User talk:Arnie587

This is an old account of User:Arniep, please leave messages here User_talk:Arniep.

Welcome!

Hello, Arnie587, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 10:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Power: Was he or wasn't he?

Hello Arnie 587: Thanks for the request for better sources on Tyrone Powers rumored "extracurricular proclivities." I will be on the lookout for a more substantial and better documented source and will include in the article at a later date. Whatever the case, Power was truly one of filmdom's great stars and there will never be another actor to replace him. All the best, User:Keane4 23:58, 10 October 2005

Alex Kidd

The picture was just something I found on my computer so when I looked into it and found the page again there was no way to contact Chris, he had just submitted it to the people. So if this means the picture must go, so be it. Cabutt 01:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! After looking into where that picture came from, it turns out its fan art made by Chris Vierra, not official art. Cabutt 00:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in Foo

Btw. Just want to point out I'm not picking on you. I do think you named the categories wrongly, but that's just my editorial opinion, not anything personal. Let's see how other editors weigh in; and consensus will rule. Like I said, of course, I really do want consistency in naming though. And as things are now, there's much more likely to be, e.g. "Category:Swedish foos" rather than "Category:Swedes in foo." In just feel too informal.

Still, we'll have to see how my side project on Category:Jews in space turns out. It may slightly violate WP:POINT, but I think in a lighthearted and minor way. Besides, now that I added Brooks' film, we're up to four member articles :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cfr midstride

Administratively, it's a bit of a no-no to change a CfR mid-vote. I know you're just trying to work out the best solution in good faith. But we don't know for sure if the voters on the original proposal still vote the same way. I'm fine with your suggested change... but you should probably put a note on the user page of each of those folks who voted on the old change to make sure your new suggestion doesn't change their vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've put a note on all the talk pages of the voters, do you think Category:Jewish musicians is the right parent category for Category:Jewish classical musicians as I have a feeling what is in the category currently is mostly Hebrew music related. Maybe I should create a sub category Category:Jews in western music in Category:Jewish music I know you really are against using "Jews in" but I'm not sure there is a better way of differentiating to Hebrew/Synagogue music as Category:Jewish western musicians doesn't really work Arnie587 16:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnie, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not sure which set of categories is correct. On the one hand, I see your point about Jewish music being cantorial/klezmer/etc. On the other hand, the categories regarding people and ethnicity/national origin tend to be more of the "Jewish/Swedish/Polish" type. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Barrymore

Re your photograph of Maurice Barrymore. Please note this is not a "fairuse" item. It is a United States photograph taken by a New York studio in 1891, a copy of which wound up in Australia. As such, it is in the Public Domain. I will change image the designation. Thanks. Ted Wilkes 23:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, read the Australian museum website carefully. It doesn't claim copyright and only says you need permission of the copyright owner of whatever copyrighted images do appear on their website if reproduced etc. This matter has been clearly detailed at Wikipedia. All pre 1923 U.S. images are Public Domain. When you upload another photo, check the licensing list for "PD (United States): first published in the United States before 1923" and it will automatically post this:

Hope this clears it up for you. Ted Wilkes 02:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the Maurice Barrymore photograph is a United States photograph taken by a New York studio in 1891, a copy of which wound up in Australia. As such, it is governed by United States copyright law and in accordance with the United States Supreme Court, pre 1923 published images are Public Domain. The Australians can say anything they want but they have no copyright on this American photograph and cannot stop anyone from copying it. Send them an e-mail and ask them how they can claim control over an image for which they do not hold copyright. Ted Wilkes 00:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pazuzu413 images

Greetings! Greetings: yes, it appears that many of these images would be fair use in their articles, and that almost none of the images this user had uiploaded are sourced. It appeared he had been an active user; I set a week block in hopes that he would notice and have to email me for it to be lifted; it appears it has expred without comment so I will probably reset. If you are willing to find the source of the images you are welcome to tag them; otherwise mark them with {{nosource}} and they will be deleted: I was going to go through them myself later and do that if he didn't respond; I was hoping he'd respond, though.

