User talk:Garion96/Archive 6

why are my images gone?
I am curious why my images were deleted. There was a dispute over them, but I sent my e-mail correspondence with port columbus to ORTS and have not received a response. I don't see why they should be deleted while still under review. So now, since they are deleted I cannot check what happened to them. Any thoughts? Polypmaster 21:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I sent in my correspondence with port columbus to ORTS over a month ago and heven't heard anything and the pics are gone. Am I ever going to hear anything or should I assume they are gone?  Polypmaster 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bunny
Image:Easter-egg-with-easter-hare.JPG is the best I could find (it's actually a hare, but still...); some of the other stuff at commons:Rabbit might also work. I'm not sure where all those are being transcluded from, so the best bet might be just to upload over the current image and change the image credit appropriately. --RobthTalk 15:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about David A. Bell article
I noticed that you recently deleted the David A. Bell article because of copyright violations. A message was sent to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org granting permission for the printing of this article because the website that was supposedly cited as copyright violation (DHB industries) in fact took the article from someone else and this person has written granting the permission. I was wondering if this message had not been received or what the protocol is. Thank you so much. User: Curstey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curtsey (talk • contribs). 06:10, 16 April 2007

Thank you for your response.....if it is possible I would like the article restored once they have gotten through all the permission requests and if they find that it is not a copyright violation. Thanks again. Curtsey

Kasaragod district copyvio
Hello, Pls note that Kasaragod district which you tried to rid of copyvio is still in a mess. The current version has most of the content from this site. I can't figure out how to deal with this issue. I haven't put the template on it. Pls look into this. Rajamankkan 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:Khazar coin1.jpg]]
Why was this deleted? A detailed response to the copyright violation accusation was posted. There was in fact no violation. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Kulongoski

 * Hi, I saw this image listed on WP:PUI. Have you already heard something from the Governor's office? If not, I think I will delete the image, since it's already listed almost a month. It can always be restored. Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did hear back - thanks for checking. I haven't figured out the best way to post this info yet, but I'll quote it below, and I'll post it on the image page as well. The following is from Kristina Edmunson of Kulongoski's Communications office; it refers to both the photo in question, and to a newer one she sent me.

From:  Kristina.Edmunson (email deleted for privacy) Subject: RE: Governor Kulongoski Headshot Date: April 12, 2007 9:37:16 AM PDT To:  peteforsyth (email deleted for privacy) Again, I assure you, that this photo is already in the public domain.

-Pete 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tianamen beating.jpg
Per the comment I left on the image page I do not believe the image is fair use, but free. I am going to get someone who speaks Chinese to better translate the copyright text, there's an additional few sentences I left out because babelfish made a mush of them. The total text is "The law person does not take the expense. Welcome to participate in world each place the spontaneous collective to build up the merit activity 明慧 network all rights reserved ©1999-2007 MINGHUI.ORG welcome reprint, but please give the source" which suggests to me if they're attempting to build a spontaneous collective the license may approach something more akin to the GFDL than the PD I previously believed it to be. Nardman1 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NIC Images
The removal of the NIC images is very unfair. Even though you know very well from the NIC rules that the images are not copyrighted unless stated so by the webpage, you removed the images. It is very unfair to remove a non-copyrighted image that has been made available to the public domain through the Government of India website. This is a violation of the rules. I request you to upload the same images to undo the damages. Chanakyathegreat 05:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous Amsterdammers
Good call. Couldn't agree more. Thanks! --User:Krator (t c) 17:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Images Deleted
I sent an email to the address you requested i do so to use the pictures that you took down. When will i find out the status? - themmachamp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themmachamp (talk • contribs). 18:17, 17 April 2007

DUI NOTABLE LIST
Listen pal, the source is each name's wikipedia article is that not clear?

