Light show

Hi, Wikiwatcher1! Love your picture choices, may I suggest a picture tune up for the pages of Jane Greer Y, Rue McClanahan, Arlene Dahl Y, and John Gavin. They really could use a tune up and poor Arlene has no pictures on her page at all. Hope you'll consider. Have a good one!Carlton30458AZ (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Added Arlene, will do others if possible. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

WW, why didn't you either talk to me (since you know I and another made the first choice) or raise as a discussion point first about making this big change? The whole point of the other image is to show her laughing! This was the big tag-line and it was her first and only 1 of 2 comedies. It's very important to the article because it shows her range. Can you explain why you made this change? So with due respect, I'm going to revert again and unless you can persuade on discussion page, we really should keep the choice Fat&Happy and I made several weeks ago. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

NEVERMIND! I'm so sorry. I didn't go all the way through. Now, you don't think the page is overcrowded with images? I do. But will check with fat&happy to get his opinion. Anyway, I'm not wedded to it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

it's me again. Another problem is that it's 2 pics from the same movie. There are so many other classics that are not represented, the most importyant being Queen Christian. You want to check on some of those?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

uhhh. Christina :))

No problem. I'll keep an eye out for the queen. But if we add a photo of "Queen Christina," it will have to go in the section titled "Queen of MGM." Are such double crowns allowed? :) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

:))!

OK, google garbo queen christina "images." Look at first two. 2nd one of the most famous shots in cinema history. First slightly better quality. I think either would be a much better choice than having 2 pics from the same movie. What do you think? I'd post it but don't know how to deal with copyright rules.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

o yeah, F&H also questioned the wisdom of having 2 from same movie.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Done - I found one that is public domain. The ones you found came from blogs which wouldn't be allowed.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bravo! Much better I think. And brings out her often-cited androgyny, part of her unique screen persona, which adds something to the p.

You're fast, man.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've been crazy busy this week. I hope you'll be patient a little longer? Some years ago I found so few musicians' biographies (my focus) missing images, that I ended up 50% half-sidetracked from editing obtaining photos, & since then I've uploaded at least 1,500 photos since then. But the templates, policy, rules, and style I learned I either memorized or stashed someplace on my userpage or in a sandbox there. I'll look for the origin, ASAP. Basically, infobox photos should be of the best quality a recent date. (In the case of Bruce Springsteen, placing a photo from 30 years ago may easily confuse a reader who is newly familiar with him, and not recognize him from long ago is just one reason that comes to mind. There is also the problem of fans editing and placing photos of people they were attracted to years before, as with Mick Taylor or Cat Stevens who are eager to show the artist as they remember their "pin-up" days. After the infobox, images should be used to reflect the text and/or expand the reader's comprehension of points being made. With few exceptions, biography articles flow chronologically, and photos should illuminate text from the time period. See Wikipedia:IMAGE RELEVANCE.. it's taken me years to realize how to begin to look for inspired policy to produce much better articles! I'll try to get back to you with more policy sources. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Roman Polanski". Thank you. --Psalm84 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, (UTC)

I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a notice that I replied to your statement in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

this is one of the best articles I've seen all day. Thank you for writing it, and keep up the awesome work! Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

dont use the current format because its a lot of work for you and reflinks provides more data, ill run the rool on the page.Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Wikiwatcher1, for communicating this way, but user-email is not enabled. Anyway, for a music project about Irving Berlin in Berlin we need to find the source of the Irving Berlin portrait photograph that you have uploaded on English Wikipedia. I bought the book that the caption says contains the image, but it doesn't. So would you please provide the correct source of the image, so I can use it or re-scan it for print publications etc.? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onigorom (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you're referring to the lead image, that was from a library book, so I'll first try to find it and double check. But if you meant another photo, let me know. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

• - Talk:Roman_Polanski#The_infobox_image

Hi - regarding your revert of my edit - I have opened a talkpage policy discussion - please join in there - thanks - Youreallycan 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

• - Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg

Hi - I have opened a discussion regarding your claim of public domain on this picture - please comment there - thanks - Youreallycan 17:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I asked you a question - Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg - pleae reply - thanks - Youreallycan 16:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Getty Images has this photograph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BerlinPortrait1.jpg) listed, and they claim to have a license (unfortunately). Upon uploading you have listed this image as license-free public domain. I would be thankful if you could inquire on that or give proof that it is public domain etc. The Getty listing can be found here: http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/circa-1945-studio-portrait-of-russian-born-composer-nachrichtenfoto/51240089 The photographer is unknown. Getty wants to charge money for this image being used in a music performance context, and I wonder what is the case here. --Onigorom (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Getty places a copyright notice on all their photos, regardless of whether they have a registration. A search found that this image, if it ever was copyrighted (doubtful - see film still article, was not renewed and nothing similar has been renewed. Because Getty, like Corbis, is a stock photo house, they charge for their services of providing the images in various resolutions. I have the source book on order, and should have it later this week. However, note that the image you're inquiring about is small and low resolution, so for print publication it would only be a bit over an inch square, about the size of a postage stamp. A photo like this one can also be used if you contact the web site for its source and check with them also, along with doing your own copyright search. It will print up to 9" x 12" at print resolution.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Repeated harassment is easily neutered:

.usermessage
{
 display: none;
}

Drop that in User:Wikiwatcher1/common.css, and begone. Then you can check for messages when you feel like it, kinda like with email. It will also kill some of teh joke bars. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

no problem. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The message this replaces was an effort to contact you from a banned user, Excuseme99. Please remember that Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids taking editing directions from banned users, so I strongly urge you to ignore the contract request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.—Kww(talk) 05:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see you do a lot of work to his article, so this is a heads up. Sellers didn't have a heart attack on the set of Kiss me Stupid and almost certainly didn't have 13 heart attacks. My explanation for the edit I did can be found here.[1] Cheers!...William 17:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

WW, please do not simply revert alterations without first researching why the "extreme" removals and edits are taking place. It has absolutely nothing to do with WP:OWN - a policy you seem to be slightly obsessed with of late. Please see [the image review] which has been conducted by J Milburn; an excellent and prolific image reviewer at FAC who has identified a number of serious issues with a lot of the images within the article. SchroCat and I are putting a lot of time and effort in to this in order to get this upto FA standard and we think this is certainly achievable if we recieve the correct guidance at PR. Such guidence may result in a number of substantial edits taking place so as to remove problematic issues which could potentially hinder Sellers chances at FAC. Surely even you want Sellers to achieve the highest status possible so I beg you, please work with us and not against us, as we only have this articles best interests at heart. If you have an issue with the image review, feel free to approach the image reviewer. I just hope you do your research before you do though, because they will run rings around you if you don't. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I understand. I just did that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I really do appreciate your understanding and I'm sure JM will provide a definate answer once and for all. For the record, I would happily keep all the images, but they do come with thier problems and Sellers would be kicked out as soon as it was listed if these problems are not fixed now. We really want Sellers to have a smooth transition from complete obscurity to being the best WP has to offer so its not about OWN. By the way, If you have any comments at PR we would love to hear from you (excuse the cheeky plug ;-) -- Cassianto^Talk 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Concerning the message you left on my talk page, if we can prove that, firstly, the image was published in the US between those years, and, secondly, that it was published without a copyright notice, then I naturally have no objection to its use. We assume images non-free until proven otherwise. (Whether it's used in the lead, elsewhere or at all is up to you- I'm just concerned about copyright.) Right now, it's not clear that the image is definitely PD; regardless of how appropriate you feel the image is for the article, the copyright concerns have to come first. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Wikiwatcher1. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1, where you may want to participate. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I bulleted parts of your comment at Talk:Peter Sellers#Place of birth and possible misuse of BRD to make the text more accessible (per WP:LIST). Hope that's OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Wikiwatcher1,

A new page has been created today in honor of actress Kay Christopher.

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Christopher

We are hoping you'd like to do the honor of posting some photographs of her on her page since you are such a respected uploader.

Hope you'll consider.DinahIsMyGal (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikiwatcher1, If you would like another picture project actress Caren Marsh Doll dosen't have any pictures on her Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caren_Marsh_Doll

Perhaps you could add some image for her when you can.MissPhyll (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

 

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The photo you put up there is nice, but it's virtually identical to the screenshot from Doctor Zhivago under the career section. I clicked on your image and saw that it was from eBay. Can you upload another photo from ebay, perhaps this photo, to use instead of the pic that's on there right now? Shipofcool (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's from the same film, so I'll change the caption on the lead. I think the lead image is much better for her bio's image, so will delete the screen captured one. I'll keep my eyes open for some others, but the one you found won't work since it's a reprint without any border details. BTW, Doctor Zhivago is now playing at some major theaters nationwide along with the first runs - seems to be some classic film promo, but can't tell. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're wrong, I was removing vandalism. Take a look at my edit to John Muir again, then remove the warning from my page. 76.102.49.177 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Today a page was created for the late actress Myrna Dell Y and we thought you'd like to honor her by uploading a photo for her infobox.

