Jump to content

User talk:Garion96/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

List of iconic drinkers

Why are you knocking all the images out of List of iconic drinkers? These images are all from the articles for the people, and are in the public domain. And the Library of Congress. If you would look at the other articles, you would see this. Read the Talk page for List of iconic drinkers about this. Thanks. K72ndst 03:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like an answer on that Talk page about why you singled out List of iconic drinkers, when these photos are on several other articles? Why just this article? K72ndst 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, still waiting on an answer on List of iconic drinkers talk page; why you feel you can take off free-use images from one article, and not others. K72ndst 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Garion, you have OTRS access? Videmus Omnia Talk 16:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Garion96 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind please looking at this if you get a free moment? Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I already was going to check that one out before, but forgot. I will get back to you on that one. Garion96 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Deskana already helped me - thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 00:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yes I just saw your response there. I was afraid of that actually. Garion96 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Okay:-|--Angel David 22:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use Image:Rachelward-2.JPG

I must have found that photo somewhere on Wikipedia and brightened it up and re uploaded it. If it doesn't meet the current criteria for Wiki use, then I guess it will have to be deleted. I have no idea where it originally came from.

--Mactographer 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good morning, today you reverted and purged the histories for Guillain-Barré syndrome and Serum sickness. I'm the one who reported those copyvios, and wonder if someone automatically reviews the other articles "contributed to" by the violator (probably a single editor using two IP address, one of which I have misplaced). I have notes on other suspect articles by that editor but did not want to report them until I saw how this played out for the first two. Thanks for doing what must be a tough job. --CliffC 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. It is not automatically reviewed no, I usually check the other contributions of the ip/user who added the copyvio but not always. There is already enough to check see the backlog in Wikipedia:Copyright problems. What other articles do you want to have checked and/or purged? Garion96 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
One user was 208.101.102.186. As I recall, the misplaced id was in the same IP range and in Ontario also. From my notes, these were my suspicions, but I did not tag the articles.
  • Variant copyvio of [1]
  • Prodrome copyvio of [2] although FWIW I don't see a copyright notice at the site
  • Lyme disease edit here copyvio of [3], dup string ="Sometimes Lyme presents atypically as ALS, MS, polymyalgia rheumatica, Guillain Barre, transverse myelitis, polyneuropathies of unknown aetiology, brain swelling and or tumor, severe eye disease, cardiomyopathy, hepatitis and so on", although FWIW I don't see a copyright notice at the site
  • On a more puzzling note, in his first Fibrin edit [4]he seems to have removed a copyvio of this and replaced it with a sloppy link to the original article. Mysteries abound. --CliffC 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
One wonders why some simply don't understand not to copy & paste text. I purged and/or removed the copyright violations and left the editor a warning on his talk page. Garion96 (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this user created a copyvio article at Acute motor axonal neuropathy and linked to it from Guillain-Barré syndrome; I have to wonder if he is a fresh incarnation of 208.101.102.186. --CliffC 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs name translations deletion

Would you make a case for how the "title in other languages" deleted from Scrubs (TV series) is contraindicated by WP:NOT, either on User talk:Jac16888 or Talk:Scrubs (TV series)? I'm worried that User:Jac16888 is having his work deleted for reasons that from his perspective will seem Kafkaesque.

I'm personally feeling bad about whipsawing the guy (since I may have encouraged him to add it), but I think you can represent your reasoning better than I could. / edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs

I left a message. I probably should have brought it up on the talk page of the article considering the RFC there. I just didn't realised that was this article. Garion96 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for taking care of this! / edg ☺ ★ 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Palm leaf manuscripts

What's the problem with palm leaf manuscripts (other than that ants will eat them if they can)? How do we fix them, how do we preserve them, and what to do about my broken links!? Pawyilee 15:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The site you reference is a UNESCO World Heritage site. I have sent their contact address the following messgae
TO: a.abid@unesco.org
The Wikipedia article Palm leaf manuscript <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palm_leaf_manuscript&action=edit> was deleted in toto by a Wikipedia supervisor for being a copyright violation. The supervisor. Garion96 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garion96>, said, "Many paragraphs were copied & pasted from [your site <http://www.xlweb.com/heritage/asian/palmleaf.htm>]. Of course being deleted as a copyvio does not prevent recreation from scratch [17:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]
Can you help with restoring a Palm leaf manuscipt article to Wikipedia's memory?
Sincerely,

Pawyilee 04:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Francis X Livoti

08:08, 19 August 2007 Garion96 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Francis X Livoti" (Delete per Wikipedia:Copyright problems)

Could you please tell me exactly why this article has been deleted? Which text/copyright violations warranted that it should be deleted. Also, how can it be modified in the future so that it won't be deleted?

