User talk:DCGeist

Archives
September 2005—February 2007 February 2007—May 2010

OK so clearly you and some other people have an agenda to misrepresent American history. As I said on the other page, McCarthy had nothing to do with the Cold War. But if it were relevant, communist subversion dating to the 1920s caused the Cold War, not the other way around —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisbyron (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You did say that on "the other page" (my talk page), and you were incorrect there also. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) Just wanted to remind you that when you copy content, even if heavily modified, from one Wikipedia page into another, you need to attribute with a link to the source. This is necessary to meet the terms of CC-By-SA and GFDL. I've taken care of attribution at Wikipedia:Words to watch for the sources I saw, but if you know of any others that have been merged, please add them to the list. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, thanks for your concise comment on reverting my "scare quotes" edit to WP:Words to watch. You're right, it doesn't belong there - but where? What I would really like is to increase guidance in the section "Impartial tone" in WP:NPOV. I think it's easy for editors to be tone-deaf, so to speak, and specific info of the type provided by WP:Words to watch would be helpful. Thanks for advice, Postpostmod (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for feedback. I made a trial shortcut box for the impartial tone section of WP:NPOV, but thought I shouldn't put anything into a policy statement without getting consensus. How about WP:IMPTONE? (see box)

Shortcuts

• WP:YESPOV
• WP:IMPTONE

And then, what's the procedure for getting consensus for adding a shortcut to a policy?

I'm not sure yet how to put in the scare quotes issue. It seems too specific compared to what's currently written in the impartial tone section. However, I think a rather longer explanation of tone needs to be prominently available somewhere. I'm concerned it might be offensive for me as a new editor to undertake it, though. It's an important but subtle issue, and maybe it goes against the grain of popular internet culture, to some degree. Maybe this is when people write an essay. Maybe someone already wrote a good essay - I'll go look.

Okay, I just read WP:VALUE and it looks like an essay is the way to go. I'll start writing it on my user page.

Thanks for your kind offer to help; I'll check in before editing any more policies. ;-) Postpostmod (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done with Paramount Television Network. Sorry I was preoccupied with other matters and couldn't pitch in. The article looks terrific and well-deserving of its new FA status. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dan. Your note was the first news I had that the article had been promoted. What a relief! Firsfron of Ronchester 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, the text didn't reference Lou Reed, but now I think about it, perhaps Lou Reed should have a photo in there. I've uploaded hundreds of photos of musicians, by the way.. that are all free images. For the last couple of years or more, I've been keeping a list on my Userpage. Should you be interested in looking for photos for biographies of musicians, music portals (some of them are populated almost entirely by work I uploaded,) or for genres of music or architecture themed photos-- (actually, I keep the architecture on Wikimedia Commons,) a fairly large list does exist there if you are looking (some of the pics, are obscure, like Lene Lovitch. I also attempt to find images for others for biography articles.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I use the same Username on all Wikipedias (I sometimes edit to the Portuguese, Spanish and a couple others), but you can find close to 400 photos in Commons, although, I tried going back to list most of them on Wikipedia on my Userpage including duplicates just so they're handy. Feel free!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I found you as interesting in art. I tried to expand a stub by translating from German WP because I found a bot-message there. For I am not a native speaker in English, I'm sure I made a lot of mistakes. Would you be so kind and have a glance at that article? Please also tell me if I did something wrong. Thank you!--Fishbone16 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Subject_specific_guide#A_choice:_.22subject_specific_guide.22_or_.22subject_style_guide.22.3F and offer up your most expert of opinions in these matters Gnevin (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DCGeist. Regarding this edit, I rather think the Kepner quote is neither pertinent nor representative. The word "egregious" implies that Joyce's call was obviously wrong at the time and thus unforgivable. However, it is not at all clear that another umpire in Joyce's position could not have easily done the same thing, and rather it is the availability of replay and the momentous nature of the situation that is making people take notice. Furthermore, the fact that no one who has actually been an umpire is saying things of this sort makes me doubt the quote's pertinence. As for being representative, the general sense of the quotes I'm reading from baseball folks of all kinds, including present members of the Tigers, is more that Joyce is a good umpire who did his best job given his limitations (i.e., no replay).

