User talk:Jihg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Powell & Pressburger
2 Class in the U.S. article
3 Anime Articles
4 British films
5 Pinewood
6 Garrick cats
7 RE: David Lean
8 Merchant & Ivory
9 Pygmalion (1938 film)
10 Primeval
11 Image tagging for Image:North_by_Northwest_Martin_Landau.jpg
12 Fair use rationale for Image:Archers-Blimp-Duel-RogerLivesey.jpg
13 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Archers-IKWIG-Hiller.jpg)
14 Fair use rationale for Image:Pygmalion-PlayCover.jpg
15 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Maurice1987Film.jpg
16 Book cover image
17 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Archers-AMOLAD-Beach-Niven.jpg)

[edit] Powell & Pressburger

Is there any particular reason why you created the Powell and Pressburger article the way you did instead of just renaming the existing The Archers (film production) article? --Paul A 03:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No there wasn't. You're right, I should have moved it to preserve the history. Jihg 07:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Class in the U.S. article

You wrote on your user page that you'd like to improve Class in the United States, circa 2004. I've done some work on it, and would like to rename it, for two reasons:

2004 is about to go retro, and
I'm sure the article applies to more than just the United States. Your input, as you indicate residence in the United Kingdom, would be quite valuable.

If I'm going to rename it, what do you think the article should be called? "Class in the Contemporary United States"? "Social class in early 21st-century capitalism"?

What are your thoughts? EventHorizon 06:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article has certainly improved since I said that: there are now a range of opinions, and even subheadings! I agree it needs renaming. "Social Class in the Contemporary United States" would be a good description. I don't think the article (as it is now) should be widened to early 21st century capitalism --- there are too many differences between societies (certainly between UK and USA). There are other issues I have with the article, and I'll raise them on its talk page. Jihg 10:35, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anime Articles

Hi Jihg,

Why did you move the "not yet written Anime-articles" to the discussion-page?

I would like to get peoples opinion about it, before we dismiss this idea. If you don't like this idea, please specify why. Now, with your move, the people don't see anylonger what the idea was about.

Please let me know, why you don't like this list.

Thanks :-) Fantasy 容 11:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: If you maybe give a look at List_of_anime you understand better what the idea was about...

I'm not dismissing the idea, but it made the category page unusable. Such pages are usually a short description, perhaps with a link to an article defining the category. The list a great idea, and it makes more sense to have it on the talk page - after all its about work that needs to be done on the category. No offence meant :) Jihg 11:57, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was not offended, I just wanted to discuss about it.

You have a point, but if you look at my discussion page, the first thing that someone said, after your move, was "where are the red linkes gone?". You see, the red things are really important to many people. And they belong to this category, not to the discussion. They don't exist, but they are to be categorised there.

And the usability, we can optimise it. But I rather would say, that the discussion page is the wrong place. Better to look for improving the categry-page. Fantasy 容 12:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do, and agree in spirit. But the list is a comment about the category, not a description of it. That's what talk pages are for. You could put a link on the category page to draw people's attention to the list. Good luck with your Anime articles! Jihg 12:41, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. You are right, a link is probably the best solution. The question then remains, where the right place for the missing articles is. We will find a way to solve it. Thanks for your comments :-) Fantasy 容 12:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: Regarding "agree in spirit", I think in small categories it could make sense, if only 5 or 10 missing articles exist, what do you say?

[edit] British films

What exactly is your criteria you use for adding Category:British films? Reply on Category talk:Films by country. Cburnett 01:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pinewood

I want friends, not enemies, go ahead. I only fret where someone is trying to create misleading or incorrect information important to me. I did not intend to step on your toes over subjective matter, sorry about that. Feel free to change it. MPLX/MH 00:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Garrick cats

Whoops, sorry! Done. --Bishonen|Talk 13:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: David Lean

In the David Lean article you put "Gabriel Pascal's Pygmalion." But didn't George Bernard Shaw write this work? WikiDon 22:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Pascal produced the film - but I see you've already found this out without my help :-) Jihg 10:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merchant & Ivory

Hi there, thanks very much for your note about Merchant & Ivory.

Most newspaper obituaries of Ismail Merchant did not address directly his romantic relationship with James Ivory. A notable exception was the Los Angeles Times - one of the three major US national newspapers.

Please see this link to the obit article in the LA Times archives:

Obituary of Ismail Merchant, LA Times, May 26 2005

Note how the first line of the article excerpt describes James Ivory as Merchant's life partner in addition to being a professional partner. The full article (I have the full article from a commercial database with restricted access) ends with the line:

"In addition to Ivory, Merchant is survived by sisters Saherbanu Kabadia, Sahida Retiwala, Ruksana Khan and Rashida Bootwala."

i.e. Ivory is treated with greater priority in that final sentence than Merchant's 4 sisters, and the use of "survived" indicates a personal relationship.

There was some unhappiness in the LGBT community that most obituraries censored or used euphemisms for the personal relationship between Merchant and Ivory e.g. The original Guardian obit (there were 2) used a pointed and emphatic last line "He did not marry."

Please see also this column from the Washington Post, another of the major 3 US national newspapers addressing this unhappiness about the censorship:

"Question Celebrity", Washington Post, June 26 2005

and this one from the LGBT newspaper, The Washington Blade:

"News organizations ignore gay filmmaker’s sexual orientation"

[edit] Pygmalion (1938 film)

I noted that in your recent revision of Pygmalion (1938 film) you omitted any reference to Gabriel Pascal from the main body of the article. I see he is in the credits box. Is there some reason for that? It seems to me, from all I have read, that the Shaw/Pascal partnership was a large part of the story behind this particular film. There are at least two books which talk at length about this partnership, "The Disciple and His Devil" and "Bernard Shaw and Gabriel Pascal". No mention of the consetions that Pascal got Shaw to make on the ending, and other changes, which become important when you understand how stubborn Shaw was. Is there any way you could slip something back in? Cott12 14:51, July 9 2006

I agree, there should be more on Pascal. The old article just mentioned he was the producer, which I moved to the infobox. (I don't see any point in duplicating that in the main text.) But feel free to put more detail on him and Shaw in the article. Its an important film and it deserves more depth. Cheers Jihg 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primeval

Jihg, why did you revert my changes to the amount of episodes area? Only 4 episodes have actually aired, wikipedia goes by the amount that have aired so far, not by how many there are, because they have not aired yet.. Reply to me on my talk page please.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I'm sorry.. Also, um, what about this, we could put 6 for the total, and in ( ), we can put like 6 (produced, 4 aired).. What do you think? Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Predominantly articles go by episodes aired (even the British one I have watchlisted). Matthew 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea - something like "6 (4 aired)" would be the clearest and most informative. Matthew - I hadn't noticed that, but I only watch a few TV articles. If that's the consensus I think Illyria's idea would be an improvement. Is there a WP/TV project policy on this already? Jihg 08:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:North_by_Northwest_Martin_Landau.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:North_by_Northwest_Martin_Landau.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Archers-Blimp-Duel-RogerLivesey.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Archers-Blimp-Duel-RogerLivesey.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Archers-IKWIG-Hiller.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pygmalion-PlayCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pygmalion-PlayCover.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.

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Maurice1987Film.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Maurice1987Film.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book cover image

This is to let you know that I've orphaned the fair use image Image:Pygmalion-PlayCover.jpg, and replaced it with Image:Pygmalion serialized November 1914.jpg, an image in the public domain. For more information, see the book cover replacement project. Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chick, that's a much nicer image as well Jihg (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Archers-AMOLAD-Beach-Niven.jpg)

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

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.