Francis X Livoti has served his time for the state's charge of "violating" Anthony Baez's civil rights.

He has the right to tell his point of view and not have his life story redirected to Anthony Baez's page.

His redirect to Anthony Baez's page has been protected and does not cite any references or sources.

The Francis X Livoti article, when it was originally posted, was attacked repeatedly by others to the point that another administrator has violated Francis X Livoti's civil liberties by protecting and redirecting his story to Anthony Baez.

What about fair use? Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted.

The text taken straight from refs was originally mentioned later on within the article itself, but must have been inadvertantly ommitted in the most recent version.

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

The article was written as conservatively as possible to reflect a biograpghy of a living person using reputable sources as references i.e. The NY Times.

Sincerely,

NOT REALLY A Whitegirl01 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Temp article

The problem is in step 4 since you would have a hard time argueing that the expansion is not a derivative of the copyvio and thus cannot be used as the basis of a GFDL work.Geni 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification please?

Did you trim the letter when you removed the {{copyvio}} tag because you agreed that it was a copyright violation? Or did you disagree with the tagger, but jsut remove it on some other editorial grounds?

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your reply. So, can I ask:
  1. whose copyright you think it was violating?
  2. what would you have required to change your mind that it was a copyright violation?
Cheers! Geo Swan 08:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. In the interests of completeness here is a link to the comment I put on Talk:Captive's library in Guantanamo about contacting the Andy Worthington, the author of the article in question. Geo Swan 09:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your second reply.
If this letter had been leaked from the secure facility this would have been big news. I believe it is safe to say it wasn't leaked.
If it wasn't leaked, then the letter, once unclassified, could only have come through his lawyers. So, would you accept a statement from his lawyers that they had been authorized to make the letter public?
Cheers! Geo Swan 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I will look for your reply here.
Yes and no. If I post a picture on flickr I release it to the public. But that is something else than releasing it in the public domain. For that you need a clear statement that the material is released in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Andy Worthington is on vacation right now. When he gets back I plan to ask him for the email address of Abdul Aziz's lawyers, and ask them to clarify the licence status of the letter.
If they say he authorized them to release it to the public I would like to put it back up -- maybe to a page of its own over at wikisource, rather than here on the wikipedia.
So, the initial "yes" in your reply -- does that mean you think a letter from his lawyers would be sufficient for clarifying the letter's copyright status?
They are not the copyright holders, but since they represent their client I would think so.
And the "no" in your reply -- does that mean you think the letter has to use the specific phrase "public domain", as opposed to them merely saying he authorized them to release it to the public?
Yes.
I must confess I wondered why the upload page over at wikicommons.org asks me if the image I am uploading comes from flickr. That is a whole separate question, but does this mean that some images from flickr can be used on the wikipedia without further contact with the creator of those images?
Yes, but with flickr images the person who put them on flickr is (almost) always the creator of the image. Unless of course you can already see it's plain false at the flickr page. For instance if someone on flickr uploads Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg under a cc license. And only if the images are released under Creative Commons Attribution Attribution (cc-by) or Creative Commons Attribution + ShareAlike (cc-by-sa). The other options in [Creative Commons licenses]] like non-commercial and no-derivatives are not accepted on Wikimedia projects.
Returning to the Abdul Aziz letter -- just to get this nailed down, prior to contacting the lawyers, because I only want to bug them once -- if they say they are authorized to pick a license, you would accept them picking PD, GFDL, or a creative commons license. Have I got that right?
Almost. For text only public domain or GFDL is accepted. Only for images you can also use some creative Commons licenses.
Someone else mentioned to me that they thought there was a wikipedia committee which had the authority to receive emails, and then officially verify permission from non-wikipedia contributors. If I understood them correctly, a wikipedian, like me, would say something like:
  • This is the email address of the person authorized to set the license status of material I didn't write, but want to include on the wikipedia.
  • This is a web-site that establishes the email address is actually for who I claim.
  • They sent me an email, where they said they release the material to the public domain.
  • Please write them, and and ask them to verify they really did grant the permission.
  • Then please certify on the talk page that the license status of the third party material has been confirmed.
If my correspondent's description, and my paraphrase of it are basically correct, can you tell my more specifically where I would learn how to do this?
That is Wikipedia:OTRS. The e-mail would be permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org
Thanks Geo Swan 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hope I answered all your questions, if not feel free to ask me to clarify. Mind you, I think I am correct, but I am an editor (and admin but that doesn't mean that much), I am not an official foundation official. For official foundation legal advice you should contact User:Mikegodwin general council of the Wikimedia foundation. Garion96 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time for following through all my questions to the end. I appreciate it. Cheers! Geo Swan 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delection of Image Daejanggeum.jpg