Although it appeared in a RS (the NYTimes), my view is that this quote is the somewhat inflammatory opinion of a single (quote-hungry?) pundit and should not be included either in Perfect game or in Jim Joyce. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about laying out unnecessary bait at this time. Since you were the one who reverted my edit, it seems it would be a fine solution if you and I could just come to a quick agreement. If we can't, then of course I'm happy to consider another venue. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DCGeist. FYI, I have now joined a discussion on the topic here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is inappropriate. Please read WP:BRD if you are unfamiliar with the methodology I used. And I don't appreciate the tone. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just noticed that you reverted my recent edit to the caption, and I also noted that you explained that it was justified by the citation. I checked it out, and while the term "everlasting image" is used in the reference, it seems to me that it's just an emotional phrase chosen by a NYC-based reporter. Since it doesn't really add anything to the context of the image, I still think it should be removed. Let me know if you have any further thoughts on this. Thanks! Cmprince (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanophobic liberal media devil. It's nothing but subservient brown wetbacks to you Washington/Hollywood/Wall Street kleptosocialist elitists. Who the fuck are you to bastardize my heritage and decide what "race" I am? You patronizing leftard WASP bigots know absolutely nothing about the Hispanosphere beyond your dark wetback servants. If i ever see you in New York I won't hesitate to smash in that fat ugly nazi nose. All of you patronizing segregationist leftards are going to suffer for your vile arrogance and hypocrisy and then we're throwing out your beloved criminal Aztlan mojado voting block regardless of how much you fraudulent troglodytes wail and complain and bait "racism." We're doing away with your kind and taking back the respect we deserve. You're finished. Vete al infierno marrano.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In past discussions on the MoS talk page, concern has been expressed at various times about the lack of clear visibility of the status history of MoS-related pages, such as how, why and when they became part of the MoS. A recent conversation began an initiative to do something about it, but is in danger of fizzling out. This may be simply because folks are busy on other things. As a major contributor to recent MoS rationalization efforts, any contribution you could make to the discussion would be welcome, to help us come to a clear conclusion about whether to go with this or drop it. PL290 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the first FAC I initiated for Achtung Baby, I noticed you did a media review for my nomination. I've since nominated the article for a 2nd FAC. SandyGeorgia has asked me to find someone to review the article's images, and since you did a media review for the 1st FAC, I was wondering if you would be able to do the same for this nomination. If would also be helpful if you could review the sound samples. Let me know if you would be able to assist me. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to address your concerns - please let me know if there are still issues to be fixed. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Beleyesbogey.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about including a reference to the Oppenheimer security clearance revocation in that section. It wasn't really part of the loyalty reviews initiated in 1947, as he was a consultant and this was a kind of special situation. As you can see from the article on the Oppenheimer security hearing that we just created, it had its own dynamic, but definitely belongs in McCarthyism. A separate section, perhaps? Figureofnine (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll think about where else it might be suitable. Figureofnine (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's some way we can denote "controversial" or otherwise indicate the significance of the hearing. Figureofnine (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

I am a wiki-novice (as far as editing), but noticed inaccurate information in the House, MD [page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House,_md]. I did not ignore your "talk" discussion, but didn't even see it (nor can I find it now -- unless this is it?). I had even sent you an email because I didn't know the appropriate was to discuss with you.

Anyway, I was not trying to get into an edit war, but rather was simply trying to correct the info. on the House page. The problem stems with the attribution of the creator credit. David Shore created House. He is the sole creator. While it may be based upon, or inspired by an idea of Paul Attanasio, that is not the same as "created by," as defined in the entertainment industry. This is indicated by the credits on the show, where Shore is afforded "Created By" credit (i.e. NOT co-created by). Furthermore, information in the bar to the right of the House page supports this information, as only DAvid Shore is listed as the creator.

In the entertainment industry, often producers do generate ideas (as Attanasio did). For their efforts, they are afforded some sort of "producer" credit (as Attanasio was). However, the creation of the characters, scenes, story, and the writer of the script is what determines the actual "created by" credit. That is what David Shore did.

I believe because of this interview with David Shore (http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20060320_123370_123370), people interpret that to mean that Paul Attanasio co-created the show. That is not the case. Just because he came up with the general idea, does mean he "co-created" the show. In fact, further in that interview, Shore says that all Attanasio did was come up with the general idea, but that Shore himself developed the characters and wrote the script. Nonetheless, that interview really is irrelevant regardless of what it says, in so far as "created by" credit goes. There is an industry standard and according to that standard, David Shore is the sole creator (as evidenced by the credits at the end of the show).

So it is factually incorrect to say Attanasio co-created the show, which is why I tried to tweak the language to reflect that he had the general idea, which was inspired by the NY Times column. The "created by" credit is a matter of public record, and even the unrevised entry says that Fox accords David Shore "created by" credit. So, to me, what is actually unsubstantiated is that Paul Attanasio co-created the show. There is no attribution for that anywhere. And just because something has been long-accepted on this page, doesn't make it so.

If you can help me, by letting me know what I can do to make this entry factually correct and have people accept that, please let me know. I'm not too familiar with wikipedia's functions and I definitely didn't intend to get into an editing war, but i still can't even find that "talk" page that DCGeist refers to (I'm sure it's just my ignorance, but I can't find it).

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundart99 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you clean Jennifer Morrison name from starring of House, M.D. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.140.223.100 (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

If you don't want it, let me know and I can remove it, but I thought you might find it useful for quickly getting rid of House vandalism. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this edit to Perfect game. I thought the original was a good edit; in any event, it is clearly not vandalism and if you want to undo it, it deserves an explanation. Ma^t_chups 03:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but still, putting an edit summary of "remove redundant phrase" would have avoided characterizing the edit as vandalism and confusing someone who looked only at the diff. Ma^t_chups 10:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your edits. What I was trying to get at, was that putting quotes around words is like using weasel words. That is, the quotation marks themselves have the same effect as weasel words by giving the impression that someone said what was in the quotes, just like weasel words give the impression that the text associated with them was said by someone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll look here for any response you care to give so that we can keep the discussion in one place. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I responded on my talk page to your response there so that our discussion can be unfragmented there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if we were at cross purposes on lead, as I explain here [[1]] Mick gold (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you deleted James Bevel from the U.S. page. I thought that had been worked out long ago with reams of discussion. What happened? Randy Kryn (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. And for info purposes, and to show you (once again, I'm sure) how important your page is to the world's readership class (just ahead of birdwatchers and far below fans of reality shows), when Bevel's name was removed it took away 40-50 hits a day. Lots of people being educated through your good work (and a lot less stress than teaching in public school). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Since when does wikipedia not cover urban legend? Black lyzard (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DCGeist. Thanks a lot for your help and suggestions so far on The Basement Tapes. I have a question about a recent punctuation-related change you made. You put the commas outside the song titles and quoted WP:MOS, which says "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." So far, I have been making the distinction between actual quotations and song titles, the latter which are not really quotations per se. There are no examples in that section of MOS that address song titles. I have been trying to follow that MOS rule for actual quoted material (quoting what someone says, etc.) but I did not believe that song titles fell into that category, and have been actively putting commas and periods within the song titles. Is it your understanding that they fall within the MOS rule? If so, I have a lot of song titles to change back to having the periods and commas outside the quotes. Or, since MOS does specifically address song titles, would you accept my interpretation of the rule, and not object to commas and periods within song titles? I believe this to be a "cleaner" style, rather than song titles with commas outside. Please let me know what you think. Sincerely, Moisejp (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it does say that. Thanks for pointing that out. All right, I will change all the song titles over to this style. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist, I just wanted to say thanks again for all your help. You've really helped the article tremendously. The other reason I'm writing this message is to let you know that I have to be away for a couple of weeks. I let I.M.S. and Mick know this a while back and reminded them just now. But I just thought I'd let you know as well since you have been collaborating with us a lot. It's possible I may get a tiny bit of online time in there but if so it will be very little. Anyway, if the FAR process is still going on when I get back, I look forward to collaborating with you more then. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is Murali usually batting at number 11 not relevant to the fact that he has the most ducks? That record is more likely to be held by a bunny at the bottom of the order than a specialist batsman near the top. Directly relevant. But I'm having a jaded day and certainly don't care enough to revert your change. 180.214.168.191 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Dave[reply]

