HerbLightman

Hi, I'm HerbLightman. If you are interested in my wiki edits, feel free to contact me.HerbLightman (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian-American

For various reasons, we do not use hyphenated nationalities in the lead sentence. First, they are interpreted many if not most readers as ethnicity-nationality - that is, a birthplace with an ethnic modifier. But per WP:CONTEXTBIO, we are in most cases not supposed to put ethnicity in the lead sentence, only nationality. In any case, the way most people read it would be wrong. In the case of Bela Lugosi, it implies that he was born in the US, of Hungarian ancestry, which is simply not accurate. Therefore instead of a hyphen, we use the word 'and', which leads to no ambiguity - a person born in Hungary, who became notable as a Hungarian, and then acquired US citizenship and became even more notable. And before you object, we also do not use the montrosity "Hungarian-born American". This approach to the lead sentence is long-standing and I helped write the guideline (though it's been moved to a new location with a new shortcut since then), so I know the reasons for why we do it this way. For more info, see my own note here. Skyerise (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Filmography in author articles

There is no precedent to include filmography in an author’s article as you did in H. G. Wells. It doesn’t appear in any other bio hence it is not standard to include them on here. See here for WP policy on filmography. It states: These are included for actors, directors, producers and other people who have a list of contributions in film. PD Rivers (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Blaisdell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page How to Make a Monster.

Thanks, I fixed it.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references! However, you should know that adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref>...</ref> tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Inline citations. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

Why did you add these films to the radio and tv section here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You removed LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS from the film page and deleted PUNCHINELLO's reissue information as well. So since LOCK UP can be considered a documentary composed of archival footage and Punchinello was just a short subject, I thought you didnt think they should qualify as real movies. They have to go somewhere since both of those films are sought-after collectibles a Lugosi fan would certainly want to know about.HerbLightman (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It is important to note that Punchinello was a 20 minute silent film when it was reviewed in 1926, and that when it resurfaced later as "The Mask", it was a sound film with added tinting, narration and music. Very few silent films were given the sound treatment like that, which is what makes Punchinello so unique in Lugosi's filmography. You omitted that information, making it sound like it was just reissued as a silent film. So by withholding that information, you made the "Punchinello" entry basically incorrect. And I have no idea why you insist on withholding that information? "Punchinello" doesn't have an article, otherwise I would've put that information in the article instead of in the filmography. HerbLightman (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you added them under radio and tv, which confuse any reader. There's countless films and releases that contain archival footage of Lugosi, it would be unclear to include them in like that and relatively useless. I'm not withholding information, it's just to make the filmography concise, not overloaded with trivial details. The film was released and edited, anyone looking at a filmography of an actor doesn't need the production history of the film in question. Per WP:FILMOGRAPHY,. "The notes field should not be allowed to get overly cluttered." In otherwords, keep it consise, which is what i've done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not just add the three words "with added sound" then? Just change it to "Later rereleased as The Mask with added sound". How can three words clutter up the notes field? And it would get the message across with just those three words.

That was great what you did today with "Dorian Gray", reverting the article's title back to the actual German release title. But why won't you do it with "Daughter of the Night"? That is the only German film in the whole column that is still erroneously listed under an English language title that I believe was only created recently for the film's VHS home video release title (which is 40 minutes shorter than the German release print)! Is there any evidence that it was ever released theatrically as "Daughter of the Night"? Why don't you fix the "Daughter of the Night" article's title the way you fixed "Dorian Gray"? You even said the titles in the German column should match no? HerbLightman (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

