User talk:Jeremy Butler

Got something to say? Then click edit this page (or, better, the little plus sign to its right) to say it.

The Office US

Hi, i corrected the Office US's page to read that it is a multi-camera shot production, to which you changed back to say it was a single-cam production. However, in your edit summary you state, "Although a second camera is often used, it is not shot multiple-camera (i.e., 4-camera) style. Contrast, e.g., with Two and a Half Men." So can you clarify how using multiple camera's makes the office a single camera production? I dont see the connection there. I am merely referring to how the actual crew members and industry professionals define our own craft. In case that you mean that a second camera is "often" used, and therefore not "always", it is still pertinent to refer to it as a multi cam show, especially since something like the office so clearly uses at least two cameras the majority of the time. Im just curious bc its very likely that im just missing something here. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotamiran (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Scott, and thanks for the comment/query.

The Office is not a pure single-camera show, because, as you pointed out, it often uses a second camera. However, one could make the same point about many (most?) feature films, which, as I'm sure you know, often use a second camera on set and I don't just mean for special effects shots. And yet, those films are still considered single-camera productions.

Most importantly, The Office is definitely not a conventional multiple-camera show. As the multiple-camera setup article details, that term most often refers to a sitcom using three or four cameras to record scenes simultaneously, with a studio audience and so on.

I'm friends with Ken Kwapis, who directed many Office episodes (and the pilot), and I've interviewed one of the program's editors. I know they view the show as a "single-camera" production--especially in terms of scripting and editing.

So, in the final analysis, The Office is somewhere in between a pure single-camera production and a pure multiple-camera production; but I think it's closer to single-camera than multiple and key crew members think of it in the same way.

Regards, Jeremy Butler 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jeremy, thanks for the reply... Youre correct, most films do employ 2+ cameras on the day, and yes even for normal non-sfx shots. As a camera man, however, its just a matter of fact that, in my experience and my education via established professional camera people and other crew people, that 1 = single and 2 = multiple. Ive never been on a show where there was an "A" camera and a "2nd A" camera, its A cam and B cam, which distinguishes that multiple cameras are being used. So no, i would have to disagree with you that even "those films are still considered single-camera productions". I will agree that yes the office is definitely not a conventional show, i hope that thats not what youre perceiving i was trying to illustrate, because i was trying to add to that opinion. I believe that the multiple camera setup article page should be revised actually, because information about the studio audience and proscenium setup are not necessarily relevant to an article that should solely be describing under what circumstances multiple cameras are used on any production, be it tv, film, documentary, industrial, commercial, etc. An article detailing number of cameras, whether or not a live studio audience is present, whether in a sound stage or on location should be titled something like "traditional studio tv shows". I think thats cool that you know Ken Kwapis and have interviewed crew members and what not, i really do. I just dont understand how and why they would view the show as single camera when multiple cameras are used probably just as often as one, as the situation warrants. I think the proper way to have "the office" article read now, based on the info youve given me, is that we should say something like, "although multiple cameras are simultaneously used/shooting just as often as as single camera, most of the creatives/producers/department heads consider the show as a single-camera setup production." or "although the argument can be made that it is a muliple camera production, the producers/creative heads deem it a single cam prod." ... something like that, you know? thats whats awesome about wikipedia, because i feel we should provide as MUCH info about the entry as possible, as much is known and is relevant to being known by people who are eager to learn new things about the present subject. lets try that, eh? lemme know what you think, thanks scw 02.14 CST 7.9.08 Scotamiran (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Scott. I think that in terms of its "mode of production", The Office is best regarded as a single-camera show, even if it does sometimes break the "rules" and use a second camera. And the Wikipedia consensus appears to be that this is relatively accurate. So, I don't see a need to modify it. However, if you'd like to do so, give it a shot. I personally won't revert your modifications and we'll see how other editors react to it. Regards, Jeremy Butler 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ace in the Hole (1951 film)

Hello,

You deleted the link I placed in the Ace in the Hole film page and wrote it was a "vanity link." Maybe this is common practice, but I felt your action was unfair. I placed the link there for people looking for more information and analysis on the film. I had noticed that the page for the film Scarlet Street had a link and enjoyed reading it so I figured others might have the same reaction to my own link to Ace in the Hole. It was not intended for "vanity" at all. I'm very proud of the link and felt it worthy of being placed for others to learn more about the film. Is that not what an external link should achieve?

