User talk:Garion96/Archive 13

Db-g12
RE:Diff I see and respect your argument, In fact when I first saw your argument I felt stupid for suggesting the we blank the speedy and considered withdrawing the suggestion. The more I thought about it though, I changed my mind. I will grant you that at worst it should not be more more then a couple hours before it is dealt with by an admin.

Here is why I am leaning towards auto blank even on the speedy - Signed, Jeepday (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It functionally a simple thing to, and seeing the pre-tagged version is a seconds work with a couple of clicks.
 * 2) The general expectation at Copyright problems is "if all revisions have copyright problems: Blank the page"
 * 3) Considering all the flack that You tube and Google, etc get for copyvio stuff it helps if we can show that we blank the content of all suspect copyvio and gives us a stronger position if we are called upon legally for copyvio
 * 4) Like WP:BLP suspected Copyvio is something that causes no pain to remove while researching and the mere act of being proactive it supportive to the Wikipedia community as a whole. It say's to contributors and viewers that Wikipedia does not condone the inclusion of material that is prohibited.


 * Response at my talk, Jeepday (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing flag from template:Infobox Short story/doc
Hi - I don't disagree with the idea of removing the flag from the example, but for future reference can you clarify which part of wp:mosflag actually applies in this case? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure it's urgent in either way, but if edit wars flare up it might be appropriate to clarify either for this particular infobox or for the flags policy in general whether flags belong there (I'm inclined to side with you that they don't.).  Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Largemohicanpenguin.jpg
Hi, I saw you decided that this image is irreplaceable non-free content. I disagree. The book was first published in 1826 so it should be possible to get a scan of a public domain edition. Garion96 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, I forgot how old that book is. Maybe I'll check the book section at the antique store next time I pass by. Melesse (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

List of HIV-positive people
Thanks for the note. However, I notice that quite a few of the names on your page are already in the list. For example, Alan Bowne, Bianca Biaggi, Bruce Chatwin, Zackie Achmat. Trezatium (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Eu Citizenship
Hi,

I noticed that you removed EU Citizenship from the Rebecca Grinter article. I'm writing to explain why I (beki70) put it in. I am drawing from an explanation provided by the European Union http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/citizenship/fsj_citizenship_intro_en.htm

The legal definition for the European citizenship can be found in Article 17 of the Treaty establishing the European Community: “Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.”

It goes on, from there, to explain the distinct rights of EU citizenship (as well as their differences from member state citizenship). I just wanted to explain why I view EU Citizenship as a distinct, separate, citizenship.

thanks, beki70  Beki70 (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Again,