by the way, you say there are countless films that contain archival footage of Lugosi? I only know of "Lock Up Your Daughters". what other films contain 50 minutes of classic Lugosi footage? Also Rhodes lists it in Lugosi's filmography in all his books. It's probably one of the most sought after Lugosi films in existence for Lugosi collectors! And you think it should be excised from Lugosi's filmography? As far as I know, that's the only film of its kind, and we dont even know for sure if it contained original scenes, you're just assuming it was all stock footage. How can you not even mention one of Lugosi's greatest rarities? At least list the title if nothing else. It's not your job to omit titles that we know existed. That's going way overboard in my opinion. HerbLightman (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Clips of White Zombie alone are in The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, Michael Almereyda's Nadja, and Tim Burton's Ed Wood to just name a few. If we can confirm it contained original footage, then maybe, but as of now, we don't know. Perhaps it can be added later when we clean up more of the stuff as we have no idea what's in the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Rhodes included it though, which should make it official. Tim Burton's Ed Wood contained footage of Lugosi? "Lock Up Your Daughters' is a 50-minute film comprised ENTIRELY of Lugosi footage though. It is unlike any of those other films. HerbLightman (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but there is no evidence of any new material from in it. So did he really "act" in a film like this? I think we can make some special message of it at one point, but I'd like to clean up the rest of the article first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hungarian film in Lugosi filmography

Per your edit, you can't just move a film because you have a hunch it's something else. Do not do that. We go by the earliest known release and do not publish original research. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence the film was ever released theatrically at all. Lugosi or his friends screened the film privately as I understand it. They must have found it in a rental catalog and rented it. It wasn't screened in theaters comercially, it appears Lugosi arranged it to be screened at a private screening. HerbLightman (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in the source declares it a private screening. So you shouldn't assume things. Why do you keep doing that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ed Wood into Mother Riley Meets the Vampire. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one who put it on the Ed Wood page, so I just copied myself. HerbLightman (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Attribution is not actually required in that case, but it's very helpful to patrollers if you do so anyway. — Diannaa (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! HerbLightman (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Veil (American TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Never.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to put the word in italics.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

March 2023

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not the blocking admin, just providing instructions. See User talk:Akmadomad. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HerbLightman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here HerbLightman (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Last week my HerbLightman account was blocked for sockpuppetry. Several other editors who access the internet and edit wikipedia through the same public computer were also blocked as sockpuppets. This allegation is false. We are four separate individuals who are longtime customers at a book/DVD retail store that allows their best customers to use their store computer and IP to access wikipedia. These are for the most part elderly movie fans and book collectors who do not own their own personal computers and have been allowed to access the internet through the bookstore's public computer, similar to the manner in which public libraries do the same. I have been accused of sockpuppetry since I, and the other editors who were also unfortunately blocked, share many of the same interests regarding old movies and science fiction topics, and tend to edit similar pages. But now the bookstore's IP itself has been blocked, and the bookstore owner did nothing other than allow us to use the store's computer to access the web. In fact, none of the editors who were blocked were actually accused of vandalism or any other violation of wikipedia's rules, only that they are "sockpuppets" which is not true. Each editor has his own wikipedia account and his own password. I personally have never violated any of wikipedia's rules, I have only tried to improve the articles I have edited as you can see if you will take a look at my editing history. Please unblock my account as I am an innocent victim who has been caught up in this misunderstanding. Other than the untrue sockpuppet accusation, I don't think any of the editors blocked in this incident are even being accused of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Thank you for your consideration. HerbLightman (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Recent sockpuppetry via 68.129.18.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) counsels against an unblock at this time. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

HerbLightman, please read the discussion at User talk:Akmadomad. It goes into why this account was blocked and why it triggered other blocks. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I have read it, but did I post the above Unblock Request properly on my page here? I'm trying to get across my point that I am not a sockpuppet, I have my own wikipedia account and password. I just use a shared computer to access the internet. The shared IP is a bookstore however, not a library. I wasn't blocked for vandalising wikipedia or anything like that. Someone reported that I was using multiple accounts, but the people he reported are all separate wikipedia editors who just use the same shared computer to get online as I do not own a personal computer of my own.

