User talk:Garion96/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Garion96. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Part II of United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories

What follows was my response to your last response. I find it easier if a discussion is left on one talk page at a time. That's cool if you don't want to check everybody's talk pages as you're really busy and popular, but I would find it helpful if you could reply here instead of on my talk page. :)--Thecurran (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that you've removed an image of the official government flag for a whole region of France with its own colonial history, how will you amend what appears to be more than 100 pages that link to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:GuadFlag.png? Will you go through the 167 entries of Special:WhatLinksHere/Image:GuadFlag.png fixing each one? Did you know that the image is publicly available on http://www.6emeforum-aec-guadeloupe.com/index.php?ci=4 or in French on http://rhdcor.mitic.corse.fr/index.php?Rencontres in the section marked "lundi 7 novembre 2005", which shows up on the top of http://rhdcor.mitic.corse.fr/index.php?2005/11/07/37-universites-des-maires-de-guyane-de-guadeloupe-et-de-martinique ? Deleting unfree images is very important, but having it up for only 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 September 19 after only notifying the uploader seems to ignore the editors of scores of pages despite you being an administrator with access to more automation tools. You could have at least written an edit summary that linked to the particular archive where it may be found on WP:PUI or added a link to an alternative image. I know your heart is in the right place but please

a) think twice before an action that will effect so many,

b) consider notifying other editors on the pages that use the image,

c) at least tag the main article page first (in this case Guadeloupe, which was not so tagged in 2008-September or 2008-October),

d) consider leaving a full history in your edit summary as it is hard for non-admins to see what the image page looked like before its deletion,

e) consider researching the image at least on Commons so that other editors are aware of its history,

f) consider linking to alternative images and external sources

g) remember that links to page that get frequently archived may be better directed to the archive location, and

h) at least leave an edit summary with valid blue links to pages that will actually explain what happened.

Thank you for your time and consideration. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

a:Did that.
b:I asked another admin for a second opinion.
c:That should have been the job of the original tagger. I can't do that for every image I delete.
d, g and h:Deleted per PUI. Seems understandable to me. I usually link to the actual archive though. This time I was clearing a backlog and did it the fast way.
e:Image was on Wikipedia, not on Commons.
f:What for? Replace the image with an external link to somewhere else on the Internet where the image is?
Regarding the whatlinkshere. Only talk and user pages link to it. And only 24 not 167 pages. Regarding the copyright of the image. The fact that an image is publicly available does NOT mean it is public domain. If you find evidence the image is in the public domain, let me know. Garion96 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Now there're only 20 pages on whatlinkshere instead of 24, but I assure you there were 167 while I was writing that post at 2008-19-13T05:00(UTC) and many of those weren't just user & talk pages. I'm surprised the community fixed those other pages so quickly! You're right: it was the original tagger's responsibility to at least leave a note on Guadeloupe, where most of us would've got the image in the first place. Either way, the message got through to the editors of most pages using it, and I know you're tied up for time but if you have Intro editing enabled, it should only take 2 minutes to check if the original tagger had left a tag on the main article and if not, tag it yourself or leave it alone; I really think it would be worth the effort. I didn't like the way you removed the logo to put in the new flag on that page leaving another hole, but I chose to WP:BB and edit it to cover the hole, which seems to have worked. I know publicly available doesn't necessarily mean public domain but when it comes to the symbol of a current, official government I think it should, but we still need proof first :( .

Sorry for getting my knickers in a twist; I really thought that scores of pages would have redlinked images until I fixed them all up and you didn't care much. Obviously, I didn't have to do anything; the community righted itself pretty fast; and you care a great deal and just happened to be extra pressed for time just then. Thank you for all of your hard work. I'd send you a hug to spread wikilove, but I've had those backfire before. :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The community did not do much at all, the job queue finally got done. :) See Special:Statistics. Whenever you remove an image from a much used template, it takes a while for the server to remove it from all the pages. Even if the image does not show up anymore on the article (or leave a red link). I removed the image from templates like Template:Guadeloupe-geo-stub. All the articles the image was actually on (not through a template) I removed. The other ones were just on hold till the server caught up. Regarding the Guadeloupe article, I sort of removed it on purpose. Right now it looks kind of simple with two identical flags but one called a region flag another called a region logo. Garion96 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken on the simplicity but other French regional pages look the same. Feel free to remove the logo box altogether; I just didn't like the redlink. Sorry. :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I see. Kind of a bad infobox template. It leaves a red link (sort of) when there is no image. So you need to have an image to stop that. If I were a good template coder (which I really am not) I would find a way to remove that. Garion96 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. Don't stress. I'm quite pleased that you took the time to listen. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hans Teeuwen

no it wasn't part of the act, look just leave it on there for fuck sake it happened and it's a part of this guuys history, im guessing you are a fan of him which is why you are constantly removing it? Moltenriches 21:31, 16 October 2008