Thanks for the explanation. While I don't personally agree, that's very different from respecting wiki policy, so it stays off the page. One day, I hope it can return :-) Beki70 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for all the helpful information and encouragement, much appreciated. Beki70 (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI notification
Thanks Garion96, appreciate the notification and revert. Best, Gwernol 23:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy gabs adds 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake on List of bisexual people (G-M)
Sorry, for some reason I thought I was restoring an entry that had been deleted, but I actually deleted it myself. Sorry for my carelessness, and thanks for fixing it. Ward3001 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
—CycloneNimrod Talk? 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders Transactions/Template:2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders Off-Season Transactions
Could please restore this template for another day, so I can reintegrate this back into 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season? I was hoping someone would warn me before the templates were arbitrarily deleted as I mentioned in my reasoning on the deletion page. When you do this mention it on my Talk Page, so I can quickly put the data back on the page. Thanks. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sculley-interview.jpg
You say this is replaceable by a free one, but is it? I couldn't find a free photo we can use after a search on a couple sites including Flickr. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 11:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't keep track of the specific image rules, since MOS is enough to keep up with. I have removed it from the article. Thanks, — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 11:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike Veon
I replaced the second infobox for Mike Veon; it seems to be standard procedure. (see James Traficant). Some people would have a problem with using a mugshot as a person's main photo in the main infobox. BLP concerns probably. --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At some point, someone is going to make a BLP argument to try and delete that photo. They will probably say that the use of the booking photo violates the nonfree photo policy of living persons, since we're supposed to find a free version for living people. (This is a dumb argument, but someone will make it). Or they will say that the use of the booking photo violates the prohibition against placing undue weight in a bio about the criminal charges. We are much less likely to get into a whole battle if we keep the two infoboxes separate. --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That photo is a mug shot of the former Pennsylvania House Minority Whip, and in case you might not be familiar with PA politics, Veon was much more powerful than that (Think of Tom Delay in the US House). He is charged with corruption and using state resources for political campaign purposes. His indictment was a huge shock to the political system, and threatens to bring down many other legislators. Therefore, the usage of his mug shot in the wikipedia article add to its value by showing in visual form the turn that this person's life has taken. Words describing his arraignment last month cannot reproduce the effect that seeing Mike Veon's booking photo in the article. Further, the photo is unique (as a mugshot is not replaceable), and well-publicized (the Pennsylvania Attorney General sent it to dozens of state-wide media outlets). As a final arugment, I direct you to the Category:Mug shots, which has several hundred mug shot photos, all of whom you should tag as unnecessary fair use if you tag Veon's mug shot as such. --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can live with this change. --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel icon TfD
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'd like to petition your help because it appears you're an admin actively involved in the TfD process. The Nobel icon TfD (which I realize you have participated in) appears to be nearing a rough consensus in favor of deletion, but I'm not sure (since this is my first TfD) what "rough" is and who should close the TfD when that is or is not reached. Projects for FAC and FLC have directors who oversee the voting and consensus, but I'm not sure how it works with TfD. Anyway, any help would be appreciated, and forgive me if you're not familiar with this subject. --Eustress (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Master of the world.jpg
Hi, I saw you decided that this image is irreplaceable non-free content. I disagree. The book was first published in 1904 so it should be possible to get a scan of a public domain edition. Garion96 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be highly impractical. However you're welcome to nominate the image to IFD. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Solved, I think. Public domain material was extremely easy to find. (And even if it hadn't been, I'd have agreed with Garion, just for the record. Early 20th-cent books by such a prominent author can by default be assumed to survive and be "reasonably" accessible.) Thanks for bringing it up, it's even earned the project a new article, on the book illustrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It turns out it's actually a fun little exercise, and very educational. It's amazing what lovely stuff you can find of 19th cent novel editions. I just did another just for fun . Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image removal
HI I see you removed many of the images from the List of American films. Could you find some free replacements in the commons for many of the older years. Thanks The Bald One      White cat 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please help with replacing the images you removed with free content from the commons? The lists look bare without them. The Bald One     White cat 13:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Template talk:Nobel icon may not have been appropriate
Could you please reconsider your deletion of Template talk:Nobel icon. The CSD criterion that you cited is only applicable for talk pages of deleted articles, and I believe this also serves as an exception, because there is  a lot of discussion at that page relating to its use that is not logged elsewhere. It shows even more consensus that is not at the TfD. «  Diligent Terrier   [talk]  20:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you might want to comment at WP:ANI now and mark the discussion as resolved. Cheers, «  Diligent Terrier    [talk]  21:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

deleted "Image:RalphRubio.jpg" (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 2
I took this photo & released it into public domain. You (or someone) said: "Image:RalphRubio.jpg As written, It is a screenshot from KUSI news. Orphaned OsamaK 12:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)."

It did not say that. It was taken while Ralph was at my TV station. I took the photo directly, not off of the TV screen.

Return it.

Phil Konstantin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon (talk • contribs) 12:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Garion96. This is another note from me, who tagged the image. I think now, license is OK. and there is no problem. Can you please restore it? Thank you!--OsamaK 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my question at the village pump
Why did you delete my question at the village pump? And didn't even notify me on my talk page? Am I allowed to revert the deletion or is that against the rules? TotientDragooned (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not familiar with the case or its background... I was reading WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley and noticed several complaints from participants about the committee taking too long to address the case, then noticed this other case that had been active for months. What about this case is keeping it open so long? I agree I don't want to waste people's time if the circumstances are common knowledge. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thank you.TotientDragooned (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ee Irupatthiyonnaam Noottaandu
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ee Irupatthiyonnaam Noottaandu, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Ee Irupatthiyonnaam Noottaandu. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood. My very first such nomination. Thought to err on the side of caution.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Image placeholders
The use of image placeholders was banned per this centralized discussion Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. They are not supposed to used anymore.Nrswanson (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. 'Banned' was an overstatement, but as you know there is very strong opposition to the use of image placeholders. I think it would be a step in the right direction (pro harmony etc.) if we all stopped using them. Best regards and all good wishes. -- Klein zach  03:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Latrun
Please do not remove the in-use: ongoing translation template, which is being repositioned regularly as the cleanup of the translation proceeds. Should you have comments or questions, before you take action kindly consult me or the translator-editor working on this page in coordination. -- Thank you, Deborahjay (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Further: Evidently Users Ceedjee (who's translating the page from the featured article in French) and Almalthea (who did the revision work on the template) don't know about these restrictions on this tag's use. I don't feel the page should be left as it is, but I don't have enough experience to know what's recommended for such cases: sandbox (which exists: see here), translation-help (?) tag, or ??... Please advise! -- Deborahjay (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC) ... and concluded with a more manageable m.o. Thanks for your guidance! -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusatons of false vandalism charges
Can you help please ? (I don't know what I have to do in this situation). User:Kww accuses me of having reverted edits that are not vandalism in his opinion. Please note our following discussion and take time to verify the references :