Here is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrna_Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theystillremember (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wikiwatcher1. Please see WP:AN3#User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. It is interesting to see that a similar issue was discussed at the BLP noticeboard in 2011. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wikiwatcher. This is to notify you that a I have created a report on the edit warring noticeboard [2] as I informed you I would if you continued what I see as your edit-warrior activities on the Denis Avey page. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC) As another editor of Denis Avey I would comment that the use of Wikiwatcher in a user name seems to me to conflict with Wikipedia:Username policy section Misleading Usernames. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954Reply

Hello Wikiwatcher1. Mystichumwipe is the person who filed the edit warring complaint against you, with the title "User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: )". Per this I have closed the complaint with no action. My assumption is that you and the others will now participate in good faith at Talk:Denis Avey and abide by whatever consensus is reached. If you are not satisfied with whatever result is found there, you can consider the other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Any of the editors can ask for this complaint to be reopened if they believe that the edit war has resumed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Judging from this edit, perhaps my closure was premature. Do you think that anyone on the talk page is likely to support your change? EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Denis Avey. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Light show (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The edit warring closure was obviously premature. Socks have been made an issue so that any apparent consensus was and is questionable, which I mentioned in the ongoing discussion. Note also that it was the other editor(s?) who restarted edit warring by replacing their own material to the article in clear violation of the mentioned NPOV, OR, and unusable sources.
The block on the sock was lifted while my restoration to the non-POV soapbox has led to me being blocked instead. In any case, the note on my talk page about the closure was posted while I was trying to repair the bio. I do not believe that the goal of a block should be to allow previously blocked socks to restore their material, which was quickly done. Because this was a BLP content dispute, it should have been listed with an RfC or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard post, rather than blocking of a key contributor. Addendum: I noticed that Thorium-based nuclear power has received a lot of attention today. An editor has requested that I add some of his cites to balance the article to remove the POV tag they added, which would be a good idea. The editor might think I'm reneging on adding them. Can I have the block removed if I don't edit Avey for a few days and the others agree to refrain from adding any more unreliable sources or otherwise adding to the problems noted? Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

(1) You edit warred. That is sufficient ground for the block, apart from any other consideration, such as whether your edits were "right", whether other accounts were sockpuppets, or anything else. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, in essence "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right and others are wrong". (2) You have made it abundantly clear that your purpose is to suppress content that you don't like, and your entirely specious arguments about reliability of sources are an attempt to justify your editing for a point of view. You refer to "attempt to undermine the bio by essentially defaming Avey by alleging he faked his story", and seem unable or unwilling to grasp that what is being done is recording the fact that there is a controversy, which has received substantial coverage. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to assess whether the doubts expressed are justified, as you are doing in repeatedly asserting that it is "defamation": if reliable sources record that doubts have been raised then we record the fact. We neither suppress the information nor try to give it less prominence because we personally think that the doubts are unfounded. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:Sceptic1954, User:Mystichumwipe User:Griz999 and are not socks of one another and you are welcome to ask them for their opinions. (Griz999 is not active since 2011). You seem to be very determined to exclude from the lead even a single sentence to indicate that Avey's claim of breaking into Auschwitz is controversial. There seem to be an abundance of reliable sources on that point. You simply revert and you make no effort to persuade anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

That is nearly the opposite of the history of the edits. The cites and mention of the "controversy" were included, despite my also noting that their sources violated a number of guidelines, another one being their given obvious undue weight, including prominence in the lead. I have never gone against consensus, but have only removed invalid material. Feel free to read the earlier history of discussions, all of which are a rehash of the same attempt to undermine the bio by essentially defaming Avey by alleging he faked his story. If trying to balance the bio of a celebrated British war hero by removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material which defames him, results in my being blocked, what can I say? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edit to the article lead removed the only mention in the lead that there were people who doubted Denis Avey's story of breaking into Auschwitz. The report was sourced to Reuters. The same edit also removed an entire section that was sourced to the New Statesman, among others. Is the New Statesman a tabloid? EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Reuters article was partly supported by the Daily Mail's own tabloid opinion article: But a subsequent investigation by the Daily Mail quoted historians'. As for the New Statesman, which claims to be a non-neutral publication, their Avey article was simply another essay also by Guy Walters giving his opinions, and he included, ". . . Avey's story was highlighted by myself and my co-authors, Jeremy Duns and Adrian Weale, in the pages of the Daily Mail . . ." A writer's contentious and defamatory opinions, even if repeated by a few other publications, should not undermine and turn a person's bio into an article focused on an alleged "controversy." Walters' article in the Mail was already given too much prominence, although his tabloid essay was still kept in.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikiwatcher1, I am certainly not trying to discredit a British War Hero, as far as I am concerned he deserves his award for having smuggled cigarettes to Ernst and I have put this first. I can't speak for the motivation of the authors of the sources used, but nobody is outright accusing him of lying, and although I don't want to stray too far into discussion of the subject matter and I couldn't use it in the article because it is OR it might help your mood to look at False Memory Syndrome. I agree that because it is BLP there shouldn't be undue weight to controversies, and I wouldn't want to see this. If you look at my discussion with Mysticumswipe you will see that that user wished to give rather more space to controversies than I do. I would like to put the uncontroversial material first followed by the controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but your statement, I am certainly not trying to discredit a British War Hero, is the opposite of your edits. All of your, and User:Griz999, User:mystichumwipe, User:Hardicanute and User:SherlockHolmes249's edits, have been involved with doing exactly that.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Surely Wikipedia is here to present reliable sources and allow readers to make up their own minds. As far as I can tell many people have doubts about aspects of Avey's story. You could look at reader comments in one Daily Mail article, before the Guy Walter's article. In fact all mainstream media reaction was positive, but before publication of the book readers showed disbelief at articles in Telegraph and Daily Mail. That's quite likely what made the Daily Mail want to carry the Walters article. You would normally expect that paper to be in favour of honouring war heroes. Wikipedia looks a bit silly if it doesn't reflect that. Maybe I need to give Wikipedia my email so I don't have to talk politics on your UserPage, if I did want to see anyone discredited in this it wouldn't be Avey. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954Reply

Do you consider this a reliable source to defame a war hero, a captured Brit soldier in his early 20s who risked his life only to witness the unbelievable? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The point is not whether Avey broke into Auschwitz or not but that many people doubt that he did so that for the purpose of balance this has to be reported. This was the first article in mainstream media to question it and the most widely circulated and it's available online so it's okay to question it. I don't know how you are so certain that did what you say he did. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954Reply

I left a comment on JamesBWatson's talk page regarding your unblock request and my changes to the article as of today. If you are unblocked and allowed to edit the article again please don't revert wholesale, because there are some changes which I am sure you would approve. I'd certainly discuss with you and Mysticumswipe more material in the article, but I'm not sure you would like too much the things he would like to put in. I think greater brevity is called for to make the article more accessible and have asked for comments from other editorsd and administrators on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

There are more free use Kubrick photos you might find useful at Flickr. Use the advanced search and choose content able to be used commercially to find photos that have Creative Commons licenses acceptable to WP. If you upload any photos through one of the Commons Flickr bots, they won't let you upload any which aren't license compatible. We hope (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk)

Seriously? I don't want to have some long debate over which photo to use. The black and white one that you insist upon using is awful. She looks older than her age in it, and it looks way too old-fashioned, and there's another photo from "Penelope" that looks virtually identical to it. Please just put the color photo from 1973 back on there. Existskiss (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wikiwatcher1, curious about why you changed Grand Hotel pic. Advantage of the one you replaced is that it captures her emotional state in the movie. With JB, can't see her face. Is the pic no longer available in the commons? Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll reply on the Garbo talk page in case others want to comment. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks WW; we'll see if anyone weighs in.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Although your upload of the Bette Davis/Carl Sandburg picture was deleted at my instigation, I do wish to convey my thanks for alerting Carl Sandburg editors (well, at least me) to the existence of Sandburg on Broadway. That fact has made it into the article and will soon be in at least one other article. Again, thank you. Choor monster (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you wanna give a picture facelift to a few more articles, Rock Hudson Y, Martha Raye Y, Joan Caulfield, Virginia Mayo Y, and Jayne Meadows Y could use a touch up.Whatbecameofjustice? (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bobby Van, Claire Trevor Y, and Dorothy Lamour Y haven't had a photo update in awhile; I'm sure you could do them good should you accept the challenge.This Week's Scheduale (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The following pages Gloria DeHaven, Y Sylvia Sidney, Y Marsha Hunt (actress), Betty Hutton Y, and Joan Blondell Y need lead images as they have none. Also, Yvonne De Carlo Y needs a photo upgrade for her page has not had an update in over a decade. Also, could you upload and crop/trim this picture for Laraine Day's page? Y This would be wonderful for her: [3] Hope you can help, it would be much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornelia Page (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding the Baby Doll replacement. How did you knew that there could be a free publicity photo available for that scene? Diego (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The photo has been used for the film's promo elsewhere, so I had to do some extra searching. --Light show (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you add pictures for the pages of actress Mary Wickes and Yvonne De Carlo Y, they could really use a breath of fresh air. Thank you!Hattie Boweman (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed you reverted back a whole whack of unsourced content back in August [4]. Please don't do that again. Material in a BLP needs to be sourced properly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