Rebecca Grinter

Hi, another day, another question. On the article Rebecca Grinter there's a blue warning that beki70 has made some changes to this article, i.e., me, and it's about me. So, I'm not sure where/whether/how to say that yes I made some changes. I added things that perhaps I'm the best qualified to know about, like my affiliations, nationality etc... I did not change any of the wording written about me, but rather completed out some of the facts that were missing about me to make the article more complete. If I should say that anywhere, please let me know and thanks again for your help!!! Beki70 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I agree, there's definitely information for which I am the worst source. But when it comes to my birthplace, I am pretty accurate :) Thank you for always answering my questions. Beki70 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gasolina

Hi Garion96. I'm currently involved in an edit war with a Wikipedian on the Gasolina article and I don't know what it should be good to do precisely. Can you give your opinion on this issue ? Should I ask a request for arbitration ? You can see the discussion here Talk:Gasolina#Deletion of Papa A.P. version (this night, the other user has reverted again my changes without explanation, although some sources were added). In advance, thanks for your help. Europe22 (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Garion96! I take the liberty of sending you this message because I don't know if you has seen my request above. If you have no time to take care of it for the moment, please forgive me for this recall. Sincerely, Europe22 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will read all the links you gave in order to find a solution. Just a correction : I created the article on the artist two days ago, as he meets WP:NM (see : Papa A.P.). Europe22 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Garion96. I noticed you reverted back the biasing summary which Europe22 left for third party readers in regards to the Gasolina article. I would just like to know why you did this as I don't feel it is needed. Europe22 has left it upon himself to not only speak on his behalf of this dispute but mine too. And I feel that he shouldn't be commenting on me and instead present his side of the dispute concerning the content at hand. He should have either left the discussions as they were before his summary or left me to speak on my own behalf and present my argument to third party readers. Would I be wrong in wanting to speak on my own behalf? Regards, Kartel King (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Shipston-on-Stour_Rugby_Football_Club

You have deleted the logo image from this page because of copyright. How can this be restored? I believe it falls into the same category as this logo http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:London_wasps_badge.png yes the image is a copyrighted work but just like the Wasps one it should also be able to be used under Wikipedia's Fair Use policy, as it's the logo of a sports team. I think it adds to the article so should be included. Cardibling (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy Hawley bookcover

In fact, the template I inserted states there is no free alternative image. That is a precise fact of law and reality. And, this "new" idea that a bookcover suddenly "could be adequately covered with text alone" is patent nonsense. I will remove your misguided tag for deletion and if you disagree then I will bring this matter to a head through the proper channels at Wikipedia as such actions are without foundation and implementation is a substantial waste of the editor's time. Handicapper (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I completed the proper documentation for this photo fully in accordance with Wikipedia rules. You have expressed an "opinion" only and the onus is on you to state why YOU think "This image or media may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion." Please refrain from inserting further such tags without providing facts to back up your unfounded "may". Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No (again), you habe not explained it. All you did was stick in a generic tag, one, by the way, that is in fact meaningless. Please deal with this matter as I specifically requested. Thanx (again). Handicapper (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, which only serves to demonstrate the absurdity of the tag inserted. Do you really think it's in Wikipedia's interest to create an article for every book just to demonstrate the clear referencing of it an the biographer's own biography? I suggest that, as you seem to almost fully occupy yourself doing this type of "contribution", you put a little energy into studing the issue and come up with a consultative solution rather than running around almost arbitrarily inserting such things. If you did, Wikipedia would be a better place because editors who find ways to properly "build" rather than "tear down", are valuable here. Handicapper (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No (2nd again) - "raising the issue" at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content is the problem. Wikipedia has far too many improper edicts been enforced as the result of a very few people getting together on a "Talk" webpage then hiding behind that as a reference because they are either incapable of understanding it or prefer not to in order to continue fulling their psychological need for control. Let me repeat: the first word uttered by Mr. Wales when he created Wikipedia, was "build" not "tear down". End of our discussion. And yes, I will in absolute fact be raising, at my convenience, this entire issue with the appropriate ultimate Wikipedia authority. Handicapper (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Disney Vandal