Kww said on my talk page :
 * I noticed that have reverted changes into the Vanessa Hudgens articles amid incorrect charges of vandalism. The discography article, in particular, you attempted to introduce an unsourced sales figure of 80,000 for Identified. The IP reverted this change, and you restored it, calling it vandalism. Reverting unsourced information is not vandalism, and leaving warnings against editors that do it is highly inappropriate.Kww (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My reply on his talk page:
 * Hi. Please note the IP removed many chart positions and even a source on V (Vanessa Hudgens album). It was the same thing on Vanessa Hudgens discography. As you can see, these edits *are* vandalisms. Therefore, my warnings against this editor [that Kww has removed] are totally justified. For the sales in the U.S., I don't know if this info is true or false, but this change came from a vandal, and I've supposed it was false. As I see you have reverted my changes, I will request arbitration by a third person. Europe22 (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kww don't want an arbitration by a third person, but frankly, as he was highly involved in the merger of the singles in the album article and he denied the evidences I've presented to him (he reverted again my changes, although the references are on the album article that were also deleted by the IP), I have a doubt on his good faith (and the IP continues to vandalize the article adding false chart positions and removing a source, as you can see, and Kww let this user do).

In advance, thank you for your help.

Regards, Europe22 (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Europe22 notified me of this discussion. You can look at my editing history, and see that I don't have an interest in Hudgens in specific ... most of my edits are spent keeping the Disney Channel area in line, something which I fell into because of the high vandalism in the area. As Europe22 points out, I have been instrumental in getting the non-notable singles in the area killed off as well, eliminating unnecessary articles on Hudgens, Pruitt, The Cheetah Girls, and others.
 * Anyway, Europe22 fell into an editing dispute with an IP, and began characterizing the dispute as vandalism by the IP, which it clearly wasn't. On V (Vanessa Hudgens album), the IP had alternate sources for some of the sourced material which it felt were more reliable. Since there are conflicting sources, Europe22 and the IP should be settling it on the talk page. I reverted once because of the false summary, and haven't touched it again. Regardless, characterizing the IP's edits as "vandalism" is a pretty severe breach of AGF.
 * On Vanessa Hudgens discography, Europe22 introduced a large set of changes, primarily unsourced chart figures and unsourced sales figures. The IP reverted those changes. Europe22 again accused the IP of vandalism, and restored them. Since they were unsourced and in the case of the Identified sales figure, known to me to be wrong, I restored the original version. Again, it's an editing dispute between Europe22 and the IP, not vandalism by the IP. Again, I tend to take the IP's side in the dispute.
 * As to why I haven't fixed the entire article and corrected all the information, it's a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, combined with the fact that taking care of those articles tends to take me near 3RR. Because of reversion limits, I can't revert any more false data out of those articles today.Kww (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment on V talk page about the changes by the IP. Europe22 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I only looked quickly at this, but I do agree this was not vandalism, at least not obvious vandalism. It seems like a content dispute. Whether the IP was correct or not with his edits I do not know. I would invite the IP to the talk page where you added your comment with the link above and advice him about sourcing. Since not all his edits were backed by sources, but also, not everything he removed seemed to have been backed by sources either. Garion96 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just added a comment on Kww's talk page as well as on the IP talk page and, after more investigation, I finally agree with you. Thank you for your advice. Europe22 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

45 obrtaja: Priče o pesmama
You deleted list of songs Dejan Cukic deals with in his book 45 obrtaja: Priče o pesmama. I see no reason why the list should be copyrighted... There is no law against stating names of the songs... Citing songs lyrics would be breaking some copyright laws. Even Dejan Cukic didn't use original lyrics in the book, only Serbian language translations, but used names of the songs and albums. I see it as an article about album... No law forbids you to state names of the songs in it. Ostalocutanje (talk)
 * Ok, but if I manage to get a permission from the author (although I'm not quite sure if I'll manage to contact a rock star), would it be possible to place the list in the article? And after all, the book has not been published in USA, and I don't believe we have a similar law... Ostalocutanje (talk)
 * You're right, maybe it's not that important... Ostalocutanje (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.121.92 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Hi there, Garion96! I hope this letter reaches you well. I am writing to you regarding Polytechnic University of the Philippines article. I concede that there are copyright violations of the page--as there are paragraphs which are not revised and rephrased, thus I would deemed illegally written. For that matter, in the past weeks, I am really trying to delete, add pertinent information, rephrase such paragraphs, but to no avail, some of the paragraphs would fall under "unacceptable practice of using other people's work." Thanks for doing that!