And now you've removed material sourced to the NY Times and CBS News (the talk page discussion was about unreliable sources). I'm confused. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The recent comments there imply events which may not be directly related. As the terms "male roommate" was used in a news story a few months prior to one that used the term "boyfriend." Therefore connecting the events from brief and tabloidish stories separated in time is probably not a good idea. The commenter's questions are valid, IMO. --Light show (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank for clearing that up. I'm not convinced mention of the sex tape had to be entirely removed given that it's now covered by reliable sources but will see if others feel the same. Cheers! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The screenshot from Simone isn't part of discussion. Also, there are replacement candidates below:

•  
  One Life to Live, 1973
•  
  General Hospital, 1973
•  
  General Hospital, 1967
•  
  Another World, 1971
•  
  Rod Serling, 1959

I guess you are familiar with WP:NFCC? You can look again about the non-free image. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know, there are lots of publicity stills on the commons. But the section it's in has the statement, "Studios sent out tens of thousands of scene stills and portraits to newspapers, magazines, and fans each year." A pile of stills on the floor, without focusing on any stills or persons, seems to help illustrate the general nature of those kinds of photos better, IMO. --Light show (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I can take a photo of several stills I own to replace this non-free photo, or you do, right? George Ho (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are already images of single stills. The benefit of illustrating a pile of them, none of which are identifiable, is that they imply they had little value besides the publicity for whoever was on it. Sort of the difference between showing sample soup cans versus showing how they were really valued outside of their PR purpose. --Light show (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I meant picturing them as piles, viewing the same angle as the non-free image's. Would that require several or 20 of them on the ground? George Ho (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess a photo like this one or this one would work ok. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

They are still non-free, so do they meet WP:NFCC, especially #2? George Ho (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

A photo of a collection would be a compilation, and would have its own copyright, so an uploader who created it would make it PD. --Light show (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Never mind those. I took a photo of seven still images as piles (I mean, in a messy way, not a neat, straight way). Is seven enough as a pile? If so, I'll upload it to Commons and release it as PD. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seven should be enough. --Light show (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

•  
  Free compilation, I hope.

Here you go. George Ho (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. You have the honor of replacing the old one. --Light show (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

light shows
Thank you for quality cotributions to articles on performers such as Maya Plisetskaya and Maximilian Schell, showing them in best light with infoboxes and images, for making people "think and rethink", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very much appreciate the comment - thank you! --Light show (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were the 663rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Like your calc ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 663 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you add more details about the location of the pictured house? Either a link to its article if it has one, or its address if it doesn't? Without either one, the image isn't particularly useful, and it would be a candidate for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, there's no link available and I probably shouldn't add an address for potential privacy concerns by its residents. --Light show (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear, sir or madame,

The 100th birthday of actress Lynn Bari Y is 12/18/2013 and I would like to recommend that you add some new photographs of her in commemoration for her Wikipedia page is rather sparce. Hope you can help. Thank you and Merry Christmas!Angie and Albert Greeke (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since you are a major (and recent) editor on Frank Capra, I thought you should know that most (if not all) images have been flagged for deletion. Since, as an IP, I can't do anything about it, I hope that you can deal with this (?). ~Eric F:71.20.250.51 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

On 13 February 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sid Caesar, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Dwpaul ^Talk 16:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pete Seeger-1979.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 11#Various single-use photos for a discussion about some of the files you have uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

	The Resilient Barnstar
	for your improvement of the wiki with photos. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Light show (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I commend your work. You did a great job!

Thank you! --Light show (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It has been there for years and nobody ever complained. After you removed it, someone brought it back and you removed it again. I brought it back and you removed it again. If you're the only one who believe it shouldn't be there, perhaps you're the one who's wrong. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some sort of reply would've been nice. Do you agree that it's not the end of the world if the quote is there? Revert wars are not my thing. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned in the edit summary, an isolated quote with no context was out of place there. --Light show (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I saw the summary and, if I'm here, it's obviously because I don't agree with that reason. I don't see the harm of having a quote in an article, especially this one which shows Rooney's humor regarding marriage. The worst is can do is put a smile on the face of the reader. It's a marriage related quote from Rooney in the "Marriages" section of Rooney's article so, isolated it or not, I believe it perfectly fits there. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The best it can do is put a smile on a reader's face. He was also a known comic with tons of lines like that, "I’ve been married so many times I’ve got rice marks on my face!” So if you can add some cited context about his attitude or feelings about marriage and women, with a quote that supports that context, feel free. --Light show (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you recently reverted my edits to the Suzanne Somers regarding her previous business partnership with John Y. Brown, Jr. which I learned about while reviewing the article I previously created on Brown, although I was not sure of which section of the Somers article to include the information in, and I was wondering if you feel that the information could be re-added to the article in another section, or do you feel that the information is irrelevant to the article. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further thoughts regarding this matter. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the "Personal life" section, where it might normally go, is way too brief to include any details about her business investments. --Light show (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Per your suggestion, I have re-added the information to the "Personal life" section. If you have any further thoughts regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me on my UserTalk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--JOJ ^Hutton 23:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I had to undo your edit because of two issues. First, the reference list was broken for the first two entries, and second, you removed some of the quote and added a link to an alternate NY Times article that does not match the original newspaper article being cited which is behind paywall and now has a link to the abstract. Your local library may be able to provide you access to the NY Times archives, some even give online access remotely through your library card. WilliamKF (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Apparently the NYT published a series of articles called "On This Day." So it looks like they rewrote famous events and biographies, sometimes in the form of pseudo-obituaries like this one. It's got plenty of useful details worth citing.--Light show (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is useful, but should be cited independently and separately if used. WilliamKF (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

On 28 June 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Eli Wallach, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 17:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say - thank you for bringing this article up to spec! Challenger l (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that the photograph of Anne Bancroft's headstone is missing from her Wikipedia article, and you are the person who made the edit. I don't know who you are or where you're from, but I don't understand why the photo isn't there anymore (Don't tell me that the sculpture of the angel is copyrighted). I'm the person who made the original upload of this image, and this is an excellent example of why I no longer waste any of my time making contributions to Wikipedia. Too many of my photos have been deleted for no apparent reason, and a lot of my true, factual edits have been reverted because the information wasn't sourced. From this point on, I use Wikipedia only to retrieve information.

Anthony22 (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It got replaced with a good close-up photo of her. As the article is fairly short, it didn't seem, IMO, like there was another spot for the headstone photo, without cluttering up the article. --Light show (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's the silliest reason I've ever heard of for deleting a photograph. A close-up portrait photo of a person has absolutely nothing to do with a gravesite image of the same person. Also, the inclusion of the headstone photo certainly will not clutter up the article. I don't know how people arrive at some of their opinions. I have come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time and effort to contribute to Wikipedia.

Do everybody a favor and reinsert the image of Anne Bancroft's gravesite.

Anthony22 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It might be a good idea to change your 'oppose' to 'keep.' On AfD's the style is to say 'keep' or 'delete'. Thanks for supporting the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

