Rossrs, I apologise if my contributions to this page prompted you to erase this page. That was certainly not my intention. I realise that we are most likely not going to agree, so I will ask the opinions of other editors as to whether or not my contribution to the Cameron Diaz article was appropriate. If it is deemed that it is inappropriate, I will be happy to omit it. Hopefully this way, both our wishes can be accommodated. When I saw that you had deleted your talk page, I was disappointed that our dispute had had such dire consequences, and I apologise if I annoyed you to the point where you felt it was necessary to delete your talk page, I was not attempting to annoy you, rather just trying to discern why the content was deleted. I sincerely hope that after reading this, you see that my intentions were good, and that you will bring back your talk page. I again apologise if my intentions were misinterpreted, or if I annoyed you. Thanks very much.Tkma (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rossrs, your behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. I came on your page, and very politely apologised for the misunderstanding. I then came up with the very good suggestion of asking a third party. I simply explained the situation to a third party, yet you felt the need to reply, and highlight facts which were irrelevant to the issue at hand, in a bid to weaken my standpoint. That is absolutely not on. How are we supposed to resolve this dispute, if you won't even let me fairly consult another person? I was perfectly reasonable, and apologised, yet you throw it back at me by bring up a completely irrelevant mistake I had made, attempting to discredit my argument.
I would like to draw your attention to something you wrote, "Hi Wildhartlivie, yes I noticed it was copyrighted material. Well that certainly overrules any discussion about it's [sic] relevance." If it overrules any discussion about its relevance, why did you see the need to highlight the relevance, when I was simply asking another user of wikipedia whether or not it was within the copyright laws?
I admitted that I made the mistake of not realising that you wanted me to specify which article it was. Why was there a need to repeat this mistake? I had admitted that I was wrong. You seem to be against the adversary system, where the judge may not take any previous convictions into account when sentencing. Just because I made a previous mistake, does not mean that my need action was necessarily wrong. I am unsure how we are going to resolve this situation; it is becoming unmanageable. If you refuse to let a third party intervene, while only knowing the relevant evidence, and not evidence which attempts to paint a negative picture of my character, I am not sure how we can move forward. Do you have any suggestions?Tkma (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re:
I saw what was added, and I first will say that it's wrong. That is not what copyright protection is about. On the off-chance that a copyright holder, and the page itself asserts copyright status, gives someone, privately, permission to use something does not void copyright, which is what I'm reading him saying. The guy may or may not have permission from the author to use it, but he can't transfer that permission to Wikipedia. Once he adds it to Wikipedia, it is no longer his content, because once its contributed, it belongs to Wikipedia. The page where we were directed is quite clear about its copyright status, which is weird to me, since they are saying they are using material licensed under GFDL obtained from Wikipedia. You can't copyright GFDL material. That is the question being posed, and this is no different than something directly copied from the New York Times or an image someone else has posted on a personal website being under a fair-use license. The answer has always been "no". It is not properly licensed for use here.
But then, here's another thought. Your run-down of the time frames looks good to me, but we can't know whether it is a mirror site or if it is copied directly from Wikipedia, somewhere else entirely that copied from Wikipedia, nor where that particular paragraph first appeared. . I don't think worrying about the chicken and the egg is particularly important. You can't use something that mirrors or is copied from Wikipedia to support material being added to Wikipedia. Since copying the paragraph from there violates copyright, a person couldn't claim to have written it for Wikipedia. It is unsourced synthesis (it is mentioned that Cameron wanted to do a musical number early in the film. This is granted, as there is a scene of her shaking her hips), with POV issues (something she obviously has a talent for). It could as easily say she has a healthy sense of humor as can be attested by her "hair gel" scene in There's Something About Mary. Finally, it's unencyclopedic and places undue weight on... her bottom. Let's see what the noticeboard response is, but basically, if someone says it's okay for some reason, I'll broach all these issues with it. I think this is a case of just not wanting to let it go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actor infobox pics
Ross: I'm transferring our previous conversation about actor infobox pictures here, as a more appropriate place -- as you say, it was a little odd holding the conversation on a third party's talk page.
So, I've looked through all the images that were suggested, and I did a little tweaking of a couple of them, but the only ones of yours that I had some question about were these three: Marlene Dietrich, Jean Harlow, Joel McCrea.
On the Dietrich, I'd like to see if the face can be lightened a little to become a bit more prominent in the image, without making the name too bright at the same time. If that's not possible, I wouldn't try anything else, since cropping around the name wouldn't work.