The lady of the image is a celebrity and her images are everywhere, including this one. It’s a fair use of a movie star’s picture. Please undelete this image. Thanks. Forgot to sign: Wwoo22 21:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage from which you send this image is redirected to another page. Therefore I put my response here. The image in question was a copyright violation. So I deleted it and can't restore. Even used as a non-free image the image would fail the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1 since it is an image of a living person which could be replaced by a free content one. Garion96 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons

Hi. I left you a message at Commons:User talk:Garion96. Please read it. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff G. (talk • contribs) 23:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

TobraDex

Hello! I recently noted the deletion/act of reverting of some of the TobraDex article. I do realize, at this point, my mistake in incorrectly (more like failing to the) sourcing of reference materials for said article. If possible, I would ask if you could send me what was written on the article before the major revert back to its original state, so that I could properly cite necessary reference material. If you happen to have any sort of further tips/advice as well, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Invalidsyntax 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I appreciate the assistance. To be honest, I did not copy from that website you sent me, but instead a written document provided by the medication packaging itself. I will continue to read what you provided me until I am confident I can include information in an article properly without copyvio. Invalidsyntax 05:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

Could you explain to User:Neutralhomer why the Abby Sciuto picture is not fair use for the Pauley Perrette article? I don't think I am explaining it right. Kat, Queen of Typos 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Storm Covers

Are you sure about album covers being forbidden, 'cause on The Adventures of Tintin, which seems an article with many people working on it, there's a whole album covers gallery. I thought album covers in low resolution are allowed, since they are only meant for identification purposes.. Please explain to me. Either way, thanks for the notification. --Sandpiper800 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do think there's significance for it. The topic Storm is not just about who and what Storm is, it's a documentation of a series of collectibles. With more complex series, like Storm, who have different chronicles, totally different album covers for reprints, deluxe bundles of the stories and some I don't even know what they are it's of significance that the collector can identify which album is which, and what is missing in his own collection.

Image Deletion

Hello.. I'm surious why you deleted the image Image:Golda Meir School.jpg for copyright problems? I stated in my upload description that I took the photo myself. Has someone asserted otherwise? Sulfur 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are obligated to restore the image which was improperly removed. Sulfur 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi - sorry to butt in, but you should probably make your case at deletion review. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Garion96 feels the need to carry out this conversation across multiple talk pages...
I won't restore the image since it is a possible copyright violation. However, this could be solved easily, if you are the same person as the one who uploaded it to flickr, you could send me a flickr mail. My username there is also Garion96. Otherwise I suggest you follow Videmus Omnia's advice and take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review.
That being the case then I suggest you delete every image I have ever contributed to Wikipedia, as you will find them all uploaded to that Flickr account. While you're at it you should consider removing all of the full length articles I have "authored." I am not interested in having you probe my personal life elsewhere on the Internet, or proving myself innocent. I have made my statement of copyright ownership. As for taking it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, I think my time would be better spent at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. Regards Sulfur 20:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you take this so hard. Imagine for instance that the photos you made would be uploaded by someone else on a website stating he made the photos, I assume you would not like that. We just have to be careful regarding copyright. Also, sending a flickr mail does not mean probing your personal life. I already know the username there on flickr and that's all you get when you send a flickr mail. No personal info will be made available. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship is not really a process for deadminship but more a list of cases where it deadminship happened. I think it would be more practical, and I more than welcome it, if you leave a message on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for a second opinion. Garion96 (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Rashi picture

