User talk:Garion96/Archive 15

Archives

Deflaggification

You're doing excellent work, Sir/Madam. Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, slowly but surely we will get them all. :) Garion96 (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hymn (song) - text

Hi from Moscow! Some of the articles devoted to the songs do not contain the respective texts, like articles about ABBA's songs «Money, Money, Money», «The Winner Takes It All» and so on. But some of such articles do: «Jingle Bells» or «Mary Had a Little Lamb». So why can't we leave the text of «Hymn» on the page? At least, let's give people a link to the following site. --Wonder37 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation about the song texts; I just didn't know that moment, and will be carefull with it.

By the way, that's me, too.

And... A Happy New Year! --Wonder37 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein mug shot

Concerning the Jeffrey Epstein mug shot, I've asked for an opinion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests Please do not delete it until the issue is properly discussed. Proxy User (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, remember that "distributed free of charge to the press" does not equal public domain.

Yes, but does that automatically disqualify an image? I'll ask on the copyright page you suggest, I'm curious as there is the potential to add (or delete) many such images here. Thanks. Proxy User (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:The Powerpuff Girls

I didn't realize I'd nominated that template just a couple weeks ago. I do so many edits a day to so many unrelated articles, and sometimes I forget. I should've looked at the template talk page first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Lumet071001 560.jpg

Just noticed that you just deleted File:Lumet071001 560.jpg, but don't recall this image ever being tagged for any problems. Can you check this out? Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Future stadium template

Please stop removing this template from articles. The discussion has not finished, please don't second guess it. Thanks. --Ged UK (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was of course already closed before I started removing it. The only reason that it wasn't deleted yet was because it was still on articles. I removed it from the articles and deleted the template. Garion96 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i realised that afterwards, it's just that the discussion didn't appear to be finished. Once i realised it was, i stopped reverting. Had the discussion been closed off before, it would have saved the problem. Happy New Year! --Ged UK (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You trying to delete the Batman movie template that I worked so hard on

If you're going to complate about how this particular template is overkill, then you might as well do the same for all of other film related templates on Wikipedia. This Batman template isn't the only one (e.g. Back to the Future, Terminator, Rocky, Die Hard, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) that mentions the movies, actors, crew, msuic, and other sorts of marketing tie-ins like video games or theme park attractions.

This template is the most in-depth one in relation to the Burton-Schmuacher Batman films on Wikipedia. Naturally, with four films, numerous characters to be featured, and different production crews, there's going to be a wealth of information. The video games and other sorts of merchandise (which typically don't get as much coverage as the films themselves), are purely an expected offshoot of this. The soundtrack also falls under this table.

There's already individual templates for Batman related video games, the Batmobiles and what not, so giving them their own template as you suggest would be pretty redundant. Plus, why should a there be an individual template for the characters created for the films, when there's pretty limited number to begin with? The key is that they're related (regardless of how you want to define it) to the films in question, instead of merely having the Batman namesake. Don't you think that people visting Wikipedia, want to have easier access to the info about the Batman Returns video game or the Batman & Robin roller coster rides and what not!? TMC1982 (talk) 2:12 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sysload

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to update an article written by someone else that you deleted on March 11, 2007 called Sysload. I am not really sure how this works, but if you could give me access to the deleted material, I will try to improve it and try posting again. Many thanks and Happy New Year! Molrose22 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Thirty-Nine Steps

Hello, I was wondering whether it might be possible to ask for assistance in moving a page, please? I've tried to move The Thirty-nine Steps back to its correct capitalisation of The Thirty-Nine Steps after it was moved some time ago, but there's already a redirect in place which is stopping me. There have been no objections to the move on the talk page, and Penguin Books seems to suggest that this is the correct way. Thanks. Bob talk 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"over-tagging" (One Foot in the Grave)

You're wrong; the tags in place are perfectly justifiable. It is against Wikipedia policy to remove tags before issues have been resolved.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's not my opinion...the evidence in the article backs up my tagging. The page is too long; Wiki style guide states pages that are longer than one or two printed pages should be divided into sub-pages. The plot summary does feature opinions and does go off its purpose of summarising the plot. Let's work together and resolve these issues, then we can remove the tags.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I will persist until the article is put right. You can't just remove tags because you don't like them. They are there for a reason. Edito*Magica (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Faris Ahmed Jamaan al-Showeel al-Zahrani from Saudi police poster.jpg

you deleted this as a derivative work without consensus. A derivative work comes from a copyrighted source. There has been no assertion made that this was made from a copyrighted source. In fact it was not. See the deletion discussion, in which ONE editor mused that he was "not sure" about it being public domain and in which another editor, me, strongly asserts that it is NOT from a copyrighted source. Then you deleted it as "derivative" which is ONE:not the consensus, and TWO: not true -- at least according to the info at the link which YOU provided.