However, I reviewed the deleted paragraphs and after much careful study, the below-stated paragraphs are considered to be legitimate and should be retained.


 * The Polytechnic University of the Philippines (Politeknikong Pamantasan ng Pilipinas) commonly known as PUP, Peyups or PUPoy is a state-university from the Philippines. Founded on October 1904, Manila Business School was the name then of PUP that offers commerce-related courses. The university offers tertiary courses of accountancy, engineering, political science, social science, business, arts, agriculture and associate programs.
 * I search over Google and only found one link to that statement, wich is the en.wikipedia. . Other searches would give you wikipedia-related site and some sites who may have copy-pasted from wikipedia. IDK, but I am sure I would fight over that paragraph that it is not copied from any source.
 * That statement has been rephrased and rewritten several times not to be considered as plagiarism. :)
 * PUP has 14 branches. PUP's two main branches are situated in Mariveles, Bataan and in Lopez, Quezon. It also has eight (8) extensions located in Sta. Rosa and San Pedro, Laguna, Maragodon in Cavite, Mulanay and Unisan in Quezon, Ragay in Camarines Sur, Sta. Maria in Bulacan and Sto. Tomas in Batangas. There are six (6) campuses in Metro Manila: A. Mabini (main campus), Lepanto, Hasmin/M.H. del Pilar, and the National Development Corporation (NDC) in Manila, Taguig City and Commonwealth in Quezon City; 14 Open University Learning Centers, three (3) of which are outside PUP sites located in Cabiao, Nueve Ecija, General Luna, Quezon and Pulilan, Bulacan.
 * You instead changed it to:
 * PUP has 14 branches. PUP's two main branches are situated in Mariveles, Bataan and in Lopez, Quezon. It also has 8 extensions located in Sta. Rosa and San Pedro, Laguna, Maragodon in Cavite, Mulanay and Unisan in Quezon, Ragay in Camarines Sure, Sta. Maria in Bulacan and Sto. Tomas in Batangas. There are 6 campuses in Metro Manila: A. Mabini (main campus), Lepanto, Hasmin/M.H. del Pilar, and the National Development Corporation (NDC) in Manila, Taguig City and Commonwealth in Quezon City; 14 Open University Learning Centers, three of which are outside PUP sites located in Cabiao, Nueve Ecija, General Luna, Quezon and Pulilan, Bulacan.
 * This is the site of the reference from that paragraph. If you looked over the site, it is very different from original--as it is not in paragraph form. As you can see, I put links to the locations and put the numbers in letter form--as those are below 10, but you reverted it.
 * The buildings in PUP, Manila are the offices of the University Officials, Ninoy Aquino Learning Resources Center, and PUP Gym and open courts are located here. It has several campuses; the A. Mabini Campus that houses many of its colleges; MH del Pilar Campus that houses the College of Nutrition and Food Sciences and the College of Tourism, Hotel and Restaurant Management; NDC Campus that houses the College of Communication, the College of Engineering, College of Architecture and Fine Arts, The University Press and the Mass Communication Theatre.
 * You deleted this paragraph, and put this instead:
 * In buildings located in PUP, Manila are the offices of the University Officials, Ninoy Aquino Learning Resources Center, and PUP Gym and open courts are located here. It has several campuses; the A. Mabini Campus that houses many of its colleges; MH del Pilar Campus that houses the College of Nutrition and Food Sciences and the College of Tourism, Hotel and Restaurant Management; NDC Campus that houses the College of Communication, the College of Engineering, College of Architecture and Fine Arts, The University Press and the Mass Communication Theatre.
 * Don't you think the first paragraph is well written?
 * The PUP System is the record holder of the World's largest human rainbow. This was done on September 18, 2004 for the celebration of the university's centennial, as well as the highlight of the signing of the Declaration of Peace to be put before the United Nations.
 * I have rephrased that paragraph to be of good quality, put a reference but then it was changed to:
 * The majority of the participants of the Guinness Book of World Records's Largest Human Rainbow (the PUP System is the current record holder) are from PUP Manila.
 * Again, don't you think, the former is better?