Hey, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sjakoj is another sock of User:Bambifan101 (Disney vandal), but AIV is refusing to block him for block evasion and vandalism and saying another sockpuppet report has to be done instead (there is already an open checkuser that no one is responding to). His most recent edit[1] couldn't make it any clearer as he's reverting back to an old version of the article that he prefers. He also wiped Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh! in a "merge" that he himself wanted (he didn't actually merge anything though)[2]. Other edits he's doing includes randomly changing the class on talk pages from Start to Stub when its obvious the articles are not stubs. Any chance you can block this guy or can you tell me what else I can do to get things moving faster? He's been at this for days because AIV is refusing to block, when before someone always has. His latest round of edits are purely him going back to his usual MO. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, only now read your message. I see he's blocked already, good! What was the reason a block was denied at AIV? It all seems kind of obvious the user deserved to be blocked. Garion96 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

They kept saying it wasn't obvious vandalism and that blocking socks isn't an immediate need. *shaking head* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what do they want? More edits to revert later on? Well..let's hope the next time I will be online when there's another sock. Garion96 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! It was rather fustrating too because after the second AIV was declined, he really went to town. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

He popped in with another IP sock, 65.0.163.136, and another named sock, Oitsnoisy, and again AIV is refusing to do anything! Man, what happened to that place...used to be I could just report him there and his socks would get quick blocked. Now its all "this isn't the place." Did I miss a change in policy or something? :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Damn, this time I was only a little too late. I see both are blocked now. Wonder when his sockfarm will run out. Garion96 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally got an admin willing to listen when I pointed him to the existing socks. Yay! For the sockfarm, honestly, I don't think it will. He's hitting IP ranges on Bellsouth ISP in Mobile, and by the time he does get a repeat, its block has already expired. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Hi. You've participated in the debate about deleting of category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95 [3]. Now, there's a similar voting on deletion on the article (created, although the results of discussion was delete, not listify). The links to the voting is here merger suggestion?. Since you've participated previously in the discussion, you're invited to participate again. Please, give your opinion. Kubura (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree image

Hi. I don't feel up to learning something new right at the moment and I've never posted something to WP:PUI, so I wonder if you would be willing to do this for me. I suspect that there may be a copyright problem with the image Image:Louis vd Watt (238x320).jpg. Would you please look into it, or list it at WP:PUI if it seems appropriate? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Leila Sbitani.jpg

Thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Garion96! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy

Garion,

I wonder if you could review the recent edits to this list. An anon removed the introductory paragraph to Misdiagnosis because the source link was a 404 and he regarded it as personal opinion. I fixed the source (the site had moved the contents into a book and the PDF chapter was online). However, the paragraph was again removed because the source didn't actually back up the paragraph text. Fair enough, I don't know how that slipped by, but I've got a few sources that could back it up. So I added one of those and restored the paragraph. The anon has now removed the paragraph again, with no comment. The IP address keeps changing but I'm sure it is the same person. To avoid an edit war, I'd like another opinion. Obviously I feel the paragraph can be restored and think the text is now adequately sourced. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 09:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Colin°^Talk 10:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cheyne

Why did you delete this template, it was their so people could easily access the pages. User:Billy4kate talk

Template:Selected filmography

Hello, Garion96 ...

Regarding this edit from last week, and this thread, I would like your opinion on the {{Selected filmography}} template ... even though you appear to have an inclusionist view, I would welcome your perspective ... you may be bold and modify it (within reason) without discussion ... I know that although I gave it birth (nearly a year ago), I do not own it, and "It takes a village ..." :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)}

Hmm, kind of hard for me to edit this template since I just think the opposite should be the case. :) I guess in this regard I am an inclusionist. I like the complete list of someone's work. Besides, how does Wikipedia decide in a npov way which movies/books/etc should be in the list and which should not? Garion96 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For me, that's a no-brainer … any title with an article means that it has passed WP:N on its own … if it doesn't have an article for an internal link, then don't include it in the list … no redlinks, no unlinked.