Thanks for you comments so far and your copy-edits. I've changed a couple of them: I've changed "William's company" to the full name of the company which Hammond's father fought in, as company on its own didn't make much sense, I realise! Also, you changed "conditions" to "circumstances" when describing his off-spin bowling. I changed the other "conditions" in the sentence, as it really needs to say this when talking about his spin: he only bowled if the pitch would let the ball turn a lot, not just in some circumstances. Not sure what I've just written here makes sense, but I hope it reads OK in the article. If it doesn't work, just revert or let me know. Thanks.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on Wally! I doubt it would have passed without you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the Lord Harris image as I think he looked like he was being punished on the right! It did look a bit odd, so I moved him back left. I realise it breaks up the section headers, but I think it is easier on the eye the way it was. Feel free to disagree and put it back!!! Not sure about the 1929-30 tours as there is no obvious place to put it. My personal preference is to leave it out because, as you say, many players missed tours. He also missed the 33-34 India tour. However, I'm happy to try to stick it in if you think it is necessary. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, I wanted to thank you for your great contribution to improving this article. I was surprised to see that we have not been promoted to FA. [2] [3] best Mick gold (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, I shall wear it at all times. A query? Mick gold (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted another query. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to maintain civility in your edits, especially your edit summaries, as Wikipedia's Civility policy entreats editors to "Be careful with edit summaries". Edit summaries like "edit better" are not in the spirit of civility, and edit summaries like "we're not having 'Western "Points West"'" could be construed as reflecting feelings of ownership of an article, which is against Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on Statue of Liberty. Please post at the FAC when you have finished your work, and if you get a chance let Sandy know, since I believe this is the only thing needed for promotion. From what I have seen, your edits are quite good indeed, though I may play with a couple of wording choices later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you did such a brilliant job copy-editting Wally Hammond, I wondered if you would like a look at another cricket article. The Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927 is at FAC here at the moment and is a little lonely. I warn you, it's a little different and much more provincial. Feel free to leave it alone! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request retracted.

I found you in the FAC review for Parks and Recreation (season 1). I am trying to get an opinion on whether Glee (season 1) might in fact also meet the criteria for FA. It is currently listed for FLC. Would you mind giving it a quick view and giving me an opinion one way or the other? Frickative and I are currently considering whether to change the nomination.

Your feedback is appreciated! CycloneGU (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please only use rollback when reverting vandalism. This was not reverting vandalism. Garion96 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at WP:AVOID. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the talk page in regards to this problem. I have reverted your edit - again. If you continue to revert, you may be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. CycloneGU (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mr. Geist, for your judicious edits and reverts in the article "United States." I've followed them over many months, and I commend you for your common sense and intolerance for nonsense. This article is among the most besieged and vandalized across Wikipedia (in all languages), and I find your constant vigilance quite admirable. Please stay with us! Mason.Jones (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist, there is some question over whether you would support a proposed compromise at Talk:Statue of Liberty#Name. We'd appreciate your comments there. Powers ^T 13:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist, first, please do not template regular editors. Second, it is you who is edit warring on this issue, and have been blocked for this behavior just a couple of days ago. I believe there are plenty of other editors who understand this point, and I am sure they will remove this entry unless there is consensus to include it. Crum375 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks for your help at FAC. Hope you're not too sick of cricket yet! --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this issue. Please go to the discussion page of the Sound Film article to see what it is. I would appreciate it if you would. 96.232.149.142 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that Nixon image cost me $22.75 in fees to the Nixon Library for reproducing from a contact sheet ... the negatives are still being sent to them.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering if you could look at other additions by Rjensen..Specifically what is going on here -->Talk:History of the United States....Moxy (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your reasons for auto-archive configs at Talk:Elvis_Presley#Auto_archiving --Kslotte (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the chuckle: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and kind words about my article on Kurosawa. The following are my responses to your comments:

1) Made dating consistent in article and infobox (Month-Day-Year). 2) Changed "released a film a year" to "directed a film a year". 3) Removed "American" from "American AsianWeek"; 4) I will change the dashes as you suggested; 5) For the file page of the photo used in the infobox, I changed the summary (under "Portion used") to make clear that Mifune was in the uncropped version of the photo. (No, I don't know the exact date on which the picture was taken, but I can tell from internal evidence -- the age and costumes of the participants in the uncropped photo and other photos obviously taken during the same shoot, the appearance of the set, etc -- that the picture had to have been taken in the early 1960's, with Sanjuro rather than Yojimbo the more likely film, and I gave the release date of the former film, 1962, as the last plausible year in which it could have been taken.)

