User talk:Thephotoplayer

This user may have left Wikipedia. Thephotoplayer has not edited Wikipedia since May 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I couldn't find any info on a film called The Red Light that you had listed in the Handschiegel article, and the

Obviously, the IMDb is not a complete listing, and unless such facts were listed in the National Exhibitor's yearly listing or were added by a private user, they will not appear there. RED LIGHT should be RED LIGHTS (1923). I will correct this. SEVEN KEYS TO BALDPATE should be the 1925 version. The source for both can be found in trade reviews of the time (to which I have yet unearthed what exactly wast colored). When I look into them a little more, I will be sure to post on the page my findings. Thephotoplayer 09:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I listed

The Cue Sheets weren't copyrighted in the first place (it wouldn't make sense, since EVERYONE was going to be using its ideas). The cue sheet layout was patented by M.J. Mintz, but that expired in 1943. Thank you for your concern, however. The Photoplayer 09:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply. Yeah cue sheets as such (the notes and lines and what not) are not copyrightable, however just like a letter of the alphabet is not copyrighted a sequence of letters that make up a poem or a song lyrics can be copyrighted, I would asume the same to apply to a sequence of notes on a cue sheet that make up original music. I mean how would a composer make a living if all cue sheets are automaticaly in the public doman? They would have no controll over theyr creation once it was published if that was the case. If these particular music pieces where out of copyright due to age then sorry for the trouble (as far as I could tell they they where published at a time that would imply that they might still be in copyright though), however note that the PUI process does not result in automatic deletion after 14 days unless it is withdrawn. If a convincing argument for why the images where in fact public domain had been made on the PUI page then the closing admin where supposed to take that into consideration before desciding wether or not to delete the image. So I asume he or she agreed that they where still arguably copyrighted since they where deleted. Sorry if I did not make it clear enough that you needed to post your argument on the images listing on

WP:PUI itself though (I don't remember if you did). --Sherool (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for replying. I think you're confusing the fact that the cue sheet doesn't contain the entire piece of music, just a few bars for recognition purposes (this falls under fair use of 7 seconds or 8 bars of music). In any case, the two pieces of music that were listed on the cue sheet detail were before 1923 and were public domain anyway. The idea was that you looked though your music collection to see if you had it (based on the title, composer, and those few bars) and if not, then you could order it through the cue sheet company, or simply replace the piece.

Anyway, I guess just putting in a different detail or leaving it be would probably solve this. While scanning doesn't particularly take a long time, finding a good example, scanning it, cleaning it up, posting it and editing the article is all time consuming. Next time, I'll be a little more detailed in what the background is on the image.The Photoplayer 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Effort to Revitalize Brooklyn's Loew's Kings Movie Palace.

Hopefully, I will be there. The Photoplayer 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You tagged the link to SabuCat productions as "official" - while I'm sure that's the official site for SabuCat, I don't think SabuCat are officially connected with "The Stewardesses", which is what I meant when I called them a fan site. They're trying to become redistributors, but until they are, I don't think we should call them official. AnonEMouse 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Joseph is now in fact the legal owner of the film, so it has in fact become the "official" website.The Photoplayer 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be back to IRC in a few minutes, my connection got screwy. It takes it a few minutes to clear my previous IRC login. I don't usually leave without saying good bye.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 10:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer is appreciated. Unfortunatly, there are others in the admin group who are blind and deaf or just don't care. When I branched off the synop it was in good faith. After EXTENSIVE discussion I have shown the accusations of original reseach to be untrue. The only reponse to my evidence (souces listed) was for the accusations to be repeated and the article SET for deletion. I do not belive that this can go any further. The liars and bigots win. Thanks for your support.

Ammend: Perhaps not. There are a number of people (yourself included, Domo arigato) who have voted on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) page. So, it's possible that the liars and bigots may be put in their place. -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC) ^{speak your mind}[reply]

??????????????? -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind}

I don't know what I can say. This thing will have to run its course. I've spoken my opinion on the matter, as you'll see I'm one of the first who voted. It's a page with promise behind it, but if it's going to stay misguided, there's nothing I can do about it. The Photoplayer 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Noticed that you had signed up on the proposed WikiProjects list as being interested in this. Just wanted to inform you that I've promoted it to a fully-fledged WikiProject at the moment, so please feel free to come on in, sign up, and help out in whatever way you think productive.