More people have voted to "keep" the unsourced Rashi photo. They are claiming they've seen it in old Public domain books and French Dictionaries. However, they fail to provide any sources. I like the photo myself, but what is the point of creating guidelines against uploading pictures from random websites and tagging them as free-content with out knowing the actual source if no one is going to enforce them? This is getting ridiculous! --Ghostexorcist 21:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. --Ghostexorcist 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain image issues resolved

Hi there. Just a quick update to that Chamberlain image debate, in case you missed it. See what I wrote here. Carcharoth 00:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one thing I forgot. I saw your deletion request for the image on Commons. You point people towards the IfD discussion, which is quite right, but some of the information there was better presented on the now deleted image page. Luckily I kept a copy at User:Carcharoth/Chamberlain image information. Would you consider linking to that from the Commons debate and asking them to see what they think about what the copyright status of the image is? I doubt the people at IfD missed anything, but I just want to be absolutely sure Getty are correct in claiming the copyright. Would you be able to do that? Carcharoth 00:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, I had to make another edit to that page, I already had a hard enough time getting it all straight there. :) No problem of course. Regarding the free image, yes it is kind of ironic that after such a debate a free image is found which already has been uploaded to Commons a year ago. Garion96 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


African Queen 1951

This is a British film what's going on? This is an American film list ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It of course was part American but it was probably the most British of Huston's films . I agree about if there is a free image then use it but I added a full rationale earlier and I have conferred with some of the image taggers that if I add a full rationale for only one image oer page it should be ok ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well its not for decoration any more than images on film pages are. I believe an image of the most acclaimed film of each year is encyclopedic in looking at years in film. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If a free image of a top film that is from the commons can be found then of course this is ok. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How that now? American films of 1951. It is really a British film was it is part American. At least have an image of a character in it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here was the rationale. Note it only applies if a free image cannot be located for a well known film of the year. You're right in this regard. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for use in American films of 1951

  1. For an article covering the films released in the USA in 1951, one single screenshot identifying the Academy Award winning film of that year in the absence of any other images significantly contribrutes to the article and illustrates the role and significance of that film in cinemtatic history.
  2. No free or public domain images have been located for this film or indeed any films of that year.
  3. The image is of lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
  4. The image is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original film or affect the copywright holder in any way. The use of the image in that film history article is entirely encyclopedic in nature and is believed to enhance a understanding of film in that year in history.
  5. The image is used on various websites, and its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is.

Fullerton

Ah Meester we meet again. It isn't a speedy but the copywright has been there for weeks and User:Sengkang who I am a great fan of has done little about it and doesn't regard it as important to address. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I love Sengkang;s articles on Singapore his contribution to the city is one of the best. Nearly every article is quality -he practically has the whole city on wikipedia - But direct copywright can't sit there for weeks really. I hope WikiProject Singapore will address it soon. Hope you are well ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm just very very surprised that someone who has the motivation to create articles like Sengkang hasn't bothered to attend to it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

HI Garion how are you. I loveeeee Monty Python . I'm extremely busy!!! at present I would normally have looked at it. User:Fred Bradstadt is the King of the templates I'm sure he'll help asap if it is more difficult. / If you said something about collasible often I think its state=collapsed if you want to hide it by default ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your're welcome. I've had a particularly crazy editing day. I've formatted all the commune tables for all the departemts in France ready for starting and created Template:Communes of France. I've stubbed three German districts, added full content to San Marino, images to Grenada , cleaned up some Telugu films and created Template:British Virgin Islands whilst stubbing the isdlands -I'm gonna take it easy for a few days!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick image delete

