This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ben Templesmith article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added NPOV tags and CN's - this page seems to be written by Ultimate Fanboy. Objectivity debated - too much of it would seem to be un-cited individual opinion. Anyone agree or disagree? Al.locke 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I put them there after seeing edits by a user called Templesmith ( talk · contribs) basically saying this artist was the greatest thing ever it seems. karmafist 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Templesmith ( talk · contribs) for the most part he tried to revert the article back to an earlier edit, due to apparent vandalism from a user at IP:64.169.99.74
Please check article comparisons to verify.
Feel free to change any part where the article claims he is "the greatest thing ever"
Karmafist ( talk · contribs) Is now banned permanently for vandalism.
Someone should add something about Templesmith's apparent ongoing main work now, Wormwood:Gentleman Corpse if they have info. Maynard2k ( talk · contribs)
Added NPOV tags and CN's - this page seems to be written by Ultimate Fanboy. Objectivity debated - too much of it would seem to be un-cited individual opinion. Anyone agree or disagree? Al.locke 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; it's blatantly so. I will change this at some later stage, if someone doesn't do so first, to at least remove some of the more obvious bias and fanboy hype. ThePragmaticist ( talk) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ben has a new series (Welcome to Hoxford, info: http://www.hoxford.com ) which I'll had to the list but I dont know how to start a new page for it because I've never done that. If someone who's more capable than me could do it that would be greatly appreciated. Jboncha ( talk) 07:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've been going through artists in the above list, for the most part onyl to the often ommited Fantasy artists cat (which usually crosses over - D&D illustrations may be counted as fantasy art for this purpose). However, on a few pages I've come across in the list, the actual article contains no cited work for the game. So, could whoever added the cat also add some substantiation to the article to justify the artist's presence in that list - particualrly important if someone comes to the page from the category looking for the reference to D&D work. . . Thanks LSmok3 ( talk) 13:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
A disagreement has arisen as to which photo should be in the Infobox. User:Unicornmagic favors changing the photo to this one, arguing in his/her edit summary, "Updated image with professional profile photography while on location at major retrospective of his work.
In my opinion, a black and white photo is not better than a color one depicting Templesmith in a comic shop, nor do I see any change to his appearance in the nine months that elapsed between when the two photos were taken that necessitates an "update".
Unicornmagic responded to this by saying, "Let someone unbiased decide since it's also a photo you are the author of. Templesmith now has a beard so is visibly different."
In the first place, a modest beard does not make Templesmith's appearance so radically different that that the February photo is outdated, nor does it justify changing a photo if the new photo is not better in quality. For all we know, he might shave it off by his next public appearance, assuming he hasn't already. He isn't exactly clean-shaven in the February photo, or the one further down in the article, as he has a mustache and chin hair in both of those. Pointing to his beard as justification for changing a color photo of him in a comics shop to a black and photo of him in a museum seems specious to me.
In the second place, I see no reasoning for the notion that Unicornmagic is unbiased, or less so then myself, since Unicornmagic is the photo of the newer photo. If Unicornmagic wants to argue that an editor is automatically rendered unable to be objective about photo placement when is the author of the one them, then the same principle applies to him/her. For my part, there have been numerous times when I declined to replace someone's Infoboox photo with one of my own, because I felt that my photo was not superior in some justifiable way to the one already in the article ( Jim Lee, John Schneider, Sandra Taylor, etc.) At other times, I have welcomed latter replacement of my pics with ones the subject himself preferred it--provided that it was at least of equal quality to mine ( Trevor Von Eeden, Josh Adams, etc.) In another instance, I removed my own photo from the an article entirely when one I thought was far better than mine surfaced. Is there a subjective element to photo selection? Is the appearance of bias present when the photographer is editing the article? Sure. But that's a far cry from saying that one photographer is biased and another is not. So I would suggest that we stick to what discussing the criteria by which we believe a photo is more or less appropriate, and dispense with accusations fraught with double standards. If a consensus here decides that the black and white photo is more appropriate, I have no opposition to that. Nightscream ( talk) 04:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Have you requested Unicornmagic to upload the original image, in colour, just as he took it and without the image editing? MBelgrano ( talk) 19:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I was also invited to put my two cents in. I would say that as is, the Gage Skidmore version is probably the best. I'm not thrilled that we would just use a headshot, but it's the one that depicts his characteristic features, including what he looks like in color. The Midtown version is funny, depicting him in color, straight on, and some personality, but I wonder if the expression detracts from clarity/recognizability when compared to the others. I dislike the BW version because it's distorted and BW, when one should be able to look at an image and distinguish what the subject's hair color/eye color, skin color etc. is. However, I like the full body shot, as it gives a better sense of his build. If there's a colored and undistorted version of the BW photo, that would get my highest vote. For now, it's a toss up between Gage and Midtown. Luminum ( talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
When you say "portrait/promotional image" and "journalistic", which ones are you referring to? I'm not sure which one is the Midtown Comics one, which is the Comic-Con one, and which is the black & white one when I see these terms used. Nightscream ( talk) 22:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So do we have a consensus of some kind? Nightscream ( talk) 21:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