Note a single caveat ... redlinks and unlinks are allowed in tables (like this one), but not lists … I think that IMDb and TV Guide do a Much Better job of listing an entertainer's most current filmography.

BTW … do you have any opinions/feedback regarding WP:FLAG-MOVIE in the larger context of Flag templates for deletion warnings? It's mostly a clone, like WP:FLAG-FICT and WP:FLAG-SCL … Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{01:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)}

Recent vandalism

FYI, the recent "vandalism" was by User:67.158.120.210 (or perhaps Skymac207 (talk · contribs) as an anon), not the bot that signed it on their behalf … Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{00:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)}

Removed prod from 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV Guide), it has survived AfD already

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV Guide), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama ^chat 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind, you can do another AfD as suggested above. If you mention that the list of game shows was removed as a copyvio like you did in the prod it would have a good chance of succeeding (that's my guess). Surviving AfD of course doesn't mean that a subsequent AfD is disallowed (although if you start a new AfD immediately after an article survived the last one it looks rude, like you're suggesting the last consensus was wrong). In this case circumstances have changed in the article so a new AfD is very viable. Just a suggestion. -- Atama ^chat 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:WikiCheckee

Yes, you are correct. My reversion was inadvertent, as I was trying to get used to using TW. I did not even realize that I had made the reversion. So, thanks for reverting me. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Flags and stuff

Thanks for speaking up. Is it just me, or has that been just bizarre? I'm still bewildered by the reaction. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Continued Badmouting

I am truly and sincerely sorry to have had to enter another paragraph on my User talk with the above heading, after I thought we would be OK. Southerly Clubs of Stockholm is not able to tolerate what is still going on, and I have been assigned by our Chairman to tell you so. Please help! EmilEikS (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound Steal Money

I saw an article deleted back in august 2005, The Fox and the Hound Steal Money, can you send me any copy(s)? my email is at barnytubbeds@aol.com. Nkljhhguyfyufyy (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, the article was a hoax article. Already recreated a few times by some vandal. No need for that resurrecting again. Garion96 (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No I meant can you send me a copy? I like hoax articles even though that can't be here. I want it on Uncyclopedia. Nkljhhguyfyufyy (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this seems to be highly likely to be another Bambifan101 sock. Have checkuser request in for confirmation and blocking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought indeed somewhat like that. I actually thought it was the original vandal who created that article. But that might even have been the Disney vandal. Garion96 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It was. A checker user showed both were socks of Bambifan101 and both have been blocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, those two who asked yes, but perhaps also User:RyanCahn, the original creator of that article (The Fox and the Hound Steal Money). It was created and deleted a few times in 2005. Or it might have been another vandal with a Disney fetish, there sure are enough of those. :) Garion96 (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion

The reason i removed the deletion was the excuse that was given is that it was just there for decorative use and wasn't actually mentioned in the article. This isn't true, if you read the section of the article it is placed in, you will see it is actually mentioned and described.Super Badnik 21:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Garion96, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.

I would also like to thank my nominator Realist² and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel ^(talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image issue

If you could take a look at a few images as I am running into a wall as far as the next step. "In a nutshell" - I tagged two images (Image:20080615-Jade.jpg and Image:20080615-Jade_2.jpg), PUI Discussion and IfD Discussion. The uploader came along, removed the tags and commented they owned them but were not the photographer. I re-tagged the images with {{di-no permission}} tags and also left a message on the users talk page. The user also left me a message on my talk page, I did reply with the information contained everywhere - about sending in the email. Today, November 21, the user again removed the tags and I again reverted them. A short time ago the images were update with a link to a forum entry on the website posted by "Oops (Vincent), Administrator, Webmaster" and dated "2008-9-3 10:44 AM" (even though the actual header says "Oops 2008-11-22 01:51 AM" - "Our granted photos in Wikipedia".