Since they all appear to have been yanked from Google searches and thus easily recoverable, it's not really a big loss if some go and have to be replaced. Thanks for your efforts at finding the sources of these. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you see this is a complicated issue! The answer is "maybe". As a general practice -- though this isn't in policy now, but it should be -- we really shouldn't be taking photos from the Associated Press, since we could be considered competition: do they lose sales of that image if we publish it? Probably they do. Same with things like Getty Images. Photos taken by independent photographers also discouraged. Let's put it this way: I wouldn't try too hard to find a source for it to avoid deletion, because there's just going to be a big debate later about whether or not it is really fair use. Safest are press kit photos, put out specifically to be widely printed to promote the artist; they're still not free but until someone goes out and takes a free photo the best we can do. You might want to use the template {{fairusereplace}} for all non-free photos of celebs that aren't marked with {{promophoto}}: that template indicates that while it may be fair use (though not certainly) it is both possible and desirable to get a free image.

If you're interested in image licensing, you might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use where things like this are being discussed; we can always use more people interested in this! Wikipedia:Fair use has the current guidelines, though there is still much room for interpretation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Power

Hey. I noticed you added Tyrone Power to the "List of Jewish Actors", saying he had a Jewish maternal grandmother. Just wondering, where is that information from? It's just that the one book bio I consulted didn't really go into his mother ancestry, but said she was "half French" (father's side I guess, based on her last name). Vulturell 23:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've answered your question ...

... on my talk page. Bye for now, <K F> 00:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This sounds pretty reliable if you can get the details. I like finding out these little ancestry bits about actors that aren't usually publicized (i.e. Power, who is usually considered Irish, having French and looks like also Jewish ancestry). Cheers, Vulturell 04:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Hi, Ive provided the source for Image:Adam lopez.jpg.. Cheers. →Journalist >>talk<< 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Reticular Formation

Image:ARAS.jpg had a source attached to it in the article. “The Brainstem Reticular Formation and its Significance for Autonomic and Affective Behavior” was published in the 1960's. I was the one who scanned this particular image and created the digital copy. I realize it did not have a "tag", but i would have appreciated a message before your pedantic wiki-vigilantism. --Reid 22:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orioane Images

As I (and probably you) suspected, every single one of Orioane's images is an unsourced map of Romania. I have tagged them all {{no source}} and put them on my watchlist so I'll know if he attempts to remove the no source tag. Just an FYI. Superm401 | Talk 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think your ideas are good. You can try proposing them to others at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I can't implement them myself, as I'm not an admin. Superm401 | Talk 20:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Connelly

I realized that after a bit. Never got around to finding a better one. Thanks. --None-of-the-Above 09:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyvios etc

I didn't remove the tag because I thought the image was "safe" -- I simply replaced the tag with the one appropriate for images. The Zane image is not a "copyvio" in the sense meant by the {{copyvio}} tag, because someone is claiming it is "fair use". What you are doing is disputing that "fair use" claim, and so the {{fairusedisputed}} tag is more appropriate. It has always seemed to me that the copyvio tag was meant for things (text primarily) which were claimed to be original but were really copyrighted by somebody else; nobody claimed that they took the Zane image, they just claimed that their use of it was "fair" and thus not copyright infringement. I don't have any strong thoughts on that particular image, I was simply putting the appropriate tag on it, so it will show up in the right category for review and potential deletion. --Fastfission 21:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the problems which has not yet been resolved is the fact that there are at least three different places to dispute an image's copyright status (WP:CP, WP:PUI, WP:IFD) so while I don't think CP is the best place for images at the moment there isn't any specific guideline. Personally, I'd tag it as fairusedispute and then post it on WP:PUI, but it doesn't matter much. Anyway, I was just letting you know why I tagged it the way I did, I was not trying to chastise you in any way. --Fastfission 23:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping Table on your user page

Just wanted to says "thanks much". Paulo Oliveira 22:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brooke Adams.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brooke Adams.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Yamla 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]