For solving a problem instead of being part of the problem. The Key Facts addition was absolutely brilliant. Well done, you. Thank you! SW3 5DL (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Thanks for the snack! --Light show (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the map on the U.S. article, Light Show. It's exactly what was needed. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if you could make lede images for the other countries, Guinea, Sierre Leone, and Liberia, that look like the one you did on the U.S. article that includes the casualties? It would be good to be consistent. These articles do have good country maps somewhere within their articles, and I so like the one you did on the U.S. article, it would be great if they all looked like that. What do you think? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. That shouldn't be too hard. --Light show (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you ought to try putting your map back into the article. Since two other editors have complained about the one there, it might be time to change back. What do you think? Also, I just looked at the RfC you posted, I think it was a good idea to get things sorted what with the admin moving the page like that, etc. But it looks like nobody else thought so. :( I do admire that you allowed it to be closed rather than arguing the point, especially as you had a good point to argue. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking the same thing about Ebola disease in the U.S. an editor, somewhere on one of these pages, had earlier pointed out that Ebola disease cases was more neutral. Ebola disease in the U.S. seemed to him to be too broad, as if it were a common thing. So he said it needed 'cases.' I'll look for that diff. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think they're right. I'll update the talk page on that. Thanks for pointing it out. --Light show (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I agree, it is more neutral. I'm going to wait to comment until everybody else is done because I don't want anybody saying I'm doing this just to get the title I want, etc., what with all the disruption the article has been through. I don't mind what the title is just so long as it is a title that can stay there for a good long while. Obviously, if there is an epidemic, we'll change. Also, we need to get with Xqxf because he has a lot of good ideas too. He doesn't like the idea of using cases, but maybe in this context he will. Don't know. I'm sure this will all work out. Night. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pinging me; I've laid out my reasoning about not using "cases" on the article talk page. Hopefully that will be helpful. Xqxf (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I like Ebola cases in the United States. Maybe add 2014 at the end so that it's clear this is a first time thing? SW3 5DL (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic HERE. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Rfc has passed a month now, would you like to ask for a closure? Noteswork (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You have been mentioned at ANI in section Long-term copyright concerns: User:Light show. Your participation would be very welcome there. Please note that with current archive practices it will archive after 36 hours of inactivity. After its archival, the conversation will be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861 or later. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Light show, I am sorry to report that the community has overwhelmingly agreed to topic ban you from uploading images. I have logged this ban at WP:Editing restrictions. Please note that indefinite does not mean infinite and I urge you to engage in positive discussion with the experts, including Moonriddengirl and possibly the legal experts at the Foundation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Complete ANI discussion. --Light show (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_Ban_User:Light_show_from_editing_at_the_Peter_Sellers_article (permanent link since that will be archived), you have been banned from working on matters related to Peter Sellers. Let me make it clear that your contributions on other topics remain genuinely welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Complete ANI discussion --Light show (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have closed this AN discussion regarding you with the following sanction:

Indefinite topic ban from all articles related to Stanley Kubrick, broadly construed.

If you violate this ban you will be blocked as an enforcement action. Also, if you continue the same disruptive behaviour the ban may be extended or they may be blocked or banned indefinitely. If you have any questions please feel free to ask on my talk page. You may appeal this sanction at WP:AN, however I suggest you don't appeal for at least three months of no violations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Complete discussion --Light show (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Light Show. I would like to upload a photo of Elizabeth Taylor in which she is posing nude. You might already know of this photo. It was taken in 1956 and was revealed after her death. I don't think the image might have any copyright. So I basically just want to ask can I upload it? And also can I save the image from any random website and upload it here or on Commons? Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unless you have some proof that a photo, in print or from a website, is not copyrighted, it can't be used. --Light show (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input on Bob Simon. I still disagree with you so I will submit it for WP:3O.Patapsco913 (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Light show, as you are an active editor on Charlie Chaplin I thought we should tell you about this Saturday's editathon in London. The main focus will be the Tramp as it comes up to the centenary of its release, but other Chaplin related articles may well get changed, especially as the Chaplin Association has promised to allow us to photograph some of the exhibits that they have loaned to the museum. There will be some film experts and several experienced Wikipedians at the event, and there is a talkpage for any queries, special requests for photographs or things to check in the reference sources available at the museum. And of course if you are anywhere near London you would be very welcome to come along. Regards Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please join this discussion if you are interested. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Egad that Steiger article is a nightmare, as indicated by the rather incomprehensible ANI referenced above. I see that the RfC closed prematurely. Incredibly hostile editing environment, and as I said in the RfC there appear to be serious editor-conduct issues on both sides. My suggestion is that you pursue this infobox thing via dispute resolution and ask for more eyes on the appropriate wikiprojects. I don't have the time or frankly the inclination to deal with it myself/. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nightmare? That's nothing compared to Kubrick's re-write. From this to this in a year. All with 464 so-called "watchers," and hundreds of edits made without a single summary or rationale. From a readable 80-words per paragraph average to 400-500! All another hodge-podge unreadable mess, with long and irrelevant quotes and trivia. Just as they did with Sellers, they (cough-cough) took this and gave us this. And of course the infobox is now gone also. It was much easier to accomplish this time, however, since they first cleared potential barriers. But thanks for the suggestion anyway..--Light show (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure not even Coretheapple would actually see much wrong with the articles Lightshow. BTW, haven't you just evaded your topic ban by criticizing Sellers and Kubrick?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for Upload! The file has been uploaded. Regards, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for Upload! The file has been uploaded. You can find it at File:Neil Postman.jpg. See Wikipedia:Images#Using images to learn image syntax, or Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for other types of files. Regards, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 04:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank so much for the edits on the Oliver Sacks article. It looks so much different than it used to, largely thanks to you. :) Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 04:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --Light show (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, thank you. :) Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 04:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your help. Way too many edits to thank individually. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Light show, while I agree with you in principle, as a veteran and survivor of the infobox wars, I think the collapsed box is a compromise that I was surprised to get and I'm going to take it. Consensus may change later, but I think that settling that pot down to a slow simmer right now is a real good idea. Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elizabeth Taylor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to say the nomination was premature. Far too many quotes, excess detail, and the article also is not stable due to recent content disputes as well as major edits. See Talk:Elizabeth Taylor/GA1 for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article Elizabeth Taylor you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Elizabeth Taylor for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Note, I have only removed edits that were against WP:VERIFY (introducing three IMBD edits, not allowed, see [5]), and one edit introducing a sentence following the Obama White House Award, reporting on the 19 January announcement of the new WGAW Laural award (which was removed because the same already appeared in the next paragraph, with two sources). Cheers, and thanks for the work. Lots of citations needed, just not IMDB. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, please note, (1) Wiki-links to not satisfy the WP:VERIFY requirement that material be verifiable; all articles have to have sources, not just wikilinks, see that policy. (2) The tags to sections and to the article are going back on, because their removal has not been discussed, and the issues are still present. I will call on an Admin to look in, if there is any question about the propriety of the tags. The article cannot be made to look good. It has to change and become good. Whole sections without sources cannot persist. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, just a quick notice that I have removed a few references from List of data breaches which you have recently edited. Please see WP:BLOGS for more information. Blogs should only be used rarely, and only when they are clearly published and authored by recognized experts - or according to WP:SELFPUB for uncontroversial information about the authors themselves. On a sidenote, most of the trimmed links were redundant and/or dead anyway. I have marked 3 remaining unreferenced entries as "citation needed". Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing—Howard Beale (Network) —has been proposed for merging with Network (film). If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. WikiWisePowder (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Still not sure which part of the lay-out I was missing...it was late in the night and eyes were tired, so thank you for fixing it :)

I notice you removed the info on the paintings being inheritted and the fact that their owner was Bacon's last partner. That info is perfectly quoted (in Spanish, unfortunately, but ABC (newspaper) is a perfectly rigorous Spanish medium, a newspaper of record, as they say).

I'd put it back and let the others decide if it's worth. Agree? Thanks again for the fix MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 12:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Light show , I've deleted the image you uploaded to Wikipedia at File:Linda McCartney close-up2.jpg under G5 - an upload by a banned user in violation of his ban. If the ban against your uploading images has been lifted, please show me where, and I will restore it with due apologies. After your request to lift your ban was declined in March 2015, you violated your ban. Can you link to a subsequent discussion where you have permission to upload images? Or have you simply violated your ban again? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, Light Show did ask about if this image could be used at [6], but I do agree that they cannot upload it as part of their ban. But given that I believe the file is appropriate for non-free use based on that discussion, I will vouch for its legitimacy as a non-free file, if necessary I can do the upload. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, User:Masem. If you don't mind vouching for it, please do. Light Show's ban needs community consensus to terminate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Moonriddengirl: I've gone ahead and reuploaded the image under my account here File:Linda mccartney with camera photograph.jpg and readded it so that there's no issue around Light show's ban here. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

As an editor recently involved at Woody Allen, you may wish to be aware of a comment posted at User talk:ShadowRFK. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I already got rid of 5kb worth of original research or poorly sourced coatrack crap in the "unfinished projects" section. I am willing to remove most of it, but looking at the article's history, there is a few dedicated editors who controls the article, reverting any attempt to remove questionable content or add controversy. They haven't appeared in the article yet since his death, but I'm afraid removing all the source misrepresentation content (the main issue in the article) that I will get reverted. I could use some help in the talk page if that's the case. Also great work on the Elie Wiesel article, turning the content from terrible, to high quality. Meinnaples (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll watch the article and will support any improvements. Personally, I'd delete all the subsections in the "unrealized projects" section, since they're all composed of brief factoids. If any of the unrealized projects were significant, the details could be kept. Thanks for the other feedback. --Light show (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Look at the section now. Converted all to prose the films that where there are plenty of sources to deem a pre-production "failure" and those which became successful films. Meinnaples (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Much cleaner. But I'll copy this discussion to his talk page first, so its primary editors can be notified about the overall rationale for the edits. --Light show (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Light show,