The script has been jacked up since the "file history" format on Image description pages was changed last week. Looks like the script fails at the point when it tries to retrieve the name(s) of the uploader from the history. So it still works for functions with no uploader notification (like "Move to Commons") but fails for everything else. Howard left a note on his talk page last week that he would work it. I feel crippled also - it's a sign of how many people use the script that the number of listings at IfD and PUI have gone way down. I hope he has a chance to fix it soon. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Should have checked his talk page besides the talk page of the code. Yes, I do feel crippled now, it never bothered me before to do the stuff by hand, but now that I am used to doing it automatically.... Real lazy. :) Garion96 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

I left a reply to you here. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Seattle Girls Choir page

Garion

My name is Emilio Marasco and I'm the webmaster for the Seattle Girls Choir. About a mount ago I created the Seattle Girls Choir wiki page, which in essence was just a rewrite of what exists on our webpage. When I first post it I did type in that I was the webmaster and had permission to put in the text. Can I get it relisted please? You can contact me at e-mail removed to stop spam

thanks 66.54.212.101 16:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Emilio

Garion

opps wrong email e-mail removed to stop spam 66.54.212.101 16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Emilio

The article was indeed deleted as a copyright violation from [5]. If you own the copyright to the text could you please send an e-mail from an address associated with the original website to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org stating release of the material under the GFDL. After the permission is through, the article will be undeleted. Sorry for this ordeal, but we have to be careful concerning copyright. Garion96 (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you meant to put this on he talk page not the user page. Have a great day! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Garion, an email was sent from the president of the Seattle Girls Choir, Stacia Cammarano for permission to publish to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Let me know if you need anything else - Emilio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.212.101 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Garion any word yet on redeploy the Seattle Girls Choir page ?

66.54.212.101 17:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Emilio

Email Address?

Where can you be emailed to forward permission to restore an article?

StoneColdQ 21:30, 9 September 2007

TY

Thanks for the tip. --Alien joe 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I promise that I won't. --Alien joe 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wyndhammafia

Hello Garion, I think the blocking of User:Wyndhammafia failed - they vandalised again this morning, severl hours after you'd posted on their talk page about blocking them indefinitely. Their block log is empty, too. Since they are patently only here to vandalise, you might want to take a look at it. Thanks :-) --Bonadea 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)

I think you'll find your revert was incorrect. See Jimmy MacDonald (sound effects artist) ... richi 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That looks better, it sure as heck wasn't that Eddie Collins, which is what your revert made it. Apologies for clicking the wrong Twinkle link—there's been so much vandalism and other stupidity on that page recently that it was basically muscle memory ... richi 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Annabligh.jpg

Did you confirm where the image was from? It might have been someone in the Premier's office who uploaded it (and they would have copyright over it)... WikiTownsvillian 13:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Talkheader

OK, I wasn't aware of this policy. Thanx for the info! :-) Duribald 09:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

A user by the name of Weedle101 keeps on vandalising my userpage. Can you please block him? It's been like -a fourth attack on me and my userpage. Thanks. Weirdy 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! He was becoming quite a pain.... Weirdy 23:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Jesse Fuller & fotdella

I'm writing you since you deleted what became red links to that picture, and I cannot find out what happened to the picture itself. Obviously it was deleted; did you do that?

I'm asking because I put the picture up here. I believed it was OK to use, since it was from the cover of a record album that's long out of print. Do you know the rules governing this? It's a shame, because it was a really nice picture of both the instrument and its creator.

I'll watch this page for replies. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is no entry in the deletion log of this Wikipedia, it always means the image is deleted from Commons. Which in this case it was, see [6]. More info than that I don't have either. Garion96 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image in Donald Duck Articles

The old image in Donald Duck article is so crap and bad.. that's why i change it.. i hope that image will never appear again.. 61.247.16.61 11:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sabrina Lloyd