The following lists do not have sources...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_one-word_stage_names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_couples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conservationists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_two_or_more_professions

and that is two seconds worth of looking, youre gonna have to delete all the lists on people OR youre gonna have to back off--0001 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is collation of facts about people as per said
ON thier wikipedia articles? You are nonsensical in the utmost. I cannot understand you. This was a requested article. I made sure each person on the list's wikipedia article actually explicity mention thier DUIs. Does the list of couples? point to a published source verifying thier marriage certificate? See, you can't say nothin. Either way, this list remains.--0001 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ariel Upper campus.jpg
Hi. You have deleted the Image:Ariel Upper campus.jpg. I provided required info and the issue is discussed on my Talk page. So far there is no reason to delete the immage. Shmuliko 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anaerobic digesters.jpg
This image was taken by my colleague Yair Zadik in a previous job. The creative commons license tag we viewed as the most appropriate for listing on Wikipedia.Alex 08:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa vandalism
Thank you for reverting the latest vandalism. The article has been vandalized about once per day since the semi-protection expired. Unfortunately, it needs to be semi-protected again. Can you help? Thanks. Majoreditor 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Amador Valley High Wiki
Please restore the parts of the Amador Valley High School wiki that were not copied from the Amador Page, such as the alumni sections, etc. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.233.216 (talk • contribs). 02:03, 21 April 2007 probably User:SilvrHawk

Re: Image:49222.jpg
I looked at the associated article, and it seemed clear to me that the photo has to be more than 100 years old. With that in mind, I felt that the source given was adequate to avert speedy deletion. It might be something that deserves a second look; if you wanted to tag it again, I wouldn't touch it the next time around. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced
One day of talk does not make consensus, and no-one supporting the change you just made to unreferenced has cited a single policy or guideline supporting the change. Please consider undoing the change until there is a real conversation and real consensus. Jeepday 14:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Response at User_talk:Jeepday Jeepday 14:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am starting to feel grumpy, going to step back and watch now, I made my key points and am starting to get the The Most Important Thing Possible feeling for no good reason. Jeepday 15:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi
Thanks for fixing this article. It still needs a lot of work, but great start! -- Dchall1 19:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reupload?
Hi, I'm wondering if I can re-upload WP-CartoonNetwork.png as I didn't know if the image was fair use, marked it for someone to check if it was OK unde fair use but didn't read what qualified as fair use which is why it ended up incorrectly in WP:PUI. Having now read what qualifies under the FUP, I can say that the image is mine and wouldn't fall under the FUP. -- treelo talk 20:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure if it can be undeleted given it's derivative and it's only use is in a template for a WikiProject. I created this because there was a non-free version used before it was removed from it and now I can't tell if it's OK for use in templates alone. The criteria that I want it to be used for is as a free version of a logo so it can be used openly, does the image pass if I allow it into the public domain? -- treelo talk 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was following precedent of this image which was OK for use and felt I could use my image under the same reasoning too. It might seem unnecessary but I'd rather an image than the alternative which currently exists which was created as a stop-gap between when a new image could be acquired. It doesn't make sense to me that an image which was made by myself is not permitted to be used but another similar image which isn't theirs to declare as free is in use. Can you explain why it doesn't pass as freely usable but someone else's which is used for the same purposes does because it's confusing me and it'll help me make a more freely usable image if one is reqired. -- treelo  talk 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles
Please, if you feel you don't like the article, make a discussion about it, but don't delete it only if you want to. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.246.147.32 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
 * What article are you talking about? Garion96 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Vernon Dahmer article yanked for copyright violations on April 5
Any background on what happened with the Dahmer article? He was an important figure in the civil rights movement and I hate to see the links now turn up blank. Note: I never saw the original article, so I have no frame of reference for it. Sorry... Thanks. --Rcsfca 06:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up (and the reference pages for writing an article.) I didn't know, until now, about the violations log page, where the Dahmer article details were...- Rcsfca 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Valley Forge
I see you deleted a copyvio on Valley Forge, is there a discussion somewhere? I recall the link to a page the text was supposedly copied from, but didn't have time to see if that other page traced back to another common, perhaps public domain (e.g. National Park Service) or expired copyright, source. Also is there some way to put a note in the normal edit history when something like this happens, it took me a while to figure out how to find the deletion log. Now to go back and patch some things as there was a Split that got lost in the shuffle. --J Clear 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Found that link on the Talk page, still curious if there was further investigation. --J Clear 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The original source appears to be the National Park Service, not the link offered in the copyvio. NPS should be in the public domain, so there should not be a copyvio.  Unless there are some other facts I'm missing, could you please restore the deleted edits?  My recent edit is expendable, and the other two since the deletion you can see are just vandalism and rvv, so you could restore the article as it was w/o loss.  Thanks --J Clear 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Late response, I did saw this message. Part of the article was from the site you mentioned, but other parts were, I think, only from the link in the copyvio. But I still have to look more carefully to it when I have more time. Will get back to you on this one and will restore the previous edits if it turns out not be a copyvio. Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just about to ping you again. There's more on the NPS site that could have been copied, I only linked to the match for the one phrase I was searching for.  I'll go put something in the article to let potential editors know it's under investigation.  --J Clear 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All edits are restored. Garion96 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going the extra mile. --J Clear 12:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
I noticed that you went and created Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 18. However, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 18 was still an active discussion. Please be more careful when archiving, so you don't put away a discussion that is still going. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (replying to message on my talk page) — Yeah, there's an incredibly high amount of controversy surrounding the issue of how we should use the International Symbol of Access (ISA). Incidentally, you're welcome to voice your opinion in the debate.