Also, I noticed that you have a particular interest in color processes. I was wondering if you might be interested in helping out on work on a listing of the different processes which would be rendered as a comparative chart. I already did one for

Photoplayer (Jack) - welcome to

Color film (motion picture) and List of motion picture film stocks. All the best, LACameraman 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, both Girolamo and LACameraman. I hope that with this project, we can real do a good job on a sadly neglected part of Wikipedia. The Photoplayer 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one use of the title "Plan 9 from Outer Space." Thus, there is no need for the article to be titled "Plan 9 from Outer Space (film)." (Sugar Bear 03:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I believe there is need to specify. Aside from

Plan 9 from Outer Space (computer game), there are several songs and at least two indie bands with the same title. At the least, there should be a disambiguation page. The Photoplayer 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Aside from some fan references, the film is the only use of the title, and the thing most people refer to when they reference the title "Plan 9 from Outer Space." (Sugar Bear 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Not the point. There is already more than one entry of the same title, and a (film) tag helps differentiate it. It is better to put that on there and help curb confusion rather than neglect it.The Photoplayer 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your latest edits to the article. I did want to ask, however, if you could provide some references to two of the statements - the first being the continued usage of the BH perfs in original camera negative (to be honest, I thought that the KS ones were stronger, but that it was equipment considerations which kept BH as camera-standard). The other one would be the law about safety film. Clearly it would not have been a law world-wide, so I believe that it needs clarification and reference. We're trying to drive the article to featured status at the moment, and we may be asked to remove unsourced statements that could be dubious. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 12:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cited (and expanded) the section on perforations. I'm going to have to do a little more research until I can find more substantial sources about the legislation of safety film internationally (I know laws were passed in the US, UK and France relatively early). The Photoplayer 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! All very good, but now I'm getting a bit worried that the section is too deep - there is already a link to the main film perforations article at the top of the section. I might trim it down a bit, if you don't mind. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but when talking about CS sprockets, you mean that they are also compatible with KS perfs, not BH perfs which theaters typically wouldn't be running. In any case, many thanks for the swift response! Girolamo Savonarola 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trim away. I do admit, I can get a little esoteric at times. You might want to add that info to the perf article if any of it isn't there. And yes, thank you for correcting me. I DID mean KS perfs! The Photoplayer 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the improved graph! The colors do make it vastly easier to understand. Girolamo Savonarola 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news - the article is now officially featured! Thanks for your critical help to bringing it to this state. One thing though - I've seen your edits for today, and while I think that they're outstanding, I'm wondering (again) if it's not too in-depth for the article, especially since many of those processes, strictly speaking, aren't necessarily gauge-related in the way that sound formats and aspect ratios would be. Furthermore, in some respects the color section now exceeds the main article, which isn't usually a good sign. Last, since we've gotten the featured status, I think it would be a bad idea to make the page too densely packed with esoteric systems and formats (which I've tried to avoid for the most part in film formats). And I guess the information would also need to be referenced, although I assume that would be little problem for you. This may also be somewhat hypocritical against the fact that I actually still want to do a lot with the page (see User:Girolamo Savonarola/notes). In any case, these are my musings, let me know what you think... Many thanks again! Girolamo Savonarola 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on getting on that one! I had started to survey the topic, but with my current workload both here and in the real world, I doubt I would've gotten around to it before year's end. Lots of formats I've never heard of. There is a lot of work to be done, but nothing seems horrible for a start. (The film formats list was slowly assembled on my user page for about two months before I released it into the wild, which is why it looked so fully formed at the article's start.) My main advice to you for right now is to think less about the content and more about the structure (as it will become more cumbersome to change as the table gets larger). Primarily the following:

1. Use the wiki table syntax.
2. Drop the notes. Anything not technical in nature shouldn't be there anyway - it should be on the article pages for each process. If you must keep the note for technical reasons, turn it into a footnote.
3. Have a link for every process, even if it's red for now.
4. Think, think, think, and think about the table structure. It should be detailed and characterized enough that no two rows should have identical technical specs. You should be able to clearly differentiate formats on the basis of their technical properties alone. If you can't, you need more columns (properties) defined.
5. Try to establish a general continuity of style with the film formats list, if possible.
6. Which colors were used?
7. Start gathering your references now and adding them to the page before you forget what you used.

Hopefully I can give you some more advice soon, but that should be plenty for now. Best of luck! Girolamo Savonarola 03:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I recently acquired some BKSTS magazines which happen to have some articles featuring obscure color formats. I could scan them in for you, if you are interested.

I know what you're going to say and you're right - I shouldn't have just cleared Gorilla at Large and left the comment about you doing it. I was upset. I'm new to Wikipedia - I love films - especially 3D films. Here I thought I'd found this great venue to share my enthusiasm about some of the films so I worked for several days compiling what I felt was a thoughtful and well organized page on Gorilla at Large only to come back later and find it completely edited and changed and no indication in Edit this page or discussion as to why this was done. I was annoyed and felt like there was no consideration for the effort I put into the page so in a weak moment I made a stupid decision to just remove my stuff. In my defense (and this isn't probably much of one) if there had been anything in the discussion section explaining why the changes would have been more appropriate I would gladly have complied. I do, however, think the Trivia about Charlotte Austin and her role in "How to Marry a Millionaire" was interesting and appropriate since she was in Gorilla at Large and there is no Wikipedia page on her to place the info in it. So, anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it; and for what it's worth I'm sorry I did that. Philbertgray 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an e-mail over the weekend. Just wanted to make sure you received it. —The preceding

The other half of this conversation

First of all, thanks for taking the effort of scanning the image. Note however, that the film it was taken from, is dated year 1925. As stated on Wikipedia:Public domain, works that were published before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain. It could of course be that I missed something and the film was explicitly released into the public domain by its copyright holders, but if it wasn't, copyright still apply. It's kind of similar to making a cam rip, someone's putting effort in there but it's still an image of another copyrighted work.