Please undelete this, and respect wikipedia processes in the future. User:Pedant (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No. It is a picture of a police poster. Saudi Police Posters are not copyrighted. There was no consensus to delete. There was no assertion made that it is a nonfree image. Deletion was the change to the status quo. A change to the status quo comes from consensus or a violation of policy. There was never an assertion made that there was a violation of policy. There was never even the slightest indication of consensus to delete the image. You are actually in the wrong, please review the deletion discussion and note that there was no consensus and no assertion of copyright or any other unfree status.

If you can find this image in the King Fahad National Library, then let me know, otherwise = not copyright = my image = public domain.

If you can show wikipedia policy that images which have never been copyrighted and which nobody has ever asserted ARE copyrighted can be deleted without consensus, after minimal discussion by 2 editors -- if you show policy that THOSE images are deletable, then delete them, but since you haven't, as I requested earlier, please undelete this image. User:Pedant (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No. It's the person who makes a change who is obligated to show why they have changed the status quo -- particularly a change such as deleting a several-years-old file, for which the creator asserts PD, for copyright reasons, when no copyright has been asserted. Also it is false that "everything is copyrighted". It is an abuse of admin power and wikipedia process for you to both DECIDE that the page is magiaclly copyrighted, years after the image was uploaded and accepted as public domain, and to DELETE this same image after you made your single decision based on your faulty understanding of wikipedia process and policy, and on the false assertion, WHICH YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE TO MAKE, that everything is copyrighted and therefore this file is suddenly a copyright issue. Undelete the file. Even if you have the magical ability to decree that it is copyright, it would then be up to a second different admin to delete the file. You don't judge AND execute. User:Pedant (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No.No. It's the person who makes a change who is obligated to show why they have changed the status quo -- particularly a change such as deleting a several-years-old file, for which the creator asserts PD, for copyright reasons, when no copyright has been asserted.

No copyright has been asserted by any person involved in discussing this. Your deletion was without process. There was no consensus to delete. Undelete this. Otherwise explain how consensus was established to delete this. or Who claims copyright on this image? User:Pedant (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia deletion review is a process for reviewing deletions, not for this. This is admin abuse of process. As an admin you should know that all actions on wikipedia are initiated by consensus, and that consensus is not achieved by one editor musing about something. I made the image, it was never copyrighted, I assert public domain status. If you assert copyright, we have a discussion. However, you merely deleted this image based on your individual assessment that it is copyright (based on your sloppy assertion, which I have no doubt that you believe, but it is simply not true that "everything is copyrighted". Undelete the image, since you are in the wrong here. User:Pedant (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Big-babijar14.jpg

The image deletion log says it was deleted because there was an identical copy on commons, but I checked on commons (and the deletion log there) and I don't see any copy of the image. Am I missing something? Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Vienna, Austria

Hi Garion96, please read what I have just written on the Romy Schneider discussion page and take a stance. As I see it, Vienna, Austria is wrong. --85.181.239.237 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion

Hi there, I think you may have made a mistake regarding a file I uploaded. The file in question was File:Window_Sticker_Jetta.JPG. You noted it was a "blatant copyright violation" but I did in fact take the picture myself. Could you explain how this self made photo could be a violation? --Analogue Kid (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is no copyright on any window sticker. This kind of information would be extremely difficult to copyright as it is basically a list of specifications rather than prose. For example if one company has a line that reads "AM/FM Stereo", they're not going to sue another car company for listing that exact same thing in their feature set. I still think it needs to be restored.--Analogue Kid (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the harm?

You reverted my clarification here. What's the harm in mentioning that important fact. Icons and words are not mutually exclusive. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "There is no harm but it also is not an accurate description of this manual of style." on my talk page. May I ask: What is inaccurate about it? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page. "For starters wp:npov really was a bad edit summary. [1]. Plus it softens the point of this guideline, which is to stop overflagging. (or overiconing if that's a word)."

1. WP:NPOV is very relevant in this case. Especially when there's a dispute and you use judgmental words like "bad" without saying why.
2. The summary itself is not enough of a reason to revert the change.
3. Softening the point, was the point. It's unfair to overuse a guide to prevent overuse of icons.
4. There is no reason to suppress important facts in this case.