Hello, User:Clydefro.

It is indeed "common practice" on Wikipedia to remove links to a site that are added by the person who created or runs the site, or somehow has a vested interest in that site. The reasoning behind this is that a Web author is not the best judge of the "notability" of his or her site. If a site is truly notable then someone other than the site's author will think so and link to it. For example, even though I think that my site on TV criticism (www.tvcrit.com) has notable information to add to numerous TV articles, I recognize that I have a vested interested in tvcrit.com and thus I do not link to it.

Wikipedia used to refer to an author linking to his/her own sites as "vanity" linking or "spam" linking--much as a "vanity press" publishes works written by the owner of the press. I went over to check on this Wikipedia policy just now and see that they've renamed it "conflict of interest". The principle remains the same, however.

I see you undid or "reverted" my deletion of your links. I don't believe in engaging in "revert wars" and won't delete it again, but you should know that some Wikipedia editors are very pugnacious about deleting conflict-of-interest links (I'll stop calling them "vanity links" now!). If you continue linking to your own site, you'll find the links will often be deleted.

And in a final bit of Wikipedia etiquette, you are encouraged to sign comments by placing --~~~~ at the end of them. It'll result in something like, --Jeremy Butler 13:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Office (US)

Hi Jeremy,

I was wondering if you could give me a reply over on The Office (US) talk page regarding external linking. I've been scratching my head over this for a few different articles and the Wikipedia style guide doesn't specifically help me. Any suggestions are appreciated :) Mrtea (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:television-screenshot

I was just checking out your template... it looks like a good idea, but I realized it's nothing official yet. Maybe you could start a discussion on the copyright tags page about it to see what the concensus is. If it goes over well, we could get it listed as an option for Licensing when uploading images. Mrtea (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to copyright tags. I found there is already a template for TV: {{tv-screenshot}}! I didn't find it previously because I had searched for TV (capitalized!) and "television". In any event, we should use {{tv-screenshot}}, fer shure! --Jeremy Butler 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A long-delayed answer

Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation_and_abbreviations#Where_does_one_find_Wiki_abbreviations.3F Cheers! Chris the speller 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Film/television stills

After thinking about this a bit, I think that you're right. I'll undo my changes to the tv/film screenshot templates shortly. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 03:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Videography

I've made reverts and left a message on User talk:Bob Kiger. Apparently he never got the welcome mat! --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kwapis Formatting

Personally the image cutting into the first section doesn't bother me. I prefer that to the large amount of blank space. I haven't come across any guideline regarding this particular situation. If you think the other way is better then go ahead and change it, it's not a big deal to me. Qutezuce 20:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilmette History

I don't remember what my sources were. If there are errors, feel free to correct them. I'm not going to contest it since I'm no Wilmette expert. --flyhighplato 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD vote

Hi, Since you are an experienced editor who has edited articles about acting in the past, I'm asking if you could take a look at this AfD regarding Jason Bennett. This article was posted by an editor who claims that he is one of the great acting teachers, but to me it sounds like an advertisement. SInce I am not an actor I am only able to judge based on the claims the article makes, since I cannot find ANY third-party sources regarding his notability, only listings in commercial directories of acting schoools. If you have the time, your vote and comment would be appreciated. Thank you, Marcuse 16:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alabama Public Radio and user namespace

I see you deleted the link to a user namespace in Alabama Public Radio. I haven't seen this before. Is there a Wikipedia policy against linking to user namespaces? What might be the rationale behind that? Thanks any further clarification. --Jeremy Butler 15:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a settled policy in this area, but WP:SELF covers very similar ground: article pages shouldn't contain links that are specific to the fact that the article is part of Wikipedia. That you are a Wikipedia user may be significant while that article is in Wikipedia, but is irrelevant if the article is copied to another site, printed out, or what-have-you. Of course, if you're sufficiently notable, there should be a page at Jeremy Butler about you. --bjh21 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Code

