User talk:Garion96/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
List Of One Tree Hill episodes
"Hi, your recent addition to List of One Tree Hill episodes looks like a direct copyvio from tv.com. See [1]. That whole article looks like a lot of episode summaries are lifted from some website."
what new additions. I haven't changed the any of the summarys. Russell29 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
how was i to know it was from TV.com i got it from the episode page Russell29 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
well i'll watch my DVDs and make new summarys Russell29 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The images
The problem is the websites that they are on does not show a copyright status, and the user who uploaded them could not explain a license. I did not do that to cause any kind of harm, sorry. 86.148.189.99 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
T:RFU
How are they messed up? ed g2s • talk 10:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Knobcreeknightshoot.jpg
The author of this image gave me full permission to use the image as I pleased. I don't think there should be any confusion about this. Release it to the public, release it to the public domain... makes no difference to him. The link I provided didn't exactly specify this but I can assure you the creator of the image has accepted to release the image under the GFDL with no conditions. Honestly I think there are a lot more images out there that need to be removed, mine is not to worry about. RavenStorm 13:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
I'm not a big fan of barnstars, but you deserve something, so here's a sunflower :-)
Thank you so much for helping at WP:PUI; it was swamped, you picked up your mop and came right on over, despite the challenges associated with deleting others' images. Its so nice to see images be deleted within 14 days instead of a month. If I can help, let me know. Again, thanks, Iamunknown 03:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ta! I knew you would do that, you sneaky fellow. ;) --Iamunknown 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for changing the template on Ariyoshi. You suggested selecting another fair use tag, but unfortunately, after scanning the list, I couldn't find one better than the one you selected for it. Did you have any other tags in mind other than the present one? Also, in terms of rationale, do I need to include more about Ariyoshi in the image info? Thanks, again! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
50 Films to See Before You Die
Why do you have to remove the list ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.68.193.115 (talk • contribs). 19:28, 14 May 2007
- Because the complete list is not free content and therefore can not be published on wikipedia. See Talk:The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll#List itself for a related discssion. Garion96 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Replacement
I was able to find someone who could replace Image:Neo large.jpg with Image:AS Neo.jpg. What do we do with "Neo large" now? Do we delete it? And is there a template or something that should be used on the new image? — Chris53516 (Talk) 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
My compliments
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For your labors at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, which is an crucial but usually thankless task. Spike Wilbury 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
re: Anglo-Norman language
It looks like you did the best job possible in restoring this article. I don't think I've ever had to go back as far as 2004, but it's better than having no article at all or just a stub. --Spike Wilbury 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Editing of Lunia
Hello sir, was just wondering (for future reference) why most of the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunia:_Record_of_Lunia_war was removed? Thank you for your time :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Torian (talk • contribs). 09:46, 19 May 2007
- Thank you for the swift reply, we'll be sure to observe this in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Torian (talk • contribs). 11:52, 19 May 2007
Free use photos
How can I use the following photos on ebay without them being removed? How do I make this justified free use claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by New2007 (talk • contribs). 21:40, 19 May 2007
http://czartoryski.fm.interia.pl/arabomani.jpg http://czartoryski.fm.interia.pl/Czartoryski_Wlodzimierz.jpg http://czartoryski.fm.interia.pl/Czartoryski_Pawel.jpg
No, the page has no info on date or author. It's a case of 'photo from the net w/out attribution'. The subject died in 1945 at the age of 81; on the photo he looks old but I thin he would looks younger than 70 thus PD - but I don't think we can find any harder evidence. The photo is probably gathering dust at some museum collection, and somebody took a photo or scanned it from a book and put online... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we have an almost sure proof that the photo is over 70 years old, isn't this enough to let it be?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Catalan Atlas
Hi, I just noticed today that you deleted Catalan Atlas for being a copyright violation. It was tagged on March 24 by Kimdime69, who pointed to this page. As you will see that page is not in English. (It is, I believe, either in Spanish or Catalan). I undersand that close translations of copyrighted material can be copyright violations. However, although my language skills are not good enough to translate this page, they are good enough to make me susect that this may not be a close enough translation to be a copyright violation. I have left some more specific concerns at Kimdime69's talk, as he or she seems to have the languages to evaluate this more closely. I am sorry for coming in so late, but I missed the tagging of this article. I discovered today it when I was cleaning out my watchlist of dead articles. Dsmdgold 15:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point on the translations you provided. There probably is some infringement going on here, although our article is obviously not a straight translation of the original. I loaded the deleted article to my sandbox so that, if Kimdime69, who is not an admin, wanted to comment on it, he or she could have access to the text. Since this is probably a CR violation I will delete that revision from my sandbox history, after I use to write a copyright free stub. Thanks for your attention. Dsmdgold 20:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:CP
I like the idea of strikethrough much better than removing them from the list. --Spike Wilbury 04:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Silly bot