Secondly, even if the image is copyrighted, at least the use on the page I found it on (Technicolor), is probably defensible as fair use. So the image doesn't have to be deleted. It just isn't fair to take someone else's work and release it as GFDL or another license. Tinus 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the original film in the public domain? If you can show a reasonable explanation (or even proof) of why it is, the GFDL tag could indeed be justified. Typically owners don't bother releasing their films though, that's why there is expiration (which hasn't happened to this film yet). Tinus 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't know if there is a way to prove that, at least it should be mentioned at the image. Tinus 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I removed the notice and added some explanation. If there is any suitable evidence that the copyright really has expired, it would be helpful to include that too. Tinus 23:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I know that I haven't been around much in the last year, but I am sort of back now and trying to catch up on things that I left undone when I went on a long unannounced sabbatical from Wikipedia. One of the things that I would like to do it get the film series articles under control. To do that, a few that I have found misnamed need to be renamed according to the naming convention we agreed upon. However, there are those who defend a single word in an article title as if it were sacred, such is the case with a few of the discussions below and the word "trilogy." The detractor(s) for the convention cling to the word trilogy as if for dear life. Could you take a look at the articles in question and give me your opinion on the matter? I would really appreciate your take on this.

Also, the convention we came up with for film series is being discussed further. If you want to jump back into this, please do so.

Thank you for your time. - LA @ 09:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Apocalypse Trilogy
• Apu trilogy
• Black Triad trilogy
• Blade Trilogy
• Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy
• Bourne Trilogy
• BRD Trilogy
• Calcutta trilogy
• Dollars Trilogy
• Europa trilogy
• The Grudge Trilogy
• The Human Condition (film trilogy)
• Koker trilogy
• The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
• Mediocre American Man Trilogy
• Mexico Trilogy
• Pusher trilogy
• Qatsi trilogy
• Road Movie Trilogy
• Samurai Trilogy
• Spy Kids trilogy
• Star Wars original trilogy
• Star Wars prequel trilogy
• The Sabata Trilogy

Thanks for uploading

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

talk) 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

WikiProject Films

December 2007 Newsletter

The

talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Topbananaalbumcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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

talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The Tell-Tale Heart

Hello! Your comment that this film was not released in 3D isn't supported by the reference I included when I expanded this article, so I removed the statement. If you can supply a reference supporting your claim, please feel free to add it and edit the article accordingly. Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I received your note and saw your edits. I'm accepting the offline references in good faith, but the statement I don't understand at all is "the leaders on original prints of the film do not indicate it ever was part of a pair of 3D prints, typical of all other 3D pictures," with the reference Original release print of The Tell-Tale Heart, Columbia Pictures, Copyright 1953. What exactly are the "leaders" to which you refer? I'm assuming that's a technical term with which I'm not familiar. Thank you for the explanation. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello yet again. I answered my own question (and learned something new) by reading Film leader, but now I have another one . . . how could you possibly know "the leaders on original prints of the film do not indicate it ever was part of a pair of 3D prints" without actually examining them? You didn't cite any source for this statement other than the film itself. Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. While "I saw it with my own eyes" is good enough for me, I have a feeling most rabid Wikipedians would insist that's not a valid reference! In any event, I'm leaving the article as is. Thanks for taking the time to enhance it. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Gilbertportrait.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Gilbertportrait.jpg. 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 05:33, 27 December 2010 (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! 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bipack.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{

RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters

. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom of the Opera (1925) and Joseph Carl Breil

Hello; hope I'm not bothering you. I've been trying to add a credit to composer Joseph Carl Breil's page for having composed the score for the preview version of the 1925 Phantom of the Opera; however, I can't find a single link to a reputable source, outside of what was quoted on the film's page. I trawled back through the years to see who had added this to the page... turns out it was you, way back in 2006.

I really hope this isn't too much, but... could you tell me exactly where you got that information of Breil having composed the first score? It'd help me out a lot. Thanks, in advance! Stolengood (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source would be the full-page ad for the premiere in the January 7, 1925 edition of San Francisco Call-Bulletin that states that the music is the work of "J. Carl Breil, composer of Birth of a Nation. The Photoplayer 06:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you give me a link I could source it with? :-) Stolengood (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know of any on-line version of it. However, there's nothing stopping anyone from citing a newspaper article. The Photoplayer 19:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right; just wanted to be able to cite it on Breil's page. Where did you find the ad, by chance? :-) Stolengood (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can borrow microfiche of this title through inter-library loan via the San Francisco Public Library system. The Photoplayer 06:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I don't live in San Francisco, though -- I'm on the opposite coast. :-( Stolengood (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I live in New York and was able to get this through interlibrary loan. Check with your local library.The Photoplayer 17:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, all right, then. I'll try it out. :-) Thank you! Stolengood (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Thephotoplayer. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Proposed deletion of Goof on the Loose

The article Goof on the Loose has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable short film with only 1 citation. Nothing else found during a search except database entries and videos. Tagged for notability for 7 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctorx.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Doctorx.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]