So what should we do? Because these discussions don't emphasize the "vote" format, it's hard to know. Nightscream ( talk) 07:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I got asked to weigh in on this, although it's another example of why I don't do as much editing here any more due to growing COI conflicts. I could just ask Ben's photographer girlfriend to give us a better picture that would trump you all. Anyway, color trumps black and white on Wikipedia. It's hard to get a good "journalistic" photo of Ben because whenever he's ready for the camera, he prefers to make what he calls a "dickish" expression - which actually makes the current picture a more accurate representation of how Ben poses because the B&W pose isn't "dickish" enough for him. Doczilla STOMP! 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Straight from the source: Ben Templesmith does not like the colour photo [1] (taken at Midtown Comics East by Nightscream on February 2010) previously used on his Wikipedia page as cited here on his Twitter account:
Ben Templesmith prefers the black-and-white one [2] by Unicornmagic (taken on November 2010), as cited here on Twitter:
He hopes that what he says publicly about his own preferences for his own Wikipedia page has some bearing when changes are made, asked for:
Absolutely horrible "new" picture added. What was wrong with the last one? This one is so tiny and seems to have been taken as a quick snap where you can't even see him properly in a nightclub? It should be changed or reverted. I do notice Nightscream takes an unnatural and seemingly obsessive interest in maintaining his photographs on a variety of comicbook creators wiki entries. ( more than 10 ) Suggest he invest in a better quality camera or lose the flash at least. I believe his interest in these matters have become far too personally invested in maintaining his material over other valid images. Romniriffic ( talk) 18:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Cut and pasted from User:J Greb's talk page:
Ben Templesmith requested my picture to be used for his wiki page. So I appreciate if you would stop switching back to the old one.
Ben Templesmith Sir, make that my wikipedia entry bio image & I'll buy you a beer or Squid hooker or whatever you want. Nice pic! 20 hours ago · Like · 1
Ben Templesmith Aww, that was quick. Some guy decided "He didn't like the dutch angle" whatever that means... and reverted it back to the last, obviously inferior image. Bleh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.95.202 ( talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Log in, assuming this is Weepygoon.
- Use the article's talk page along with reading WP:BRD.
- You're close to making a personal attack rather than discussing the content.
- While it is appreciated that a subject of an article wants to have input on the article, that doesn't bypass or trump Wikipedia guidelines or policies.
- - J Greb ( talk) 20:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's me. And yes, Ben Templesmith has requested my picture be the one for his Wiki page. I have reproduced Facebook comments quoting the man himself. What more do you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weepygoon ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Copying the Facebook comments here isn't relevant.
- What is relevant is keeping in mind Wkipedia has its own ways of doing things. Part of that is that is if your bold edit is reverted, discussing the issue on the article's talk page is preferable to moving into edit warring to get what you want.
- And if you look at the talk page for that article, the issue of the infobox image had a going over from Dec 2010 to Jan 2011. And this one - with both images - is a close re-hash of that.
- Now, would you care to take a look at the new discussion there?
- - J Greb ( talk) 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what the big issue is. Templesmith has requested the picture to be replaced. I am merely acceding to his request to do so. In the history, there has also been indication that this has been carried out at the request of Ben Templesmith himself. So how do I go about changing the picture as Mr Templesmith himself has requested? User "Monk sp the sane" can also testify as he was involved in the same Facebook conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weepygoon ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Two major concerns:
- J Greb ( talk) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I find Weepygoon's photo to be superior, as it is a face-on proper portrait of the kind you might find in a magazine profile, rather than the other one, which looks like the subject's has been unpleasantly ambushed by a paparazzo. And unless there are compelling editorial reasons not to, we should respect the wishes of the subject as a general BLP rule. I see no such reasons here. Skomorokh 23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If I had understood well, there was an infobox image with an acceptable licence, and Ben Templesmith himself considered a second image to be better, and supported the change. It is right that notable people do not "own" the articles about them, and may not do whatever they want with them, so that if they want to do something contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as concealing criticism or negative facts, attacking someone else, vandalize it as a "joke", etc), those take priority. Period. Having said that, is there really a compelling reason to avoid doing what the man wants? The new photo is perfectly within all applicable policies and guidelines, so why not? If there's no policy instructing us to either use the new photo or keep the old one, then we should resort to simple courtesy. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've lost track. Is Ben still pushing for the same black and white photo? If so, our answer has to be no. Color is preferred. Doczilla STOMP! 12:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=148444When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ben Templesmith article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added NPOV tags and CN's - this page seems to be written by Ultimate Fanboy. Objectivity debated - too much of it would seem to be un-cited individual opinion. Anyone agree or disagree? Al.locke 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I put them there after seeing edits by a user called Templesmith ( talk · contribs) basically saying this artist was the greatest thing ever it seems. karmafist 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Templesmith ( talk · contribs) for the most part he tried to revert the article back to an earlier edit, due to apparent vandalism from a user at IP:64.169.99.74
Please check article comparisons to verify.