Would you be prepared to support this as a featured article? Do you have any other issues about the article you would like me to address? Please let me know.

You wrote:

Comment: Very nice to see an in-depth article on such an important director. I'm finding style issues here. Just the top for the moment:

* What's your date style? You use day-month-year in the first graf and infobox, but month-day-year in the second graf. Choose and apply consistently throughout the entire article.

* "Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, Kurosawa released approximately a film a year." Clumsy verb. Studios release films. Distributors release films. Directors direct films or make them.

* "American AsianWeek magazine". Magazine names are italicized, but what is the name of this magazine? American AsianWeek magazine? AsianWeek magazine? If the latter, do you perhaps want to refer to it as "the American magazine AsianWeek"?

* The use of spaced em-dashes is not considered proper here per our Manual of Style. Preferred style is unspaced em-dashes; spaced en-dashes are an acceptable alternative. Choose either and apply consistently throughout.

* The caption of the infobox image is truly bizarre: "Kurosawa demonstrating swordsmanship to Toshirō Mifune (not pictured), probably on set of Sanjuro (1962)." So we know the identity of a party not pictured in the image, but we don't know when it was taken? Really? Unless this is a crop of a larger image showing Mifune (which the file page does not indicate), that is hardly credible

Dylanexpert (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as confused and frustrated as if I were invited on public property and then arrested for trespassing. The whole purpose of a Commons section is to include in it images that anybody can take and put in their articles without challenge. If I use the Commons section and am challenged for it, what’s the point? At the same time, I can see your reasoning that these particular images, which might at first have seemed to be “free,” may not be. So my argument would be that, because of their ambiguity, perhaps I might keep the images unless they are challenged by someone claiming to hold the copyright for them. If you don’t accept that, then I will “rehost” the images as you indicated… but you will have to let me know how to do that.

For the images of Akira Kurosawa himself (there are actually two disputable images, not one) I grant that these are probably not free images, but again, they shouldn’t have been in the Commons in the first place. (Who’s minding the store anyway?) I’ve contacted the New York Public Library website from which the images originated and asked if I could use them in my article without a fee. They said that they did not require a fee, but that I have to find out about copyrights by third parties. So I guess I will have to rehost these also as Fair Use images.

The Yojimbo and Red Beard images already have fair use rationales for the articles in which they originally appeared. Do I have to write a whole other rationale for *my* article?

I will rewrite the rationale for the Tora! Tora! Tora! image to make it a bit more detailed.

I would argue that the “Reputation among other filmmakers” subsection represents a nice change of pace from the “flowing” style of the rest of the article. And I believe you exaggerate somewhat when you describe the whole thing as “currently grab bags of stubby, bullet-point-like grafs.” For example, the Robert Altman paragraph “flows” fairly well. However, in a couple of instances (Spielberg and Scorsese), the grafs are not written as complete sentences, so I will change those.

Since you used the word “arguably” in your description of the “Homages and allusions” subsection, I am taking that as a subjective judgment and will keep that part as is.  : - )

You wrote:

Images: Many image issues. Just looking at the first half of the article:

* The following images are currently hosted on Commons but in fact appear to be non-free: File:Kenichi Enomoto 1945.jpg, File:Drunken-Angel-0.07.54.jpg, File:Rashomon 1.jpg, File:Akira Kurosawa directing.jpeg (more specifically, the first three are almost certainly non-free, and there is no well-supported reason given for the claim that the fourth is free). If you wish to include any of these images, they must be rehosted on Wikipedia and adequate fair use rationales created for each.

* The following fair use images lack rationales for their use in this article: File:Yojimbo.jpg, File:Kurobarberousse.jpg.

* The rationale for File:Tora.png should be improved to discuss its function in the context of the article's critical commentary on the film.—DCGeist (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The Reputation among filmmakers (and arguably the Homages and allusions) subsection, as well as the Legacy section are currently grab bags of stubby, bullet-point-like grafs. They need to be reworked for more flowing prose. Dylanexpert (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is for your attention only, so I'm addressing it to your talk page rather than the Featured Candidates page. I just noticed that you changed the Legacy section. (I was concentrating on correcting the images and was going to get to that last.) It reads very well. You didn't have to do that because I was going to change it myself, but I appreciate it: it shows that you're genuinely interested in making Akira Kurosawa a featured article.