BTW, why did you move the talk to my page when it was initiated on yours? Oicumayberight (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1. No, it really isn't, it aplies to articles. Using it to defend your prefered version of a guideline summary is wikilawyering to the extreme.
2. No, but the other reason was.
3. Take it to talk, get consensus, then you can change it. You know, BRD. Garion96 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Suppressing important facts? You are talking about a minor icon guideline here. Stop the hyperbole.

Regarding where the discussion is. Usually you start on one editor's talk page and he/she responds on your talk page. Some editors prefer differently (I myself don't care one way or another) want to keep the discussion in one location. They usually have a message stating so on their talk page. See User talk:Moonriddengirl for an example. Garion96 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Flags

I saw you deleted couple flags from infoboxes. Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Second look

Image:Tricky.2CKukandMark.jpg IFD - I posted a response because I came across a question about it but did not realize it was so old and already "resolved". You can read my response but I concur with Stifle's nom so perhaps I should a nom all of the mentioned images? (Please respond here thanks)Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What is "improper" about the license for this image?? Of course, you deleted the corresponding Talk page, so there's nothing to point to any longer. This image was licensed specifically to include commercial use. — Xiong熊talk* 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The image was deleted as an improper license because the image source at [2] states that the image license is a non-commercial only license. That link also was the only text on the deleted talk page. Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any way for me to contradict you, since the page in question was deleted. I seem to recall that the image was tagged a while ago and I corrected the licensing issue then. The link you cite is the BeyondEuclid site license; a freer license, including commercial use, was granted for the image in question.

Now I intend to upload the file again. BE will give WP any license desired. Please tell me exactly what sort of tag you want to see and where. — Xiong熊talk* 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Garion96 is entirely correct. The talk page of the deleted image (File talk:Haberdasher-anm-01.gif) contained only the link [3] and your signature. That link, unfortunately, seems to point a page that doesn't now exist. (Based on the logs at [4], that page never existed.)

Note that if you are the creator of the image, you can upload it using the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} template and include that attribution on the image description page. There's no need to invoke a reference to your own website. Alternatively, you can simply add a note to the image description page on your site that specifically releases the images under the cc-by-sa 3.0 license in addition to the default cc-by-nc-sa. All we're trying to do is create some sort of verifiable chain back to the original copyright holder (you?) to validate the license tag the image. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you insist I can undelete the image talk page, but it would be kind of pointless. Sometimes you really can assume that other editors are telling the truth. Regarding the image, the best way to avoid someone else retagging the image is to send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org stating the release under your prefered license. After that the image will be tagged by otrs. Garion96 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After years dealing with the Orwellian false transparency of this project, I assume nothing. Anyway, this is not my issue to resolve. BE emailed. — Xiong熊talk* 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

http://beyondeuclid.com/wiki/Image_talk:Haberdasher-anm-01.gif →Bear 23:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that license is still not good enough for Wikipedia. The non-commercial clause is gone, but Wikipedia does not accept "no derivative" licenses. Garion96 (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For you, anything. Enjoy. →Bear 22:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why this problem is not fixed!? — Xiong熊talk* 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Future stadium template

Hi Garion96, I noticed at Otago Stadium the future stadium template had been removed per the discussion. However as the discussion says this template was redundant to {{Future sports venue}}. So instead of deleting the stadium template from articles, I believe it needs to be replaced with Future sports venue. There's at least one less if you want to run through the list a second time (Otago). XLerate (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Estadio Zapote

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Estadio Zapote, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

It has virtually no sources and it's basically one sentence; not even of stub quality

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

seeking cleanup advice

It's not BambiFan, but I've begun cleaning up the mess of Cars character-related articles, as the majority of them fail notability for inclusion in the first place, as they are characters that are not referenced in the film at all (but rather, in promotional material, such as video games or toy releases). Do you have advice on what to do with the scads of entries made by YouTubeFan124 that merely redirect to the List of Cars characters (also see the bottom of Talk:List of Cars characters), when those characters have been culled from that page in the first place? Some admins cheerfully deleted the speedy-tagged redirs, while others rejected the speedy entirely. Was able to help get the "List of Cars Diecast Cars" successfully removed from WP as an arbitrary list, so there is precedent to not list those items in the first place. 'preciate guidance you can provide. SpikeJones (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

About the "No Legal Threats" Edit

Can you elaborate on the discussion page about your reversal of my edit to the Wikipedia:No Legal Threats article? I have previously posted the proposed edit along with explanation on the discussion page, and there were no objections. Dmytro (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strasberg TOC

