User talk:Walloon

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 09:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Date formats (BBC One)

Thanks for fixing the mess I made of the dates on the BBC One article. I had misunderstood the way dates are handled by Wikipedia--I had got the idea from somewhere that only ISO dates are converted to user preferences. Only after browsing from my mobile profile did I realise otherwise. Throup (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

VCR

Hi,

Regarding your edit where you say "to give twice the recording time, but half the potential image quality"... half the potential quality of *what*? If Philips had used the full width of the tape, they might not have run the tape so fast (for example), so I'm not convinced that the sentence is useful.

Anyhow, apologies if it seemed like I was "jumping on" your edits... my concern was that the article in general did not grow too long (see the talk page); a good (or bad) example of this is Tank, although 8mm video format also has some problems. Although interesting, I think that V2000 is not the most important part of the VCR story, which is why I paid a bit more attention to keeping it concise.

Fourohfour 10:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken. In fact, my brother who is an electrical engineer, just gave me the same reminder about speed as a factor in signal capacity! Walloon

UFO Blow-up -- Wikipedia Bug?

On 12 November 2005 you edited Unidentified Flying Object. I was curious about your edit, and performed a "diff" between my last edit on 11 November 2005 and yours. For some reason, the "diff" display showed up on my screen as approximately 3500 pixels wide, even though my actual screen width is only 800 pixels. I tried viewing the same information with Mozilla, Firefox and Microsoft Internet Explorer, and it does that with every browser. It also does it when comparing your edit with earlier revisions, before I touched the article. Suspecting the m-dash character you put into the first photo caption, I tried an (anonymous) edit today to revert it to a double hyphen, but that didn't seem to do anything. I've examined your 12 November edit, and so far haven't been able to spot any obvious data corruption. Did you edit the article with the Wikipedia Editbox, or did you use an external editor? Maybe it's a bug in the Wikipedia engine causing it to get confused about HTML formatting when it sends the "diff" page to a browser. Anyhow, it's worth watching, and possibly opening a discussion with the people who maintain the Wikipedia software if the problem shows up again. --Quicksilver 22:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I used the Wikipedia Editbox, no special editing software. — Walloon 07:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Women in Love

I noticed that you changed that the movie Women in Love "was the first" to "one of the first" to show male genitalia. Could you specify which was first? Thanks. BTW you can reply here, I've added your talk page to my watchlist. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting aside pornographic features, four earlier features to have frontal male nudity were Borje Ahlstedt in I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967), Malcolm McDowell, Guy Ross, and Richard Warwick in If.... (1968), Charlton Heston in Number One (1969), and Robert Forster in Medium Cool (1969). The latter two were released a month before Women in Love. —Walloon 19:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bruce Benderson

Bruce Benderson sent an email to the Help Desk mailing list asking us to change the birthdate on the article about him. He claims he did not go to school with Camille Paglia, and that he is being confused with someone named Bruce Bendersen. Can you address this, please? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A bizarre claim. I refer you to the essay "My Brothers in Crime: Benderson, Jarratt, Feld, Fessenden" by Camille Paglia (born April 2, 1947) in her collection Vamps & Tramps:

Six gay men were central to my life. . . . This essay is a portrait of the other four, whose sexual personae broke the rules and whose refusals and rebellion belong to the public record of my generation. Bruce Benderson, a childhood friend, introduced me to Stephen Jarratt and Stephen Feld during my first year (1964-65) at Harpur College, at the State University of New York at Binghamton. . . . I met Bruce Benderson after my family moved to Syracuse in 1957, when I was ten. . . . Bruce was the only visible beatnik on the cultural landscape in junior and senior high school in Syracuse. . . . When Bruce and I ended up at the same college, we discovered the full extent of our mutual intellectual and artistic interests and forget a permanent bond, preserved, even when we have lived hundreds of miles apart. . . . Bruce has always found in French culture great intellectual freedom as well as a Mediterranean pleasure principle missing from America, with its Puritan heritage. He visited France for long periods and ended up translating or co-translating a series of French authors, including Philippe Sollers and Pierre Guyotat. The Sollers translation was done in collaboration with Ursule Molinaro, a French-born avant-garde novelist who became Bruce's mentor and muse. . . . Bruce's writing increasingly drew on his first-hand experiences with male prostitutes, transvestites, convicts, and drug addicts. . . . By the late Eighties, his stories were appearing in various arts magazines and were eventually published as a collection, Pretending to Say No (Plume Books, 1990). His second book is his first novel, User (Dutton, 1994).

Perhaps Bruce Benderson (with an "o") has forgotten a contentious series of e-mails he and I had in 1995 about his essay Toward the New Degenerative Narrative, published in the journal Echo. The author's credit in Echo says,

Bruce Benderson is the author of two books of fiction about Times Square street hustlers, User (Dutton, 1994) and Pretending to Say No (Plume, 1990). He is co-writer of the feature film My Father Is Coming. An essay in Camille Paglia's new collection, Vamps and Tramps, discusses Benderson and his work.

In one of his e-mails, Benderson (again, with an "o") refers to "my long-term friend Camille". Needless to say, a person born in 1954 would not be at Harpur College, SUNY-Binghamton, in 1964. Bruce Benderson, the author of User, was born on August 6, 1946. There is no "Bruce Bendersen" in the U.S. Copyright Catalog, the Library of Congress Catalog, or the Biography and Genealogy Master Index. — Walloon 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll refer him to this exchange, if you don't mind. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I keep telling him to come here and discuss this issue with you, but he keeps saying he doesn't know how to edit your Talk page, though I've explained to him. I don't really want to get into the middle of a content dispute. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Walloon, I'm a little confused about how to leave a message for you, but in her last email, "Zoe" said to click on "edit." What I explained to her is that there is a confusion in the Wikpedia entry for "Bruce Benderson" between me and another writer. This has been happening on google as well, but there doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it. I was born on October 24, 1954, in Los Angeles. Eight years ago, I relocated to Berlin, where my name is sometimes spelled as "Bendersen," due to a continual error in the name spelling over there, which I finally gave up correcting. If you look up "Bruce Bendersen" (with an "e") on google, you'll see mostly correct credits for me. I am not the author of "Toward a New Degenerate Narrative," whatever that is, and I did not use the Internet before 2001. I have never written journalism for the New York Times. I am a translator of avant-garde French literature, with several well-known French authors to my credit. Also, my memoir, "Autobiographie erotique" won the 2004 Prix de Flore. All the other information, including the birthdate and the business about Paglia, has nothing to do with me and must be referring to the other Benderson. What seems to have happened is that the entry is a Frankenstein conglomeration of my credits and those of the other "Bruce Benderson," whom you apparently are engaged in some disagreement with, but which has nothing to do with me. I would like wikipedia to delete this entry, because it serves neither him nor me, and confuses our credits. I hope this has cleared the matter up for you, though, honestly, I don't understand who you are or why I'm told I must communicate with you about it. Are you an employee of wikipedia? At any rate, I wish someone would remove this incorrect entry, or at least let me edit it for my own bio. --Bruce Benderson

I just checked the California birth index, 1905-1995. No one named "Benderson" (or "Bendersen") was born in California at any time in 1954. If the information in the current Wikipedia article has do to with the other Bruce Benderson, the one who was born in 1946, and who is a friend of Camille Paglia (and who by coincidence is also the translator of avant-garde French authors), then leave his article alone, and create a new article for yourself. However, your own publisher says:

Bruce Benderson is the first American to receive the Prix de Flore. He is the author of two works of fiction, User and Pretending to Say No, and several works of nonfiction, including Toward the New Degeneracy. He is a translator of French literature who has worked as a journalist for numerous American and French publications, including The New York Times Magazine and Libération.

BUTT magazine has an interview where you yourself confirm that you are the author of both User (1995), The Romanian (2006), and the recipient of the Prix de Flore. And you also confirm, in an interview with l'Humanité about Autobiographie érotique (The Romanian), that you grew up in Syracuse, New York. — Walloon 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

N.B. This is Bruce Benderson writing, the one who is staying in Paris, and not Berlin. Author of "User," "Toward the New Degeneracy," "Autobiographie erotique," "James Bidgood," and the forthcoming "The Romanian" and the winner of the 2004 Prix de Flore. I have just arrived back in Paris, after a three-week absence, without my computer, and what I discovered in my email account were messages from a "Zoe," to whom I had not written. These referred me to this page, where I was able to read the above conversation, in which I did not play a part. Moreover, all of the mail in my "Sent" mail folder had been erased, as if by some I-Map program, or whatever it's called, because it's not in "Recently Deleted Mail," either.

On November 16, in Paris, 2 smart phone devices with internet and email capacities plus the keys to this apartment were stolen from my gym locker. One of them contained a lot of sensitive information. I filed a police report the next day. I wasn't overly worried abouot the information since it was protected by a password, but a few days later, I received an email that someone was changing the password on some of my Internet financial accounts, so I myself immediately changed the passwords of everything I could think of. There were also four different people staying in this apartment during my absence, and though I doubt they would fool with my computer, they will be questioned about it. The point is, I am not the one who has been squabbling about the facts in the entry for my name. This looks like some kind of creepy, silly attempt at intellectual identity theft. I do think there is a "Bruce Bendersen," with an "e," because when I google that name, some entries that seem to have nothing to do with me do come up. And yes, the entry for my name on wikipedia is riddled with errors, and maybe it's a mixture of me and "Bendersen," but I actually wasn't concerned, because what serious researcher would use or quote a source that anyone can create or alter? if I were wikipedia, I would remove this faulty entry, but I really don't care. Actually, so far, the most unfortunate consequences of this whole affair is having to re-encounter the extremely anal-compulsive, steel-trap sensibility of Hot-Air Walloon, of whom I do retain an unpleasant memory from the past.

More bizarreness. If the person I've been dealing with for the past few days was an imposter engaging in as you call it, intellectual identity theft, then why are you angry at me? -- Walloon 14:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

De-linking

Hi, I was wondering what the purpose was of the removal of links in the VCR article?

Maybe there was a good reason behind it (which is why I didn't revert the edit), it just isn't obvious to me.

Fourohfour 12:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the removal of links to years, the Wikipedia style guide is that in most cases, solitary years (e.g., 1976) should not be linked, only full dates (e.g., January 1, 1976). Those are the only links I removed from the VCR article. — Walloon 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

I see you like to do research with original documents also. I have corrected a few entries based on the census and SSDI. See my List of entertainers where birthday and birthyear are in question for ones I had to annotate and where Brittanica was wrong. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Al Lewis

Can you help confirm the image I have of his wife is correct. The WBAI website doesn't seem to have it anymore and it looks like it was taken down from the award website also. I imagine they did it at her request for privacy. I just want to be sure that I got the right one, the age doesn't look right, unless it was taken 10 or 15 years ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what his wife looks like. I suppose you could do a Google image search of her name. — Walloon 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein

Hi - sorry, I accidentally undid one of your edits to Frankenstein while reverting some vandalism - looks like we were both editing it at the same time. I'll take your word for it about the title (although the poster illustrating the Bride of Frankenstein article does include the 'the'.) Cheers. Robin Johnson 15:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't take my word, click on the link I supplied to a screen capture of the actual title from the 1935 movie. -- Walloon 16:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Experience

You have had more experience with American Mutoscope and Biograph Company that I, and seem to be familiar with the field. So I'll follow your lead. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. And thanks for including their announcement about purchasing property on the moon. You can't make up stuff better than that! — Walloon 07:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION! The property deed on the moon is valid. Branson with Virgin Galactic is looking into it as well. Are you laughing at him too? Check your facts before you discredit. -The Walloon Popper.

I found that on their website. But hey, it was the first company to film in Hollywood, so why shouldn't its successor be the first company to film on the Moon? I'm not sure if they deed is valid, or if they'll be able to meet their schedule. I see that now there are some claims about a "legal department". My guess is that all the departments of this production company can pretty much fit behind one desk.

CORRECTION! We do have an LA attorney who is quite experienced, and we all have desks and offices. -VP with Biograph Company

Wikipedia has long been perceived as a resource for unsigned bands trying to get publicity, but independent filmmakers are following their lead. I have nothing against independent filmmakers or unsigned bands, but they should not use this project as a stepping stone to success. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION! To Brokeback, again, check your facts before you discredit. Tommy Bond, "Butch" from Our Gang didn't need to step on anyone or anything to gain his success through 65 films and several years in front and behind the camera, nor does his son who has several tv and radio awards to his credit. The family who legitimately owns this company, has gone through 2 deaths in one year along with problems with people like you attacking and trying to discredit them for what reason? You are assuming, attacking and trying to talk about something that you have no idea about nor any facts. You are making YOURSELF look bad. This company is legit and I have alot of experience in the business and as a VP of the Biograph Company, I don't have any more time for this nonsense. This company is legit and has it's references listed in the article and will continue and succeed long after you are gone and forgotten. -Don't Beback

I hope you'll join me in continuing to correct the article when necessary. Note that despite being incorporated for fifteen years now, and in business for almost twenty, the new company doesn't name one finished and released product, or one client, on their website. — Walloon 15:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION! Refer again to the above correction. -The Walloon Popper

Neither legal threats nor personal attacks ("Walloon Popper", "Don't Beback") are welcome here. -Will Beback 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Feel free to remove the unreferenced tag from American Mutoscope and Biograph Company when you're done. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Get involved in social nudity naming convention debates!

Hi, I'd like to invite you to get involved in establishing consensus in discussions concerning naming conventions for social nudity topics.

Please join in this community discussion regarding the name of Portal:Clothes free.

Participate here: Portal_talk:Clothes_free#Votes

Please also join in the discussion about what to name an article dealing with social nudity. I believe the the latter term is a better term to use than naturism or nudism as it is more WP:NPOV and is in use currently. Formerly the article was titled Clothes free movement.

Participate here: Talk:Naturism#Move_to_Social_nudity

Cheers,

User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 20:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The industry

Thanks for all your work on topics related to the movie business. There are many details, and you seem to be careful about such matters without getting distracted by celebrity or litigiousness. Maybe we could have a Wikiproject to cover the material. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! If I can be of any help as a consultant on film-related articles, please let me know. — Walloon 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Birthyears

Hi Walloon, I remember a comment you made at Talk:Paulette Goddard about birthyears sometimes being inaccurate on legal documents such as passports. A user has posed a question about whether the birth year that is shown on a death certificate, could be suspect. I suggested that you have expertise in this area and may be able to answer the question. The question appears at Talk:Elizabeth Montgomery. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated, if you don't mind. Thanks Rossrs 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for responding so quickly to my question and for also checking the Californian record. There was a bit of an edit war going on about this a few months ago, which thankfully died down, and it's good to have the date confirmed. Really appreciate your response. Rossrs 08:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RKO Forty Acres

Hi Walloon, Just saw your edit regarding RKO Forty Acres and the burning down of the Atlanta Depot, I assume that you mean the train depot. I have a photo - upload coming soon - that shows unequivically that the depot was still standing by 1960, therefore not the building that was burned in the film, although I have no doubt that one on the backlot was used for the fire. Any thoughts? Thanks for the contribution User:Bill Wrigley 05:10 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Atlanta Depot includes more than the car shed, the building you're thinking of. The surrounding warehouses and steel rolling mill are what are pictured on fire in Gone With the Wind. And those were created by redressing King Kong's Great Wall as a building, then burning it. Here is what M-G-M's press kit said:

DON'T refer to the BURNING OF ATLANTA as such. The scene in the picture is not the burning of Atlanta but rather the burning of certain buildings containing war materials. The city in general was not touched by these fires!

But the car shed itself was destroyed by that fire in 1864. Atlanta Depot before. Atlanta Depot after.

— Walloon 05:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Herminie Templeton Kavanagh contributions

I wrote the original page and I thought it was unlikely that anyone would expand it. Thanks for researching this! Gronky 06:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How did you find all this wonderful information . . I'm researching Herminie at the moment. Thanks. Oscar 013:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — 89.100.255.73 08:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The source notes I gave show my sources. The biggest help were a subscription to the online ProQuest Historical Newspapers edition of The Chicago Tribune, in which all of the newspaper back to its earliest days is indexed; and a subscription to Ancestry.com, the biggest online source of genealogy records. I did all the research in part of an afternoon at a university library's reference room. Will you be writing about Herminie? — Walloon (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Filmmaking

Hey Walloon! Noticed that you've been doing a lot of editing to the film technology articles recently, and just wanted to invite you to join WikiProject Filmmaking. We're trying to coordinate some of our work and create a place to discuss common issues across many of the articles. Thought you might be interested. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

35 mm film (history)

Walloon -

Extraordinary edits and additions to the history of color film in the 35 mm film article, thank you. Can you cite a couple references for your additions? Also, you may want to move these additions to Color film (motion picture), which is a more in depth article that features a more expanded version of the history of color film. One of the big things we're trying to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking is making sure all technical information has verifiable and reputable in-line cited sources (as is Wiki policy). We appreciate your great contributions. All the best LACameraman 06:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! That means a lot coming from a professional cinematographer who has also written technical articles on cinematography. Feel free to transfer what I wrote for the 35 mm film article to the Color film (motion picture) article, and leave a condensed version at the 35 mm film article. I know what I wrote was wordy, but I was trying to correct a few errors, and fill in a glaring omission (Kinemacolor). — Walloon 08:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WOW! Extraordinary work. Thank you so much. We're happy to have you as part of Project Filmmaking! LACameraman 08:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Walloon - I'm not sure what you mean by "flashing" with reference to color toning of 35 mm films. It's a process I'm not familar with at all; do you think you can expand on the term a bit? When I think of flashing, I think of pre-exposing a negative to reduce image contrast or a strobing of the image. Although I might be overthinking it, I think the term could use a brief explanation. The sentence, as it reads now in 35 mm film is "But any process that photographed the colors sequentially was subject to color "fringing" or "flashing" around moving objects." Again, thank you for your excellent contributions. All the best, LACameraman 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that other definition of "flashing." Maybe I should change it to "flickering." This passage, from the Widescreen Museum's description of a Kinemacolor movie, is what inspired it:

Fringing of the Kinemacolor picture is obvious in this composite of two adjacent frames. In actual practice, the fringing is not as noticeable because the red and green fringes never appear on the screen at the same time, though the color in the image exhibits a distinct flicker.

— Walloon 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mutoscope

You seem to know a lot about this topic. There's a question on Talk:Mutoscope about new "mutoscopes". I f you have a chance your input wopuld be appreciated. -Will Beback 05:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank you for your response to my comment on the Talk page over at 35mm film. :D It helps considerably. I'm still wondering if there would be a noticeable difference in quality though - why is 35mm considered better than 16mm?

Anyway, it was much appreciated. :) Runa27 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a noticeable difference in visual quality between 35 mm and 16 mm. The former has four times the frame area than the latter. A sharper image, and much less grain. It's like the difference between regular television and high definition television. But Super 16, which has a 45% larger image area than 16 mm by shrinking the sprocket hole size, narrows the gap in image quality, and is even used on some theatrical features and network television series (e.g., Walker, Texas Ranger). — Walloon 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hal Roach/Vitaphone

Hal Roach studios did not use the Vitaphone recording system at any point. They were strictly Western Electric (Victor/RCA), although there is some argument as to whether they were available both sound-on-disc and optical sound or simply optical.The Photoplayer 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Western Electric actually had two systems: Vitaphone and Movietone (Donald Crafton, The Talkies: American Cinema's Transition to Sound, 1926-1931, pp. 131). Its competitor was General Electric, which had RCA Photophone. Hal Roach was one of the producers that was party to the ERPI licensee contract in May 1928 allowing them to use Movietone (Crafton, p. 132). But the Vitaphone Project website says that "Warners, First National and Hal Roach made disc-only talkies through 1929." I'm not sure whom to believe, but given that Hal Roach product was distributed by Loew's, who were definitely Movietone, I decided to remove my addition of Hal Roach to the list of studios using Vitaphone. --Walloon 21:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Western Electric RCA/Victor (ie. optical track, but not to confuse with Photophone). By 1929, when Roach entered sound, the writing was already on the wall-- disc sound was a dead duck. MGM was primarily an optical studio (although they pressed sound-on-disc, too), and the Loews chain catered to both optical and disc sound (initially starting out with Vitaphone setups).

At Roach, optical was the primary sound recording, but again, it's not clear at this point as to whether or not sound-on-disc prints were made, and this is possibly where the confusion is led to with the Vitaphone Project (although a set of discs would obviously confirm this). Still, Roach had nothing to do with the Vitaphone COMPANY or equipment (which is the topic of the article, not sound-on-disc). Western Electric's optical sound division was an entirely different entity/company. The Photoplayer 22:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Color Processes

I just initated the List of color film systems page. Have at it! -The Photoplayer 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job! You've put a lot of useful information into one table. May I offer a change for the "inventor" of Technicolor. According to the 1934 Fortune magazine article,

So for six years [1915-1921] there was a lot of money going out and virtually no money coming in. During this period the company was held together largely by the business ability of Dr. Kalmus, an ability that showed itself not only in the way of making his money last but in keeping new money coming in. From an inventing standpoint, most of the basic early patents were taken out by Dr. [Daniel F.] Comstock (and the remainder by Mr. [W. Burton] Wescott).

Thus, I think it would be correct to list Comstock and Wescott as the inventors of Technicolor. Herbert Kalmus was more the business executive. — Walloon 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's at least list him as "financier" or something though, as his leadership was critical to the development. Actually, let me think about that first. It'll mean revising some other things on the list. The Photoplayer 15:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sound film

I've reverted your edit to the description of Dream Street, and I want to explain exactly why. You've employed a strict definition of "talkie": a synch-sound movie with dialogue scenes. That's certainly defensible, but you should be aware that the leading dictionary of American English, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, takes a very different view from you, defining "talkie" as "a motion picture with a synchronized sound track." As is clear from the top section of the "Sound film" Wikipedia entry, the article uses a middle-of-the-road definition of "talkie"--neither as broad as Merriam-Websters nor as narrow as yours: the article defines "talkie" as a synch-sound movie with "live-recorded dialogue [or] singing." If you wish to make a case for changing the article's definition to your strict one, please launch a thread on the article's discussion page. Thanks. Best, Dan —DCGeist 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are the vandal by pushing silly POV into the article!!! Witchclaw 22:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with "Sound film"? — Walloon 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to Kansas City

When you want to link to the article about Kansas City, please do not link to Kansas City, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Kansas City, Kansas article, by writing out [[Kansas City, Kansas|Kansas City]]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator

Re: American Mutoscope and Biograph article

I had asked for assistance from Wikipedia administrator Samuel Wantman to help go by Wikipedia guidelines and edit the article. You have again changed and reverted the article back. Reverting this many times can intitiate a 3RR action. Because of the difficulty I may not be editing on this article for awhile, but working on others since there is an obvious bias. This has been forwarded to the administrator.

--Roger the red 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You've seen the administrator's response. — Walloon 06:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Success of The Jazz Singer

Hi, Walloon. I went over the Crafton material carefully and corrected a typo in the quote that appears in The Jazz Singer article. I didn't make any other changes to the article, but I want you to take a look at the data on The Jazz Singer b.o. I've added to the sound film article. The primary source I've gleaned this information from is:
Glancy, H. Mark (1995). "Warner Bros. Film Grosses, 1921–51: The William Schaefer Ledger," Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, March (available online)—see, in particular, pages 4 and 5.
The data, direct from Warner Bros.' internal records, pretty clearly refute Crafton. I currently say in the footnote, "By any measure, The Jazz Singer was one of the biggest films of the decade." I don't go into further detail, but not only was it Warners biggest film before The Singing Fool, but Hollywood's two leading studios put out only three higher-earning films before going fully into sound production in 1929: MGM with The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921) and Ben-Hur (1925); Paramount with The Covered Wagon (1923). Of course, earlier there was The Birth of a Nation (1915). As best I can determine, The Jazz Singer was the fifth biggest movie in Hollywood history before The Singing Fool surpassed it. That's a smash by any reckoning.

Crafton is a very smart writer and an able researcher, but I think it's clear he's picked and chosen certain data in order to advance a particular, tendentious argument in this case. There are worthwhile points in his ideological analysis of the promotion and reception of The Jazz Singer, but his fundamental argument simply doesn't hold up when you step back and look at the big picture. Crafton can't change the simple fact that The Jazz Singer was the fifth-biggest money-earner in Hollywood history, and the biggest Warners film ever, before The Singing Fool. Best, Dan—DCGeist 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: MGM's The Big Parade (1925) was also an enormous hit, making The Jazz Singer number 6 all time before The Singing Fool.—DCGeist 01:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to analyze an example of Crafton's artful tendentiousness. Let's stop and think about this statement you've quoted: "A review of the seat-adjusted gross receipts for these first Vitaphone programs reveals that the first two features [Don Juan and The Better 'Ole] outperformed The Jazz Singer." "Seat-adjusted gross receipts"?! I assure you, if we review "seat-adjusted" gross receipts, Little Miss Sunshine is outperforming Titanic. What Crafton avoids saying, as he cherry-picks data to his liking from different individual theaters and run periods, is that The Jazz Singer played long and strong all across the country--that's how it grossed $2.6 million, substantially more than any other movie released nationally in 1927.

Crafton is a respectable scholar, to be sure--which doesn't make him immune from having an ax to grind. Thomas Schatz is one of the most respected historians in the field: he writes, in The Genius of the System, that The Jazz Singer "took the public by storm" (p. 64). The overall data clearly indicates that statement is much closer to the truth than the one of Crafton's featured in The Jazz Singer article. Walloon, I'd really like to hear your response to this and all of the above before we move this discussion to The Jazz Singer Talk page.—DCGeist 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we can check whether that $2.6 million gross is accurate? What I mean is, can we take that figure apart into its components, verify the components, and add them together to see if indeed they total $2.6 million? Because, to me, that is what Crafton has done. He has gone beyond a single gross figure, and looked at the components to see if they all add up to that gross figure. I wish I could believe that the studio books were always trustworthy, but it's been said that some of the most creative people in Hollywood work in accounting.

As to Crafton "cherry-picking" data, I see it the other way around: Crafton goes out of his way to consider the subject from all angles. He discusses the weekly grosses and the length of runs. He discusses how well it did in New York and numerous other major cities. He compares it to other Vitaphone releases and to other silent releases. To me, that's the opposite of cherry-picking data.

If the $2.6 million gross is correct, we ought to be able to verify it through other sources, instead of taking it without question.

By the way, I am glad that we can discuss this intelligently and civilly. So often these discussion pages turn into rant wars. You have done a lot for the "Sound film" article, and I hope you continue. — Walloon 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In re: your concluding point, I feel exactly the same way. I've dealt with a certain crimson-colored fellow, for instance, that I see you also have, and am deeply appreciative of the difference. Working together like this, I know we'll get it right, which is what counts.

I'll start by explaining why I don't trust Crafton's rhetoric on this issue (I feel fully confident that each individual data point he chooses to cite is accurate). He states his reckoning of the total Jazz Singer b.o., but he never states the same for Don Juan or The Better Ole. He comes up with a creative calculus that makes it sound as if they performed better, but--as he's intent on building a case against The Jazz Singer's reputation as a major success--why not just give us the straightforward total box office figures? Simple, clean. If those two earlier films really did better, we should be able to see it plainly. Crafton doesn't do that, for one simple reason, it seems clear--they made less money than The Jazz Singer. Same for Paramount's Wings, which Crafton repeatedly compares the New York theatrical performance of The Jazz Singer unfavorably to; he gives us a total b.o. for the Jolson movie, but never for Wings. Why? Because it made less money. Same for the three Warners talkies that follow--if Crafton wants to get into complex analyses of receipts at given theaters for given weeks, that's fine, but please--if you're interested in being clear and straightforward--give us totals, or at least well-reasoned estimates of totals, for the box office grosses of The Tenderloin and Glorious Betsy and The Lion and the Mouse. Crafton doesn't do that, again, I have to conclude, for one simple reason--they made less money than The Jazz Singer. Substantially less money.

Here's why I find the $2.6 million figure credible. On the one hand, it's far from the highest figure bandied about. Joel Finler, in The Hollywood Story, gives $3.5 million not once, but twice (pp. 237, 240); now, I can't say I trust his figures, but the man's written a lot in the field. Schatz says $3 million (The Genius of the System, p. 64). Schatz is about as good as it gets--but, reading him here, it seems possible that he's rounding up (in his source notes, though, Schatz does describe his primary research on a host of industry records, and he provides quite specific numbers throughout). On the other hand, Crafton says $1.9 million in the main text (p. 528) and then seems to indicate, in a note, that the figure is incomplete:

Robert C. Allen and Douglas Gomery report that The Jazz Singer's greatest success came later in 1928, and that it played best in medium-size towns; Film History: Theory and Practice (New York: Knopf, 1985), p. 121. I have not researched the film's box office for this later period. [p. 601, n. 10]

I trust Glancy (a) because nowhere in his report is there a hint that he has an ideological stake in the matter, and (b) his data is based on Warner Bros. internal accounting reports, not public financial declarations, official or otherwise. Your point about Hollywood accounting "creativity" is well taken, but Glancy appears to be using studio sources that are as unadulterated as we can get. Crafton, I think we can agree, is on a mission to debunk what he sees as a historical misapprehension. Glancy's only mission seems to be the reporting of data.

Here are the fundamental points, as I see it.

(a) Even if we accept Crafton's $1.9 million figure, all available evidence indicates that The Jazz Singer was Warners' biggest-grossing movie ever until The Singing Fool. Glancy indicates it was, by far. If it wasn't, surely Crafton would have stated so plainly--he does not.

(b) Even if we accept Crafton's $1.9 million figure, all available evidence indicates that The Jazz Singer was the second biggest-grossing movie to be released in 1927, after Cecil B. DeMille's King of Kings. If it wasn't, surely Crafton would have stated so plainly--he does not. (And all sources agree it was much cheaper to make than DeMille's epic.)

(Note: I was looking at the familiar majors before, which is how I missed King of Kings--released by Producers Distributing Corporation.)

The third point asks us to accept Glancy's figure.

(c) If The Jazz Singer grossed $2.6 million, it was the sixth- or seventh-biggest earner in Hollywood history up to that point (not adjusted for inflation), surpassed only by Birth of a Nation (1915), The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921), The Covered Wagon (1923), The Big Parade (1925), and Ben-Hur (1925) and running neck-and-neck with King of Kings. If adjustment for inflation is made, it probably places tenth or eleventh, with Way Down East (1920), The Kid (1921), The Ten Commandments (1923), and The Gold Rush (1925) perhaps also passing it. Under this analysis, it is one of the two biggest films released between Dec. 30, 1925 (Ben-Hur) and Sept. 19, 1928 (The Singing Fool), a span of over two-and-a-half years.

As you say, however, if the $2.6 million figure is correct, it should be independently verifiable. One might argue that Schatz already does that, but again, as you say, Crafton deserves respect for the great detail he enters into. Even if you dismiss the $2.6m number, the $1.9 million figure, I believe, clearly qualifies The Jazz Singer as a smash hit, especially for a mid-sized studio without a substantial theater chain--which describes Warners in 1927. Bottom line, which nothing in Crafton contradicts: Biggest movie in studio history to date. Second biggest movie of the year.

Best, Dan.—DCGeist 06:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Summation of analysis of Crafton/Glancy reports on earnings of The Jazz Singer

I've gone over both again in detail and it is clear that far from contradicting each other, Crafton's and Glancy's overall box office figures are in perfect accord, and actually help confirm each other. The clue was here, on p. 3 of Glancy: "In the 1926–27 season [Warner Bros.] average earnings increased to...26% of the total, and they remained in a range of 22% to 30% of total earnings throughout the late 1920s." Though it would have been a help if he'd made it explicit, it's clear that Glancy is providing total earnings figures--domestic plus foreign--for each film he surveys. The $1.97 million figure of Crafton's we know is domestic b.o. for The Jazz Singer--and it represents almost precisely 75% of the $2.625 million figure Glancy provides, making the remainder (which would be foreign earnings) 25% of the total, exactly where we would expect it. Glancy and Crafton's overall numbers are in complete agreement--there is no argument at all on the data here. With that established, we can compile the following earnings chart in chronological order:

• Don Juan: $1.695 million total (dom. & for.) [Warner Bros. record to date]
• The Jazz Singer: $2.625 million total (dom. & for.)

  $1.97 million domestic

• Tenderloin: ≈$1 million total (dom. & for.)
• Glorious Betsy: ≈$1 million total (dom. & for.)
• The Lion and the Mouse: ≈$1 million total (dom. & for.)
• The Lights of New York: $1.252 million total (dom. & for.)
• The Singing Fool: $5.916 million total (do. & for.)

From this, we can draw two important conclusions that may be stated as facts:

• Fact 1: Until it was surpassed by The Singing Fool, The Jazz Singer was by far the biggest earner in Warner Bros. history.
• Fact 2: The Jazz Singer far out earned the next four Vitaphone talkies.

As for the question of where it ranks among "the most popular films of its day," it is not possible to be as conclusive (at least, not yet): an examination of over a half-dozen sources suggests that the only two films released in 1927 that ultimately might have made as much or more than The Jazz Singer were King of Kings (best available figure: $2.64 million gross--not clear if domestic or total; see here) and Wings (vastly differing figures and descriptions, probably because of the many different releases the movie was given, even aside from it having appeared in both silent and sound versions). Two other movies from the year are described literally as "smashes" by reputable sources—MGM's "Love" (Eames, The MGM Story, p. 40) and Fox's Seventh Heaven (Thomas, A Wonderful Life: The Films and Career of James Stewart, p.48)—and are generally discussed as major successes. I haven't seen a single source that suggests either of these films made as much money as The Jazz Singer, nor a single source that suggests any 1927 movie other than these four came anywhere near The Jazz Singer's ballpark. Apparently, in 1990 and 1993, Variety published two articles (or republished one) by Lawrence Cohn titled "All-Time Film Rental Champs,," in which he tries to bring greater rigor to the earnings figures used for 1920s films. I'll check those out at the library some time in the next week, but enough is clear to make some central observations about the Crafton quote at the heart of the matter:

In its national first-run release, The Jazz Singer did well, judged by box-office receipts and the lengths of its runs, but it was in a distinct second or third tier of attractions compared to the most popular films of the day and even other Vitaphone talkies.

As it relates to "Vitaphone talkies", the statement is so misleading that I believe most observers of the evidence would judge it effectively wrong. The Jazz Singer was by far the most succesful of the first five Vitaphone talkies, however much one would like to concentrate on and characterize chosen perspectives on its run. Indeed, it stands a tier below the enormous success of The Singing Fool a year later, but who would reasonably understand Crafton to be saying that? The statement should not be featured on Wikipedia without a discussion of the relevant evidence that weighs against it--The Jazz Singer was a terrifically successful film and a big, big deal for Warners; I feel the statement is so tendentious that it perhaps should not appear at all.

As it relates to "the most popular films of the day," it seems abundantly clear that The Jazz Singer was in the top tier of films from 1926 and 1927. Indeed, it was not in the same league as the biggest films of the decade: The Big Parade, Ben-Hur, The Singing Fool, City Lights, perhaps a couple others--and that certainly is a point worth making. Because Crafton does have a valid point--as he establishes in painstaking detail, The Jazz Singer did not play like an all-time blockbuster in its early, big-city runs. And it never became Titanic to The Big Parade's Star Wars. The problem is that Crafton gets carried away with his rhetoric--regrettably, because, as you observe, he's such a committed, unlazy scholar. So there is value to this part of what Crafton has to say; it just needs to be more fully contextualized.

Best, Dan. —DCGeist 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, Dan. Interesting and enlightening information. You've done your research! I have no further objection. — Walloon 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Halloween

*big high five*

Thanks for the references on Halloween costume! That lends it a bit more credibility. Much appreciated. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

References and Notes

Because "References and notes" is clunky and messy. Notes and citations should always be separated in a serious academic work. In a well-written piece, there should be no need to set aside small bits of text as a "note" in any case.Dogface 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's odd, because virtually every one of my law school texts sets aside bits of text as footnotes. Lots of bits. I guess none of them are well-written, serious academic works. — Walloon 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oldest television station

I want to thank you for your help on this article. i greatly appreiate all the work you've put into it with me. :) Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 20:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was worrying that you would be mad at me for changing things you added. I hope I didn't come across as a little heavy handed as an editor. Early television is a special interest of mine. Yours too? Best wishes, — Walloon 05:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Filmmaking changes

New discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Filmmaking#Future project development and Ideas for your consideration regarding expansion of the project. As a member, your comments are welcome and wanted! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Halloween

It's not just English and American children who enjoy Halloween. Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Puerto Ricans and Canadian children enjoy the festivel too. The line gives the idea that it is just an English/American thing. I can cite other NPOV quotes that would suit too. It has never been a controversy in Roman Catholic countries where the true spirit of Halloween is accepted in a casual manner. The sentence reads like some declaration of the Vatican to "okay" the holiday. The holiday was never controversial in the RC church. MelForbes 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not debating that (position of Catholic church about Halloween). I'm just wondering why someone (you?) thought what the Vatican priest said had to be altered. If he had wanted to say "children worldwide" he could have said that. But he didn't. He said "English and American children." You may wish he had said "children worldwide." But this isn't about what you or I wish, it's about what the priest actually said. As a journalist, generally I frown on editing quotations to make people say things that they did not say. — Walloon 21:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not criticizing the inclusion of the sentence, my edits are quite often re-edited, and i live with that quite easily. And really I don't wish. You have selected the quote from a broader quotation, and where does one draw the line with an encyclopedia. As for me, I was born in Scotland where it was celebrated more so than in England (if it was celebrated at all there is questionable). After living in the USA for some years, I now live in Ireland, the true home of Halloween, and there is never a controversy here! So why is the Vatican being quoted with regard to two essentially protestant nations? MelForbes 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not select that quotation. Someone else (I don't know who) selected it. But you really haven't addressed the ethical issue of changing a quotation so that it says something other than what the speaker actually said. — Walloon 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't want to troll on your page. My main point is that the festival is much more broadly celebrated, and the quote referred to reflects an opposing view! MelForbes 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

s-protecting Halloween

Putting {{sprotect}} at the top of an article doesn't semiprotect it. You have to be an admin to semi-protect articles. And articles linked to from the main page shouldn't be protected anyway, unless the vandalism gets so bad we can't keep on top of it. That's not the case with Halloween. —Angr 13:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to Walloon - Halloween must be one of the most regularly vandalised or contested (non political) articles on Wiki! Excellent stewardship! (Sarah777 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

Could you explain what you mean by "stewardship"? I'm just one of dozens of editors of that article. — Walloon 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist from way back and you keep popping up, fighting the bad guys! (Sarah777 03:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Oh! Thanks. At first I thought you were being sarcastic, i.e., that I was asleep on the job while everybody was vandalizing the article. — Walloon 07:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Attributing nationality

Hi Walloon, I was hoping you might be able to help. There is a discussion at Talk:Bee Gees about the correct way of attributing someone's nationality and it occurred to me that different articles use different approaches, each of which has been determined by the consensus of a different group of editors. With your work in geneology I thought you may be able to suggest the more "correct" method, or how this is handled in the "real world". Examples: Bee Gees were born in the U.K. raised in Australia, began their career in Australia, moved back to the U.K. and ultimately settled permanently in the U.S. Are they therefore an "English group", "an English-Australian" group... or something else? Other examples where different approaches have been used - Olivia Newton-John - similar history to the Bee Gees, described in her article as an "English born Australian singer". Mel Gibson, born U.S., raised Australia, career started Australia, moved to U.S. and currently resides there - is called an "Australian American actor". Nicole Kidman - same situation as Gibson, except that her parents were Australians who happened to be working in the U.S. when she was born, has caused considerable discussion with the compromise being that she "holds dual citizenship as both an Australian and an American" (but her article tactfully avoids calling her either "Australian" or "American"). Just wondered what your opinion is on this and would be very interested to hear, if you have the time. Thanks Rossrs 05:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing a person's "nationality" at the outset of an article is an overrated practice, in my opinion. Not necessary. In complex cases like the ones you give above, there is no shorthand method that doesn't create confusion or ambiguity. The author-editor should just give all the facts of birth, parentage, citizenship, and migration in the body of the article, and let the reader come to his or her own conclusion. — Walloon 06:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and I see what you mean. It's a case of simply stating the facts rather than interpreting the facts, isnt it? Your suggestion assumes people read the article, which I'm all for, of course, but I think the trend is to put as much into the lead as possible, to spare people the burden of reading the thing ;-) Rossrs 06:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And the editor wept . . .  :( — Walloon 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Telephone federal excise tax

Thanks for your recent contributions to this article. Yours, Famspear 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Material moved to U-matic

I agree totally with your reasons for moving the material from Videocassette recorder to U-matic. However, in your edit summary, you neither credit the original author (and in this case, this clearly *was* the work of one author) nor even noted that the material had been moved from the original article.

With respect, when you move material like this, can you please (at least) mention that it has been taken/moved from another article (and note which one)? If practical, please also credit the original author. Thank you.

Fourohfour 12:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional; okay, I notice you mentioned the author on the talk page, but I still think it's preferable to place this info in the edit summary. Fourohfour 12:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Something Wicked This Way Comes article

This may be a bit late in coming, but I just want to say thanks for also making several small but numerous contributions to the Something Wicked This Way Comes article. At least I know there's one other person out there who enjoys the book as I do. :-)

I noticed, while looking through past edits, that you had a line that said that Charles Halloway was based on Bradbury's father that was accidentally deleted sometime ago. Can you provide a source on this? If you can, it can be recincluded in the article.

One more thing -- I'm holding a peer review for the article. If you have the time, could you please provide your own input on what I need to do to improve the article to at least "good article status"? If you don't have the time, that's okay; this article has pretty much become my pet project anyway, so all the more responsibility to me! Thanks again for your work on the article. Breed Zona 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to help someone else who loves Ray Bradbury books. I just checked the books Conversations with Ray Bradbury and Bradbury Speaks, but did not find where he talked about his father being the inspiration for Charles Halloway. It might be in The Bradbury Chronicles, but I don't have that with me. I'll post a query on the message boards at RayBradbury.com to see if someone else might remember the where RB talked about that. And yes, I will be glad to look over the article and get back with you about it. — Walloon 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald

I believe the reason there is confusion about your additions to the LHO article is that your cite to three different sources but only one is available online. That source does not contain all of the information in the sentence. To clear up the confusion, I would suggest not using the Internet site, or linking to the exact point in the WC that says Ferrie showed his library card. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've linked to the appropriate page of an online version of Warren Commission Document 75. — Walloon 20:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Turin Shroud Edit

The edit by 62.254.193.129 on the Turin Shroud was perfectly true - why did you mark it as vandalism? 172.200.178.103 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I marked it as vandalism because it is perfectly false, and no substantiation, no source, was offered by you to verify it. — Walloon 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger the red

On the advice of another admin, I've posted the material about Roger to the AN. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Roger the red. Since you've dealt with the editor your input would be valuable. -Will Beback · † · 05:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Election Day

What is your source for the change you made on March 6 re the reasons Election Day is the day after the first Monday of November? Some sources, eg http://www.infoplease.com/spot/electionday1.html, agree with the old version. Thanks. Theleek 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My source is the Congressional Research Service. The previous answers were implausible for the amount of deference given to Roman Catholic practice in that era. Catholics did not have political clout until after the Civil War. — Walloon 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things: First, I initially had the same thought about Catholics, but I recently read James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, which talks about the growing presence of Catholics in the US in the decade or two before the Civil War. So while it struck me too as implausible at first, I am no longer so sure. In addition, even if Catholics had little national clout, they had pull in the big cities and with the machine politicians, who could easily have had enough power to change the choice of Election Day (and would have been very interested in doing so to protect their Catholic voters). Plus, two government web sites and a few encyclopedia-like sources such as the link I provided agree that All Saints Day had something to do with the choice of date for Election Day. Second, could you please cite the CRS source so others can check it out and compare? Thanks. Theleek 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CRS Bulletin 45:99 (1953).

Congress passed the Presidential Election Day law in 1845. Too early for Catholics to have clout in even the cities, outside perhaps Baltimore. There were no political machines to speak of before the Civil War, and the Irish Famine immigration didn't begin until 1845. — Walloon 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't suppose that's available on line? Theleek 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. — Walloon 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to cross-reference this on the Election Day discussion page. I agree with your logic, but given that I can't review your source and that other apparently reliable sources say otherwise, I think that it warrants the views of others if anyone else is interested. Theleek 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Original camera negative

I was just curious what your source was on the recent edit claiming that most prints pre-1969 were from the OCN. I haven't done much research into intermediate stocks, but it just seems from Kodak's chronology site that there were many intermediate emulsions on offer for decades preceding 1969. Plus, it was more or less a requirement for any of the multitude of formats which originated on non-projection standards. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Robert Harris, film restorer #1, wrote this in an article. I'm looking for it. He reported that the records of the original negative of Hitchcock's Vertigo said that something like 500+ prints had been struck from the original negative over the years. Here he says that 389 prints had been run from the camera negative of Rear Window by the time he restored it. Here he says,

The worst thing and the reason I tend to go for the large-format films, the epics, is that they are the most endangered. Because during that period, the duping materials weren't good enough to make an interpositive and then an internegative and then a print; consequently every single 70mm print, every set of matrices (which means three runs off the negative for each set of matrices), every interpositive were all made off the camera negative.

While indeed intermediate emulsions were available, they didn't reach an acceptable quality for Hollywood until 1968. Likewise, safety film had been available since about 1912, but wasn't of an acceptable quality for Hollywood until 1949. When Eastman Color Reversal Intermediate film #7/5249 was introduced in 1968, it won a Class I scientific Academy Award for the major change it made in 35mm film reproduction. Only two other Class I awards were given out in the 1960s, that's how important it was. — Walloon 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald and Slidell, LA

Hello, there seems to be some confusion about the connection of Lee Harvey Oswald with Slidell, LA. The record clearly shows that he was born in New Orleans, but are you aware of any reason why his name became associated with Slidell? Did he reside there for any period of time, or have relatives there? Thanks, AlphaEta 03:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Schedule showing known addresses of Lee Harvey Oswald from the time of his birth. He never lived in Slidell, and I do not know of any association he had with the city. — Walloon 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the resource. That should settle matters once and for all! AlphaEta 05:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Dealey Plaza. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ··coelacan 00:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and lifted the block, as the other user is using a dynamic IP and it is hardly fair to keep you blocked while you can't respond to them. Please refrain from edit warring in the future, though. The WP:3RR rule applies to most things; it does allow the removal of blatant vandalism, but that's "lol cocks", not anything that resembles a content dispute. If an article is undergoing heavy traffic and you can't get the other editor to discuss changes, it's much more fruitful to request full protection at WP:RFPP instead of edit warring. ··coelacan 18:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image pickup

Can you point me at a source about the Rosing and Zworykin CRT pickup for still images? I'm not familiar with that. Dicklyon 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC) This book suggests that Rosing was still using a selenium cell (implying mechanical scanning) in his 1911 work. Dicklyon 20:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, my error. I had mentally switched Rosing's transmitter with his receiver. — Walloon 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack Ruby

Our old friend is at it again at the Jack Ruby article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? If not, you can't protect an article, only administrators have that ability. You can put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection though. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

davey jones

I noticed your comments to user daveyjones about his statment "as bent as a bumerang". In fact he has been making derogatory homophobic remarks to quite a few famous people, if these actions continue I think a ban my be in order to resolve the issue.172.201.172.214 09:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that his intentions are necessarily homophobic. For all we know, he may be gay himself. But his use of unsourced gossip, or unreliable sources, is against Wiki policy. — Walloon 13:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Kalmus

First of all, many thanks for finding those references! Always good to learn more from the sources. I do still somewhat question the color mildness, only because the film cited jumped out at me. American Widescreen Museum mentions that Technicolor had reservations about taking the system out of the studio, and I think there's still the possibility that this particular instance was a matter of being conservative in the service of managing the unknown. However, her quote is compelling, I must admit. I know it's a bit of a pain, but if there were several sources which could be obtained to settle the matter either way, it would put me at rest. I'm going to continue searching, myself. Either way, I think we can all agree that she was not particularly well-loved by Hollywood... Girolamo Savonarola 04:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just seconds ago, I replied on the discussion page for Natalie Kalmus. No kidding about her reputation, though. The sarcasm against Kalmus in the press begins in 1934! — Walloon 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote numbering

Hi Walloon. I note that you made a mention that footnote numbers go after the quote/citation in US and Wiki style. That is now not the case in biographies and major articles in Wikipedia. For the last while, editors reviewing articles for GA status have established that footnoting should be directly linked to the sentence by appearing just before the period. I know that this has not been rewritten as a style guide, but I have observed this recommendation a number of times. I have been ambivalent about using this style consistently but most times it has not been reverted. FWIW Bzuk 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Temple Houston

Noticed your changes at Houston, and was just wondering where you got the information on Australian television coverage and Viacom involvement. On the former, I wonder if you know more about other overseas broadcast. I know there was a World Distributor's annual in 1967 for the show, so that implies it must've also been shown in the UK, but I can't find anything specific about it. And on the latter, I'm really surprised. It would appear to me that the chain seems to have been that it went to Artisan, and then to Lion's Gate. How would it have ended up at VIacom, especially since Viacom is now allied to CBS? Either way, it's sort of questionable to me whether it's worth keeping in the article. Are the distribution rights for a show that's unlikely to be syndicated actually notable? CzechOut 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The only ancillary product from the television series, at least that I am aware of, was a book of Temple Houston short stories published in Australia in 1965, with a color photo of Jeffrey Hunter in the role on the cover. I have a copy. (From what I know of the episode plot lines, I don't think any of the stories in the book were adapted from the series.) With the knowledge of this book, I asked at the television message boards at the Internet Movie Database whether Temple Houston was shown on Australian TV. I got several replies saying that it had been, in the mid-1960s. For a while I was trying to obtain episode tapes from Artisan Entertainment, and during the process I asked if it had been shown anywhere else in the last few decades, and was told no, it had not (although, come to think of it, Artisan probably wouldn't know about non-U.S. distribution). Frankly, I included the information about distribution rights in the hope that it might inspire interest in showing the series again, somewhere. As for who currently holds the U.S. television distribution rights to the series, I'm willing to be proven wrong. The relationship between Artisan, Lions Gate, Viacom, Republic, and CBS got very complex over the last few years, and I tried to piece together the relationships. I have yet to get a reply from my queries to NBC on who holds the TV rights. I know Artisan was acquired by Lions Gate in 2003. I'll change the article to say Lions Gate, since that much I am sure of. Lions Gate recently entered into a partnership with iTunes to distribute old television shows; I've got my fingers crossed that Temple Houston will eventually be offered. (Last I checked, though, Artisan had only 16mm negatives, and didn't know who had the 35mm elements.) By the way, do you know anyone who owns copies of episodes? — Walloon 05:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow. DIdn't see that you'd responded to me, here. Thanks for your kind words over on my talk page about the article. But I should point out that the improvements were very much down to you showing an interest in the article and helping it to grow. I wish I knew someone who owned copies of the episodes, as I'd especially like to see the first episode, at least. I'm still kinda flummoxed over this annual, though, and the Australian broadcast. World International is a major historical player in British Annuals, and every listing I've seen indicates a Manchester origin. But, hey, you're the one with the copy. If it really doesn't say "World International (Manchester)", then it doesn't. I just can't imagine that the show was actually shown there in the sixties, much less 64. From what I can gather, Oz was very much behind us in terms of airing shows. Only the biggest hits really got an immediate place on the schedules, cause there just weren't that many television stations. DIsneyland for example, doesn't appear to have aired until 69. Hell, Australia didn't even have color TV until 1975. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 01:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm at law school now and my copy of the Temple Houston Annual is back home, so I can't check the publication information. But you may be right, the annual could have also been published in England. I know the Times of London is now all digitalized online. Did the Times have television listings in the 1960s? The next time I'm at a library with a subscription to the online Times archives, I'll have to check for Temple Houston. Are you in England? — Walloon 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Filmmaking Announcement

A PROPOSED PROJECT MERGER with WikiProject Films is under consideration. All opinions and questions are strongly encouraged! Girolamo Savonarola 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Timeline

Walloon-

Thanks for catching those couple mistakes there. I'll plead morning uncaffination as to the cause. Desk Jockey 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lee harvey oswald?

You seem more of an expert on it than I. I will not go into the source that i thought was highly reputable that said mine was the correct date for it is wrong doing so. I am apologize for the misunderstanding. After re search i find yours is the good version. Sorry! I also do not know if this place is right for replying to comment/message? SO i put this in two places to be sure you read it. — 24.183.14.168 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

again my lee harvey oswald mistake

because of this, please put in multiple place, so that my talk page does not become like wheelie bin, and yours does not create false information what so ever. — 24.183.14.168 20:22, 15 September 2007) (UTC)

Re: Porter

Thank you! I appreciate it. Biruitorul 14:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

lee harvey oswald

Well you're almost sorta close. I dont know where the hell you got west bend from. Ip relay =/= actual location. also please stop making death threats over the internet. — 24.183.14.168 14:00, 16 September 2007) (UTC)

What are you talking about? Make another libelous claim like that and you will be blocked from Wikipedia. — Walloon 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine then, don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.14.168 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll also have you know that english is NOT my first language, so making assumptions based on an "educated guess" location is .....uh.....wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.14.168 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well i'm done. Just messing around. The reason i actually changed it is a textbook i just looked through before checking the wikipedia page. Just for the record and stuff. GOtta go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.14.168 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Edwin Walker

Thank you for contributing the reference to the communist paper calling upon the government to go after Edwin Walker. The timing of this publication and the other events surrounding Oswald's attempt on Walker's life is now taking on an even more clear picture. Yosemite1967 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree, it all starts to make much more sense when the chronology and context are seen. — Walloon 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith question

Hi, Walloon! Question --- I see that you have edited the Anna article a few times and I have a quesiton for you: Do you feel that the Anna Nicole Smith judge, Larry Seidlin, still deserves his own article? Do you think he's still newsworthy and/or a historical figure, or do you think his "15 minutes of fame" are now up? Would a tabloid article rumor (with no official sources backing it up) that he may get a TV show make him still notable enough to have his own article or do you think he should be merged into Anna's article? From your response on the Anna talk page, I see you are a real stickler for reliable sources and not very big on rumors and gossip as a basis for an article.--Bamadude 00:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

His 15 minutes of fame are up. No Wiki for him. — Walloon 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

SMILE!!!

AFUSCO has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sorry for the accidental revert but it difficult to tell vandalism from legitimate edits with all the vandalism:)--AFUSCO 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile! It put one on my face. — Walloon 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tara troll

I'm wondering, do you still think there's the slightest chance that this character is not a troll?

• It's used a sock puppet.
• It's lied about knowing me.
• It's claimed to be a "senior researcher" while being unable to locate the L.A. Times online archive.
• It's claimed to be unable to access the readily accessible L.A. Times online archive.
• It's claimed articles cost $40 when they cost $4.
• It's changed its story from the claim that the Tara set was never at 40 Acres at all to the claim that not only was it there but that it was there long after multiple newspapers reported its removal in 1959.
• It claims to see the set in a 1965 photo of 40 Acres when nothing that looks like it is there.

You have made your case definitively, many times over. I propose it's high time we start treating the troll the way it deserves to be treated--by collectively identifying it as a troll and engaging in no further debate with it.—DCGeist 22:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he's a troll or not (I don't see trolling activity in his other contributions to Wikipedia). But we have proven our case beyond any reasonable doubt, and I likewise have reached the conclusion that engaging him in further debate is pointless. BTW, I think if you look at SUNY Boy's earliest contributions, you might infer who he is. Thanks for your help in this matter. Hope I can return the favor. — Walloon 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hilarious. TB--well-initialed. And I'm not so sure there's no history of trolling. This edit to Elvis Presley for instance [1]: the claim that his Jewish maternal great-great-grandmother "classifies him as Jewish in the Jewish religion." Of course, it doesn't--even assuming no conversions, no childhood baptisms, it would classify him as a Jew only if that woman was his mother's mother's mother's mother. That doesn't smell like a simple error to me, it smells like a typically maddening troll edit.—DCGeist 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tara on MGM's Lot #2

"Walloon", while I appreciate your suggestion, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to hike out to Long Island to grab a copy of photos that "Will" says he already has. Furthermore, why would anyone in their right mind make such a trek for the sake of a web site? Again, if "Will" is truly interested in putting all of this to rest, he can simply post the photos. The photographic proof will put to rest once and for all the question of this second Tara set having once existed on MGM's lot #2.

BTW, I also appreciate the softening of the earlier tone to your jottings. It definitely makes it much easier to conduct a civil debate. 24.45.196.36 18:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC One

The third paragraph of the History section of the BBC One article does contain the information that you (rightly) consider important:

BBC television initially used two systems, on alternate weeks: the 240-line Baird system and the 405-line Marconi-EMI system, each making the BBC the world's first regular high-definition television service…

That is in addition to the same information being in the footnote from the article's first paragraph. — Walloon 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the fact that now there's no mention of the intermediate film system except in the footnote Zir 00:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And I'm the original author of that article on the intermediate film system! I'll add a reference to it in the History section of the BBC One article. Thanks for your reply. — Walloon 01:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:RCA CT-100 Rose Bowl.jpg

Concern has been raised that the CC-by-2.5 licence on Image:RCA CT-100 Rose Bowl.jpg may not be valid, and the image may be deleted if such concerns are not resolved. See discussion on Commons. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Field-sequential color system

Thanks for the feedback on the edits - obviously lots more to be done but the article has improved a lot in just a few days. --Wtshymanski 02:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Goldmark1940color.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Goldmark1940color.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. --OrphanBot 08:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blowup1966dvdr.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Blowup1966dvdr.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Amandalexx (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale now provided. If it's of any help, I'm a law student going into intellectual property, and am familiar with fair use principles. I think this case falls well within fair use. — Walloon (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Motion Picture Patents Company

Someone posted a PROD tag on Motion Picture Patents Company because of the lack of sources. I did a quick check and tossed in a few out of the undreds available. The article doesn't look bad, but there are some assertions that should get inline references. Would improving that article or its referencing interest you? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What is a "PROD tag"? I agree that the article needs to be improved. The claim that Edison controlled "the patent" for raw film stock sounds dubious; I thought Edison lost that patent claim in 1902 (is 1912 an error for 1902?). Eileen Bowser covers the MPPC well in her book The Transformation of Cinema, 1907–1915, vol. 2 of the History of the American Cinema series. Vol. 2 climaxes with the dissolution of the MPPC. There is also a doctoral dissertation, The Motion Picture Patents Company, by Robert Jack Anderson, that I have access to. What I don't have right now is time, being in exam period at law school. Perhaps over the next month or two. — Walloon 00:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Stco23

The World Almanac lists her birth date at 1919. I don't know if the censes are true or not, but I would leave her birth date at 1919.--Stco23 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If Veronica Lake (Constance Ockelman) does not exist in the 1920 U.S. Census, and both of her parents are unmarried and living in different states, with no children, then it is very unlikely that she was born in 1919. The World Almanac is wrong. I have corrected the Wikipedia article to 1922. — Walloon (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry you're right. I will tell the people of The World Almanac to change her birth date to 1922 for the next World Almanac book. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I Am Curious (Yellow) and Byrne v. Karalexis

Hi Walloon,

I changed a sentence you worked on at I Am Curious (Yellow)#Censorship; I thought I'd let you know because you may know more about the subject than I do. (See also Talk:I Am Curious (Yellow)#court decisions.)

Joriki (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. It's been a long time since I edited that article. — Walloon (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have reviewed John F. Kennedy assassination and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunn's Falls

Thanks for the help over at WK:Media Copyright Questions. I'll try to contact the publisher in the next week or so. Since there is a clear rationale for public domain, I can scan/upload the pages as pdfs, right? Do you know of any site that would allow me to do so? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to use the scans for publication as illustrations on Wikipedia, they should be in the form of JPEG files, not PDFs. The JPEG files should be uploaded directly to Wikipedia. Use this copyright notice: Template:PD-US. — Walloon (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, JPG for the pictures I know, but I would like to upload the TEXT in the book as a pdf, so others can read what I'm reading, making the information verifiable. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Free online file storage and file sending. — Walloon (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)==Image copyright problem with Image:Castle Films TM.jpg==

Image Copyright problem

Hi Walloon!
We thank you for uploading Image:Castle Films TM.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

John Ford edit - the long (—) dash?

How do you make the long (—) dash when you edit? I can only make the shot one (-) unless I COPY+PASTE. Is there a keyboard shortcut? IP4240207xx (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

On my Macintosh keyboard, I press Option+Shift and the hyphen key. But the long dash (em dash) is also available here at Wikipedia when using the edit window. Below the edit window is a line of characters after the label "Insert:" The second character is the long dash, which you can click on to add wherever the cursor is inside the edit window. — Walloon (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nellie Connally

Thanks Walloon, you fitted that in very nicely. I really wasn't sure where to insert it into the article without making a complete mess. It looks good now. I had to add that as I recall reading it in papers and the Sixth Floor Museum mentions it.Even if you and I do not agree on Oswald thank you for keeping my edit.17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

Nellie Connally's WC testimony says the limo had turned off Main, but doesn't say whether it was on Houston or Elm when she made her comment. John Connally says it was on Houston before they turned onto Elm. John says JFK responded, Nellie doesn't mention a response; I decided to omit that point.

The citation link you provided to the TV station doesn't appear to have anything on the JFK assassination. — Walloon (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that tv station was reporting the death of Nellie Connally and mentooned that she was the last person to speak to Kennedy.As I said, you inserted the piece very nicely. The Sixth Floor Museum doesn't mention that Kennedy ever replied to her.jeanne (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lee Oswald

You seem to have missed the point. I have amended the text, but you have still removed a citation that supports the text above it. I ahve put it back in, and kept the text regarding "stalking" out. Please read first. Dapi89 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack and Jill (magazine)

Thanks for your improvements to Jack and Jill. It seems like you are familiar with this mag. Although I'm working on the article, I've never actually seen an issue of Jack and Jill. If you could add anything along the lines of a description of the magazine, typical contents, it would be very helpful. ike9898 (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the magazine. Last read one or two issues of it when I was a child, decades ago. — Walloon (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinescope photo

Hi - you mentioned on the Kinescope talk page a year ago you were going to add a photo, but I see there's no photo. Was it vandalized/removed? If you have a chance, could you re-add it? The history started in 2008 so it looks like the article was started afresh or something. Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I said on the discussion page that I would add a link to a photo of a kinescope machine, and I did. See the "External links" section of the article. — Walloon (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Halloween

See our 10 day trial at Did you know? Victuallers (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor

Could you help with this article or ask some to help me with it please. — Mr Hall of England (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What help do you need? — Walloon (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

Thank you for your interest in WikiProject Halloween! There is now sufficient interest to create this fledgling WikiProject. Please visit the project page and sign up. There is not much to the page as yet, and your input in helping us focus our efforts and recruit new members will be invaluable!--otherlleft (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a Halloween in the United States better than Halloween celebrations or Halloween around the world, at least for now. After all we can find sources and that should in turn help clean up Halloween a bit. Think that should be our first coordination?

Ok. Does that mean a new article? Or refining the U.S. section of the current Halloween article? — Walloon (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that a new one might be a better choice, because 1) the original is pretty long already, and 2) a fresh start might be easier. Do you have thoughts on the merits of either way?--otherlleft (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Trick-or-treating

How would you assess this article for quality as it stands?--otherlleft (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly be objective. I wrote most of the article, except the sections about modern guising, and similar practices in other countries. — Walloon (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look but I shoulda guessed! It is, however, now assessed.--otherlleft (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Featuring Halloween

I have started a discussion thread about getting the Halloween article up to FA status. Your comments and participation are most welcome.--otherlleft (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Jeffrey Hunter.jpg

Image:Jeffrey Hunter.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Jeffrey Hunter-Sergeant Rutledge (1960).jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Jeffrey Hunter-Sergeant Rutledge (1960).jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter

The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

John Edward Pic

Hallo,

i wright from germany, so sorry for my bad english. I'm searching for the date of the death from John Edward Pic. Can you say me, where you have find the year 2000?

Please write to my e-mail [email protected] or on my homepage [[2]].

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.243.16 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Veterans Gravesites, ca. 1775-2006 about John E Pic

Name: John E. Pic

Service Information: US AIR FORCE

Birth Date: 17 Jan 1932

Death Date: 25 Apr 2000

Cemetery: Evergreen Memorial

Cemetery Address: 2403 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32405

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Derivative works

Hi, I undid your change at His Girl Friday based on what I know. Do you disagree? I notice you've made similar changes to other public-domain movies as well. :) Shreevatsa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The distinction you added is correct. Although the film's copyright has expired, the film is basically unusable without permission from the copyright owners of the play The Front Page. — Walloon (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see why many kinds of derivative works would infringe the copyright of the play and be a problem, but it's still public-domain in the sense that it can be reproduced freely, e.g. there are many cheap DVDs available and it's available for download from archive.org. So it qualifies as a public-domain film, right? (And is the situation different with the other films?) Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, those unauthorized copies of His Girl Friday are infringing the copyright of the owners of the play The Front Page. But for whatever reason, they are not enforcing their claim. It's a boundary-pushing situation — the public domain distributors will keep on distributing as long as they can get away with it. Sometimes the owners of the underlying literary work fight back. The U.S. copyright of the 1938 film version of Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion expired in 1966, but the copyright owners of the play took a PD distributor to court and won enforcement of its underlying copyright claim vis-a-vis the 1938 film. Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1979). The owners of the film rights of the short story "The Greatest Gift" left it be known to PD distributors of It's a Wonderful Life that they intended to enforce their copyright, and have successfully driven PD copies of the film off the market, and have limited television showings to licensed showings. — Walloon (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That was informative, thanks. Quite sad. Still, it is notable that the copyrights on the films themselves have expired, so the films really ought to be in "Category:Public domain films" IMHO: it's just that when/if the articles actually say that the films are in the public domain, they ought to add the caveat to avoid possibly misleading readers (as in His Girl Friday). Do you agree? Shreevatsa (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We editors need to work on a consensus of what a "public domain" film is. I am for a strict definition that with a "public domain" film, there are no rights issues. I would accept an explanation that "although the U.S. copyright of the film has expired, the underlying (story, novel, play) is still under copyright." But I hesitate to use the blanket term "public domain film" because the whole film is not in the public domain, only those parts of the film that are not derived from the underlying work are in the public domain. We should continue this discussion at Category talk:Public domain films. — Walloon (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dave Arneson

HI there,

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship, and to thank you very much for your help with Dave Arneson's article in the wake of his passing! There are articles on other early designers of the game from the 1970's era that may need work, such as Brian Blume, Mike Carr, Tim Kask, Robert J. Kuntz, and Jim Ward, and many other articles in the D&D game designers category (and its subcategories), if you want to do more work on this important subject.

You may have noticed me saying that I wanted to get Arneson's article up to "Good article" status; I intend to do so as a tribute to Dave. We at the D&D WikiProject have already gotten the following articles promoted to GA: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and have just nominated Neverwinter Nights 2, so I don't see any reason we can't do the same now with Dave's article now that you and others have helped to improve it greatly.

Any further help you can give on this article would be appreciated! Drop by the project's talk page, where we are discussing our Good Articles, and ask questions or offer assistance. Thanks again! BOZ (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I really know nothing about the subject of Dungeons and Dragons, or those who created the game. But I have access to birth, marriage, and death information. A friend mourned the death of Dave Arneson, so I looked him up in Wikipedia to see who Arneson was. — Walloon (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, your help is appreciated all the same. :) I suspected you may have been around just to add a few bits, but any help is good help. BOZ (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media

Greetings. I've seen you at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, and I thought I'd let you know about a new project (combining several inactive projects and breathing new life into the amalgamation) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. I hope this becomes a centralized location for discussion of image tags, Commons migration, deletion policy, and all other things media-related. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick yearbook question

Per your reply, how did you find such an old Boise High yearbook? I had to ask. Beantwo (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I subscribe to Ancestry.com, which includes a large on-line collection of old high school yearbooks from every state. They have yearbooks from 14 cities in Idaho, including two schools in Boise; one of those schools is Boise High School. The only yearbook they have from Boise High School is the 1931 edition. — Walloon (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Peggy Webling

.

Nice expansion! Thmazing (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hazard Reeves

Can you check out the article I started on Hazard E. Reeves, please? Someone's tagged it with being "not notable," which isn't true, as Reeves was a famous inventor and businessman in motion pictures, "unsourced," even though it has one source posted already, and "not neutral," whatever that means (I thought I was quite NPOV in my description of him). Thanks! The Photoplayer 21:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Continental

I got the date from the tv.com entry for the show. Which doesn't actually mention the show being revived at any point. Looking at the source on the article itself saying that the show was due for another season, I can't see any mention of The Continental at the source. This might just be my ignorance though so I won't touch it until we're agreed. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Judyth Vary Baker

Please contribute to the deletion discussion, but please take care to stay civil and to base your argument on Wikipedia policy. Fences&Windows 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

New Orleans, Garrison and Baker

Hi, I thought that with this recent Judyth Baker business, it's high time that the JFK conspiracies page finally got a section on the Garrison Affair. I don't think anything I've written will ignite any edit wars, as all the Garrison-related stuff is just cut and paste from other articles. I'm hoping what I've written will also provide a good substitute for the Baker page that's going to be deleted. Any ideas you have are quite welcome. Thanks, Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I researched and wrote a whole article on Garrison's key witness, Perry Russo, that was later deleted. Arggggh. There already is an adequate Wikipedia article about the Garrison case; couldn't it be summarized for the JFK conspiracy page? Or does it have to have a pro-conspiracy slant for that page? — Walloon (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Films

Thanks for expanding the articles for The Silent Command and The Rejected Woman! Lugnuts (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lugosi in He Who Gets Slapped

The reference to Lugosi possibly being in He Who Gets Slapped goes further than a particular actor who looks like him. Richard Sheffield, who was friends with Lugosi in the '50s, remembers seeing a still in Lugosi's collection of Chaney and him shaking hands on the set of the film. The entire account was published in an issue of Filmfax magazine about ten or fifteen years ago. Unfortunately, the still has not surfaced since. The Photoplayer 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appeciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing photo

It used to be on commons but was deleted bc there was no evidence of copyright nonrenewal.[3] Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cinecolor Cisco Kid

Hi Walloon. I have no formal source that Cisco Kid had a Cinecolor credit. For Christmas Santa gave me a 5 DVD set of the episodes when I had asked around if it had been made in Cinecolor.

I base my claim on the following, 1)The greens of the vegetation in the background resemble Cinecolor 2)Cinecolor was the cheapest colour process and was able to have been used in black and white cameras 3)1950 and 1951 was in the peak of the Cinecolor era 4)The colour is not credited such as 'Eastman' 5)Based on these items and a long period of research has not proved the use of Eastman Colour Adios, AmigoFoofbun (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

JFK Assassination article - Tippit murder deletions

I've started a discussion section at the John F. Kennedy Assassination article to discuss your recent deletions.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blowup1966dvdr.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blowup1966dvdr.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 will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received 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 somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Audio theatre

Hi, I am a person from Germany. Possibly you can look on the discussion of the article: Audio theatre, because you have made edits in the past on articles which are related with it. with friendly greetings, Soenke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Theta Chi coat of arms.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Theta Chi coat of arms.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 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Irving Christmas Day.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Irving Christmas Day.jpeg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind

Hi Walloon, I'm just letting you know that Gone with the Wind (film) has been promoted to Good Article status. Sadly, you no longer seem to be around, but you contributed as much as anyone to that article and I am pretty sure it wouldn't be at the stage it is without your participation. Betty Logan (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Pillar of Fire and Other Plays, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Pillar of Fire and Other Plays" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 22:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit and Other Plays, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit and Other Plays" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 01:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Gone with the Wind (film) (estimated annual readership: 1,203,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Gone with the Wind (film) to Good Article status.

I know you're no longer active here, but on the chance that you still check this user page, I wanted to leave this note of thanks on behalf of the millions of readers who still benefit from your work. Thanks for all you've done--I hope we see you back again some day. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work on Halloween pages - P.S: Revisionists are at work on the Jack-O'-Lantern page, some back-up is required ;-) Huxley10 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Howard Brennan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Howard Brennan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Brennan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Promotion of Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Congratulations, Walloon! The article you nominated, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Walloon, I think you would have got around to this eventually, but now your name's on there in perpetuity. It's a shame we never had a chance to meet: I think we'd have got along. Rest well. ~ HAL333 01:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Precious

gone with the wind

Thank you for your share to quality articles such as Assassination of John F. Kennedy and Gone with the Wind, reaching a great audience, for excellent reviewing as for Halloween, for your self portrait, - Steven, I wish I had known you, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2897 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)