For the Harlow image, I'd again like to get the face more prominent, but I think it might also be useful to trim a bit off the top - there seems to be a little too much space up there; also I'd bring in the sides a bit, all of which would have the effect of making the face a bit bigger. Again, if these steps didn't work, I would not consider cropping to the face.
Finally, Joel McCrea - This is one where it might be worthwhile to crop in to the face, if the resolution doesn't break down. If that's not possible, I think cropping in a bit would be helpful, and also adjusting the brghtness and contrast to bring the face out from the background.
That's it, the rest of your stuff seems fine to me. (And I thank you for the work that went into uploading all these free trailer images.) I'm not hot to trot to do this work myself, if you think my comments are valid and feel like doing the adjustments yourself, that's fine with me, or if you want me to give it a try, subject to your reverting if you don't like the results, that's fine too, just let me know what your druthers are.
Those suggestions all sound fine to me. I'm not very clever about adjusting contrast etc. I can crop and that's where my photo-manipulation-abilities end, so if there's anything you can do, that would be great. There are many other images that are candidates for being cropped, and I've already done some. The list given is just the tip of the iceberg, and while I disagreed with most of those, I might possibly have agreed with a different list. Some of the images are the best of what was available at the time, so who knows - a dedicated search to finding a better image of Marlene Dietrich, for example, may turn up something that can be used with minimal effort. I've looked through Commons, and there's a Red Dust image of Jean Harlow that may be a better infobox image. Both Harlow images would benefit from cropping. Joel McCrea is definitely worth a try. The worst that can happen is the resolution will be compromised and we'll decide not to use it, but it's worth a try. I respect your judgement on these matters, so if you think it looks better, chances are, I will too. If not, I'll let you know. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'll hold off on working on the Harlow image if you think there's a better one available - her expression seems a bit odd in the current one. Otherwise, I'll proceed with the others. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c00:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've uploaded new slightly cropped in and enhanced versions of both the Dietrich and McCrea shots, see what you think. I did try a head crop of McCrea, Attempt at a headshot but it seemed a little fuzzy to me when I previewed it on the infobox, because it ended up at 184px and I had to blow it up a bit to make it usable for the infobox.
They look fine to me. McCrea is a little fuzzy but no so fuzzy as to make the image unusable. I'll see if I can find some other images. The Harlow one isn't really typical of her. She doesn't look like Harlow particularly, and her expression is odd. I'll go through those trailers again - they were (I think) all done during the time I was trying to keep names on the image to make it crystal clear that they'd been taken from the trailer rather than the film. Perhaps any or all of the trailers in question will have something more "typical", less fuzzy etc. I've got to go out for a while, but I'll check later, to see what I can find, and will let you know. Nice work though Ed. Any attempt at improving these is appreciated, and with images it often comes down to experimentation to see if something works better than something else. Rossrs (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading Image:Captain&Tennille.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For helping out another user.
CWii(Talk|Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ross: When you have a moment, could you look at the infobox image? I was fooling around with it, lightening it and doing a gentle cropin to make the face a bit more prominent (this version is saved on Commons under "Claude Rains in Mr Skeffington trailer crop"), when I realized that it probably could be cropped to the head. I did this version ("Claude Rains in Mr Skeffington trailer headcrop") but I'm not certain about it -- does his face look out of proportion because there's not enough of his upper body, the tie and so on? Does his pompador look a little big because of that?
