User talk:Dohanlon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Dohanlon! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that 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. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- LittleOldMe 13:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Kiarostami (film). Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Deville (Talk) 16:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] film article

Please don't copy and paste from other websites. Copyright violations are illegal. Thanks, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just asked you not to do this, and you did it again. Next time you may be blocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Marymovie1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marymovie1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2007, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Marykuipers.jpg

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ballonrouge.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ballonrouge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 12:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Womenandmen2.jpg

I have tagged Image:Womenandmen2.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 20:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children of the Century

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Children of the Century. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Natalie 20:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Natalie 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm obviously not making this clear enough. Retitling the page is fine, if you want and if there is consensus, but you need to use the move button at the top of the page instead of just copying the content to another page. Cut and paste moves are absolutely not allowed by the terms of Wikipedia's copyright license, so I will keep reverting you until you use the move button. Natalie 20:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Dohanlon, please discuss this on the article's talk page. Continued blanking may result in your being blocked. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I spent months researching and writing these articles. Someone has come along copied and pased them into anglicised naming. I am not going to discuss moving what I have written back to the correct titles.Dohanlon 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Read this very carefully: I am not quibbling with what title is correct. The problem is that you are using the incorrect process to move these articles. You are the one performing cut and paste moves instead of using the move button. If you think the articles should have different titles, you need to use the move button instead of pasting the content into a different article. This is not a negotiable part of Wikipedia and if you perform another inappropriate move, I will block you until you understand how to move pages. Natalie 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper language of titles

Please see WP:NCF and WP:UE regarding the proper language for article titles. The foreign-language title generally is only used if it is the predominant title used by English-speakers. For films, the video release titles are generally considered canonical in most cases. Girolamo Savonarola 22:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is academic at best. Mauvais Sang for example was released only as Mauvais Sang, while Les Amants du Pont-Neuf was released on video at different times using botht the original and the english title. In those cases surely the screen title (which always matches imdb (usually a linked article)) Dohanlon 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that's fine. But some titles, like Alice and Martin, were clearly released in their translated title. Regardless of whether this appears "academic" to you, the guidelines exist in order to provide as clear an answer to these questions as possible and therefore avoid edit warring.

Also, I've restored the IMDb link to the Pont Neuf article, as it is also a guideline to keep these. If you're going to work a lot with the film articles, we look forward to your edits, but you may find your efforts more productive and less contentious if you gave the style guidelines for film articles a perusal. Good editing! :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Alice et Martin" was released in the UK and Canada at the Cinema and on DVD as "Alice et Martin" and in the US as "Alice et Martin". The imdb link also matches the original title. This must be best.

Further more it can also differ in different English language areas. A good example is "Les Enfants du Siècle" (1999). This was released in the US as "The Children of the Century", in the UK as "Les Enfants du Siècle" and in Canada as "Sand & Musset: The Lovers of Venice". Thus I suggest that the original title "Les Enfants du Siècle" as per imdb is correct with mention of the other titles. Dohanlon 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Will clarify all titles in future pages as per Alice et Martin Dohanlon 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about A&M. As for the other title, all English-language DVDs that I can find in the US, UK, and Canada use the title "Children of the Century". That seems pretty open-shut. A plurality of initial titles is not cause to revert to the foreign-language title - it is merely whatever is considered the most-commonly used title among English-speakers that is the deciding factor. Girolamo Savonarola 23:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Without being too pedantic on this issue I have the 2003 UK release of Les Enfants du Siècle published by Film Four in my hand and it uses the French title, ditto their release of La Veuve de Saint-Pierre and Arrows release of Les Amants du Pont-Neuf and Décalage Horaire which TVA Films in Canada also released under the French title. My point is that I believe the IMDB have this right. Use the original screen title and mention the other titles and territories. Dohanlon 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, plurality does not = original title. Look at the results from Amazon and you'll see that all major releases currently in circulation are using the Century title. It's what is the most common title that matters. As you may also surmise from this fact, this also means that the article title may change in the future, should the home video title change consistently in most markets. (Which has happened before, often led by Criterion's releases.) In theory, this could even change back to the French title in those circumstances.

If you want to bring the matter to WP:RM, that's fine. Girolamo Savonarola 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazon only searches the US releases to be really clear you need to search Amazon.co.uk, and Canadian and Australian counterparts. The Plurality in this case is the US title as other territories use the French title. If the majority of English Language territories use the English title as say with Three Colours: Red then that is the correct title to use. I have researched this considerably. Dohanlon 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

US Amazon indicates Children for both the R1 and R2, CA Amazon indicates Children, and UK Amazon appears to show it out of print there are refers to the R1 Children. Am I missing something here? The US/Canada accordance would appear to have the most weight. Girolamo Savonarola 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that because there is doubt, as I say I have the UK release here, the original title should be used as per my example of La Veuve de Saint pierre and Les Amants du Pont-Neuf. The Amazon link is where those good people have translated the title of the UK release, the ISBN codes match to the Film Four release mentioned earlier. My reading of the rules and rationale makes it clear in this respect as it does for my other example Three Colors: Red or say Run Lola Run. In this case I suggest the original with a title clarification is correct. Dohanlon 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually in these cases, we do a Google test for usage on English domains - if there's a clear majority, it's kept in line with that. Another good precedent example (which was given wide attention for precedent) is "Shoot the Piano Player" vs. "Shoot the Pianist" - the consensus was that Piano Player should be used over both the UK and the French title. Generally the original language title should be avoided unless clearly favored. Girolamo Savonarola 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with that for high profile releases, but this is not. My point might be made clearer by the DVD titles for Les Amants du Pont-Neuf. Us used Lovers on the Bridge, UK Les Amants du Pont-Neuf while in Australia it was Lovers on the Ninth-Bridge and in Canada was released under both English and French titles. If you use your Google comparisson the French titles wins outright. I belive this to be the case for Les Enfants du Siècle but not for my examples Three Colors:Red or Run Lola Run or indeed Jean de Florette and Jules et Jim which are more recognizable under original title.

I agree with you on Neuf, but not on Children. But I think we've both stated our cases. As for Jules, it is listed as Jules and Jim. Although keep in mind that as the titles are so similar, it often just boils down to WP:UE. In that case in particular, I think that they found the two titles to be about equal in usage, and given that the difference was one conjunction, favored and. You may want to keep that in mind for Alice. Girolamo Savonarola 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an area that needs looking at? My opinion is that imdb have it right. original title using western characters. Dohanlon 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poster images

Great job with all the posters. A number of them have been tagged for deletion due to missing rationale and source/copyright information. I know you've added the copyright info to the image caption and posters are ubiquitous but there's a lot of sticklers about as of late. This information needs to be added to the image page so that they won't get deleted. I've added the information to a number of them but there may be more. You may want to go back through your uploads and see that everything's in order. There are instructions here and you can see an example of how I do them here and here. The source or copyright holder is fine, but if you have both, all the better. Doctor Sunshine talk 23:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I thought labelling was enough. I will update them all. Dohanlon 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you could name the copyright holder for Image:Mary05.jpg, that would be great. Another editor is is making a fuss about it over there. Doctor Sunshine talk 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have done so. I hope this is enough?? Dohanlon 23:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seems to have worked. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Please do not try to move articles by cutting and pasting their contents. This destroys the edit history, which is required for licensing purposes. WP:RM can be used to make page moves which you cannot accomplish on your own, but you should be aware that we have established conventions on article titles (such as WP:NCF for films). --Stemonitis 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What copy and paste are you refering to? Dohanlon 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes like these ([1][2]), which move the contents of an article without taking the page history with them. --Stemonitis 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Used and labelled with the merge. Fully justified in the cases above. US distribution with an english language title alone is not justification for using an english language title on Wikipedia. Particularly when the French title has im portant significance such as Les Amants du Pont-Neuf, "Les Enfants du Siècle and La Veuve de Saint-Pierre. Dohanlon 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a question of whether or not the change of title was justified. This is about the method used to move the page. Articles must not be copied and pasted from one title to another. If you cannot succeed with the [move] tab (usually above the article), then seek help at WP:RM. Never copy and paste articles from one title to another. --Stemonitis 12:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:InMyCountry.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:InMyCountry.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Les Enfants du Siècle

You appear to have violated the three-revert rule on Children of the Century. Just to inform you, the film was released under Children of the Century in the Anglosphere and according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), films are to be titled under their English0-language title unless there is some ambiguity between other Anglophonic countries, which there is none. I would appreciate it if you would stop reverting on the page. Reginmund 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As per the title clarification on that page that is incorrect. It was released under an English title in the US only, but not in UK, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Canada, Australia... therefor it is better known as Les Enfants du Siecle Dohanlon 14:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there are clearly several editors who are opposed to your edits, it might be better to use WP:RM to raise the question openly. Girolamo Savonarola 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not against keeping the foreign titles as the article titles. The Mont Blanc article isn't called White Mountain on wikipedia is it? But please discuss with the project if you want to make any more changes thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 11:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've nailed it with the Mont Blanc... Veuve Cliquot doesnt change either. These article were all set up under French title ages ago and have been anglicised recently. I think I have provided a rationale as to why the French title is correct! Dohanlon 15:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mont Blanc article is called such because that is the common usage in English. This has already been discussed to death; if you don't like the guidelines, then reform should be discussed there instead of violating WP:POINT. Girolamo Savonarola 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It was released the same as it was in the UK.[3] I'm reverting your edits. Don't do it again or I'll report you. Reginmund 00:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo is incorrect on this matter. They just use the American Pages. Check the Film's UK distributer Film Four. It uses the French title. I know this because I worked there at the time. I have the Film Four DVD in my hand. French title. I will revert Dohanlon 12:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a number of relevant UK links. They proove my point beyond doubt. Dohanlon 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Released in Australia[4] and Canada[5] with the English title. Reginmund 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to state this again. You seem to have given up on the UK. The Australian Yahoo is just a port of the US pages so is not a reliable source. The DVD link you provide for Canada is an import of the Koch Lorber version and not the official Canadian Release. Alliance Atlantis released the film there under the French title and released it on VHS under the French title. Check your facts before making these claims. Revert. Dohanlon 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And where is your proof that it had been sourced from the U.S.? Tsk tsk... It neither had a DVD release in the UK that is why it has multiple release names. Foreign titles on Yahoo are not sourced from the U.S. and that's a fact. There is no release of the film under on the French title in Canada. Do your homework. Reginmund 05:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the UK DVD in my hand. released by Film Four. As for Canada - the DVD is an import. Released by Koch Lorber. Do some research. And yes all the english Yahoo pages are sourced from the US .com. I will make a complaint about you if you do not desist. Dohanlon 18:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Complaint? Nice try, but I haven't actually broken any rules. Saying that you have a DVD in your hands is original research and irrelevant to the argument. Nor does the argument that it is an import hold up. Region 1 films are all suited for the U.S. and Canada. By say, they technically are imports considering the fact that they are produced in Oriental sweat shops. Reginmund 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have provided links to ASIN numbers which proove that Film Four did release the DVD and that it is a different edition than the US exclusive Koch Lorber. I hope this will be an end to this matter and you will concede to my point. Not one of your arguments have yet stood up. AQll other discussion on this please at the talk pages of the title in question. Dohanlon 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Take note that just because you don't agree with my arguments, doesn't mean that they don't stand up. Most people in this debate disagree with you. That doesn't make you the all-knowing, all-seeing lord with the Divine Right. Region 1 DVD releases are meant to be marketed in the US and Canada, regradless of the company's nationality that produces them. That is why they have both country's ratings on them. Mind you, spare the pretentious banter, it is not helping you prove a point. It just reveals your immaturity. Reginmund 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Children of the Century has not been rated. The company does not market in Canada. Those are the facts. Pretentious? You have been self-righteous and curt and sarcastic at every turn (oriental sweatshops?). You have not dealt with any of the arguments except to reiterate your opinions. Give me proof that Koch Lorber actively marketed their region 1 DVD release in Canada? or anywhere else for that matter?

Dohanlon 09:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already provided you a relevant link from Canadian Amazon that shows its market there. You continue to ignore what I bring to you and now you're accusing me of being sarcastic? What makes you think that I'm not serious when I say that the Orient is their place of production? Your behaviour is bordering on civility, especially when you fabricate things that I didn't say and accuse me of not answering them, call me self-righteous, and get so upset as to threaten reports when I prove a point to you? (Which, of course, is not an excuse to report a user). You are taking this issue to personally. Grow up before you make another twisted holey fillibuster because it is getting obnoxious. Reginmund 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your link was not relevant. For the last time. Availability to import on a canadian or UK site is not akin to to the product being marketed there. It is not proof. If you can provide me a Canadian edition ASIN number (Buena Vista for example registers it's title in Canada with a seperate ASIN and indeed has offices there) then fine. Otherwise I think you need to conceed this point. As for the Orient comment - it is irrelevant. You have no proof of this claim. many disks are manufactured in the Orient, but also in Eastern Europe among other places! Philips manufacture DVDs in Cork, Ireland. You do not know wher Koch source their disks. Nor have you provided me with reasonable proof that Koch distribute outside the US. Dohanlon 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Girolamo Savonarola 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case why has the other user who keeps reverting the pages although I have provided compelling not been given the block also? Unjust. Dohanlon 12:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juliette Binoche

I believe it pertinent that you read WP:EL and WP:MOS, especially regarding biographies. Although I understand your involvement with the article, I went through it extensively and cleaned it up according to guideline, and it would be helpful if you understood said guidelines if you're going to continue to edit. Please also be careful of your interwiki linking, for clarity's sake; I saw that you mistakingly linked to Chocolat when you intended Chocolat (2000 film); little technical things like this can make or break an article. Your addition of external links also violate set rules; not to mention that an "external links" section already exists. If you are looking for reliable, secondary sources to explain Binoche's advertising campaigns, then perhaps you can search for an article -- videos that show the ads are primary sources, which are not what Wikipedia relies on. You can also read WP:RS for more information. I hope this helps, María (críticame) 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will read througoughly Dohanlon 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please pay attention to your reverting; you're maintaining your typos, mislinking, and faulty formatting changes that I am attempting to fix. María (críticame) 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I am going to revert any user who places a heading "Personal Life" under a "Other Work Title". These sort of changes ought to be discussed first. Dohanlon 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken; it is not under the same header; your misapplied revert made it so. María (críticame) 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If its a revert it must have been like that. Thats what revert means going back to how something was. Dohanlon 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you only reverted one of my edits; you missed an intermediate one.[6] That's what makes it "misapplied." I'm glad we got that sorted out, however; I'm growing tired of fixing and re-fixing typos. María (críticame) 16:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But I do not understand how it magically appear if you dint have the error in you edit's in the first place. It couldnt pull it out of thin air. Anyway that is a different technical argument. As for the biography I agree it works better now. Except for the "Personal Life" piece. The information is fine, but the heading seems odd. It should be knitted back into the article now alongside other personal facts such as her parents divorce and her schooling. I'm also not happy with some of the edits to the prose. They make many some of the sentences ramble. Im going to print it out thought an edit by hand first Dohanlon 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be too personal or seem unkind, but is English your first language? Some of the sentence structuring in the article was elementary and repetitive, which is why I assumed that it may not be your native tongue, but correct me if I'm wrong. I copy-edited the prose to update it to a more elevated level, including but not limited to correct grammar and spelling. Some areas may still require work, but for the most part it is an improvement. As for the "Personal life" section, in biographical articles it is typically listed at the bottom of the article because it tends to include current information, such as where the individual lives. Articles tend to work chronologically, from earliest to current happenings, which is why this "Personal life" section does not belong with details of Binoche's early and family life. Does that make sense? Again, it would be helpful if you read the MOS guidelines. María (críticame) 16:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the header mystery, according to this dif, you seem to have caused it via several edits. When I fixed the header in the second of my two subsequent edits, you reverted my first edit, bringing it back to the faulty header. It would seem that even if you had reverted both of my edits, as I think you intended to do, the header still would have been there. End of magic trick. María (críticame) 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Get thumbnail.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Get thumbnail.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Children_of_the_Century

I've filed an alert on the lack of civility that addresses both you and Reginmund. I understand that you feel passionately about this subject and believe that you are in the right, but for better or worse Wikipedia operates by consensus above all else. Most long-term users, myself included, have been disappointed by the consensus by at least a few particular cases in which we have been involved. The important thing is to remain civil, since incivility generally works against the offending editor, particularly when arguing a controversial point. But each of you shouting at each other and violating WP:NPA only serves to lower the level of discourse, impugn yourself, and alienate potential supporting editors. I'd like to suggest that you both step away from the conversation for the time being and cool off. Your efforts probably are better aimed at project-wide guideline delineation through either WP:FILMS, WP:NCF, or WP:UE anyway, as it will allow you to address the issues on a theoretical basis that will apply to all articles across the board instead of fighting editors one article at a time. Repeating the same argument across several articles one after the other will probably only land you with accusations of violating WP:POINT in any case. Last, evidence needs to be gathered through the reliable sources policies and cannot be taken on your word. Gathering guideline consensus through sources that are also agreed by consensus to be reliable is the only way that you're going to be able to muster up the appropriate support, so you might want to keep that in mind above all else. Girolamo Savonarola 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Libertybellefilm.jpg‎

I have tagged Image:Libertybellefilm.jpg‎ as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Imagestart 11:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Desengagement.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rendezvous1985.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rendezvous1985.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wuthering1992.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wuthering1992.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BreakingandEnteringPoster.jpg

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