactly was wrong with this edit? It looked like an improvement to me. Garion96 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Beta/Delta

Your complaint to that user characterized his work as "sloppy", "meat-clever" and "just plain amateurish". That's an interesting take. Since you've been around since 2008, you may be aware of the endless disruption that guy has caused. I would summarize these recent edits as "incompetent", and frankly that's worse than mere fair-use debates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've posted some comments on WP:ANI in which I quote your characterizations, in case you'd like to elaborate or otherwise speak out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for finding that other series' have images, and what is acceptable in that regard, and for finding and inserting the image and then linking it to The Chronicles of Narnia article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

IMDeBacle

Sorry it took so long to respond - I hardly ever check my talk because I hardly ever expect posts! Interesting about your experience with IMDb entries. I tried submitting a bit of background about one illustrious relative of mine - Frances Goodrich, who wrote, with her husband Albert Hackett, "It's A Wonderful Life", "Diary Of Anne Frank"(play and film), "The Thin Man", and a few others. My aunt knew her from New York, and even introduced me to her when I was too young to remember much about it, and told me about her much later. I submitted some of that info, but it never appeared in the IMDb page. What little respect I had for IMDb has evaporated after that.Shirtwaist (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi again. In checking the proper revert that you made on the 2001 article today I noticed the parenthetical mention of street mimes as performers in the "Dawn of Man" sequence. I thought that I remembered reading that some of them were also professional dancers. I'm mostly asking to check whether the old faltering memory banks are on the blink again. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Shining (film)

When you have a moment, will you take a look at the most recent edits to this article? I do not see how a private diary can be a source used in the article, since no other editor can possibly verify what the source allegedly says. I am not doubting the sincerity or honesty of the editor who added the information---indeed, by his name, it seems he might be the individual in question---but the source cannot be verified. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you spoke to him. This is a frustrating situation, because, as I said, I do not doubt his honesty or sincerity, but the source is dicey. With luck you can work something out with him.

Congratulations on the publication! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in and add my congratulations. My Folio Society edition of Dante's Inferno contains illustrations by Blake so I look forward to reading your thesis. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Awards

It's normal for people to list awards on their own websites. Most often these people are honest, the awards are worthy of note and genuinely received. Fairly often, however, the awards are convincingly named but trivial or fictional, or the awarding thereof is a convenient typo for nomination thereof, or there's similar flimflam going on. Thus an encyclopedia is well advised to avoid all such stuff. (Incidentally, it would help if your external links were in the form "[URL title]".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fairly good point. Other members of my family are mega-ballet buffs and assured me the award was real & prestiguous. I preferred at the time I posted that stuff to use the choreographer's website, because all other sources verifying it were in foreign languages!!! However, a notable example of what you state is that John Shelby Spong's website notes he got a "Humanist of the Year" award. However, there are at least 3 different outfits that give a "Humanist of the Year" award, and he got it from one of the smallest and most marginal humanist organizations in the world, and he does not say this. On the WP article on him, I specify exactly which outfit it is, and cite their website, while an earlier version of the article cited his.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some of these small and marginal organizations turn out on inspection to be nothing more than a man, a neatly designed website, a form, and a PayPal address. In other words, a racket that's the award equivalent of a degree mill or an enterprise that invites you, and just you (but secretly all your chums, and me, and thousands besides) to appear in variants of "Who's Who" that no library would ever lower itself to buy. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Spong's awarder is a real organization, but it is limited to New York City with less than 1000 members, and has a limited partnership with the Unitarian Church. However, the other two outfits that give out "Humanist of the Year" awards are national or international organizations.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In case you are interested

In case you hadn't already seen it I thought that I would make you aware of the ongoing conversation here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film. I don't know whether you will want to add your opinion but, as you take care of these sections in the articles for Kubrick's films (and others I feel sure) I thought might be interested in what is being said. If not my apologies for taking up your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

How many pages in Bizony?

Hi - Do you know what this Ken keisel guy is talking about when he says Bizony talks about furnishings on p. 168? I have the 2000 edition, is there a later ed. with extra material and pages I don't know about? Thanks.Shirtwaist (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

William Blake edits of Jan 22

Hello! Your January 22 edits to William Blake add a ref name of "Erdman" but do not include an actual source. There are a few references to Erdman's work "Prophet Against Empire already in the article and I do not know which you meant, or what page, or it could be another work altogether. It would be appreciated if you would revisit the section and add in the reference you intended. In case it is not possible to add the source, I have changed it to "citation needed" to remove it from Category:Pages with broken reference names. Thank you! - Salamurai (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the Blake article lists two books by Erdman in the bibliography, which was the above ref from? Please add in publishing date to last citation. Thanks Span (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Chronicles of Narnia Boxed Set Photo - File:ScholasticNarnia.jpg

Hi there. I have a question regarding a photo you uploaded. Can you please confirm the publisher? The filename states that it's Scholsatic, but after eyeballing it, it's quite obvious that the logo on the spine belongs to HarperCollins, not Scholastic. I'm concerned as this pic is being used in the infobox for The Chronicles of Narnia article, and I want to make sure the description is correct. Thanks for your help! Cheers. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, but

Yes, but when you have a situation where:

• There is some numerical value in an article such as a date, and
• It's been there a long time, and
• A very slight alteration is made in it,
• By a new anon IP, as
• His first edit, and
• No reference or reason is given, and in fact
• There is no edit summary at all, and
• There is no engagement on the talk page,

THEN

• It's fishy.

And it's common for vandals to do stuff like this, it is called subtle-date-change vandalism. The theory, I think, that changing a single date slightly is a lot more likely to go undetected in the long term than writing that the person was born in Antarctica or whatever.

Of course that doesn't mean it's always vandalism, and I didn't say that it was. I just said that such changes are generally reverted as a matter of course, which they are, and I'm not inclined, in cases like this, to drop whatever I'm doing and go into a search of the literature to see whether the change is correct. Let him provide the ref. Herostratus (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)