I removed Image:Sabrina Lloyd in Sports Night.JPG from the Sabrina Lloyd article. Even though it has a very clear source and fair use rationale. Congratulations on that btw, not many non-free image have that. However the image is still replaceable with a free content image per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1. Garion96 (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment, the image is depicting a certain point in the actress Sabrina Lloyds career, I have again placed the image in the Sabrina Lloyd article along with a caption explaining exactly what the image is off. The image is a screen shot and is depicting the time in Sabrina Lloyds carer when she was a cast member of Sports Night, another image could not replace the image because no other image would adequately represent this and therefore it is the only useable image and should remain in the article. MR-WRIGLEY (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Does this mean that the image is permitted to be place in a different section of the article relating more directly to Sports Night, and also what type of image is permitted to be placed in the infobox. MR-WRIGLEY (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment, But if I were to upload a different image, copyright would be an issue, with a screen shot image copyright is not an issue because of the fair use rationale provided, another image would do, but there are no other images available on Wikipedia, making this the only image that can be used, if this image is the only image available then it cannot be replaced, unless you upload an image and apply the correct free use details. In this case, this image is the only one available, and it gives readers an understanding of what Sabina Lloyd looks like, since the image is perfectly acceptable to be housed on Wikipedia, why can it not be used in the article about the person whenever it is the only image that can be used, isn't it better to use this image until a more fitting image comes rather than having people not know what the person looks like at all. MR-WRIGLEY (talk) MR-WRIGLEY 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Garion, I believe this is a sock of a user previously blocked for the same behavior, see the current thread at WP:ANI here. The image being uploaded is even the same. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Please explain to me what a sock user is, I created a wikipedia account because I wanted to have one if I ever so mistake on pages of interest, I live in a house with several other people who could be who you are thinking off. The reason I am uploading this image is because I discovered the image in my folder, I had previously heard of and seen the persons work and decided that since there was no image on her page I might aswell of uploaded the image. I myself have never previously had a Wikipedia account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR-WRIGLEY (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So you live in the same house as the users Snootchie44 (talk · contribs) and PixieGuard (talk · contribs), sharing the IP 81.129.22.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and it's just a coincidence that you're uploading the exact same screenshot as PixieGuard was, and putting it in the exact same place in the exact same article? By the way, WP:SOCK explains what a sockpuppet is. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia commons

Hi Garion - I'm kinda new to the whole Wikimedia commons scene although I have been aware of it's use for a while now. I have transferred this to here but do not know what to do with the wikipedia version. I recall you adding a tag to the wikipedia version to get it deleted so it grabs it from the commons site instead. Thanks for your help. Timeshift 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Timeshift - just put {{subst:ncd}} on the page. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers you two! Timeshift 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Windows 99

Hello ! It is my first article on en.wiki. Please verify my article (my english and etc.). I will wait for Your suggestions. Thanks :) Tdc6502 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank You for Your work on my article :) Sources: Im expecting that answer. Sources of information form this article is simple: it is an installation CD :) It will be trouble to acceptance for other Wikipedians... What You think about it ? Thanks for all links, I will use it to solve this affair. Cheers. Tdc6502 00:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted "Image:Al-arian.jpg"

Will you please explain why you deleted Image:Al-arian.jpg? I was not notified that there was any copyright problem with the image and it was, apparently, never tagged or listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion‎. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my unclear deletion log notice. I guess I simply copy & pasted it since I was working on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This image was listed there, but I deleted it because it was orphaned and it failed non-free content criterion#2: Respect for commercial opportunities. Since it was an image from Associated Press and they make their business selling this image (among money others of course). Garion96 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Would you please give the date when the image was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems? The image was orphaned because it was summarily removed by Mohummy from Sami Al-Arian with a similarly "unclear" edit summary, less than three days before you deleted it, and without notifying anyone or nominating it for deletion. A quick search of the image namespace will reveal that there are scores of AP images on Wikipedia and I don't believe that the low resolution version of the image used in Sami Al-Arian (or the other AP images) is in any way "likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Even if the image did not satisfy the Non-free content criteria, the policy still stipulates "48 hours ... notification to the uploading editor".
In any case, it appears that the image was deletable as "Replaceable fair use" and should have been tagged as such. Wikipedia:Copyright problems, however, is distinguishable from Non-free content criteria and I hope in the future that you, as an administrator, will be more careful about following established policy and procedure and about instructing editors such as Mohummy in the same. I know this all sounds unbearably pedantic, nitpicky, etc. but I think it would have saved both of us time and trouble if the image had not been deleted improperly and for the wrong reasons. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 06:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The date it was listed was August 20. Regarding the AP images, then no one has gotten around to them yet. I think every AP image listed on WP:IFD has been deleted for that reason. But yes, it also is replaceable.
Regarding my deletion of this image. My mistake perhaps was having the deletion log stating per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Although it is not even that faulty since the image was listed there for almost a month without any comments and the image was tagged with the copyvio notice. Failing the fair use also means copyright problems. If we get really technical, you were notified that there were problems with the image, two days later the image was deleted. That you were warned for another reason, the fact that the image was orphaned instead of faulty fair use does not matter that much. So no, the deletion was not improperly and I for sure deleted it for the right reasons. Garion96 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Palin