Again, who the hell do you think you are to gut sourced and cited edits to pre-Code movies as "too long"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.67.28 (talk • contribs)

• Hi again, Robert! - Ali-oops^✍ 06:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cinematography

Jeremy - wow, thank you so much for the cleanup on the Cinematography article. I had been sweating over that in several phases yesterday and your clean up is extremely helpful. You're right - still much more work to be done. Also still struggling with what information belongs in Cinematography as opposed to Cinematographer. Thanks for your contributions. Another couple passes and we'll get this thing into much better shape. LACameraman 17:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy - I saw that you just recently reorganized the Cinematography article. No real issues with the new flow, but I also saw that you cut the passage on digital imaging - you feel this is something more suited for the Cinematographer article? I've been debating that myself. LACameraman 21:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Filmmaking

Hey, I decided to finally get together and try to start a WikiProject for Filmmaking. Currently the temporary page is User:Girolamo Savonarola/wikiproject until I have a few more editors - enough to justify making it into a proper Project. Anyhow, just wanted to invite you to participate, and of course offer any comments you may have on the project. Thanks! (PS - don't forget to sign here as well.) Girolamo Savonarola 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Woody Mellor" AKA Joe Strummer

This is pretty common knowledge to many Clash/Strummer fans. He's acknowledged as "Woody" on the back of the 101'ers Album "Elgin Avenue Breakdown," the 101'ers of course being Joe's pre-Clash band. Jlee562 05:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Interesting! --Jeremy Butler 11:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tuscaloosa

Hey Jeremy, Thank you for admiting my site www.JobsTuscaloosa.com to the list of external links on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuscaloosa%2C_Alabama page. I can understand why you removed the link to www.SchoolsInTuscaloosa.com. It is a nearly empty message board. I've had a lot of difficulty getting any kind of traffic flowing to the site therefore there are very few discussions on it. The jobs site has begun to pick up a little momentum though. As far as I know, it is the only place where one can post Tuscaloosa jobs for free. Dan Sullivan - Tuscaloosa, Alabama 09:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sound film/aesthetics

Hi, Jeremy. I'll take it point by point:

(1) As it stands, the article doesn't claim that L'Âge d'or experiments singificantly with sound, but simply that it is the first instance of the medium of sound cinema judged to be of great aesthetic import, in whatever way--in this case, as one of the signal examples of the surrealist movement. I don't believe there's anything controversial in how it's currently represented.

(2) Le Million does have a place in the discussion as an important early commercial sound film that indeed experiments aesthetically with audio. Would you like to take a stab at it? Or I can...

(3) I'm not clear how you would go about contrasting the "masterpieces" of the late silent cinema with "more pedestrian works of the early sound era" in a way that would be less subjective than what's there now...which compares apples to apples: during the span 1927-1931, there were many more works of art widely regarded as great in the realm of silent cinema than in sound cinema. Before M, the best of the silents were much better than the best of the sound films. That's pretty straightforward and again, I think, not controversial. Comparing the best of the silents to the mediocrities of sound (a) doesn't seem fair and (b) elides the fact that most silent films--like most sound films of any age--were also mediocre...as we would expect in any creative industry. But maybe you've got a different angle on this. I look forward to hearing about it.

Best, Dan—DCGeist 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:GilmoreGirls.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GilmoreGirls.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 13:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

attempting to edit template infobox television

Hi . I appreciate your work in adding more categories to the template. Television and television industry staff have had a significant impact on American culture. I am having a doozy of a time entering theme music composer to the television infobox. I tried to add it on the syntax section of template:infobox television and my edit did not result in the addition of theme music composer. Any tips? Thanks. Dogru144 14:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From looking at that template, I see that someone else helped you out. Regards, --Jeremy Butler 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Documentary film

Why did you insert words like "poop" on the page? That doesn't seem like you. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Woops. I reverted some edits back to the wrong version. --Jeremy Butler 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bringing Up Baby

Hi, your vast experience may be able to help save Image:Bringing up baby.jpg. A look at its edit history will show you that your claim that it is not a screenshot gave rise to its current status on the deletion list. Maybe you can help, for example by providing the necessary "source information", something I am unable to do.