Feel free to change any part where the article claims he is "the greatest thing ever"
Karmafist ( talk · contribs) Is now banned permanently for vandalism.
Someone should add something about Templesmith's apparent ongoing main work now, Wormwood:Gentleman Corpse if they have info. Maynard2k ( talk · contribs)
Added NPOV tags and CN's - this page seems to be written by Ultimate Fanboy. Objectivity debated - too much of it would seem to be un-cited individual opinion. Anyone agree or disagree? Al.locke 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; it's blatantly so. I will change this at some later stage, if someone doesn't do so first, to at least remove some of the more obvious bias and fanboy hype. ThePragmaticist ( talk) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ben has a new series (Welcome to Hoxford, info: http://www.hoxford.com ) which I'll had to the list but I dont know how to start a new page for it because I've never done that. If someone who's more capable than me could do it that would be greatly appreciated. Jboncha ( talk) 07:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've been going through artists in the above list, for the most part onyl to the often ommited Fantasy artists cat (which usually crosses over - D&D illustrations may be counted as fantasy art for this purpose). However, on a few pages I've come across in the list, the actual article contains no cited work for the game. So, could whoever added the cat also add some substantiation to the article to justify the artist's presence in that list - particualrly important if someone comes to the page from the category looking for the reference to D&D work. . . Thanks LSmok3 ( talk) 13:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
A disagreement has arisen as to which photo should be in the Infobox. User:Unicornmagic favors changing the photo to this one, arguing in his/her edit summary, "Updated image with professional profile photography while on location at major retrospective of his work.
In my opinion, a black and white photo is not better than a color one depicting Templesmith in a comic shop, nor do I see any change to his appearance in the nine months that elapsed between when the two photos were taken that necessitates an "update".
Unicornmagic responded to this by saying, "Let someone unbiased decide since it's also a photo you are the author of. Templesmith now has a beard so is visibly different."
In the first place, a modest beard does not make Templesmith's appearance so radically different that that the February photo is outdated, nor does it justify changing a photo if the new photo is not better in quality. For all we know, he might shave it off by his next public appearance, assuming he hasn't already. He isn't exactly clean-shaven in the February photo, or the one further down in the article, as he has a mustache and chin hair in both of those. Pointing to his beard as justification for changing a color photo of him in a comics shop to a black and photo of him in a museum seems specious to me.
In the second place, I see no reasoning for the notion that Unicornmagic is unbiased, or less so then myself, since Unicornmagic is the photo of the newer photo. If Unicornmagic wants to argue that an editor is automatically rendered unable to be objective about photo placement when is the author of the one them, then the same principle applies to him/her. For my part, there have been numerous times when I declined to replace someone's Infoboox photo with one of my own, because I felt that my photo was not superior in some justifiable way to the one already in the article ( Jim Lee, John Schneider, Sandra Taylor, etc.) At other times, I have welcomed latter replacement of my pics with ones the subject himself preferred it--provided that it was at least of equal quality to mine ( Trevor Von Eeden, Josh Adams, etc.) In another instance, I removed my own photo from the an article entirely when one I thought was far better than mine surfaced. Is there a subjective element to photo selection? Is the appearance of bias present when the photographer is editing the article? Sure. But that's a far cry from saying that one photographer is biased and another is not. So I would suggest that we stick to what discussing the criteria by which we believe a photo is more or less appropriate, and dispense with accusations fraught with double standards. If a consensus here decides that the black and white photo is more appropriate, I have no opposition to that. Nightscream ( talk) 04:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Have you requested Unicornmagic to upload the original image, in colour, just as he took it and without the image editing? MBelgrano ( talk) 19:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I was also invited to put my two cents in. I would say that as is, the Gage Skidmore version is probably the best. I'm not thrilled that we would just use a headshot, but it's the one that depicts his characteristic features, including what he looks like in color. The Midtown version is funny, depicting him in color, straight on, and some personality, but I wonder if the expression detracts from clarity/recognizability when compared to the others. I dislike the BW version because it's distorted and BW, when one should be able to look at an image and distinguish what the subject's hair color/eye color, skin color etc. is. However, I like the full body shot, as it gives a better sense of his build. If there's a colored and undistorted version of the BW photo, that would get my highest vote. For now, it's a toss up between Gage and Midtown. Luminum ( talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
When you say "portrait/promotional image" and "journalistic", which ones are you referring to? I'm not sure which one is the Midtown Comics one, which is the Comic-Con one, and which is the black & white one when I see these terms used. Nightscream ( talk) 22:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So do we have a consensus of some kind? Nightscream ( talk) 21:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