I found Harmful algal blooms and harmful algal bloom while doing new page patrolling. The right name for this page is certainly the singular form, but you've done such good work on the article that I can't do a cut-and-paste move to move the content there. I want to get an admin to do a history merge, but first I want to make sure that you're on board with the suggestion. Let me know what you think at Talk:Harmful algal blooms. --Slashme (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Consider signing up for this as it's a very useful resource. We hope (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Can you show me a direct link to this? I can't find it in either thecurrent discussions or the archives... I completely 100% disagree with the edit. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The talk reference was referring the RfC on Mel Brooks, which included mention about Elvis's infobox. --Light show (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

 

 

 

Hello Light show: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Pauciloquence (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Wow, what a card! Thanks, and best wishes to you too. --Light show (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

light show, I hate to say this. However, generally YouTube links are discouraged for copyright and stuff. Certain videos may end up deleted. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, but what about official trailers? --Light show (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Go to WP:MCQ if you are curious. Someone there will volunteer. If no one volunteers there, discuss at Talk:Debbie Reynolds that. --George Ho (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have closed an RFC that you initiated at Talk:Scarlett Johansson. The result was there was a weak consensus for using image 5 as the lead image in the article. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns about this closure. Thanks, Tazerdadog (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I should have looked at your subsequent edits. Reaching out at WT:IRS was a commendable choice on your part. My apologies for duplicating the notice you'd already removed. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Light show, I noticed your edit of Bob Dylan, adding Gorgeous George info. You wrote: "He [Dylan] later wrote and recorded the song, "Gorgeous George," in his honor." The cite you gave was p. 62 of Clinton Heylin's Bob Dylan: The Recording Sessions, 1960-1994. I looked at p.62, which is about The Basement Tapes. Heylin writes: "The songs he [Dylan] began writing may be peopled with the usual extras from Freaks—"Gorgeous George", "Mrs Henry", "Tiny Montgomery"—but now Dylan's dry, laconic delivery sought to highlight an absurdity in the human condition..." So here Heylin is not describing a song but is alluding to characters in Dylan songs. (fwiw I think Heylin has made a mistake. I realise Tiny Montgomery and Mrs Henry are characters in Basement Tapes songs. I do not know a mention of "Gorgeous George" in a Basement Tapes song. If you can pinpoint a Gorgeous George mention in a Dylan song, I'd be very grateful.) Heylin published two books, Revolution In The Air and Still On The Road which analyse every known Dylan song from 1957 to 2008, including songs we don't have recordings of. There is no mention of a "Gorgeous George" song in these two books. As you may know, the entirety of The Basement Tapes recordings were released in 2014. They do not contain a "Gorgeous George" song. So I have edited the Bob Dylan article accordingly. [7] Best wishes, Mick gold (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for checking and correcting it. While the Basement Tapes include the songs, "Please Mrs. Henry" and "Tiny Montgomery," I'm not sure either what Heylin was referring to about Gorgeous George. --Light show (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I believe the info about the impact of Gorgeous George on Dylan all comes from pages 43-44 of Chronicles. I'll tone down the writing on the BD article to make it more accurate. Best wishes, Mick gold (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Randy Quaid. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC) .Reply

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=3dz0m2ubQw1KSnb_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_3JEUo5X4RFmy1pj&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In 2008, you added the following passage to Ben Hecht, but you forgot to include the opening quotation mark, and I can't access the source to correct it. Can you say where the quote begins?

He arrived in Los Angeles and began his career at the beginning of the sound era by writing the story for Josef von Sternberg's gangster movie Underworld in 1927. For that first screenplay and story he won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay in Hollywood's first Academy award ceremony.[6][18] Soon afterward, he became the highest paid screenwriter in Hollywood..."[7]

Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Since the source was a library reference book, I found a different source and added the quote. Hope that helps.--Light show (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, just brilliant. Thanks so much. Made my day. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

You have been mentioned at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:IDHT behavior from Light show. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Based on the result of this community discussion about the patterns of your editing behaviour in topics relating to biographies, you have been topic banned indefinitely from any edits relating to biographies of any kind. You may appeal this decision, but it should be filed after no less than six months of this closure. Any violations of this topic ban will lead to immediate sanction.

This editing restriction has been logged here. Alex Shih^Talk 02:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• For anyone curious about the latest cause, see the Charlie Chaplin discussion. Note that I'm probably the only American commenting. --Light show (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

One is allowed to post about concerns with enwiki administration at AN--no comment on whether that would be advisable in your case, though I'd note that anything that happens at Commons is far outside of AN's territory--but lose the snark, please; you just sound like you're kvetching otherwise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• How not to lose it, Writ Keeper, watching more slippery de-Americanizing edits such as this? --Light show (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, as an American, all I can say is: pretty easily, my dude. Seems to me that the prominence of such labels is a matter of taste, not of truth. De gustibus non est disputandum. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

So de-Americanizing bios by stripping their notability in America is OK if some non-Americans have a taste for it? Didn't realize that. Thanks for clarifying. --Light show (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

If that's what you got from what I said, then yeah, I guess we have nothing more to talk about, you're welcome, bye. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Another addition to the current hit list: Alfred Hitchcock. --Light show (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Let me put this more bluntly than Writ Keeper - you are topic banned from all biographical edits of any kind. The only exceptions allowed are where you are actively/formally appealing the topic ban. Posting requests at AN complaining about edits to biographies you have worked on is a violation of the topic ban. You may not comment on, edit or otherwise discuss biographies - that is the point of a topic ban - it is to keep you away from the topic. At this point you will have a little leeway because you may not understand the extent to which a topic ban prevents you from editing on the topic, but rest assured that will quickly end if you continue to push the boundaries. "you have been topic banned indefinitely from any edits relating to biographies of any kind" as notified above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tiderolls 16:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your topic ban from all edits relating to biographies, broadly construed, as logged here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=.}}.

You've been warned frequently and recently that this sort of comment is an explicit violation of your topic ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Light show (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no rule that I can find that says a long-time editor can be banned from even mentioning a bio article title or even linking to an edit made there if done on their personal talk page. I was not attempting to edit a bio, or even to ask anyone else to do so. It was a note for my own reference for the future. In fact a comment I added on the AN last week after my ban similarly mentioned and linked to biographies, and was even described as a "Good talk" by an admin. He did not imply in his comments above that my even mentioning a person's name is also hereby banned. This new block therefore seems totally without basis.

Decline reason:

You seem to be an intelligent person and can no doubt read and understand the text just above this describing your topic ban: "you have been topic banned indefinitely from any edits relating to biographies of any kind". You were warned at 08:21 on 16 August 2017 by Only in death does duty end, yet you chose to push this. Therefore, either you lack the ability to understand your topic ban, or you are wilfully breaching it. I suspect the latter, but the outcome needs to be the same in either case to protect the project. I suggest a read of WP:GAB before posting any more requests. John (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I've altered the format of your unblock request so that it will show in the queue. I'm a bit busy at work presently but I'll be returning shortly to decline your request if another admin has not already visited. Your request is not GAB compliant, to put things mildly. Tiderolls 17:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
• For the record, my "good talk" comment was completely sarcastic; your post on AN was anything but. I wasn't aware of your topic ban when I commented, so you shouldn't read any implicit approval into my remarks; in fact, rather the opposite. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your quote stricken. Excuse my gullibility.--Light show (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I'm not sure why you weren't aware of the topic ban, since the entire second paragraph of my AN comment that you closed was about the topic bans along with a link to the recent ban for all biographies. --Light show (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I only skimmed your post, I didn't read it closely or follow the links. Frankly, all I needed to do was read the header and first two sentences to know that it was purely drama-mongering of the pointy variety, rather than a post intending to express and solve a problem; thus, it was desirous of a hat. That it needed to be hatted was true regardless of who posted it or what sanctions they were under or indeed even whether there were legitimate grievances against admins or not--it was inappropriate in and of itself. Like I said, AN is no place for that degree of snark. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Larry Parks 1950.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Light show, as I am pretty sure you happen to be an expert on copyrights here on commons, could you take a look at my userpage on the German Wikipedia? I added 3 different files on 3 different articles and a user on the German Wikipedia is in the opinion theses are no free images because of the 70 years. Hence, looking at the descriptions and explanations on the images, Suddenly (1954).webm --> was selected as the media of the day for 19 February 2016, Marilyn Monroe Asphalt Jungle.jpg --> A renewal search was done at copyright.gov using the title Radio-TV Mirror. There were no listings for the publication; there's no evidence of continued copyright on the magazine. and Sterling Hayden 1953.jpg --> A search for renewal was conducted at copyright.gov. There were no listing which pertained to any magazines with "Screenland" in their title. A search for any renewals by the publisher, Affiliated Magazines, turned up no listings for the publishing company. There's no evidence of continuing copyright on the magazine.