As deadlines seem to become shorter with every new year (only 48 hours now), something would have to be done about it right now.

Thanks in advance, and all the best, <KF> 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for the explanation! <KF> 15:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lowell George

I vaguely remembered something about him being on F Troop, so I searched "Lowell George F Troop" on google.com. The first hit is a you tube clip of his appearance in the show if you want to check it out! (John User:Jwy talk) 15:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

Just thought I'd let you know, "cleanup-date" is now simply "cleanup". Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 09:03 6 February 2007 (GMT).

League of Copyeditors

Hi there! I came across your edits and noticed that you do a fair amount of copy-editing. I'm a member of the League of Copyeditors, a project dedicated to managing the sizable backlog of articles needing a copy-edit. We're always looking for new members, and you'd make a great addition to the project! We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you're interested, you can help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

• Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the ready for final proofread section.
• Select a different article to proofread from the ready for final proofread section.

Thanks, and happy editing! BuddingJournalist 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

List of single-camera sitcoms

I see you created the article List of single-camera sitcoms with an entry for Rude Awakenings. This is the title of a new comedy/drama series which has just started in New Zealand, and unless you had some inside knowledge that it was in production, I assume you meant a different program of the same name, or perhaps Rude Awakening (TV series). Can you fix or disambiguate it, since I'm not sure what the correct action is. Thanks.-gadfium 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellis Paul FAC

Hi Jeremy. Was searching around trying to find other persons interested in folk music and was pleased to find you (since I've run across your name before - we may have even communicated via e-mail in the past). I'm relatively new to Wikipedia - got involved to enhance the Ellis Paul article. Had NO idea what I was getting myself into.  :-) Received the GA rating on 1-25-07 and nominated the article for FA on 2-8-07. So far so good. Please take a look and, if you're willing and able, offer your support. Thanks! (If the Ellis Paul article goes all the way...or I should say *when* it goes all the way) I may start to work on some others.....since folk musicians are sadly so under-represented.) Kmzundel 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Guthrie Anecdote (Philadelphia Lawyer)

The source for the Guthrie anecdote is liner notes for the 4 Cd set of the Moses Asch recordings. Since I do not own the set I did not put down the exact source. If looked up the source would it be valid? Do I need have a page number and an exact quote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomasgwilson (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

CFD

Because of your edit history, I thought you might be interested in contributing to this deletion discussion. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hi Jeremy. I left a comment/question on Talk:Suffragette about your removal of red links... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smobri (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Oops! Forgot to sign! --Smobri 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Postman_24.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Postman_24.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Radio

You might be interested in joining the Radio WikiProject. --PhantomS 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Persistence of vision and movie camera

Jeremy, I noticed that you did some cleanup on the movie camera article, most of which was uniformly impeccable. I'm a little confused, however, as to the edits regarding persistence of vision. I'm not an expert on the subject, and I see that you went out of your way to even provide a reference, but being as the supposed phenomenon is a physiological and not aesthetic event, I would be more comfortable if the references regarding this are more scientific in their background, and preferably several to show some consensus. As far as I am aware, the persistence of vision article itself does not mention its would-be discrediting, for what it's worth. Do you think it might be possible for you to produce some scientific references? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi, Girolamo. Thank you for your comment.

You say,

the supposed phenomenon is a physiological and not aesthetic event, I would be more comfortable if the references regarding this are more scientific in their background, and preferably several to show some consensus.

In the article I reference, one section begins[1]

...researchers in several disciplines were pursuing problems in their own fields which would inadvertently shed light upon problems such as the phenomenon of motion in the motion picture.

The authors then discuss the various evidence (including clinical evidence) discrediting persistence of vision and suggesting other explanations for the illusion of motion. Is this the sort of scientific references you're looking for? Also, that article was published by the Center for Cognitive Studies of the Moving Image, which is concerned with the scientific study (as in cognitive psychology) of physiological phenomena such as this.