A look at the users image history shows a similar pattern for File:Jade Kwan 001s.jpg (File:Jade Kwan 001s .jpg) which were/was first uploaded in 2007 with "Description: Jade Kwan Source: BMA Date: 2006 Author: Jade Kwan Permission: {{Template:CopyrightedFreeUse}})" and than changed to "Description: Jade Kwan Source: Own work Date: 2006 Author: Own work". It was brought to a PUI in May 2008 and the user posted a permission note on their talk page. So now we are onto more of the same. Based on the overall content of the site the user is webmaster for (Read my response in the PUI Discussion) I am not sure the newly added statements found on 20080615-Jade 2.jpg and 20080615-Jade.jpg that leads to the forum posting really carries much weight. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In case you decide to take a look I found: Dick Ho, the photog who took Image:20080615-Jade.jpg, which is a cropped version of 20080615_JKFun_024 - looks like the version on Wikipedia was cropped to remove the watermarks. Unless I hear back I won't leave other messages on the subject. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Wpxboxlogo.png

Can you explain to me your reason for deleting this image? I see many things wrong with the process that just happened. First, we put the image up months ago, with the help an an Wiki. Commons administrator and had no problems with it for months. Then a user, who has only been on wikipedia for a month, comes and flags the image for deletion. So then a discussion was opened and there was a consensus of 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the image. The arguments alone explain that the image is not breaking any guidelines. Did you read our response or just deleted? This is when I get confused, because you deleted the image that had an open discussion (the only image that day that had an open discussion) and had a consensus of 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the image. As far as I'm concerned, I've seen every common wikipedia rule broken but maybe its just me. Thanks DJS--DJS24 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Editing?

Dear Sir or Madame: Please have another look at what is going on at Jacob Truedson Demitz. This is excrutiatingly embarassing and makes all the work I have done recently, which I just thought was complete and something to be proud of, feel like foolishness. EmilEikS (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. If you too are monitoring certain articles and talk pages involving me, perhaps you have seen the Jacob Truedson Demitz discussion recently. I have tried several times to calm things down and have apologized for everything thinkable that I may have done to cause trouble. I am willing to apologize for anything more that I may need to apologize about. When claiming that there is a lot of badmouthing going on, I get replies amounting to the fact that I am oversensitive. Now, a new editor in this drama has entered a C-quality template on the Demitz article. I would like it removed, please )see below)! I am also asking you to use your influence as an administrator to put a stop to things such as this (just copied from talk of User:Momoricks who entered the C-tag):

"I have been watching Werdna. He's gone bye-bye. It is telling that the only reason he says he won't do it again and admitted that he was wrong is to get the block lifted. I'm sure somehow, it will always be my fault. It was all about Dahmer, you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet, none of it was as bad as it was on Talk:Mae West, User talk:EmilEikS, User talk:Fiandonca, Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz or Wild Side Story. Where is good faith? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Try a C class and low priority. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought about Wikiquette or AN/I but apparently I hate him already. It doesn't have to happen immediately. There's also that incipient COI that can be verified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, steaming pile of poo is one description. Another might be a seminal horror/slasher film that opened the door to a plethora of even worse slasher films. It was fairly scary, but unfortunately, deteriorated into contrived storylines in sequels. I'd liken it in impact to Psycho, Night of the Living Dead and perhaps the original Halloween. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)"

Will you please help or find someone objective who will? PLEASE!EmilEikS (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since when is it appropriate to copy talk page content to another person's talk page? This has gone on long enough. It is time that User:EmilEikS learn that 1) he does not own the article(s) in question, 2) cross-posting and gaming adminstrators for support is inappropriate, and 3) it would benefit him greatly if he had actually read both sides of the conversation which he obviously did not to see what the actual conversation was about. The majority of that conversation was about a now blocked user and a huge uproar over his racist/homophobic/biased edits. Not the editor who posted this. The steaming pile of poo comment was in fact about the film Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And the recommendation for the article assessment is spot-on by the criteria of the guidelines. Cross checking talk pages and posting content from it as this was done is wikistalking. It is time for this to stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote Wikipedia re: Wikihounding: "The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases". EmilEikS (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Image issue

Please check my e-mail reply. Thanks. Vincentkhm (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello!

FYI

Hi Garion96, I have posted an incident report regarding User:EmilEikS, which is located here. I know you have had contact with him regarding these incidents and invite your comments. Best regards, mo ^talk 03:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use Image:Angie_WUSAPromo.jpg

I thought the "No" on replacibility would clear that up, didn't know "Fair-Use" beside it would goof that up. I removed "Fair-Use" from each of the images you tagged as they are not replaceable and that image is the only one available. If there are any future problems with these images, please feel free to contact me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 24, 2008 @ 15:40

Where do I go to state my side of the case, saying I think they aren't replaceable? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 24, 2008 @ 15:53

Done and Done. Thanks for your help :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 24, 2008 @ 16:08

The group picture was taken by the Mrs. Goff. I communicated with her and just recieved taht information. I uploaded the image, can that be released under CC? I can forward you that email if you like so you can confirm. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 24, 2008 @ 16:21

Maybe you can check on this

Short version is that I tagged Image:Frances pinter.jpg as a {{di-no permission}} on November 9. The tagged was removed on the day the tag was to expire by another editor with the reason "I object to the deletion of this image and have listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 14". The last "discussion" was on November 17. There has been plenty of time for an OTRS to come in and you can read the rest on the PUI topic.