 * As far as refactoring comments, Ned Scott has removed the heading from one of my comments twice, see, , (note that you can't link to a   tag, you need an   tag for that). I'd prefer to have "Why we ought to use the ISA" as a heading so that the summary of my arguments really stands out amid the 68 KB of discussion under the main heading, and also so I can easily link to that summary. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Etobicoke School of the Arts Image
I am inquiring into the unexplained deletion of the image esaPREVIEW.jpg. There was no legitimate reason for the deletion and so I feel this constitutes vandalism. The image was loaded in accordance with Wikipedia guideline. Kindly explain your actions to me and on the Etobicoke School of the Arts discussion page. Longbranch 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read Vandalism and Avoid the word "vandal". Sheesh, talk about failing to assume good faith on Garion's part.  --Iamunknown 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Donizetti's opera Le duc d'Albe
I'm inquiring about the deletion of Le duc d'Albe. I had not contributed to that article, but linked to it in one of the articles I had written and was surprised to see it deleted. You listed it as deleted for copyright violation from the site:. I have looked at that page and at the cached Wikipedia version (28 March 2007). The site you listed is in Italian and although the information is similar, as would be expected, the Wikipedia article was not a word-for-word translation of the Italian. It also contained information that was not contained in the Italian article. Could you explain why it was deleted? Many thanks.Voceditenore 13:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the explanation. I can see from the cached version that there were no quotation marks or citations of source. When I get the chance, I'm going to write a new one, or at least a stub. All the Best,Voceditenore 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image linked on older Amador Valley High School page still around?
Hi -- if memory serves, the deleted version of the Amador Valley High School page had a picture of the campus that someone had photographed and uploaded; I don't believe there would have been any copyright issues with the image. I've poked around a bit trying to find the name of that image, but was unsuccessful. Is that image still available? I thought it would be nice to add to the new version of the page. Thanks.--NapoliRoma 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Copyvio on Noot vir Noot
Hi Garion96. I would like to ask you to reconsider the copyvio issue on Noot vir Noot, since I have been advised by administrators on IRC that even if the article text is translated from another language, it is still classed as a copyvio. I am able to read dutch to NL3, and Afrikaans to Af-2, and I can assure you that the text of the article is a copyvio. If you would like me to prove that this is the case, I would be happy to do this for you. Thor Malmjursson 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Noot vir Noot copyvio
On the article Noot vir Noot I was asked about some copyright issues involving a translation. After consulting the Afrikaans wiki (http://af.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bespreking%3ATuisblad&diff=178116&oldid=172489) it was confirmed to me that one of the paragraphs in the article is a direct translation of a copyrighted webpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAKMask&diff=125612866&oldid=125467080) and I removed the text (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noot_vir_Noot&diff=125618279&oldid=124709226) have made a post to the oversight mailing list to have the revisions removed that added it. - M  ask?  21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tatch
Garion96, i was wondering if you could forward me a copy of the 'Tatch' Article that you deleted on the 21st of April, it was written by a friend of mine and i havent seen it yet. Thank you, Lorina1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lorina1 (talk • contribs). 14:54, 25 April 2007