As I'm trudging along on these actor bios, I came across Drew's, which had been really deprecated from its GA status due to additions, changes, etc. It mentioned her production company in the lead and didn't discuss it at all later. Would you just take a quick look at it now as compared to Drew Barrymore yesterday and see if it has an improved flow or if you have other suggestions? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I was wanting was just verification that what I'd changed was mostly flowing well. I couldn't believe it. After I did all that work, I asked one of the copyeditors to look also. He did and made a couple changes and posted a note about it on the talk page. Then one of the regular editors for the page took all the credit!! It rather annoyed me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background info on the user. I had no idea he/she was such a busy little bee. I was kind of aware that there was a shady user monitoring the page, but I didn't put two and two together until after they reverted my changes the first time. After that, I went to the talk page and finally saw the message IP4240207xx left about HarveyCarter and his little farm. Considering their recent comments, the removal of talk page comments, and the fact that he/she is a block evading user, I think removing any of their text, talk page or otherwise, is perfectly acceptable. PinkadelicaSay it...10:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ross: Just wanted to let you know that I tweaked your picture of Jane Powell in the trailer for Small Town Girl (1953 film) - I brought out the face from the background, and very slightly brought the sides in. As usual, if you think it's not an improvement, feel free to revert, no problem, or let me know of any changes you want. Best, Ed Fitzgeraldt / c02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good, Ed. We seem to be of a similar mind in regards to the presentation of these images. I value your judgement and appreciate that your aim is to achieve improvement wherever possible, so you'll always have my support in that. Rossrs (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James Cagney
Another editor asked me to look at the article, which is being developed at the moment. He commented that he doesn't really have a lot of images available to use on the article, so I thought I'd ask you. You seem to find a lot of images - do you have any, or know where we could obtain some either fair-use or copyright-less images of Cagney, in films or not? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so so much, these can all only improve the article so much! I'm still in two minds about which grapefruit one to use, as I'd rather haave the actual shot from the film (which was virtually ad-libbed) than a posed photo, but the photo is much better quality. I also rather like as a headshot for the article, but I think it might be a bit too small. What do you think? --Ged UK (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ross: I agree with GED's comment here, and the ones made on Wilhartlivie's talk page: a great bunch of images, which are going to help the Cagney article immensely. For the infobox, I like the shots from G Men, both the headshot and the bodyshot (probably preferring the bodyshot, myself), but the Yankee Doodle one is good too, albeit a little dark and a little small, so I tweaked it a bit. The new image is sized up to 200px, which should be plenty big enough for the infobox. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, it's strange - when I look at the 2 images side by side here, the second one looks a little too pale, and yet on the article page itself, it looks very good. I also prefer it to the the G Men image for the infobox, but it depends a little on which images are used in the article. Ged was concerned that the Yankee Doodle image would be too small for the infobox, so I'm glad you were able to resize it. I like it in the infobox. Rossrs (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's very wierd. Sometimes I look at the "new" one and I think "Crap, I've overdone it, it's too processed, I can see some aliasing around the edges, I've got to do it over." Then I come back to it later and it looks perfectly fine. In fact, I was about to embark on a redo when I too a look at the infobox and it looked OK there. Go figure, as we say in my neck of the woods.
I was going to start adding some images to the Cagney article from your Commons stash, beginning with the one of Cagney and Blondell from Footlight Parade (one of my favorite films), but Wikipedia seems to be having some problems with images at the moment, maybe a server problem between WP & Commons, so I'll come back to it later.
We say "go figure" here too. I think it comes from a steady diet of American television. We formerly said "bloody hell" or worse. Commons was being contrary last night when I was uploading so maybe there is some kind of problem. Hopefully there is enough variety in the images. I think there is. No problem about the images here - they make my page look a bit more interesting. Rossrs (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(out) Ross: As you may have seen, I tweaked a number of your Cagney pics before putting them into the article. If I remember correctly, on almost all of them I was just adjusting brightness, contrast etc. -- I believe there was one I cropped in, but I re-saved it under a new name. As usual, if the changes don't meet with your approval, please revert or let me know and I'll make whatever adjustments your suggest. Many thanks for your patience with my busybodyness. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c20:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should get your user & talk pages semi-protected for a while.
I just undid another vandal attack, under a third IP address. I had the other two blocked by reporting them to WP:AIV, but obviously this person has a dynamic IP, so semi-protection is probably the way to go for now. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c01:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about that, but if some anonymous moron wants to demonstrate their bad spelling, lack of intellect, lack of originality, lack of sophistication, lack of humour and lack of maturity, who am I to remove their platform? It's just boring old crap, that I've read a thousand times, and it takes a second to remove it. If they could come up with something I haven't heard before or that was even remotely amusing, I would probably have a heart attack and die. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Rossrs (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That's quite a nice image of him anyway. He usually has such a supercilious air - he looks softer and more humane in this picture. A lot younger than he's usually depicted too. Rossrs (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably be pleased to hear that I start a new job tomorrow (I freelance), so my free time will diminish considerably, and I'll be bugging you less -- in the meantime, though...