I was very upset with User:hamiltonstone's opposition, since these should have been put under "Comments" and some of them seem to me nitpicking or just wrong. I will respond to his objections shortly. Dylanexpert (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the excitement of our first nom, we are on the road again. Mick gold (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, sorry to intrude. I'm puzzled where Sandy's 'Oppose' leaves us. Your opinion would be most welcome in the FAC. Mick gold (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for communiqué, I think I understand. Negotiating your way through FAC, there are plenty of academic, technical & political challenges. I think it's right the nominators had to find their way past the issues Sandy raised. I preferred the old version, but there's no doubt several editors (WesleyDodds, Kitchen Roll) as well as Sandy found it too long & listy. I was wondering if you'll declare Support for FAC, but any road (as they say in Manchester) your contribution has been great. Mick gold (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point & have done something, it seems odd to mention controversy about song that was not included ("Memphis"), but to omit the three that were. I noticed this point was in caption for sound clip "Don't Ya Tell Henry" & thought it should be in main text. Mick gold (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of Dylan’s authorship? This is what Pete Seeger called "the folk process", borrowing freely from others to create something new. You’re opening a huge kettle of fish/can of worms, so I’m not keen on doing this for TBT article. Dylan has always borrowed/stolen. He said "Open your ears and you’re influenced." "Masters of War" borrows Jean Ritchie’s arrangement of "Nottamun Town", "Girl From The North Country" borrows Martin Carthy’s arrangement of "Scarborough Fair". "With God On Our Side" borrowed melody from Dominic Behan’s "The Patriot Game". I believe Behan wanted to sue Dylan, but it was pointed out that Behan’s tune was borrowed from other traditional Irish songs. This tapestry of allusions and borrowings has become more complex and all-embracing in Dylan’s recent alums, particularly Modern Times and "Love & Theft". Just dig that title. He steals what he loves, and he loves what he steals. The title is in inverted commas, as you probably know, it’s taken from an academic book on white minstrel culture as a love & theft of black culture. Sean Wilentz’s new book talks about this stuff in an interesting way. When Joni Mitchell recently called Dylan a plagiarist, Wilentz responded thus: [5]

Today I heard Wilentz talking in an interview about Dylan and Blind Willie McTell. Wilentz said of McTell: "He’s not some black men sitting in the south singing about his pain. He’s an entertainer, he sings all kinds of songs, religious songs, pop songs, as well as blues. He takes songs from other singers, he says: he jumps songs from other singers and re-arranges them his own way. Well that’s not unlike what Dylan does. So the more I listened to Blind Willie McTell, the more I saw an affinity."

To be honest, I’m not crazy about your recent copyedit. I think we should say: All songs by Bob Dylan, except where noted. Otherwise you’ll find yourself putting your wording on all the articles on Dylan albums, and I don’t think it’s right. On p. 163 of Shelton, an aggrieved Dylan talks to Shelton about this issue. He says, "Woody didn't write ten original melodies, but nobody ever called him a thief." Best, Mick gold (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the first time in my life, I seem to be encountering writer's block. I've looked at the point you made:

Dylan's compositional approach involved incorporating significant elements of songs by other hands in three evident cases: "Open the Door, Homer" (refrain); "Apple Suckling Tree" (tune); and "Crash on the Levee" (central lyrical allusions).

I've looked at the New compositions section. I'm afraid I think this section reads well. I've stared at this stuff for an hour and I haven't been able to come up with 1 or 2 sentences to express your point. I don't think I'm being difficult, I think we may have an honest disagreement about whether this addition improves the article. Mick gold (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have removed my information about the Notwegian film noir "Death Is a Caress" from 1949. According to Cinemateket this film is sought-after in retrospective series outside the Norwegian borders. It is regarded as a classic. It was the female director Edith Carlmar's debut film. I don't know if have seen any Norwegian films, including this one. It is quite good with excellent playing by the two principal actors, Bjørg Riiser-Larsen and Claus Wiese. I don't know if the information was omitted, because the film was Norwegian. Mbaskkel2 September 15, 2010 21:37 (CEST)

The article section in question must summarize the very broad field of noir-styled films made outside the United States. Unfortunately, we can not mention every noir-ish film (either American or otherwise) in the article. In the English-language literature that the English-language encyclopedia relies on for a general topic such as film noir, Death Is a Caress is virtually invisible, unlike the other films named in the section. Of course, it would be perfectly appropriate to include it in the Norse article on film noir. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Editor Dylanexpert has removed a {{non-free}} tag at Akira Kurosawa that had been placed there by Hammersoft, and re-inserted by me. His/her edit summary suggests you had deliberately removed the tag, although as far as I could see there had not been a discussion at the article talk page, and Hammersoft thought the removal had been inadvertent when you were reverting some other edits. Can you indicate whether it was your intention to remove the tag and, if so, why? I'd also welcome your input to a thread opened at the article talk page about the extended use of non-free content in the article. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw you as one of the leading contributors of the outstanding article Film noir. Your knowledge of this particular area of cinematography could be valuable in the current proposal to merge the article neo-noir with film noir or maintaining it as a stand alone. Here's a wikilink to the discussion. Cheers and thank you for reading. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  06:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of references on Ledee's catch. [6] is the most Reliable, but boring. [7] has some interesting material, but probably can't be used. Ma^t_chups 03:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, could you have a look at the Roy Kilner FAC here? It has two supports but is a little lonely and I can't get anyone to review it for love nor money! And as always, your copy-editing is outstanding and would be appreciated. However, if you are cricketed out, I perfectly understand! Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any tips on how you created {{USA midsize imagemap with state names}}? I want to make one for New York State. Not sure how you determined the the correct coordinates. Thanks in advance for your help. upstateNYer 02:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to re-work the lead completely as per SlimVirgin's comments, so I wouldn't worry about fixing it at this point. I've requested to have the article delisted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peace in our time? Dan we could use your help here. It got off to a bad start but, eh nothing that cant be resolved. Ceoil (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DCGeist - we've never interracted I don't think, but I want to apologize for my behavior on Thursday. The truth is, when I was building the article my vision was severely limited and during the composing process the comma use was inconsistent. Technically the abverbials should be followed by a comma, but my preference for dense on-line documents is to limit the comma usage for flow and ease of reading. When you posted your comments I was well aware you were absolutely right; I was also in the midst of severe migraine attack and completely incapable of fixing. Happily the migraine is gone, and the prose has been gone over since. I will have a look as well as soon as I'm finished addressing SlimVirgin's concerns. This may be more information than you need, but I hope we can put this behind us. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that the FAC has been archived and to thank you for taking a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can take a break now if you like, while you fiddle with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that at all, I knew what you meant, no worries. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magic Johnson, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to help resurrect the House Wikiproject?--Talktome^(Intelati) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- just to let you know that I've now replied to all your points at the Galaxy FAC. I really appreciate the detailed review you've provided; it's a pleasure to respond when the reviewer has clearly read the article with care. I hope I've addressed everything; if not, just let me know what's outstanding. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed copyedit you are providing for Galaxy Science Fiction. Would you be willing to lend you copyediting skills to another article one Galaxy is done? I am planning to nominate Venture Science Fiction at FAC after Galaxy, and though I've copyedited it myself there are always things that a fresh pair of eyes can spot. If you have time, and are interested, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I can still be surprising :) Seriously though, I hope I didn't offend you. I really feel that the table is better in every way (i.e. it's identical but larger, and more readable). I didn't mean to get off on a bad foot with you. If consensus was formed there that the image was better, I wouldn't stand in the way of FA status. Anyway – happy editing! I hope to see you around more. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 16:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the one doing the reverting, can you explain your reasons here? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we at least in agreement that the word is used incorrectly in some articles as a contentious label? patsw (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In these examples there is no context for determining is the effort of religious conversion described as proselytizing is coercive:

• Singh Sabha Movement
• Freedom of religion in Uzbekistan
• Freedom of religion in Qatar and several other Freedom of religion articles
• League for Industrial Democracy (non-religious usage)

Or are you looking for examples of usage where proselytizing is implicitly coercive rather than neutrally expressing the effort to convert? patsw (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an explanation of the usage where proselytize connotes forced conversion or conversion by inducement - Faith, freedom, and the future: religion in American political culture I believe that in current usage, this connotation is used in Wikipedia to assert without evidence that efforts religious conversion labelled with a form of proselytize are using force or inducement. patsw (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you stated that there were issues with the sourcing, were you referring to just the information being cited not being backed up by the source? Where were the issues at? I'm trying to help Taerkast fixing the sourcing issue, but I don't have the time to go through each source one by one because my real life job takes up quite a bit of my time. If you don't mind, where did you stop working through and where were you finding the issues primarily (e.g., was it every section, or just the sections about the film's themes and impact which would result in likely inaccurate assessments of statements?).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DC, that gives me an idea of what's going on. I trusted the editor working on the page enough that I didn't assume that those types of things would have existed. I'll see if I can salvage what's happened, but I don't suspect that this page will pass FAC right at this moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to comment on the FAC page on those issues which you raised before the oppose, I think I've addressed them, at least. But the article won't pass FAC, and perhaps GAR may also be needed.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is holding this back from FAC. I'll help out.--Iankap99 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is currently underway at this section of the nonfree content review page. As you previously participated in a talk page discussion on this matter, you may be interested in participating. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so at this point, you're clearly in the minority on the nonfree images. I know you're very convinced of your position, but it does not seem to have anything approaching a consensus (and even in a "no consensus" result, nonfree media defaults to removal, since it is presumptively unacceptable). While I hate for things to go here, I'm not seeing any choices but to report this for edit warring, if this should continue. Is there another way we can resolve this? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the latest reversion of an unsourced comment, it occurred to me that, although I don't know for sure, it's possible there was no such thing as an "official" perfect game prior to 1991. As I recall, the Sporting News annual record book listed all these events and called them "perfect games", even though some were spoiled in extra innings and some were called due to rain or darkness or something. I think they had a separate section they called "less than 9 innings", but I'm not sure that conferred any "official" status to those games. I'll see if I can find anything on this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1992 baseball guide points out that the scoring committee in 1991 declared that change, along with abandoning the 154 vs. 162 games differentiation. It doesn't use the term "official" anywhere, but it said that about 50 games previously considered "no-hitters" were taken off the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the above before I saw your note. It would take some digging to find my record books. But you're right, TSN's record book was considered "official" at one time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Avengers-We Are The One.ogg. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk 03:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues were fixed. Please check back. Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i again, I've gotten two copy-editors to fix up the prose, so I think its much better now. While it may not earn your support, if its good enough I hope you can consider at least removing your oppose. Thanks anyway--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's kinda confusing if there's like no note explaining that. There should be some kind of note saying that, like "People who identify as "some other race" are included in the White category." Not to mention then why does every article about cities include the "some other race" category as well? Just wondering. Cyanidethistles (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCGeist has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as DCGeist's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, DCGeist! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is given on behalf of User:Maclean25. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why you reverted my edit on the Presley page? The recent discussion seemed to lean towards supporting my removal, and no one replied to my post with the new link about the issue? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove my edits without discussing with others first. I'm not some country simpleton that you can insult at will. Your actions are uncalled for, especially when the material is properly sourced. You're treading a fine line between arrogance and the crude disrespect of another editor. Santamoly (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Consider this a final warning for misuse of rollback, this is also related to the above two sections. Please read WP:ROLLBACK and WP:VAND, and be sure to only use rollback in appropriate situations in future, where it will not inflame an issue. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not proper WP etiquette to remove another editor's properly sourced & cited edits without discussion. You're out of order in this matter. I see from the above dialogue that you feel that you have a right to do this. Let me suggest to you that this not correct WP behaviour and will only make things difficult for everyone if you continue to behave in this disrespectful manner to others. If you have an urge to change another's edits, discuss it first before taking the axe to a valid and decent contribution. Santamoly (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Armored--Sekula.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Courcelles 03:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get this article up to FA status, I have listed it for peer review, but do you know of any problems off hand that can be fixed, please respond on the article talk page so that all editors can see. Thanks --Iankap99 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have seen the discussion on a similar issue at Rock music#Non-free music files, but if you have not it might be of some use to you. The only solution here was a case-by-case discussion, which is still ongoing. I think a RfC to get this debated and to check against policy is a good move and I look forward with interest. I didn't contribute on the review for punk because I missed the link among all the postings on the talkpage.--SabreBD (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you added in several hot links and relinked several things I delinked. I have several issues with this:

1. There is no need to have a hatlink to something that is linked in the body of that paragraph. In fact the MOS says not too and it has been my experience with several GA, A class and FA or FL articles that they will need to be removed in order for the article to get promoted.
2. There is no need to link common terms and have the article look like a sea of blue. It detrects from the article. There is no reason to link to things like baseball where nearly anyone in the world would know what your talking about.
3. There are so many templates on this article that it exceeds the maximum template threshhold. This means that there are templates that cannot display.
4. The article is over 165 K which means that it will open slowly (if at all) on some computers. Removing some of the extra unneeded links and templates will (and did) reduce that size a bit.

although things like Baseball, BBQ and apple pie are good cultural references they are common terms and do not need to be linked. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it but I would like to see this article make it through FA and it can't as it is.--Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you again readded several links and images I removed from the United States article. I appreciate that you are watching this article but we need to remove some things off of it. The article is too big with too many templates and the bottom line is we need to chop some less important ones out. If you don't like the ones I am removing then you pick some to remove but we need to trim this article down if we ever want it to get promoted. --Kumioko (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you seem to have a prominent editing position in this article, why don't you help out by looking for an appropriate Statue of Liberty image rather than simply eliminating ones you don't like? I mean seriously, it's probably the leading icon of the USA, along with the flag. The article is definitely remiss sans. By the way, speaking of clutter, there's a picture of an apple pie, a religious institution, a ranch-style home, a writer, two current political figures, and an athlete - but no room for the Statue of Liberty? Castncoot (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ZepInParis.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Courcelles 04:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned in a recent FAC that you thought the issue grids I've been drawing work well, could I ask a favour? Would you mind taking a look at File:Planet Stories issues grid.png and telling me if the italics work? I need a way to distinguish issues dated "Fall 1946" from "November 1950"; the grid can't really do that very well by itself. I could also use bold text or underlining, but that would probably be too strong. I'd be glad of any comments. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very helpful; and thanks for the catch on the Winter vertical. I'll try underlines and see how that looks. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done; and I fixed a couple of other problems, which I hadn't noticed with the italics. I think that's clear evidence that the underlines are better. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please start the proper RFC? I don't know how to. JDDJS (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting every single edit I make to the Punk rock article? My edits are valid, you should not abbreviate the name of a band or anything on articles (for example: on the punk rock article, The Sex Pistols' name was abbreviated simply to "The Pistols", or if it's talking about an independent record label, "independent" is a better word than "indie"). And for my first edit I made that you reverted, the term "stars" is not an official word, it's not like The Living End became the Best of Orion or something after releasing an album, which is why it should be replaced with a better word. And I do not appreciate your attitude towards me for simple mistakes, bringing up every single thing I did wrong on the talk page simply because I started a section, talking about something that had absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about. So I suggest that you be nice, and stop reverting all of my edits. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a third opinion. Your revert here. Could you please comment properly? I can see reason why you might do this, but wouldn't want to guess. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Escape Orbit Are you talking to me or DCGeist? I assume you are talking to DCGeist since he did not comment in the edit summary when he reverted my edit. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackmailStill.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 are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --—innotata 01:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a vote taking place and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and start removing it from "everywhere else" as OR 

instead of telling me what to do, you could actually offer to help, don't you think?--camr ^nag 14:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you'd think, right? anyway, i thought we could take this chart (sorted by country name) and do half each.--camr ^nag 14:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mongolian language has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 17:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to keep an eye on the article. I try to, but it is often difficult to keep up, I have a long watchlist. I'm thinking about nominating it for October 28 for TFA, the 125th anniversary of dedication. I think that would be better than a July 4 run, because who watches Wikipedia on July 4?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep two eyes on this article, DCGeist.

You live in New York, I live in Paris. Your interests is movies, my interest is Paris.

The name of the island with the statue of Liberty is Île aux Cygnes.

Île des Cygnes is (or has been) the name of most other islands, great or little : Mauritius, near Annecy, Enghien, ...

And the most references from Google Books refer to another island in Paris, Île des Cygnes (former island) : look the notes.

Excuse my scholar english.