This letter is getting too lengthy, so I may just stopped here. Again, some of the paragraphs still have copyrighted violations such as:
 * Consolidated Growth through Education is why PUP exist, giving educational development to the youth in preparation for their involvement in nation building. The said development includes the activity of social, economic, industrial, technological, and cultural aspect of one's totality in life with which individuals synergize themselves to develop an environment necessary to the progress of the state.
 * The university offers ladder-type higher vocational programs, distance learning (open university system), technical and professional programs in the area of business and distributive arts, education and the social sciences related to the fields of commerce, business administration, and other polytechnic areas.
 * Governance of PUP is conducted by the Board of Regents through policy-making functions to carry out the mission and programs of the university. Day-to-day affairs of the university are administered by an appointed president, or if none by the acting president, who is assisted by five vice-presidents for academic affairs, student services, administration, research and development, and finance.

So I dont mind deleting them. There may be a need to rephrase/rewrite them, so as not to be considered plagiarized. If you find this judgment necessary, kindly make the necessary changes to the said article. Thank you and your prompt attention to this matter is highly appreciated. :) Axxand    SPEAK    ACT  13:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Omar Epps
You locking Omar Epps is unfair. Why didnt you post on the discussion page? Or tag the article. The info I added is true. 1) Why are you removing his 1st wife and daughter? wiki has all 8 of Elizabeth Taylor's husbands so leave Omar's 1st wife. 2) "celebrity-babies.c om" is a valid website. Its owned by people.com. They verify birth info, parentage, etc with the actor/actresses' publicisit/representative. 3) The infidelity is true. If you read AfrAm publications you'd know so. They were a greatly loved couple to AfrAms. 3a) The infidelity is also on Sanaa Lathan's page. 3b) Are you gonna remove the infidelity from Bill Clinton, Kobe Bryant, A Rod's wiki pages? Thx. 70.108.71.78 (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded here. Garion96 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Access to the Realm
I have read in your userpage about this..


 * If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel, or personal information, and has not been deleted as a suspected WP:BLP violation, I will provide the text for you.

but I don't know if I am qualified to seek help.

Axxand   SPEAK    ACT

My proposal
Would you delete this for me? It serves no practical purpose. Mike92591 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice
I've awarded you a barnstar for the hours you spent cleaning out WP:PUI. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar. It's nice to have a nice clean PUI again, while it lasts anyway... A question, why do you prefer the PUI tag at the bottom at MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown? For me it is easier to scroll a little bit down than to scroll totally down at the bottom where it is now. Garion96 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I use the keyboard more so I just click the dropdown, hit End or PgDn, and click Delete. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hans Teeuwen
hey this is 'Moltenriches' could you please explain to me why youtube isn't a good source, when it is a clear video of the event in question happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moltenriches (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 September 2008

Mother Teresa
Hi Garion. Vandalism activity has picked up at the article on Mother Teresa. Page patrollers are doing their best, but it's hard to keep up with the IP vandals. I'd like to request semi-protection for the next two weeks. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Majoreditor (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnawartha
The situation we're in with this whole slate of images is that the owner was contacted by a number of Wikipedians and was fine with them being used under a free license. People then moved onto other things before it was pointed out that we need to know what free license.

How about, for a change, getting in touch with the owner of these images, and getting the information that we need to end this bullshit stone dead? It's ridiculous that I've had to three times undelete an image that we're legally using because of the impatience of certain users. Rebecca (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're not interested in doing the groundwork, then please refrain from attempting to delete legally used free images. Rebecca (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who contacted the owner a few months back to confirm the permission - how do I forward the email into the OTRS thingy? Wongm (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just got a response from the email submission - Ticket #2008100610016331. Wongm (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:Leila Sbitani.jpg]]
I sent an e-mail of her permission as you requested, but it has yet to be restored? Should I send it again? MrKIA11 (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder, it has been a week, and it's still not restored. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing of Image:ROCCustomsDec.png
Instruction III of Possibly unfree images States

Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using == Possibly unfree Image:Image_name.ext == An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Image_name.ext, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sgt Simpson (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember to replace "Image_name.ext" with the name of the image or media

(That part of the template became a message because you are supposed to put it with inserted information on talk pages such as this one) You did not follow this process when you tagged the image as possibly unfree, you had no right to tag therefore. I was not informed of the status of the image, and therefore I was not given a chance to correct it to follow wikipedia guidlines. All this is going to do is give me hassle as I will have to reupload the picture if I still have it anymore.