Thanks
For fixing [] the sockpuppet entry for me. I don't know what I typed in wrong that it wouldn't go in right. Thanks though. I appreciate it. Now I just await the judgement of whomever decides it. Not a betting man but with the evidence I have gathered it looks good. (actually really obvious). Once again. Thank you. --Xiahou 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * weird to say the least. Heck when gathering evidence I would read the entries they made and think its all the same guy and realize I had 2 pages open from 2 of his users. Identical views, mannerisms, articles, position, name calling, you name it. I don't know whats to stop the guy from just creating another account this current one is sitting on last warning as it is. Hopefully they resolve the sock puppet thing. I was trying to read up on the whole check user thing. Is this something I should ask for as well? Thanks again. --Xiahou 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:MBT anaerobicdigesters.jpg
Hi, sorry for the late response. I think how the image was listed (originally) as a copyvio. It looks from the description that Arrow Ecology is the source of this image, and there was no proof that they released it under the CC license. To be really nitpicky, did your friend released this image under the CC license. Plus, did he took this image as part of his job or just for his own? Garion96 (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The image was provided to the previous company I worked with and permission was given to use it as we saw fit as part of the licensing for the ArrowBio technology. We had permission to use it under the CC license and it was taken as part of the job. There are no copyright issues related to this picture which would prevent it being on Wikipedia as part of the CC license--Alex 09:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Terekhol River
Hi, I am just wondering why you think this article doesn't fall under the speedy deletion for copyright infringement any more? -- lucasbfr talk 09:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * neverming, I just spotted the talp page, I'll come back to this user to ask him to release the content under GFDL. -- lucasbfr talk 09:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CCNA Logo
Hi, I noticed this edit of yours and was wondering how it doesn't come under fair use? Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 14:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, the article doesn't need to discuss the logo itself - as the logo is attached to the certification program. I agree on the fair use rationale though.-Localzuk(talk) 18:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ted Kulongoski
Forwarded the email just now, sorry for the delay, and thanks for the reminder! -Pete 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to NPWatcher
Dear Garion96,

Thank you for approving yourself to NPWatcher!

I hope you'll enjoy it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join #NPWatcher.

 Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article on Jonathan Fielding
I have made a number of changes to the Jonathan Fielding article so as not to violate any copyright. In addition Dr. Fielding submitted to the Permissions Foundation giving me permission to use his basic resume materials for the artilce as well as the photo he supplied me. I hope that the changes and permissions are now sufficient to prevent a removal of his article. Thanks Mstrassburg 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of HIV-positive people
thank you for your polite message, it's nice to experience a rare bit of civility. i changed the open-ended date formatting (e.g., 1900- ) because it runs contrary to WP:DATE guidelines and is explicitly listed as 'bad form'. the use of the question mark in the manner used in the article (e.g., 19??-??) is also non standard. it was my intent to correct the entire article, but with an article of this size, it is easier to make the changes by section. --emerson7 | Talk 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i understand your concern, but perhaps it is better the use the style, c. 1980 when the decade is known, but the ??'s are really just too far removed from anything in the mos. --emerson7 | Talk 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate
Hi, I tried to move the Heaven's Gate (cult) page because there was nothing in the Heaven's Gate page. It wouldn't let me, so I had to do it manually. -- Silva  Storm  
 * Yeah, well there must've been a glitch or something because I went to the page Heaven's Gate and I swear that it was not created! So I went back to Heaven's Gate (cult) and tried to redirect it. -- Silva  Storm  
 * Oh my God, you're right. What the hell is that if it isn't an apostrophe? The URL says "%E2%80%99"... -- Silva  Storm  
 * Yes, it does. -- Silva  Storm  

Pictures
Doesnt matter what i seem to do, you keep erasing my crap, and its starting to piss me off. im soooo sorry i dont know crap about setting up "proper" pictures, but it doesnt mean you should go erase it. tell me EXACTLY what to do, not say go look at some confusing wiki page on rules. thank you BLT420 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No it didnt really help, you just sent me to another confusing page. im not the most intelligent person in the world, but i cannot understand those pages. i have put my "fair use" up, so if there is any problems, please let me know. i really want to be known as a wikipedian then a vandalizer. BLT420 09:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, you have explained everything clearly now, thank you. i understand your claim on fair use, but from your reasons, i disgree, A) no one is allowed to photograph him live or can/will be sued, B) if you do take a picture with him, his is out of character, and does not want these photos spreading around the net. actual good photos of him are only abtained by true fans from true fans. 3) i talk to rolly on a daily basis and this is the only image that isnt owned by copyright, and that he is willing to use. he created the photo and sent it to fans after his movie in 2002. (it is now used by air guitar bible, but still owned by rolly) if i need proof, ill send it. hopefully this can help fix the photo. BLT420 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