I will also add on that I have touched on issues such as this at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#I9 is redundant to G12 so you may want to toss in your opinion. And I am not trying to canvas, just inform you about that discussion. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? The uploader clearly states they are not the photographer or the copyright holder. It defeat the whole point than. Not to sound harsh but since when is copyright law only applicable to some people? Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some handcuffs

Thought you could use a pair of handcuffs to aid you in capturing those who violate copyright. Count Blofeld 18:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just don't use them for kinky stuff huh? LOL Count Blofeld 22:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki's at Maman a tort

Hi Garion96 ! I think you're right. I will remove the interwiki fr:My Mum Is Wrong (I think that sooner or later this article will be merged with fr:Maman a tort). Europe22 (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please un-delete Terminator Logo image

Hi. You deleted Image:Terminator TSCC Logo.svg. But it was discussed and the consensus was to keep it. The image tag should be {{PD-textlogo}}. Please un-delete it. Thanks. --IE (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For lots of cleaning-up at WP:PUI, one of the lesser-watched backlogs. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Garion96. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harvey Carter

Hello Garion96. I noticed that you had protected Jeremy Bretts page to prevent editing by H. Carter. An anon IP that is in the range of his sockpuppets (according to a message that I received some time ago warning against these) has begun to edit JB's page again putting back in the same tenditious edits. I am just letting you know so you can decide how you want to handle it. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for the protection. MarnetteD | Talk 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:JPS 1917.png

No problem. As I thought about it, I realized that a 1917 book was in the public domain and it must be relatively easy to find a PD image. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Temptation.jpg

Hi, I'm kind of confused as to how I would go about replacing this image. It's just an image of the cover of a version of the book (The Temptation of Saint Anthony) so I don't understand how I can find a more-"free" version of the image than a picture of the book which I took myself. Thanks, Hazelorb (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. So for instance if a copy of the book pre 1923 is on sale on ebay with a picture, then that picture would be okay to upload even if I didn't take it? My college's library doesn't have any pre 1923 copies or I would just go take a picture of one. Hazelorb (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if the new image I just uploaded looks to be okay. I followed the comments template via Image:Madame_Bovary_1857.jpg. Hazelorb (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for all of your help! Hazelorb (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again?

I saw you deleted Image:Old Ex-lax box.JPG from a potentially unfree image discussion. I'm quite troubled by this, as you provide no rationale for this deletion--other than that it was listed for two weeks (that is not to say that you don't frequently list arbitrary deletion opinions that rest solely on your own overly restrictive notions of what is and is not free). Discussions on potentially unfree images and all deletion discussions still ascribe to consensus last time I checked. If you have a personal feeling on if an image is free or not you should comment in the discussion and not close it. I cited not one, but two, perfectly valid reasons why the image is free. I hope you will reconsider your closure and undelete the image. If not I will probably raise this issue (and quite a number of others) at deletion review, the administrator's noticeboard and/or upload the particularly egregious deletions to Commons. As you see from the outcome at Commons on the picture of Saddam Hussein, your interpretation as to what is free is significantly outside the norm even there. Regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have listed one of the images in question on DRV. I will be listing more there in the next few days. It's probably pointless to ask about most, given that they rest on your judgment calls, but I thought I should at least ask about having this this image undeleted. After some discussion on WP:MCQ and commons, it seems fairly clear that image falls under Israeli copyright and not British, thus resolving the uncertainty regarding its license status. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalized article

Hello. Can you please block the article Brazilian people from IP editions? I ask this because this article has been continuously vandalized by different IP numbers. Thank u. Opinoso (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:86.45.222.9/User talk:DenisHume.

This user is in a bit of a bind for the next 2 days: User:DenisHume is completely blocked, he can't edit his own talk page. User:86.45.222.9 can't edit User talk:DenisHume until 14:29, 15 December.