Hi Garion96. I know that you take good care of Michael's page so I wanted to run an idea by you. Infoboxes have a spot for the personal website for the people that the page is about. In the case of Michael's page the one used is actually the site for his travel series. Now it is a well done site giving info about, and selling items from, his various series, but, I don't think that is valid to have it in the infobox. I do think that, in spite of the commercial nature of it, that it would be fine as an external link, but, to me, it doesn't meet the criteria for being in the infobox. However, I will defer to your thoughts and if you are okay with it there I will leave it alone. I look forward to your thoughts and thanks for you time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 21:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have noticed some posts on his new series going up here at wikipedia. I don't know when we will get to see it her in the US. We might even have to wait for the DVD's but I am looking forward to it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please return "Barbara Rosenthal"

You deleted my entry for artist Barbara Rosenthal because you think I violated copyright, but if you'll notice, I wrote, and signed, both the article for Wikipedia, and the link from the-artists.org to the Video History Archive at Experimental TV Center. I don't see why I should have to write a completely new article if only to say the same information. What do you suggest -- I want to have an article about this artist in Wikipedia. She's becoming increasingly important, having had solo shows in Beijing and Moscow in the last 2 years, and is showing in NYC right now. BILL CRESTON Billcreston 02:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Billcreston

Thanks for your reply. M a t t h i j s L e i j e n a a r, from the-artists.org will be emailing you shortly. Bill Creston —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcreston (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please redeploy Seattle Girl Choir page

Garion, an email was sent from the treasuer of the Seattle Girls Choir, Stacia Cammarano for permission to publish to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Let me know if you need anything else 66.54.212.101 15:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Emilio

Panorama stitchers, viewers and utilities

Thx for your help with the Panorama stitchers, viewers and utilities page but John Spikowski has now put his promo page at Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities. Adding the copyright template there may not help much because then he just moves on to the next miss spelling of his page title or he will even post his link farm somewhere else on Wikipedia. Please help. --Wuz 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You SUCK as an admin. (deleting pages you know nothing about) John Spikowski 23:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sela Ward and Suburban Madness

I reverted the edit by User:98.196.103.246 because of notability. Yes, Sela Ward was in Suburban Madness but she was in dozens of other TV movies, too, and they aren't included in the filmography. If any one should be singled it out, it should be Almost Golden: The Jessica Savitch Story, for which she won acting awards. But it isn't. Suburban Madness is no more noteworthy than any of her others except in the mind of User:98.196.103.246. This user seems to make no other edits on Wiki except about that one TV movie, repeatedly altering pages on related topics like private investigators to include mentions of it (much to the consternation of editors of those pages). I left an entire passage about it on the Sela Ward article in hopes of placating the user. If Suburban Madness warrants inclusion then wouldn't ALL her TV movies deserve inclusion, regardless of notability or linkability? I can do that but I thought it would be better to winnow it down. Sharpvisuals 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor Stravinsky

don't you think the enlarged image might look a little better? --emerson7 | Talk 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey garion96, anybody home?

The page started by Martin Harvey referring to me has been deleted. It is named:

Rich Zubaty

I saw indication of a copyright problem which I have dealt with THREE times before. Every single thing on that page is owned by me. I've said this three times before.

Would you like me to write it in blood on a napkin and mail it to you?

Yes, I'm starting to lose my patience with this. Martin asked me to help and now it has consumed hours and hours of my time.

What else can I possibly tell you?