Do you know of scientific evidence that supports the theory of persistence of vision?

Also, regarding

As far as I am aware, the persistence of vision article itself does not mention its would-be discrediting, for what it's worth.

That article mentions its discrediting in the second paragraph:

Although psychologists and physiologists have rejected the relevance of this theory to film viewership, film academics and theorists generally have not. Some scientists nowadays consider the entire theory a myth.

And it references the CCSMI article. So, I was just trying to make the two articles consistent.

Regards,

--Jeremy Butler 11:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Art Carney

It was my intention to eventually cite ten different radio series with Carney performances. If mentioning one is "too much detail," we'll never get off the launch pad! Pepso2 13:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response on your user page. --Jeremy Butler 12:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A good reorganization. There was a real problem with the way Carney info was (once) scattered about there. This seems to happen with more popular subjects when newcomers add misc. facts in a random manner. On the other hand, I'm just getting a handle on cleaning and reorganizing Mary Ford which had a scattered attempt at a profile loosely assembled by only one person! Pepso2 12:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Postman 24.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Postman 24.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. BetacommandBot 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Monument Valley

Hello, why did You delete my home movies "In the Monument Valley"? I think it is very interesting for everyone, to see inside a hogan. And: Everyone criticizes: There are to little videos in Wikipedia! I had seen, this is not the first time, You deleted a film. Why? R. Engelhardt 15:25, 30. July 2007 (UTC)

Mad Men

Hello! Wanted to thank you for your copyediting efforts. Also, do you think that maybe we could get a reference for the thing about the anachronism with the IBM Selectric? I've heard about people talking about that as well, no argument there, but it looks like original research until we can get it sourced. Cliff smith 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It's gone. Cliff smith 01:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Film studies journals

I have nominated Category:Film studies journals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Film magazines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wagon Master

Howdy,

I noticed that you deleted some of the material that I had put in Wagon Master, while I did have citations for 100% of it. But, why did you remove the Wikilinki's to Mormon and Elder? The beauty of Wikipedia is that, because it is not a paper based encyclopedia or a software version on CD that you download on your computer, you can link articles together. Now you know what a Mormon is, and I might, but what about the 10 year old boy in France, or China, or New Zealand? What about the person in Nigeria that wants to learn? Pretend that you are reading an article, then you see something that you don't know what it is, and then being immediately able to go to another article, that you don't know what it is, to learn about that important person, place, or thing. This is one of the most valuable things about Wikipedia, and one of its most important advantages over other types of encyclopedias.

WikiDon 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I noticed that you deleted some of the material that I had put in Wagon Master, while I did have citations for 100% of it.

From just beneath the Wikipedia edit box: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted."

I didn't copy anything, I wrote the original sentences from sources, and cited those sources.

But, why did you remove the Wikilinki's to Mormon and Elder?

I wasn't removing Wikilinks, per se; I was removing redundant character names. The character names are unnecessary in the lead paragraph as they're listed in the plot. In fact, most movie articles do not include character names in the lead. Please feel free to add Wikilinks to Mormon in the article's plot section.

I'll put in the links, thanks.

The beauty of Wikipedia is that, because it is not a paper based encyclopedia or a software version on CD that you download on your computer, you can link articles together. Now you know what a Mormon is, and I might, but what about the 10 year old boy in France, or China, or New Zealand? What about the person in Nigeria that wants to learn? Pretend that you are reading an article, then you see something that you don't know what it is, and then being immediately able to go to another article, that you don't know what it is, to learn about that important person, place, or thing. This is one of the most valuable things about Wikipedia, and one of its most important advantages over other types of encyclopedias.

For my Wikipedia editing credentials, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jeremy_Butler

--Jeremy Butler 11:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• This URL tells me little to nothing

No need to copy and paste, just leave a message on my page saying that you replied here, make it easy on you.