Taking a look at File:Hayden-Asphalt.jpg, the Copyright details are even more detailed. I really do not see the point of this 70 years, unless the author was German and that, I am sorry, I cannot trace. What to do? Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

A public domain U.S. photo is public domain everywhere, and forever. My understanding is that a country's copyright laws only affects copyrights of photos taken or owned by someone in that country. While the rules are different for newer post-1989 photos under the Berne Convention laws, older photos uploaded as PD will be allowed. In fact, that Hayden photo is one I uploaded in 2010. Good luck.--Light show (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you every so much Light show, I give it another try at the German Wikipedia and will point the (anonymous) user to your userpage. Hope that is fine with you. If need be, I will be more than happy to translate his/her comments. :) Lotje (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I might occasionally say something to that. Actually, the practice in German Wikipedia is to follow the German, Austrian and Swiss copyright laws for usage in German Wikipedia. Basically, the rule of the shorter term is unfortunately not applied because of a German-American treaty from 1892, which allows both countries to apply to its own copyright laws for foreign work from the other country. :( That means that (extremely) many US photos that are public domain in the US cannot be used for the German version. There's even a huge tag, automatically popping up as part of the US public domain tags, warning a user from putting the photo into the German version, when you come to Commons from the German article page (or maybe a German, Austrian, Swiss location, I don't know).

I hate it, but that has been the rule from the beginning. It can easily be observed in practically every article of a famous actor from ca. the 1920's till the 1970's. The photos of the German article are always different in comparison to the English article as the range for the German article is much smaller and usually worse. Just look at the mean photos in de:Marilyn Monroe. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reply from ektakhem

Hey. I can't quite figure out another way to correspond. Thanks for the message. You seem to imply that these allegations are insignificant. I can cite many other sources. I was trying to make this page a little less biased and do feel this deserves a mention so people can know, and not be swayed by his appeal. I myself have been a fan of his work for quite some time and was not aware of these allegations until very recently. Hiding this only perpetuates this culture of silence around the rich and powerful who can supposedly do no wrong. I am greatly disappointed and disheartened by this attempt being called 'scandal mongering'. Plus I can also cite many wikipedia articles with properly devoted sections to controversies, sexual allegations and the like. So it is very surprising when you say that this is against the guidelines. Ektakhem (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the trophy. I didn't mean to imply that someone's allegations or accusations are insignificant. However, they may not be relevant or suitable for a global encyclopedia. Note that the definitions are key: an "allegation" is defined as a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof. While a "scandal" is defined as an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage. In other words, a simple claim by someone that something happened is very different from a proven action or event.

And even if something did actually happen, is widely known and proven, does not alone make it worthy of a section. I assume you're right, that you could "also cite many wikipedia articles with properly devoted sections to controversies, sexual allegations and the like." But why devote your first edits on WP to search for and post accusations about American celebrities?

Note that editors of more important notables have avoided that effort. For instance, William Randolph Hearst lived openly with a mistress for thirty years while he was still married. Similarly, François Mitterrand had a mistress, as did Winston Churchill. Yet none of those major bio articles has a section devoted to those much more publicized, and proven, scandals. In fact, they barely mention them. And Nicolas Sarkozy's well-publicized affair while in office is not even included in his bio. So my suggestion for a new editor is to stay on the high ground and not use Hollywood Babylon as a template. --Light show (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, you're topic banned from editing biographies. You've clearly violated this topic ban by removing sourced content from several BLPs. You seem to have recently come back from a wikibreak, so maybe you forgot about this topic ban. This is your only warning, which hopefully will suffice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

All of my recent edits which you just reverted should normally be OK as permitted exceptions. They were also explained in detail with numerous guideline links on their respective talk pages. Also note that at least one reversion related to a single purpose editor, and one of the editors, who added over five allegation sections, never responded to or disputed my rationales about their edits.

I think this important issue should be brought up among admins, as in my opinion, having edited numerous bios for over ten years now, the relevant bios are being badly corrupted. I also consider those kinds of guideline violations as much worse than simple vandalism. They all are carefully edited and very well planned efforts to undermine bios of American actors by relying on unproven accusations.

I realize that you may consider this just another complaint, of the type of complaint which got me banned in the first place. But actually the bans were placed because of my interaction with just a few of the same editors, which I placed a self-IBAN on. I hope you will restore my edits, which are obviously allowable, and maybe even unban me. --Light show (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

In case you're considering a reply, note that this apparent assault on American actors began at least 12 years ago, when Arnold Schwarzenegger's bio got targeted by some newbie. Another SPA quickly joined in. So even now, despite the massive attention to the bio by acquiescing admins, his "misconduct" section relies on mostly British news sources and a questionable site such as The Smoking Gun. That section should also be deleted for the same reasons mentioned. --Light show (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can appeal your topic ban at WP:AN. Until that happens, you are not allowed to make any edits related to biographies. For you to be allowed to ignore your topic ban, the issue would have to be significantly more obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Link to appeal. -_Light show (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. My point is that people should know. People come to wikipedia for all the information they need. And it is supposed to be comprehensive, objective, unbiased and provide a true picture of the person/event/place etc. And the director of this movie has talked about it himself so I don't think there is any doubt left about the legitimacy of these allegations. "Why devote your first edits...."? Why to be quiet, hide the incident and let people respect Marlon Brando like a God?

Ektakhem (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Discussion here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC) bot cleaningReply

 

Hello, Light show. You have new messages at User talk:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_permission_to_improve_Gene_Hackman_bio..
Message added 23:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

DBigXray 23:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, your powers to edit the article Gene Hackman have been taken away, since you failed to inform of the topic ban. --DBigXray 23:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was implied by my unusual question from a veteran editor and that I've been dealing with AN on the bans for years. --Light show (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well clearly, I wasn't aware and thanks to User:Beeblebrox who clarified the problem which you failed to mention in the first place. I suggest, following the ban conditions and working in other areas the need help, that way after the end of the term, you will have a strong support to end the ban, good luck/--DBigXray 23:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your topic ban appeal failed just two weeks ago. Trying to ask permission to violate it without actualy mentioning it could be seen as violation in and of itself, at best it was a stupid thing to do. Consider the clock reset to today since that basically constituted an appeal. Have you ever heard the expression “when you’re already in a hole, stop digging”? That would seem to apply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for violating your topic ban from biographies. The end-run appeal was bad enough, but now I see you’ve asked another user to proxy edit for you: [8] as well. You clearly aren’t getting it.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Light show (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The note to the other editor was just a "request to review" a newbie's edit. Binksternet made the change independently using his own judgment, as he has worked on that article previously. It was obviously not an end run via proxy. No one has ever made an edit due to my "direction." Light show (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Clear topic ban violation. I might support a reduction in the current block, but only if we see an unambiguous acceptance of this violation and a convincing commitment to not make any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed unless and until a successful ban appeal is made. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I’ll leave this for an uninvolved admin to review, but to me this looks like some really weak wikilawyering.

For reference here is the text of the topic ban:

”Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed. This community sanction may be appealed no earlier than six months after the date of this closure.”

”any edits related to biographies of any kind” is pretty unambiguous. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The ban you quoted was started over a year ago, August 15, 2017. --Light show (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

You just had a failed appeal two weeks ago, as you well know, so I fail to see the point of this statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I forgot. Since there was no actual rationale for extending the ban another six months due to my request, other than two editors' asking that I first display an act of contrition, I guess it didn't register. --Light show (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Since there was no actual rationale for extending the ban...

It's an INDEFINITE BAN: by definition it's NOT possible to "extend" it. It wasn't "extended", it's that nothing changed. Either you're trying to reframe reality or you have a WP:CIR problem. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Uninvolved admin review: Good block. An indefinite ban by definition does not end automatically at a set time. Your multiple actions where you seem to be attempting to just barely touch the line were actually over the line. Statements about forgetting you were banned for forgetting you recently appealed are a hopeless WP:CIR failure. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, it’s only CIR if you actually believe this ludicrous claims, which personally I don’t. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what the reason is, incompetence or deliberately skirting the ban and playing dumb after are both equally unacceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the spirit of collaboration, let me vehemently disagree with all three of you. I got banned because I dared whistleblow on a tag team, so I went back to AN to simply "Request permission to improve Gene Hackman's bio." Five minutes later another AN editor wrote: ... with the Power of Wikipedia conferred to me by his Wikipediness Jimbo Wales, I DBigXray, hereby grant you the power to edit this page and improve it. It never occurred to me that an AN editor wouldn't have wondered why another veteran editor would request permission to edit.