Did you say recently that you were looking for some new pics of Harlow? if so, any luck? I've swapped the "Libeled Lady" image for the one from "Red Dust" in the infobox -- I couldn't really do much to help the former, and the latter looks pretty good, I think. (I also cropped the other image, "Platunum Blonde" I think, not one of yours.) I'm most unhappy with the "Libeled Lady" image, since I can't tweak it into goodness, and it's not a terribly good likeness - she has a kind of funny expression, especially around the mouth. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c01:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad - I don't mind you bugging me. I never know what to expect :-) .... I couldn't find anything good for Harlow, but the Red Dust image is rather nice. I found one that was from that movie that she went brunette for, and I can't remember the title. Her face looks good, and I'll dig it out and upload it, but she really needs to be blonde, at least in the infobox. She looks like a tough "dame" in the Libelled Lady pic. Rossrs (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, "that's too bad" isn't a very nice comment to make to someone starting a new job, but I'm sure you know I was only replying from a selfish Wikipedian view. I hope it all goes well for you Ed. Rossrs (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad there are freelance people out there who are getting jobs, Ed. I had an old photo that was signed and sent out by her mom back in the day, but it was a 14x11 photo and I've since sold it. It's not old enough to be fair use and it's rather yellowed, even if I did merge the two halves. Are you thinking of Red-Headed Woman, Ross? Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through Jean's filmography and Riffraff is the only title that rings a bell. I don't think it was Red-Headed Woman, but I'll find it and upload it later. Rossrs (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your good wishes. First day went well (I hate first days), so I'm feeling significantly less apprehensive than I was. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was Riffraff after all. I think it's a nice image. The black and white disguises the fact that she's not blonde but she's obviously not platinum blonde here. Rossrs (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do like that image. It should be very easy to increase the contrast and brightness and bring her face out more. At least by someone who has the proper software for it. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've dabbled with some photo retouching with MSPaint, but I'm really no good with it. I was sort of hoping you'd be the one with the proper software. I'm willing to wait. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i've tweaked both the version with her name and the cropped version. I prefer the former, so that's what I put in the infobox. To change to the cropped version, just change the "1" in the file name to "cropped". Let me know if you folks think the image looks OK, or if it needs more work. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c00:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it !! I prefer the version with the name too, and usually that is my preference. I thought you preferred it without the name in general, so is it specifically this one that you prefer with? I think it's better balanced this way. Rossrs (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very tight crop
You're right, all things being equal, I think a head shot with no name is preferable, but the headcrop here just seemed too cramped, because (again) of where the chin gets too close to the bottom border. I tried to compensate by bringing the sides in tighter than I would normally, even clipping a bit of the "aura" of hair, but it didn't help much, the image in the frame just looks uncomfortably jammed in. (I did find that cropping in well past the border of the hair had better proportions, but without the backlit hair, the impressions of "quasi-blondeness" is lost, which is one of the points of using this image.) The other crop, with tht name, is, as you said, better balanced, and the name doesn't overwhelm the face, as sometimes happens. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that all makes sense, I see what you mean. In my opinion the infobox image looks better if it's either a square or "portrait". "Landscape" looks awkward and unbalanced itself, maybe because the overall shape of the infobox is "portrait". It's nice to have a choice though - a lot of the images are being used I guess because nothing else is readily available. With this particular image the hand looks a little "weird" (for want of a better adjective) in the cropped photo but in the uncropped it looks better because you can still see the shape of her arm behind the lettering. Rossrs (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... I think the "very tight crop" is good. I'd be happy with either, but if you are less happy with that one, it's fine with me. Rossrs (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting, because after I posted it here and had another look at it, I started to kinda like it, a lot. Let me put it in the ibox and see how it looks there. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c04:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I added a photo into Kay Johnson's Wiki from the same site, so maybe you want to check my procedure there...just keyword her name at the NYPL and you'll find her if you need the details.
Okay, who is that person? I can't accept that a new user, who first posted three weeks ago, would be so knowledgeable about so many things. Is there someone who has previously worked on this article who was banned? The person obviously has designs on the article, since the very first thing she/he did here was this and has expanded the library. It's quite curious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:BS-Oops!...IDidItAgain(Album).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BS-Oops!...IDidItAgain(Album).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea the "replace this image" images were being deprecated. And that "trailer" copyright thing is pretty crazy, though it does seem a bit out-of-spirit to take advantage of someone's work, solely because of some loophole in previous copyright law. But, c'est la vie.
That said, I would encourage you in the future to put more thorough explanations in your edit summaries. In the past, I have found that they can really help avoiding edit conflicts. Keep up the good work. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as a headshot for the article, but I think it might be a bit too small. What do you think? --Ged UK (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:BS-Oops!...IDidItAgain(Album).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.jpg)){kind=link}