Bonne journée à New York--Rigoureux (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is far better then my French, and even better than my "scholar Spanish". I'm inclined to agree with you, given my looks at the French Wikipedia and Google earth, although Google earth is confusing, I'm gathering that part of the street that runs along the Île aux Cygnes is called the Île aux Cygnes ... well, I'll be in Paris myself in a week or so and can check it myself. I visited the statue on my student tour of Europe, in 1986. About time I saw the old flame again ... My apologies to your fair city.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DCGeist, how are you? We haven't been in contact lately, but I hope everything is going well for you. Lately, in addition to continuing WikiProject Dylan stuff, I have done some work on the Pixies FAR to try to save it from losing its FA status. It is now in the FARC stage but has been languishing there for quite a while because there have been no reviewers. If you have time, would you be interested in having a look? Either way, take care and I hope we have a chance to work together again sometime in the future. Bye for now, Moisejp (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reason would be great, that's why we have edit summaries. The random order of this looks like shit. CTJF83 11:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 8, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 8, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 11:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp Fiction is going through a GA review and has been placed on hold for seven days to allow issues to be addressed. Talk:Pulp Fiction/GA1. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		Awarded to DCGeist for repeated authorship of featured articles. Keep it up! MrMedal (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A GINI coefficient of 45 is a high one, why are you cancelling my adjustment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionutmortu (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Geist, re your revision on Alger Hiss page, where you state that "Hissites" never appears in John V. Fleming's book on Cold War history, I refer you to page 292 of that work, last paragraph, opening sentence.http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Communist-Manifestos-Four-Books-Shaped/dp/0393069257/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309544229&sr=1-1#reader_0393069257 Please change your revision accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.99.104 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 173.77.99.104 (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the additional copyediting. I'm not gonna let it slip by FAC, gonna try again soon. It's too close not to eventually become FAC. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 11:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the one who deleted that Emma Lazarus was a Jewish poet? If so, why?Looslion (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Looslion[reply]

Hi Dan, has the addition of "reported" to this section been discussed before, and if so, where? I'd be in favor of the addition. (I noticed the recent edit that included this, and your justified reversion of it, for reasons unrelated to the "reported" addition.) Thanks, Postpostmod (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick and friendly response. If you don't favor the addition, I'll leave it alone - if the more active editors of this page wanted it to be added, it would be already. I don't have a constituency.  ;-) Best regards, Postpostmod (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DCGeist, could you let me know why you reverted what i added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Nuclear Barnstar
		For your contributions to the featured article candidacy of the Manhattan Project Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on a previous FAC for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Would you mind checking in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive6 to see whether your previous concerns have been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say, whatever the outcome, you've done great work on the article. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DCGeist, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the dispute resolution noticeboard. This is just to let you know that you're mentioned in the thread United States - foreign relations and military there. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

I think the ZIP code is worth keeping and have commented on talk. Also cleared up some of the open questions on talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
[email protected]

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:ColorMeBloodRed.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Film noir know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 2, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Film noir is a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those that emphasize cynical attitudes and sexual motivations. Hollywood's classic film noir period is generally regarded as stretching from the early 1940s to the late 1950s. Film noir of this era is associated with a low-key black-and-white visual style that has roots in German Expressionist cinematography. Many of the prototypical stories and much of the attitude of classic noir derive from the hardboiled school of crime fiction that emerged in the United States during the Depression. Film noir encompasses a range of plots. Though the noir mode was originally identified with American productions, films now customarily described as noir have been made around the world. Many pictures released from the 1960s onward share attributes with film noirs of the classic period, often treating noir conventions in a self-referential manner. Such latter-day works in a noir mode are often referred to as neo-noirs. The tropes of film noir have inspired parody since the mid-1940s. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ornstein-Sonata 7 M1.ogg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CKLWCoverage1.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 are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the ones I missed. I undid the one, but failed to check the history. I'm sure the editor meant well, but he's wrong. That's the way the ball bounces. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right about the editor's good intentions, but yes, this is one of those lovable idiosyncrasies that's part of baseball's charm (like, how 'bout the foul line that's actually fair?). Among idioms I cherish generally, I put it right up there with the Texas Leaguer and the Baltimore chop.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And this was good too. I always see you making good edits; I am sorry we have had some disagreements in the past and I want to say how much I appreciate the work you do here. --John (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your nice message, John. Thanks for all the time and effort you put in to make this a better encyclopedia.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I reacted too unpolite in the discussion. I made the edits in good faith. Watti Renew (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as WP: Assume good faith, WP:Be polite, WP:Avoid personal attacks and welcome new editors. I point out that international readers may have different interests in the articles and start reading from the main country article, like United States. E.g. in Finland, people voted in May/2011 the climate change, population growth and water crisis among the three most serious problems of the world. Based on this, readers have wide interest to check: How does the US tackle the world population overpopulation, as its growth is from 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion estimated in 31 October 2011 [8] Watti Renew (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion occuring here involving debate about whether or not the Beatles were "active" during 1994-1996. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your input here, I wondered if you could help me and SchroCat by reviewing this FL nomination. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 15:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion here which may interest you. Radiopathy •talk• 18:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "I've watched this carefully: solid consensus developed, no counterarguments even offered" is patently false since there are several on the talk page. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Statue of Liberty know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 28, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Statue of Liberty is a colossal neoclassical sculpture on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, designed by Frédéric Bartholdi and dedicated on October 28, 1886. The statue, a gift to the United States from the people of France, is of a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of American independence. It has become an iconic symbol of freedom and of the United States. Fundraising for the statue proved difficult, especially for the Americans, and by 1885 work on the statue's pedestal was threatened due to lack of funds. Publisher Joseph Pulitzer of the World initiated a drive for donations to complete the project, and the campaign inspired over 120,000 contributors, most of whom gave less than a dollar. The statue was constructed in France, shipped overseas in crates, and reassembled on the completed pedestal on what was then called Bedloe's Island. Its completion was marked by New York's first ticker-tape parade and a dedication ceremony presided over by President Grover Cleveland. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make threats as you did in your edit summary here. It is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Free as a Bird, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not reinstate your personal attacks against me again. I have made no personal attack against you, despite several attempts by you to provoke me. If you make further attacks, I'll report you on the appropriate Administrator noticeboard. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DCGeist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

in two minutes. Ah.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)