So what should we do? Because these discussions don't emphasize the "vote" format, it's hard to know. Nightscream ( talk) 07:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I got asked to weigh in on this, although it's another example of why I don't do as much editing here any more due to growing COI conflicts. I could just ask Ben's photographer girlfriend to give us a better picture that would trump you all. Anyway, color trumps black and white on Wikipedia. It's hard to get a good "journalistic" photo of Ben because whenever he's ready for the camera, he prefers to make what he calls a "dickish" expression - which actually makes the current picture a more accurate representation of how Ben poses because the B&W pose isn't "dickish" enough for him. Doczilla STOMP! 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Straight from the source: Ben Templesmith does not like the colour photo [1] (taken at Midtown Comics East by Nightscream on February 2010) previously used on his Wikipedia page as cited here on his Twitter account:
Ben Templesmith prefers the black-and-white one [2] by Unicornmagic (taken on November 2010), as cited here on Twitter:
He hopes that what he says publicly about his own preferences for his own Wikipedia page has some bearing when changes are made, asked for:
Absolutely horrible "new" picture added. What was wrong with the last one? This one is so tiny and seems to have been taken as a quick snap where you can't even see him properly in a nightclub? It should be changed or reverted. I do notice Nightscream takes an unnatural and seemingly obsessive interest in maintaining his photographs on a variety of comicbook creators wiki entries. ( more than 10 ) Suggest he invest in a better quality camera or lose the flash at least. I believe his interest in these matters have become far too personally invested in maintaining his material over other valid images. Romniriffic ( talk) 18:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Cut and pasted from User:J Greb's talk page:
Ben Templesmith requested my picture to be used for his wiki page. So I appreciate if you would stop switching back to the old one.
Ben Templesmith Sir, make that my wikipedia entry bio image & I'll buy you a beer or Squid hooker or whatever you want. Nice pic! 20 hours ago · Like · 1
Ben Templesmith Aww, that was quick. Some guy decided "He didn't like the dutch angle" whatever that means... and reverted it back to the last, obviously inferior image. Bleh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.95.202 ( talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Log in, assuming this is Weepygoon.
- Use the article's talk page along with reading WP:BRD.
- You're close to making a personal attack rather than discussing the content.
- While it is appreciated that a subject of an article wants to have input on the article, that doesn't bypass or trump Wikipedia guidelines or policies.
- - J Greb ( talk) 20:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's me. And yes, Ben Templesmith has requested my picture be the one for his Wiki page. I have reproduced Facebook comments quoting the man himself. What more do you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weepygoon ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Copying the Facebook comments here isn't relevant.
- What is relevant is keeping in mind Wkipedia has its own ways of doing things. Part of that is that is if your bold edit is reverted, discussing the issue on the article's talk page is preferable to moving into edit warring to get what you want.
- And if you look at the talk page for that article, the issue of the infobox image had a going over from Dec 2010 to Jan 2011. And this one - with both images - is a close re-hash of that.
- Now, would you care to take a look at the new discussion there?
- - J Greb ( talk) 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what the big issue is. Templesmith has requested the picture to be replaced. I am merely acceding to his request to do so. In the history, there has also been indication that this has been carried out at the request of Ben Templesmith himself. So how do I go about changing the picture as Mr Templesmith himself has requested? User "Monk sp the sane" can also testify as he was involved in the same Facebook conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weepygoon ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Two major concerns:
- J Greb ( talk) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I find Weepygoon's photo to be superior, as it is a face-on proper portrait of the kind you might find in a magazine profile, rather than the other one, which looks like the subject's has been unpleasantly ambushed by a paparazzo. And unless there are compelling editorial reasons not to, we should respect the wishes of the subject as a general BLP rule. I see no such reasons here. Skomorokh 23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If I had understood well, there was an infobox image with an acceptable licence, and Ben Templesmith himself considered a second image to be better, and supported the change. It is right that notable people do not "own" the articles about them, and may not do whatever they want with them, so that if they want to do something contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as concealing criticism or negative facts, attacking someone else, vandalize it as a "joke", etc), those take priority. Period. Having said that, is there really a compelling reason to avoid doing what the man wants? The new photo is perfectly within all applicable policies and guidelines, so why not? If there's no policy instructing us to either use the new photo or keep the old one, then we should resort to simple courtesy. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've lost track. Is Ben still pushing for the same black and white photo? If so, our answer has to be no. Color is preferred. Doczilla STOMP! 12:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=148444When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Templesmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)