Rich Zubaty

172.165.63.110 11:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the article per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. On the talk page there was a mention that permission was sent. To be sure, that was sent to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org ? When processed by OTRS the article will be undeleted. Garion96 (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the email I sent to permissions:

OK,


This is the fourth time I am going to tell you the same thing:


All the images on the page "Rich Zubaty" were created by me. Rich Zubaty. That includes, but is not limited to:


Image:Wiki rich zubaty author.jpg

Image:Wiki corp cult2.jpg

Image:Wiki Your Brain.jpg

Image:Wiki What Men Know.jpg

Image:Wiki Water People.jpg

Image:Impeach Bush hat wiki.jpg

Image:Wiki_Corp_vamps.jpg

Image:Web sized edited cowboy.jpg


And ALL THE REST of the images and text, were created by ME, and are free to be used on this web page and to be copied and used in other venues. In other words, all text and images are available through the GNU Free Documentation License. 

And if you don't believe me, check out the web sites below where these images already exist in full and free usage on the web.

Rich Zubaty 

The Rude Guy : www.therudeguy.com

Get a FREE download of the Impeach Bush Blues Song 

    by clicking here: Impeach Bush Blues

Check out Rich Zubaty's books and oil paintings 

    by clicking here: Rich Zubaty Web Site

and his creepy anti-corporate DVD 

    by clicking here: corporatevampires.com

Therudeguy 11:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rich Zubaty email to permissions

This is the email I sent to permissions:

OK, 

This is the fourth time I am going to tell you  the same thing:

All the images on the page "Rich Zubaty" were created by me. Rich Zubaty. That includes, but is not limited to:

Image:Wiki rich zubaty author.jpg

Image:Wiki corp cult2.jpg

Image:Wiki Your Brain.jpg

Image:Wiki What Men Know.jpg

Image:Wiki Water People.jpg

Image:Impeach Bush hat wiki.jpg

Image:Wiki_Corp_vamps.jpg

Image:Web sized edited cowboy.jpg


And ALL THE REST of the images and text, were created by ME, and are free to be used on this web page and to be copied and used in other venues. In other words, all text and images are available through the GNU Free Documentation License.


And if you don't believe me, check out the web sites below where these images already exist in full and free usage on the web.


Rich Zubaty


The Rude Guy : www.therudeguy.com

Get a FREE download of the Impeach Bush Blues Song 

    by clicking here: Impeach Bush Blues

Check out Rich Zubaty's books and oil paintings 

    by clicking here: Rich Zubaty Web Site

and his creepy anti-corporate DVD 

    by clicking here: corporatevampires.com

Therudeguy 11:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Standard userfication

Per WP:PROD, I am entitled to make a reasonable request for any material deleted without due process. I now ask you to restore Evil lair, a universally known concept and a basic shtick of several kinds of fiction, into my userspace with full page history so that I may review the reasons behind the proposal and examine the article for salvageable content, per our policies and guidelines for inclusion.

Apologies for sounding like Gandalf in the hands of a bad fanfic writer. I got into watching the Dungeons & Dragons movie. --Kizor 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I see the article was prodded because of its unusability in its present state. Indeed, the thing was an apparent holdover from the days when we could cover a novel that doesn't use the letter "e" with an article that doesn't, either. It needs a rewrite, but there's usable material, and the changes need not be all that extensive for a serious article about an almost self-satirizing silly concept.

My first thought upon seeing it again, though?

"Totally worth it." ;-) --Kizor 23:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 24

Thank you SO MUCH for catching that stupid mistake of mine!! The ones that are left there were flagged by me, so I didn't want to close them. But I closed the others on the page, and then I forgot about the open ones I had flagged and took the page off the list. I just put it back. Go for it! -- But|seriously|folks  18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of MSSR Rifle.jpg

I'm not sure about this. I did say that it's not an image easily found outside of the Philippines since it was only published by the Philippine Navy (Yeah, I still remember doing that). But if there's anything that was suppose to be included and all that, I'm willing to listen. Ominae 21:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

where are you Garion96?

OK,

I submitted the copyright stuff for the Rich Zubaty page. What are we waiting for now? Godot? If so I need to know so I can come back to this in a year or so.

Therudeguy 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garion96/Archive_9&oldid=1247073514"