Please respond on my talk page

Thank you for following wikipedia guidlines. -Sgt Simpson (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Image:Viet Ladies.JPG
If you look closely, you can see this image is a scan of a postcard dated 1904. I'd like to recreated it. Kauffner (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my work
Last night I spent several hours creating and populating a category for which I saw an obvious need and utility. Today you deleted it on the basis of a decision made by about five wikipedians more than a year ago on an obscure discussion board. I'm assuming good faith on your part, however, in adding that category to a large number of web pages I noticed that wikipedia as a community has become excessively concerned with categorizing people by ethicity rather than achievement. I am deeply disappointed with a process which allows a few to make decisions for all, and then to have that become an established policy with no clear way for a person volunteering a great deal of effort to know that they are wasting their time. And with no recourse whatever. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion
Hi, I was again working on WP:PUI when I encountered Image:GuadFlag.png listed at Possibly unfree images/2008 September 19. I think it should be deleted and was already halfway of removing it, but just to be sure I would like a second opinion on this. Do you agree with the deletion? Garion96 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's correct to delete that and any image that has been on WP:PUI for two weeks with no objections raised to its deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that I know. I just wanted to be sure if it is really copyrighted or not. Even when no objections I still don't delete the image if the license turns out not to be invalid. I couldn't find any info on public domain in France. Either one of the two images is wrong (and they are both the same image). One has a PD tag, the other one has a non-free tag. Garion96 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it it's non-free unless you have evidence to the contrary. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ControlFreak
You just took care of the images had uploaded. Wanted to make sure you were aware that I dropped a final warning on his page. He was blocked previously for these images, but, unfortunately, the block message was for edit warring over the images, not for the images themselves, even though the warnings leading up to the block were for image use violations.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
Dear User:Garion96,

' I noticed that you removed the flagicon image for Guadeloupe on this page. I do not understand the reasoning behind your edit. Would you mind terribly if I asked for your explanation?

Sincerely

':)--Thecurran (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, as Image:Region Guadeloupe.svg has reasoning that it is fair use, I do not see the reason to remove it. :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one to watchlist
You actually seem to pay attention to image violators, so I'll bring this one to your attention. is also at final warning level for inserting fair use images. She clears her talk page, but if you look at the history, you'll see that I was once again a softy, and I probably could have gotten a block if I'd gone to ANI.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

John Pressdee
Can you please tell me whose copyright you think I violated when you deleted my article, since all content was actually the history of Mr Pressdee and I had his permission to use it!!!

Thanks,

Ken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenga1 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Pages Singapore
HI, Sorry, this is the first time I am using a TalkPage. Please forgive me if any protocol is not followed. I created an article on Yellow Pages Singapore and it was flagged as Copyright infringement. I then went to edit the text to that which is much more meaningful and different from the original. Is it possible to reinstate the page I created? Thanks! Chase78 (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Chase78

Comment
Hi there. im just wondering wheather or not you may be able to pass on a copy of my recently deleted information to wiki. after spazzing about it first off the bat i slowly began to realize the correct format and how it went wrong. so now i understand the way this particular entry was written wasnt correct for the purposes of a legit wiki page i would sincerly appreciate if i could get a copy of the work that was deleted for my own reference so that i can see exactly what went wrong and improve on it thanks in advance!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antikid (talk • contribs) 04:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

USHoleInOne
Hi -

I noticed that you removed the page that I posted for our company US Hole In One. You said that it had blatent copyright infringement but it was copy taken from our website that I wrote and would like to use again on our Wiki page. Please let me know how we go about creating a page for our company.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usholeinone (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

John Pressdee
Hi,

Thanks for your comments. Does this mean that I could re-submit a re-written article as I believe that this gentleman is worthy of note as a pioneer of recocilliation between nations through prayer walking.

Ken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenga1 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up a page
Hi,

I'm wondering whether you can help me. I'm trying to clean up a page School of Interactive Computing. As you can see it's marked with the need to find external references, I'm working on that. When I find them and add them, do I need to alert someone to take a look and remove the box that says that external references are required? Thanks for any help!

beki70 Beki70 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It'll take a while my day job keeps me pretty busy, but I wanted to find out what the protocol was before I broke it :-) Beki70 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)