I obviously wasn't trying to skirt the ban, but just request an exception. I did not edit the article. In your opinions, simply mentioning a person's name anywhere on WP is a violation, even at AN. Wow! A reasonable reply would have been to simply ask why I was asking permission, or to deny it and thank me for asking and pointing out the problems. I explained why the bio, which gets 5,000 visits per day, was defective and needed improvement. Reasonable AN editors might have agreed that the article was defective and allowed some other admins to offer an opinion about my request. Instead, you guys skipped over that aspect and used my request as a pretext to bludgeon, implying that improving BLP's is irrelevant and not of your concern. --Light show (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, broadly construed generally means that if you are banned from a topic, you may not discuss any aspect of that topic on any page on Wikipedia, at all, until you have successfully appealed the restriction. Inquiring about the scope of the topic is allowed, such as "does <sample page> fall within the scope of my topic ban?" Requesting "permission" to edit on a page (a biography) which any reasonable person ought to know is definitely included in the ban (from biographies) does not constitute a good-faith inquiry. Dropping notes for other users to review issues related to topics covered by your ban is WP:PROXYING and is why you are currently blocked. I agree with Boing! and several other admins who have said already: you may not edit nor discuss biographies nor any information related to biographies at all. We could not be more clear. If you continue to argue the matter your talk page access will be revoked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yep. There’s no way this shouldn’t have already been perfectly clear, but when you see a comment like ”I obviously wasn't trying to skirt the ban, but just request an exception.” it seems clear there’s an unwillingness to even try and understand the circumstances. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

...implying that improving BLP's is irrelevant and not of your concern'

For you, that's not "implying" it's "explicitly the point": for you, BLPs are irrelevant and not your concern. It wasn't a decision taken lightly, and it's permanent -- unless you can somehow convince people you can be trusted again. Which you are NOT doing. --Calton | Talk 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure it was a very serious decision. That's probably why the closing admin left me with his suggestion: "Light show, please follow the advice given by Winkelvi in regards to future appeals." Except Winkelvi has been blocked 15 times over the past few years! --Light show (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd note that even ignoring that asking for an exception was a violation, it's a very bad look when you either forgot or didn't think it was necessary to mention the topic ban when you requested this exception. This continued when someone replied with a typical SOFIXIT reply clearly unaware that you had a topic ban. A further concern is as noted above that you claim your indefinite ban was extended when this did not happen. It just wasn't lifted when you appealed. In other words, even from the POV of an outsider who knows little about your history or the wider issues with your editing, your behaviour strongly suggests that you don't understand that the seriousness of the topic ban, and the need to learn from it and how to work on wikipedia without violating it. Given that it's already been 1 year and you IMO still have more to learn than most people should when they first receive a topic ban, I would suggest you give ample time to yourself to learn what is expected from you on wikipedia. I.E. while it's of course your choice, consider careful whether you're really ready to apply for it to be lifted the moment your next appeal period comes up as unfortunately it's likely to be a lengthy learning period. Ultimately we all want you to be a productive editor here, and part of that is fully obeying your topic ban. 21:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of support. I might suggest that any "outsider who knows little about [my] history or the wider issues with [my] editing," could find out easily enough in my "pillar" comment. To see what happens when I appealed after removing obvious vandalism (all of which got restored, BTW,) they can read about it here. And if they'd like to see what happens when a volunteer asks for policy clarifications about a major news issue which WP seems to be gleefully violating, they can go here. So not only is all the obvious vandalism still in this encyclopedia, but any questioning it is ignored.

A better idea, Nil, than waste another 40 minutes with a lecture about my "behaviour," is to find a single incident of an "editing violation" made by me. Feel free to go back over the last 10 years, and over 28,000 edits (excluding article talk pages, of course.) You can review all my user talk pages, since I don't delete discussions, only bots. And please don't bother mentioning Denis Avey, where I discovered recently my little edit war was actually against another tag team of socks. Take your time.--Light show (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Protip: Arguing that you did nothing wrong ever is not a good method to get unblocked. --Tarage (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think this conversation has reached its natural conclusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

On 10 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Max Steiner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Max Steiner was often criticized for his excessive use of "Mickey Mousing" in his film scores? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Max Steiner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Max Steiner), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

To enforce edit restrictions placed by the community,

 

you have been temporarily blocked from editing. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. 
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

---

Reminder to administrators: Edit restrictions placed by the community are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

You have been blocked for one week for violating your topic ban on biographies. This concerns your ANI report about Natalie Wood. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Cullen328:, a block is obviously in order here, and I note that they also edited Jonas Salk last month, so that's another vioalation, but I have to wonder why you chose to block for one week when normally the response to tban violations is escalating blocks, and the the last one was for three months. There's no chance, none whatsoever, that LightShow was not perfectly aware they were violating their tban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Beeblebrox, I considered three mitigating factors: First, the Jonas Salk edits were in response to vandalism. Second, the recent edits were to ANI rather than the biography. And third, Light show seems to be making productive edits to other articles in recent months. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. The point ont he Salk edits is fair enough, but personally I'm lest convinced that using ANI is a mitigating factor, because this is just what they've done in the past to try and end-run the topic ban. Every time LightShow acts as though the just didn't realize that doing so was a violation. (which perversly, I don't belive because I think they are actually smarter than that) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't it be simpler to just reply to what I asked you for back in August, to "find a single incident of an 'editing violation' made by me. Feel free to go back over the last 10 years, and over 28,000 edits . . ." You never did, or just gave up. But another editor helped out, by then saying that "arguing that [I] did nothing wrong, ever, is not a good method to get unblocked." After which you concluded the discussion, by tacitly agreeing that I don't need to do anything wrong to get blocked. Maybe being a Yankee in King Arthur's Court is all that's necessary. --Light show (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

We're not discussing the validity of the ban but rather whether you willingly violated it. Those are two entirely seperate issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

And as perverse as it may seem to you, a good way to convince people the topic ban is justified is to continually demonstrate an inability to follow it. In other words, for many of us, we don't know or really care any more what lead up to your topic ban and whether it should have happened. Your continued silly attempted evasion convinces us that it's a good idea. If you had wanted us to care about whether your topic ban was unfair, you should have been the perfect citizen and perhaps when you applied for it to be lifted someone would have noticed if it was never necessary in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I never said it was "perverse" or "unfair" to ban a long-time editor who never violates guidelines, when they told ANI about a tag team's PAs, ABF, uncivility, and distruptive editing. It's obviously quite reasonable. --Light show (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't it be simpler to just reply to what I asked you for back in August Given that your claimed misunderstandings of the topic ban -- its terms, its scope, and its length -- have been consistently self-serving, given your continual attempts to do end-runs around it, given your continued denials about your edits even after being provided evidence, and your insistence that you, alone, know what policy is, that would be a pointless gesture.

It seems obvious to me that either you don’t understand what you’re doing wrong or what a indefinite topic ban actually is, or you do understand but are trying to find ways to indulge in your particular obsessions. Note this in your initial request at ANI: The last time I asked an editor to check on an edit to a bio I got slammed for proxy editing and had my sentence extended. [emphasis added]. Since it's an indefinite topic ban, "extending" it is not physically possible.

This is the same claim you made the last time you were blocked, two weeks after yet another denied appeal: I forgot. Since there was no actual rationale for extending the ban another six months [emphasis added] due to my request, other than two editors' asking that I first display an act of contrition, I guess it didn't register. --Light show (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC) —Calton | Talk 00:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I am sorry to bother you, but I would like to ask whether there is any chance this photo could be added to Wikimedia Commons, or somehow used in other language Wikipedia articles? Thank you in advance for the answer. Kind regards, Jojnee (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The message on the file says "Please also make a note at the CCI page if you have checked the file and moved it to Commons." If you check the file and feel it is PD, I guess you can move it to commons and use it anywhere else. Or you could ask an admin at Commons to check it and move it for you, after which you can use it anywhere. Hope that helps. --Light show (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You know you aren't supposed to edit biography articles, regardless of what others do on pages, and have been reported here for another violation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Just to save you a trip, since the discussion was concluded before you were able to participate, the discussion found BANEX applied with no violation (the case was also withdrawn by Snuggums). Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah my bad on what did or didn't count as a violation, though you still should take caution with what you do edit in the future. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why worry about the future, when the past is more relevant. IOW, when I suggested to a sysop a few months ago above, (April 2019) to "find a single incident of an 'editing violation' made by me. Feel free to go back over the last 10 years, and over 28,000 edits," they failed or gave up, and fell back on saying "We're not discussing the validity of the ban but rather whether you willingly violated it." Or as another editor, here for 15 years (!) wrote, "... we don't know or really care any more what lead up to your topic ban and whether it should have happened." While another long time editor (15 years!) suggested above, "Arguing that you did nothing wrong ever is not a good method to get unblocked." So as I wrote earlier above, and no one has yet (after 14 months) disagreed with my conclusion, that "I got banned because I dared whistleblow on a tag team." To put it bluntly, since no one has yet provided a rationale for my getting banned, the ban could be a sham. --Light show (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I’d like to understand your viewpoint and hope you’ll understand mine. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you have the time and interest, please check out:

Talk:Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States —> Let’s please move last half week back to “2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States”