Happy editing,

WikiDon 11:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the copyright quotation. I mixed this article up with another one I was editing that had a lot of copyrighted material in it. --Jeremy Butler 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bonanza

Do you know the name of the person who did the charcoal(?) drawings that were used for the credits on the TV show Bonanza? WikiDon 01:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question! No, sure don't. --Jeremy Butler 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just about the best part of the show. Is there anyway to find out? You have a lot more resources than I do. WikiDon

Breathless Competeing Translations

Nice edit on my work on the Breathless article. The section is much more concise. Hopefully i will find the time to make some more additions to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpcadet (talk • contribs) 21:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SisterhoodPic-1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:SisterhoodPic-1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Roaring Twenties

I've gotten fed up with this unreferenced vandalism by anons on the article so I've semi-protected it for two weeks. Ben W Bell talk 03:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --Jeremy Butler 03:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheOfficePilot01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheOfficePilot01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RioBravo29.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RioBravo29.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KwapisSisterhood01.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:KwapisSisterhood01.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bazin What Is Cinema.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bazin What Is Cinema.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Breathless01small.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Breathless01small.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Breathless02small.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Breathless02small.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilda Radner

Perhaps it would be helpful if you posted comments on the article talk page outlining your concerns about the tone of the article about which you've raised concerns. I'm fairly certain its connected to the death section, I find nothing in the rest of the article that would be questionable regarding one. It would be productive to discuss issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Women

Please do not add "citation needed" multiple times to data in the Production section of this article. Everything in the first paragraph is referenced to the Entertainment Weekly article that is cited as the source at the end of the paragraph. It doesn't have to be referenced after every sentence. Also, it is significant that in this updated version one of the characters is openly gay, since in the original 1939 film it was merely suggested the corresponding character was a lesbian, so I don't understand why you chose to remove this detail. Thank you. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

67.173.200.231

• 67.173.200.231 (talk)

I've blocked the ip for vandalism (including page blankings).

I note that you've reverted their edits in the past. If you're willing, I would appreciate it if you'd go over Special:Contributions/67.173.200.231 and correct anything that needs fixing.

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Whole Wheat Radio

I'm placing this discussion in progress on your talk page in reference to the removal of the Whole Wheat Radio link on Greg Brown's page. Atuuschaaw (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

from the Spam report page...

This sure looks like spam to me. Jimkloss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Kmzundel 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to start here. Jim's intent is not to spam, but to provide an audio and written resource for any reader who might be interested in a particular musician, and a resource for independent musicians to allow listeners to hear their works. Whole Wheat Radio's mission page is here http://wholewheatradio.org/wiki/index.php/Mission. What needs to be done to establish WWR as a non-spam organization? Thank you. --sparkit^TALK 02:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the wikipedia page is here... Whole Wheat Radio. --sparkit^TALK 02:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your genuine concern. I don't know the answer to your question, but hopefully someone with more experience re: wiki policy will be able to provide guidance. Kmzundel (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of introducing myself where I am perhaps not wanted, I also sincerely wanted to put a human face on Whole Wheat Radio (WWR) so at least if WWR is banished to "spam" status on Wikipedia perhaps you personally will know a bit more about us, and me, and hopefully think otherwise. Having spent over 6 years devoted on a full-time basis to the musicians and listeners and hype-free, spam-free, ad-free, all-volunteer, grassroots community that is WWR, I appreciate the opportunity to assure you that, although my methods were horribly spammer-like, the WWR community itself is not spam.

After Googling and noticing that you and I enjoy several of the same wonderful acoustic musicians, I was tempted to email Ellis and Antje and Tracy, all of whom have been to Alaska, one having given a wonderful house concert here on on her birthday, the other two having participated in workshops with Esther Golton, my partner and co-founder of Whole Wheat Radio and both of whom, along with Ellis's manager, were effusive with their thanks for what Whole Wheat Radio does to help the indie acoustic music community ... and ask them to confirm that WWR is not spam. I was tempted to ask Esther to put out a "We're Not Spam - Are We?" paper, created by the WWR listener community, for musicians to sign at Far-West, where she is right now, since we have a personal relationship with so many of them and so many have likewise expressed their appreciation for what we do, non-commercially and at no charge to them, to help get their music and stories out into the ears of listeners.