This isn't a huge deal because frankly, he has no business requesting an unblock that soon - I recommended he wait two weeks, which is 2x his initial block. Another administrator extended that block to indefinate with no edits to his user talk page.

If you should need to re-block DenisHume's IP address, talk User:Rklawton and, unless he objects, restore on user-talk-page-edit privileges so this user can communicate to all administrators at once rather than one-at-a-time or through admin-l via email. Rklawton extended this user's block from 1 week to indef and turned off his rights to edit his user talk page, see User talk:Rklawton#DenisHume's indef block - why was it extended? for the rationale. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

PUI

Hi, could you handle a few remaining images on PUI for me? One on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 21 and five on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 24. I tagged these images myself, so I can't really close them. Garion96 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've re-added the PUI summary to the filedelete dropdown for convenience; you can type in the date into the "other" field. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: MLV1.jpg

Yes, it did. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David ^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Free-use justification for Carmen cover

Hi. Thanks for letting me know that you put a "replaceable fair use" tag on Image:Carmen_cover.jpg. The reason the image can't be replaced was already at the image, in what I understand is the proper template. If you see something wrong with that justification, could you let me know the specific problem, either in talk or at the image's discussion page? Thanks. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether you read the whole rationale, which explained why the cover I uploaded was better than any other. If you had, you might have made the suggestion that occurred to me, which is that the original of the painting might be available on the internet. It was, though at low resolution, and I've uploaded it to Commons under a PD-Art license. So if you find a public-domain cover for "Carmen", you can replace the present image and you or I can add File:Carmen aquarelle Merimee.jpg to the article. Incidentally, you could have made this process more efficient by explaining your objection to the image, as you ended up doing anyway, instead of using a template with the inaccurate statement that the image fails a criterion for non-free content. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't know that the original watercolor could be found on the Web when you sent me that message, so as far as you knew, it was inaccurate. That's what happens when you work fast. When I find a violation of copyright or fair-use policy, I usually fix it myself. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I still disagree with you on the situation at the time, but I'm not going to repeat the reason. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:AgeOfInnocence.JPG

Please confirm that the problem with File:AgeOfInnocence.JPG is the same as that of Resurrection.JPG, i.e. it should be flat to be OK GrahamHardy (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Anne images ?

What about AnneOfAvonlea.jpg‎ and AnneOfTheIslandCover.JPG which are flat ? ThanksGrahamHardy (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IFD Closure

May I ask why you think that the images listed here do not violate policy?--Rockfang (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Common sense. Garion96 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So do you think they do violate policy but you don't care? Or are you saying you don't think they violate policy? Just trying to be certain I understand correctly.--Rockfang (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they violate policy and I also don't care if they do. A few images for a user page are ok. The same for a personal image of an editor for his/her user page. As long as a user does not upload 1000 images of their cats, it is ok. Garion96 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I can't change whether or not you care about something, so I'll skip that part. WP:NOTWEBHOST clearly states in item #2: "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted." None of the related images were being used in articles at the time I posted the IFD. I have no reason to believe they ever will be. Could you possibly reconsider your decision?--Rockfang (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't. You can go to wikipedia:deletion review if you want to. Oh, are you going to nominate File:Theresa Knott.JPG for deletion as well? Just a random example I found of an image which will (probably) never be used in an encyclopedia article or project page. Garion96 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think the image should be deleted, but I probably won't be nominating it anytime soon.--Rockfang (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:My cat stoker 1.JPG

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:My cat stoker 1.JPG. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I have listed for review the other images in the related IFD as well.Rockfang (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

PUI2

Hi. I just wanted to note that in addition to copying images from CP to PUI, I'm trying to pitch in there a bit where I see what seem to be clear cut matters. If you should happen to notice me doing something out of process or making a mistake, I would be very grateful if you would let me know. :) (And feel free to fix it, if you wish and can!) Of course, I'm grateful if you help me out if I flub up anywhere, but this is particularly true with images, as I am not on anywhere near as secure footing with them as I am with text.

And happy holidays! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do, glad there is some help with that page. For a while I was the only one . The same as you are on wikipedia:copyright problems, will try to help you there a litle bit. I haven't dealt with that page in a while since you and jeepday took over. Of course regarding images, be careful with my advice since, as some comment above stated "I have an own overly restrictive notion of what is and is not free" :) Happy holidays to you as well. Garion96 (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)