Noticed you removed my recent reformat of the TOC on Lee Strasberg. But saw no explanation. It was reformated to go along with Wiki guidelines and suggested formats as it removed all the wasted white space. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette in question

You've been mentioned on Wikiquette alerts for edit warring to hide dispute [5] Oicumayberight (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

I have reverted your deletion of Ms. Perrette's birthdate from the page. IMDb is use all over Wikipedia as reference for filmographies among other things. IMDb has been referenced numerous times and has been "cleared" as a good reference in these cases. It would be silly to now call it a bad reference on a birthday. You can have you cake and eat it too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 07:22

See also the essay Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. IMDB is never a reliable source for this kind of info. Garion96 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be an essay, not policy. We don't do things by essays, we do them by policy and consensus and the consensus is that IMDb is a realible source. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 07:27

Please show me the discussion of that consensus. I doubt it exists. Garion96 (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Snide little one, ain't we. The consensus I am talking about is the one that is used on actor and actress pages throughout Wikipedia, most, if not all, with links to IMDb. This all is moot though since the page has been updated with linkage from Perrette's own website and Variety.com (a newspaper/publication) that is also used for references throughout Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 09:38

That is something different. There is consensus to link to IMDB on movie or actor pages. But there is no consensus to use IMDB as a source for personal information since there is no editorial control. (IMDB is user edited). Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what....the page is updated and I am tired, I am not going to fight you on this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 10:36

Lisa De Leeuw

There still seems to be a dispute related to Lisa De Leeuw's death in the article. There is an edit war going on over verification and reliable sources that I'm not involved in, and I'm not sure how BLP applies to someone who may or may not be dead. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

why?

what did i do that could get me banned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.163.13 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 February 2009

Hello

I'm currently adjusting to Wikipedia after fleeing everything2. Most things bear some similarity, but if you an offer any way to really settle in here after e2, I'm interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbontybon (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ThanksBobbontybon (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Sorry, in the midst of reverting a lot of what is vandalism, one sometimes gets caught up. After I hit rollback on that, I knew I should have hit undo and stuck in a "not a crystal ball; uncited" note. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Chung

Hi, thanks for tagging File:Jamie-chung.jpg. It would be great if it could be replaced by a free image, although I was under the impression that use of images from a press kit were okay (although not preferable). I found the following image on flickr, which isn't CC, but does allow for non-free use as long as attribution is given. Would this suffice as a replacement? (You can reply here). Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, press kit images are basically never okay. Regarding the image on flickr, with the current license it is not allowed on Wikipedia since the license is non-commercial. (It is a cc license, but a non-commercial cc license). You could try asking the uploader on flickr to change the license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Garion96 (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lalah Hathaway

I was quite confused by your comment at the deletion discussion for Lalah Hathaway.JPG. Would you be willing to clarify at that page what you said earlier? Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mgreason

Hi. :) I've been talking to this contributor (you may remember his impressive number of copyright infringements), and he is requesting that his block be lifted. He's declared that he's willing to accept a restriction on placing extensive material and to seek review before placing substantial text in articles. I've offered to help him if he needs assistance learning how better to paraphrase to avoid infringement. I'm willing to keep an eye on him if you think that these restrictions will minimize the risk and will reinstate his indef block if problems continue. Your thoughts? (I'm watching your page for any you care to share. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I also had his talk page on my watchlist. :) It's more your call than mine. I myself wouldn't unblock him, not as a punitive measure as he stated on his talk page, but more of protecting the encyclopedia. Comments like that plus the possible sockpuppet don't make me incline to unblock. But, as I stated, it's your call. If you think he can be an asset and won't add anymore copyvio's or extreme plagiarism, go ahead. Garion96 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take responsibility; I share your concern about future issues, and I will keep an eye on him. If I see him resume copyright infringement or if he breaks his self-agreed restrictions, I will restore the indefinite block. I'll make sure to communicate with him clearly on this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, left you a reply at my page, but just saw your ad for admins and had to comment. Why would anyone want to bother? Sounds like my worst nightmare! Anyway, keep it up.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty

You are an exceptionally difficult individual at times it has to be said. You probably see me as the same over many issues. No problem. The main problem generally is that you place too much emphasis on "problems" that tags or templates create or possible copyright violations and less and on what is really is important to people reading this encyclopedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Again mate, I think you're looking too much into it. Perhaps I was too harsh but "Pathetic" is not a word I'd use to describe a Harvard student like Jen or myself for that matter either. I don't like tags either, I usually reach for the sicky bag when I see multiple tags on an article but when they are directly contructive like these then they became more than tolerable. The point I or we are trying to make is that NO it is not OK for such articles to remain as stubs. "They will develop". They MUST be developed asap particularly if the other wikipedia has an excellent amount of material on it, referenced if possible. At its current state English wikipedia is missing a massive amount of existing encyclopedic information on its foreign projects which can be translated into English within minutes. I've translated articles like Tenerife and Tunis this way from Spanish and French wikipedia respectively. Both were barely beyond stubs before I got to them. Do you know what would have likely happened if I hadn't have bothered to transwiki them? They would still be barely beyond stubs is more than likely. PLacing tags to indicate the articles can quickly be expanded using existing material, meaning the editor does not even have to do most of the work himself but can translate means GREAT news in my book. If you think these tags will not help improve any articles in the long term this is you're view, but in my view they are bridges that have to be built to get to the other side, a better wikipedia for all. I've administered tags to a number of articles already and a significant number have been translated, from Croatian, Italian etc. and the net result, an improved wikipedia. I see them as construction tools not as physical eyesores. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to think of it as a "fight" either, I'm sure Jen certainly would not mean to imply that either. Rather she is very concerned that we do the best we possibly can to alert editors attention to material than can be translated within minutes and feels strongly about it that we find a way of making it possible and saw your objection as an initial sign of what was to come. I think your idea of a time frame is a good one, particularly for fuller articles which may get more traffic and more people thinking "ugly". However for many stubs it probably won't make that much difference how long they remain as long as they do reach it eventually. Blank stubs are always very ugly anyway, its kind of comparing Martin Clunes, Martin Johnson and Barbra Streisand and debating which one has a small nose!! (if you pardom my analogy) I think a six month time frame would be a very good idea in some cases although it would somehow put articles under scrutiny and may provide us with an overall result that may have not been desired in so short a time. The task is an immense one and we of course do not know how long it could possibly take. The thought of administering so many tags I agree can be a somehwat concerning one but I believe that the task they are intended for is a good one particularly for native speakers of these languages in the relative countries who may be browsing english wikipedia and want to put their part of the world onto here and help. It is something of an experiment maybe but one things for sure we need to do something about this problem. For instance the other night I tagged some German and Swiss municipalities, noe of them were beyond one line long and not expanded in well over a year. Then you click the German wikipedia link and every time there was a full article. Now the idea is that somebody comes along wanting to read abou the article, sees the German translation link and has the knowledge to at least give the article something useful. To me the tag will become insigificant on an article so lacking and will point directly to the overwhelming eyesore itself, no information. Remember also that all articles will be placed in categories by wikipedia and monitoring can take place over time if this is your concern. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually funny you mentioned our backlog of expand tags. I was only thinking in many cases a bot could be used to cleanup what we have and remove any unnecessary tags where applicable or replace them with direct translation links where appropriate. It might even help clear up the backlog problem in many respects or at least make the tags more useful. If we had a bot which measured kb it would work in this sort of task too I'd imagine. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I could use your help

An anonymous user keeps editing false info in the Disney Sing-Along Songs article. I revert, then one second later he changes it back, I can't take it anymore. You got to help me. Hellboy10 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams revert

I reverted your changes to my removing redunandant references. WP:EL. Controversial or not, the article should follow standards. Please comment on my talk page as another editor is involved, so we can handle discussion there. Thanks! Respectfully, Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Garion, belated post holiday thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. WereSpielChequers 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Brett protection

Hello. Could I kindly ask you to review the semi-protection on Jeremy Brett? It's been a few months now and useful anons might like to edit the article. Thank you! :) fr33kman -s- 19:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard, another admin placed the most recent protection and it's too soon to remove it. fr33kman -s- 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Garion96. You have new messages at Fr33kman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

fr33kman -s- 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added some more sources on my talk page and have removed a couple of now broken links :) fr33kman -s- 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section to the talk page explaining about the disagreement by sources on his DOB. I think that the next time I'm in London, I'll take a flask of coffee and go to the British Library and see if we can't nail this sucker down for once and all. He was such a fine Holmes that he really does deserve to have this sorted out. Take care :) fr33kman -s- 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I might order a certified copy of his birth certificate and access the census records also. fr33kman -s- 20:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan sock ip

Hi, the edits looked rather constutive, I know you can't help vandals, but this looked neccery (the articles were tagged as needing attention anyway). Accont101 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the Pinocchio Disney article too. There's a new DVD of it out and I think they did ok on it too, but you can see for yourself. And check out the version he posted on his talk page (see the revision history). Accont101 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)