I'm not a moderator, but as we both edit similar accounts I find it odd that it's stated that they are all different users editing different accounts. Here is Akmadomad adding unsourced information to the Bela Lugosi filmography, (here), followed by BigBoyWilliams again right after (here). Users have been warned in the past about not adding material that is properly cited (here, which was removed by the editors) and the biggest smoking gun is why did HerbLightman removed talk page warnings off of EuroHorrorGuys page (here)? Whether it is different people or not with different accounts, it seems as if some people are editing under other people's accounts because I can't imagine why this would be happening unless it really is an abuse of multiple accounts. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of us have been customers in that bookstore for years and know each other personally. EuroHorrorGuy was complaining to people in the bookstore about User:Andrzejbanas constantly writing accusing and intimidating messages on his talk page in an attempt to make him look incompetent. He asked me if there was a way to remove harassing messages and threats from his talk page. I don't think I realized I actually deleted the content at the time, I was just trying to show him how to clean up his page. His talk page was a mess from User:Andrzejbanas' constantly posting things to hurt him. No editor should have to tolerate that kind of harassment. I didn't know deleting unwanted messages from a talk page was not permitted, I was just showing him how to keep his talk page clean of threats and harassment. HerbLightman (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Your request is open and visible to administrators. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

To follow-up, you are allowed to clean-up and remove any content on your talk page. My responses have been the standard responses on edits that are generally deemed unacceptable on Wikipedia (see here). I've made suggestions about reading MOS:FILM as early as 2019. The usual response was along the lines of "it is too long to read". I have asked the user several times from then on (samples here, here, here and still on to this day.) Often this user just says "well it sounds like ____ to me" as a genre here. Even when asked in the past why their edits are similar to other accounts, there was no discussion of "I'm editing at a bookstore", the user just said "I don't know what editing with an IP means. I don't think I filed for that. I just have a regular account." or that they have removed things because users "looked like they had fake accounts( here and here). Not to mention that HerbLightman has edited EuroHorrorGuy's account as early as 2022 here. I'm glad this user has a passion to edit early articles, but they really do not seem interested in trying to actually sticking to sources or becoming familiar with standards of wikipedia in the past few years. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, 331dot HerbLightman (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The bookstore has been in business for over 40 years, and most of the older customers hang out a lot in there and several of them have been collecting and researching horror & science fiction movies for decades. Why is it so surprising that several of these people would share an interest in similar books or films? But they are entirely separate people with separate accounts, they are not sockpuppets. Whoever filed that fake sockpuppet charge is messing up the bookstore owner's IP address and preventing at least three different retired people from editing wikipedia, which was one of the only hobbies that occupied their time. You're hurting a bunch of very good people unnecessarily. None of them were even accused of vandalism or of doing anything detrimental to wikipedia. It's very unfair. Please at least unblock the bookstore owner? HerbLightman (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Unblock Request

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here HerbLightman (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Last week my HerbLightman account was blocked for sockpuppetry. Several other editors who access the internet and edit wikipedia through the same public computer were also blocked as sockpuppets. This allegation is false. We are four separate individuals who are longtime customers at a book/DVD retail store that allows their best customers to use their store computer and IP to access wikipedia. These are for the most part elderly movie fans and book collectors who do not own their own personal computers and have been allowed to access the internet through the bookstore's public computer, similar to the manner in which public libraries do the same. I have been accused of sockpuppetry since I, and the other editors who were also unfortunately blocked, share many of the same interests regarding old movies and science fiction topics, and tend to edit similar pages. But now the bookstore's IP itself has been blocked, and the bookstore owner did nothing other than allow us to use the store's computer to access the web. In fact, none of the editors who were blocked were actually accused of vandalism or any other violation of wikipedia's rules, only that they are "sockpuppets" which is not true. Each editor has his own wikipedia account and his own password. I personally have never violated any of wikipedia's rules, I have only tried to improve the articles I have edited as you can see if you will take a look at my editing history. Please unblock my account as I am an innocent victim who has been caught up in this misunderstanding. Other than the untrue sockpuppet accusation, I don't think any of the editors blocked in this incident are even being accused of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Thank you for your consideration.

Only one blue link per line item on a disambiguation page

There is only supposed to be one blue link per line item on a disambiguation page. Please do not add additional links to other articles, as you did here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Veil&oldid=1120415131 Nicholas0 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)