• 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see the result of your edit warring complaint about 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. Now that both of you have been alerted to the sanctions, admins have discretion to take further action, which might include banning one or both of you from the article. The remarks at the noticeboard about WP:ONUS apply to some material you were trying to restore to the article. In general you won't have further problems if you wait for the talk page to reach a verdict on any controversial changes you have in mind *before* you make the edit. In case of disagreement, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Izno (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Light Show I am writing this message in relation to write-up the background section of the US-China trade war article. Right now progress on that issue is stalled as we are waiting on your proposed version of the text and the debate cannot proceed without it. I notified you of this on the talk page but I don't know if you got the notification, so I am taking this issue to your talk page directly in the hopes that you'll be able (or better able) to see it. I look forward to your input on this. Flaughtin (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Replied there. Thanks for the wake-up. --Light show (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unless something has changed, you are still banned from anything to do with biographies. Given that the edits on Einstein et al were five days ago, I am not going to block at this time (although any other administrator is welcome to disagree with me and do so); however given that you have been blocked four times for breaching it, I suspect any further block would be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I'm late here, but you've been mentioned at ANI for those edits. Consider yourself lucky that Black Kite didn't block you right away for such a violation. This ban hasn't been lifted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll have be the bad guy here, unfortunately. Your account is blocked for two weeks for violating your community-enacted topic ban. I would normally be as forgiving as Black Kite, but you have violated your topic ban multiple times before, and the topic ban is very clear - any edits relating to biographies, broadly construed. I could maybe understand where a slip-up may happen because the wording of the ban was not clear about something, or in a situation where you haven't been blocked for violating it before. However, this is not the case. You are welcome to appeal your block by following the normal appeals process. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Was going to add this to the ANI, but got banned again first: Not meant to spoil anyone's fishing, but I'll mention a few things for the record, fwiw: The edits to Jonas Salk were reverting vandalism, while the edits to Hector St. John were actually made by mistake, since I thought I was adding the links to his book's page. The few talk page comments on Einstein were either directed to me and were also relevant to material which I had added. Since that preexisting discussion was turning into a massive discussion going nowhere, I felt adding a few comments might help. User:Martinevans123 thanked me for my comments.

Before subjecting myself to another ban-lifting request, which like the last one, initiated a frenzy of "Yankee go home and stay home," I first asked a few admins if they felt it was worth the effort, being that I was banned for whistle-blowing 3 1/2 years ago. Masem replied and suggested I "check with the admin that placed the ban...." So I did that, and asked TheSandDoctor, who again recommended that I follow the advice of Winkelvi, and perform "an act of contrition" first. Unfortunately, Winkelvi had been permanently banned from WP years ago after being blocked 17 times. --Light show (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Two things in this situation that just seem off to me:

1. This is the fifth block for a violation of the topic ban, and LS's ninth block overall, yet it is only for two weeks.

2. Somehow, every time LS gets blocked for violating the ban, they think it is a good time to start talking about how it should just be lifted.

I could see why you may not respect the block given that you keep getting off so lightly, but basically nobody feels it was an error, and the chances of getting it lifted get more remote each time you violate it. Whether you agree with it or not, you need to actually abide by it for a substantial period of time before there is any realistic chance of it being lifted. Or keep doing what you've been doing, and at some point you will finally get an indefinite block or possibly a site ban. Your choice. One more thing: Your "I didn't mean to do it" routine is played out. You should really stop using it.(Personal attack removed) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Beeblebrox here. You can think whatever you want about the reason for the ban, but suffice to say the community feels it is justified to protect Wikipedia from you. No one has to prove to you the community was justified in coming to this view. Also whatever advice you've received in the past, a key point that you don't seem to understand is that far more important than contrition or anything else, what we need to see is evidence you can respect the ban. If for whatever reason you're unable to, then we have every to also think you'll continue to harm Wikipedia as you did in the past, as you seem unable to follow even a simple limitation imposed on you to protect Wikipedia. Note again your disagreement with the ban and the reasons for it are moot here. If you respect the English Wikipedia and its community, you need to respect that sometimes the community holds a different view from you on what should be in article, on how should handle disputes, etc etc. While you're entitled to your view, when the community consensus is against you you have to defer to that community consensus. Well meaning editors who refuse to respect a community consensus are a significant source of problems here. Whether it's because they're unable to understand how Wikipedia works, or they simply lack sufficient self control or worst case because they're so full of themselves that they think because they're "right" they're allowed to ignore a community consensus, or whatever other reason. This isn't even a case of being confused by or skirting or testing the edges of a wide topic ban given you are banned from biographies and are editing the talk page of Albert Einstein. (Once you've received a topic ban, any historic contributions to the articles you're now topic banned from are no longer your concern. That's what it's like living with one.) Finally as Beeblebrox has said, if anything it seems like we've been very lenient with you. But by the time you reach 2 weeks, you're getting to the stage where indef is becoming very likely. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re: "While you're entitled to your view, when the community consensus is against you you have to defer to that community consensus."

I agree. But as mentioned above (20 October 2019), my view is that the ban is a sham. The reason was explained 3 1/2 years ago. One aspect I didn't mention back then was on both of the ANI complaints I posted,, for Sellers and Kubrick, no one commenting, not even the members of the tag team itself, ever denied any of the issues complained about. Nor did anyone even criticize their behavior. Which left only one solution, the "Proposal to topic ban Light show from Stanley Kubrick" subsection, despite the fact that it was User:WickerGuy and I who collaboratively wrote most of it.--Light show (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Again, you can think whatever you want about the topic ban, but if you are unable you see that nobody agrees with you and you need to follow it anyway that's a problem. You're basically telling us right here that you will violate it again, which frankly, is enough to convert this to an indef block right now. It's only because two other admins both went for lesser options that I haven't already done it. As to the "personal attack" you chose to remove: I'm not going to make a fuss about it, it's clear you read what I said, I would just say I stand behind it 100% and there is a difference between saying "you are <whatever>" and "what you are doing makes it look like you are <whatever>". Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re: "You're basically telling us right here that you will violate it again," which is an absurd statement looking at my few bio-related edits over the last 3 1/2 years, including removing vandalism or simply asking someone to fix something. I would, if allowed, propose a unilateral one-way Iban to disallow you from commenting on my talk page anymore. This Iban will last 6 months, after which time you can appeal it on your own talk page and ping me to accept or decline. Thank you for your consideration.--Light show (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

My involvement with you was and is solely in an administrative capacity, so in short: the answer is no. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

An image you uploaded to Wikipedia a while back which was transferred to Commons, File:BerlinPortrait1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion discussion due to difficulty in confirming source. I you wish, comment at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BerlinPortrait1.jpg. Thanks for your attention, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

How best to add any comments, Infrogmation, since I still can't use Commons? --Light show (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You may want to transclude this page. --Light show (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Infrogmation, you wrote last week that "no futher information has come after a month," which implies you did not see my previous comment. --Light show (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

You've been mentioned here. Consider this your final warning in case it leads to an indefinite block: DO NOT continue to violate your topic ban. Maybe I'm wrong and your creation wasn't a violation, but either way, you should know better than to attempt to defy the ban's restrictions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

She certainly deserves better than the fuzzy one she's stuck with. Shame your banned, but hopefully maybe you could help? I'm still not terribly good with finding free use images--where to look, what technically qualifies vs. what doesn't. Just when I think a headshot or trailer screenshot does, I'm wrong lol. Anyway, I would love to get a better picture of her, and I noticed some of yours on Wikimedia Commons. So I thought I'd ask if you had any, or could help direct me towards finding one that I'd be allowed to upload on here or on Commons. Then I could replace that crap crop. Please let me know when you have a chance. Thanks. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This one should be good to use, Cinemaniac: Vintage Press Photograph - MAGGIE SMITH You can save both the front and back and submit them to commons. An example of how to submit the front and back and write up a full description with a link can be seen in most of my uploads, such as Walter Huston But if you need help, someone at the commons can do it for you.

Addendum: The image is apparently from 1970, seeing how similar they look to the one linked, "1970 Press Photo At 42nd Annual Academy Awards, Maggie Smith Wins Best Actress." Light show (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ahhh, that's fantastic, thank you! Moreso the first image, just because of the watermark in the second. But I might as well upload them both as backup. And then, I could just basically copy and paste everything verbatim as you explained it underneath Walter Huston's image to describe Maggie's? Or should I reword it a little? Seems pretty astute.

I just worried after my attempt at a proper Beatrice Straight pic. She had a non-free one before. But I wanted her featured in the Supporting Actress article, since her win is significant, being the shortest ever. So I screencapped her Network (1976) film scene off YouTube--figuring it was the same as screencapping a trailer, as I've seen several--dozens of images uploaded here in a similar manner. But it got flagged, though the guy was nice enough to find a picture of her in the free domain film, Patterns (1956), at least to substitute.

Thanks a bunch for all your help though. Really appreciate it!--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply