User talk:Heron/2011

File source problem with File:Clovehitch.png

Thank you for uploading File:Clovehitch.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted that image and added a GFDL-self tag to that image. --Heron (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iec or.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iec or.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember where this image came from so I'm not going to oppose its deletion. --Heron (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wise old Aesop

Hi, Heron, we've not 'met' before but I see you were on Aesop and Aesop's Fables today performing some very canny edits which deserve complimenting. WP needs more like you with an eye for detail and the gift of succinct redrafting. I see you've already been given a barnstar; consider this as a quick sleeve-brush to keep it shining! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, thanks Mzilikazi1939. On a big, messy project like Wikipedia, a perfectionist's work is never done! I hope we 'meet' again. --Heron (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:OED2-CD-1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:OED2-CD-1.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a rationale statement. Please LMK if I need to do any more. --Heron (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A second opinion, or some advice if you can, please

Hello. Sorry to appear "out of the blue" but I'm trying to find a neutral outsider to take a view on what's happening with The Third Man. At the moment there's something of an aching disagreement between a number of editors (of whom I would now include myself) and an apparently well-esconced though relatively new arrival over the article - specifically its "Plot". I have been impressed by what I have seen of your sensitive editing of the "Plot" of Brief Encounter and thought you might be able to help.

I am, I guess, the latest arrival in the editing process of the "Plot" section of The Third Man article, which has become, IMHO, starved to the point of losing some of its essential features. First, I tried to amend the final sentence thus: [[1]]. This was reverted without explanation; when I asked for one on the talk page, pointing out that "Holly has made some sacrifice to stay behind after the funeral, which makes [Anna's] snubbing of him the more cutting", I was told "It's a summary, not a blow by blow account of what has happened in each scene". I thought it over for over a day, then came and reread the "Plot" and attempted to at least clarify those points of the plot which seemed unnecessarily befogged by the cutting process, thus [[2]]. This was almost totally reverted, save for some trifling points of punctuation and a word or two [[3]].

Several past editors, who have similarly attempted to make the plot reflect the character of the film rather than an unhelpful and jejune summary of no use to either newcomer or aficionado, have evidently been driven away by an obdurate policy to make The Third Man appear a mere action film: sadly this includes HarringtonSmith, who I've never had the pleasure to work with but whose work I have discovered through looking at The Third Man - evidently he had considerable responsibility in giving it what quality it has.

Would you mind having a look at what is happening with this article, and the "Plot" section in particular, and letting me know if there's some sensible way of improving this situation; or if you think I am going about things the wrong way, do let me know. Sorry for having gone on at some length about this. I would be most grateful if you are able to offer any advice or assistance. Alfietucker (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alfie. Films like this deserve our best effort. I shall certainly have a look at the article and see if I can help, although I am a bit busy right now. My first thought, without having looked at the article recently, is that perhaps we need a mechanical plot summary followed by a section on interpretations. The latter must of course be referenced and not just the editor's opinion. --Heron (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back so quickly about this. I think your expert input would be very welcome, though I understand you are very busy at present. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked more closely at the recent edits and the present summary is quite good. I understand your desire to communicate the atmosphere as well as the action, but many editors will consider this to be subjective and I understand why they have reverted your additions even though you are well within the suggested word count limit. To take the argument to the extreme, the WP article is not meant to be a substitute for watching the film. I agree with you on the final sentence, though: it helps to know that Martins is risking missing his flight. Perhaps this is the one motivational detail that deserves to make it into this summary, due to the length and intensity of the final scene. I will try to re-insert this fact in the most objective possible way. If I were you I wouldn't worry too much about the disagreements between editors, since everybody in this case is behaving constructively and the differences in opinion are minor. This is a picnic compared to some articles I have worked on! --Heron (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for having a look - and I approve of your amendment at the end. It did need something more there; I wonder if perhaps I might return and reinstate Harry's "disappearance" following the doorway scene. Anyway, thanks again. Alfietucker (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]