I was tempted to point to various musician's websites, like (SPAM FILTER WORKAROUND- http://blog.REPLACEMEmyspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=73765385&blogID=419534340) Peter Cooper who graciously confirms the WWR musical-wiki community is anything but spam - or maybe even Randall William's comment in the Anchorage Daily News who said "...He counts Whole Wheat Radio as a room in his online home. Williams believes user-driven wikis are the future of music. ...". Or perhaps the list of house concerts we've put on for performers like Jack Williams and Katrina Olsen and Johnsmith and Jake Armerding and Rad and Danny Schmidt and Meg Hutchinson ... raising over $22,000 for them both in-house and online during the shows and giving it all right back to them. Or, if you know Tim Mason over at Club Passim, I think he'd be happy to confirm our status as un-spam-o-rific as he's been a good friend and supporter. There's so much I'm tempted to try to do in order to get the phrases "spam" and "Whole Wheat Radio" from sharing even the slightest connection in your, or anyone else's, mind.

It's my own darn fault though. The way I went about putting links to WWR artist pages, where people who are curious about the artists are able to find audio, images and text that would be difficult to post on Wikipedia due to policy (policy which I personally generally agree with and am glad to support), certainly was not smart. I understand how it looks like a dirty rotten spammer at work. There are several reasons I could state as justification for finally deciding to "just do it" but the fact remains, creating that many external links in a short time period is just asking to be labeled a spammer. I take full responsibility for my spammer-like actions and offer my sincere apologies for my impatience in creating so many external links in a relatively short time period.

So now, as Sparkit wrote, we're at a place where all I would like to do is find out if and how external links to artist pages on WWR can be given the go ahead. I'm fairly sure I can appeal directly to our artist community, where we have a very good reputation, and get several hundred or perhaps thousand signatures in support of what we do as un-spam-like... including both Jimmy LaFave who came to us via Susan Mumma in Seldovia and Ellis who was hoping to do a show here last time they were here in the summer but had a scheduling conflict. (Here's an example of an email excerpt that I think demonstrates how many musicians in the indie singer-songwriter community view us: Hi Jim, I manage Susan Werner. Tim Mason suggested I contact you to see about having Susan on the air when she is in Alaska this month. Susan and John Gorka are playing together in Anchorage on March 29th. Interested? By the way, I heard wonderful things from Tim about you and your programming when I saw him in Memphis at Folk Alliance. In fact, my chat with him led to my bringing Whole Wheat Radio up during one of the panels that I was on at the conference, and the audience had a lot to say. So kudos to you for the work you are doing! Cheers, Michelle) I, like you, don't know what the next step is to gaining non-spammer status, but I'm sure the WWR community will pull together to do whatever we can to make it happen.

Thanks for spending this much time reading and allowing me introduce myself. And, I warmly invite you to visit Whole Wheat Radio and say hello. (I'd link it, but I'm completely paranoid about doing that right now.) I'd love to play some Jimmy LaFave and Ellis Paul for you, or some of the recorded "Thank you for what you do WWR!" from folks like Michele Shocked and Carole King and Kacey Jones and John Gorka who've called in. I'd love to talk with you and introduce you to our wonderful little community via the microphone and further the musical connections we all share. You may already know some of us from WoodyFest and other live shows where more than likely a regular WWR listener was sitting somewhere close by.

But more than anything, I'd just like to demonstrate that Whole Wheat and Spam simply don't taste good together...

Jimkloss (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, thank you for your kind, gracious and understanding reply. Yes, I think the number of links that you added is what causes/caused concern. It's not necessary to involve any artists to have them confirm your good works. I do believe you. And I do hope a wiki editor with more knowledge and experience can provide guidance. Continued success and sincere kind regards. Kmzundel (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rules of the Game 09 kitchen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rules of the Game 09 kitchen.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) 05:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Glioma

Please drop in. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie

I have nominated Woody Guthrie for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.—141.155.159.210 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)