About Image:Rollyairguitar.jpg
Hi, could you please notify the uploader of that image why you deleted his image? I've finally gotten him (he's been editing under another account to) to realise what license should be used, and to add a fair use rationale, and he's still learning. It would help if he realised why the image was deleted. Thanks! --JoanneB 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC) this was an edit conflict, when I started typing this message the above message wasn't here yet. He's pretty frustrated, as you can see, and while he's made some mistakes, he is still trying to improve. --JoanneB 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you probably know User:BLT420 is the same user as User:Blt024 who was blocked indefinitely yesterday. Now I don't know if I would have blocked him indef, but I did warned that editor yesterday about the fair use image. To do that again seemed pointless. Garion96 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All too typical
Image talk:Moncrieff Disappearing Gun.jpg - there was never any discussion of a formal deletion process, and certainly no warning that this would happen after X days. Suddenly the image gets deleted. Great. What an improvement to Wikipedia, having deleted this. MadMaxDog 10:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not remove the fair use category altogether. I wonder why I even went to the bother of uploading the image, and selecting the correct tag. MadMaxDog 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I did not read the original template clearly enough (and I certainly couldn't reread it now), or more likely, assumed that it would not be determined to be replacable (i.e. there would be no free alternative UNTIL one was created). As I tried to explain multiple times, the guidelines you refer to seem to totally ignore that the copyright holder has, with quite some legal pomp and circumstance, allowed this image to be used. I think that Wikipedia's rules should allow for this, instead of going according to the letter of the law. If I had simply claimed to have created it myself, probably nobody would have ever known, but by going the high road, it got deleted. You may understand that this frustrates me (and no, this is not an expression that I will 'disguise' it next time - I will just not bother at all). MadMaxDog 11:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for coming across rather cross. You must get that a lot. Still, the only fair use stuff I'll ever upload in the future will probably be the odd book cover.MadMaxDog 06:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Stupid bot:)
Your recent edit to Dope Man (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Images
Hi, those images themselves don't have any source information. It's hard to believe it's the own work of the author just by going with his licensing. One more reason that prompted me to tag those images is, that user has a contrib history of uploading copyvio images. uploaded by the same user is a blatant copyright violation copied from some website. Please verify the authenticity of those images too. Thanks Gnanapiti 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Histiocytosis
Yeah that was sort of messy. I haven't worked on WP:CP for a while but I was just following what is at Copyright problems/Advice for admins. That's not totally accurate either so... maybe we should update the documentation. The last time I worked over there a lot it was usually me and Quadell working it, and we would remove items so we didn't look at something that someone already looked at and decided to keep. If that makes sense. -- Spike Wilbury 21:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. My understanding is that in these cases, the copyvio trumps the GFDL consideration.  If we don't totally nuke the article and recreate it, the copyvio remains in the history and is still a copyvio even though it's not visible on the page.  But.. I'm no lawyer.  Do you think we should get some more eyes on the question and revisit the guidelines? -- Spike Wilbury  19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

suggested revision to your user page
Change the number of vandalised to 11. Sorry, but maybe it will increase your reputation! I fixed it within 2 seconds. Just wanted to see if the counter changed to 11. I'm usually quite restrained.WKPDX 22:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah
(Keanu Reeves style woah) I happened to glance at my uploaded image to find that it had experienced Total existence failure. The edit summary there explains that the image was deleted "per" WP:PUI, which says that images with a disputed or questionable copyright rationale are there discussed before being deleted. I feel that the other steps indicated on that policy page should also have been followed, namely "Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s)." The problem that may have been frightening you so deeply regarding my image could probably have been solved if I had been made aware that there was a problem at all. Now that the image is gone, I have no way of knowing what the problem was, and may ignorantly make the same mistake in the future. *shrug* I dunno if it's as big of a problem as I'm making it out to be, maybe you meant to notify me and just forgot? At any rate, I'm looking forward to hearing from you. V-Man - T/C 00:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted List of number-one singles in 1999 (NZ)
Sorry this may be a slightly old topic, but how come the "List of number-one singles in 1999 (NZ)" was deleted due to copyright viloation, but all the other years between 1980 and 2007 do not have this problem? Is there anything we can do about it? Pmi25 09:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)