Your recent edit to Anuj Sharma (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 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete this image "per WP:PUI"? If you check WP:PUI, you'll see that I have expressed (several days ago already) the opinion that this was {{PD-Art}}.[1] Did I miss something? Lupo 09:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. Indeed I missed that we already have the better version anyway, and it's used in Battle of Legnano. So, deletion of this one is fine with me. Sorry for the bother. Lupo 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hi. Please tell me what I need to do to keep the image of Phoebe Cates. I added some more information, and I want to follow the rules. I see lots of fair use images all over wikipedia, and I think this image is of the same type as those other ones. Thank you. Grundle2600 03:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK. So you said it still doesn't meet the criteria. Then will you please explain why? I don't mind that you removed the pictgure again. But at least please explain why you did it. Thank you.Grundle2600 13:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. You said on my talk page that the image of Phoebe Cates isn't relevant to the aritcle on Phoebe Cates, and that there were other sources that would be better. Well, I'm no expert on the wikipedia rules, but I'll take your word for it. Personally, I thought it was a great picture, and I thought it did meet the fair use rules. But I won't argue. Anyway, thanks for leaving your comments on my talk page. Grundle2600 13:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK. So you said it still doesn't meet the criteria. Then will you please explain why? I don't mind that you removed the pictgure again. But at least please explain why you did it. Thank you.Grundle2600 13:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Garion, just a heads up this article is going to be a bit of an issue I think. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 08:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Garion. I noticed that you redirected this article under BLP. My guess is that you did this for notability reasons. Leaving aside the fact that she's possibly the wife of the future Prime Minister, she also founded and controls a major multi-million dollar business. She attracted a moderate amount of media attention before she became the centre of the current political storm, and is definitely is in the media spotlight now. It doesn't deserve an instant redirect. Thanks. P.S. Like the Eddings reference--Quietprice 09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Image tags
Hi. Can you let me know what image tags I use if I'm (1) the owner of the photograph and wish to release it under GFDL, (2) the image is more than 100 years old and in the public domain, and (3) the scan of a map which is more than 100 years old in the public domain. The first applies to the Bumbunga photograph, the second to the Sedang photograph and the third to the Aurora Islands map. Can you also please explain your deletion of the scans of coins and stamps from Nation of Celestial Space, Grand Duchy of Avram and Independent State of Aramoana. These were images of items personally owned by me, which were scanned by me and released under GFDL. --Gene_poole 23:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Copyright is a tortuously complex area. My reading of GFDL was that if I create and own the the image, of something that I personally own, then I can release the image under GFDL - not the original design. Is this in fact incorrect? --Gene_poole 23:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
My revert
Dear Garion96, Sorry my revert in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Image was not deleted during my edit.Regards.Must.T C 11:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Indian Institute of Journalism & New Media
Why did you delete this page asshole!! I sent countless letters from the adminstration of the school, allowing the material I put up to be published. You think are some cool editor who has a clue, but your clearly just an idiot!
Eat a Dick! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.159.69 (talk • contribs). 10:59, 29 May 2007
Which copyright problems made you delete the Ceph, which was earlier called the Ceph file system, page? If there was any copyright problems in the text couldn't you just deleted them or point it out in the discussion or something? JerkerNyberg 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As one of the creators of Ceph (along with Brandt, Weil, Miller and Maltzhan (and others)), I too would like know what copyright problems you have identified. Darrell Long, http://www.ssrc.ucsc.edu/~darrell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.114.60.205 (talk • contribs). 22:51, 30 May 2007
- If you are the creators of [2], please add somewhere on that site that you release the material under the GFDL license or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org stating the same. When that happens I will undelete the article. Sorry about this, but we have to careful regarding copyright.Garion96 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a bad idea to just randomly delete an entire page and deny the existance of the topic entirely. You could have just deleted or marked the text you feel was inappropriate, and then marked it as a stub instead of deleting obviously freely available stuff, like author and the logo, and so on. 67.188.29.176 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- 1 It wasn't randomly. The article was tagged for two weeks as copyvio so that people had a change to make a non-copyvio verson.
- 2 I did not deny the existence of the topic. See [3]. People can still create a non copyvio article.
- 3 The only non-copyvio part was an infobox and an external link. That's not a complete article. I have no interest or the time of making a stub of every article I have to delete because of copyright violations. Of which there are a lot on wikipedia.
- 4 Every time you make an edit it states "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." People should not be surprised it does indeed get deleted. Garion96 (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- It takes time to get used to the workings of wikipedia I guess. Now I have created a new article and uploaded the logo again. JerkerNyberg 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Garion96. Sorry to bother you. After I recreated the page, it got tagged as Blatant advertising and deleted by user User:Naconkantari. Please see an archive of my messages regarding this on my discussion page. Unfortunatelly I got no answer and I am sorry to read that User:Naconkantari seem to have stopped contributing to Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions on how to progress? I guess the subject of the article may be too small and a little bit too much into academic research yet, although I find the subject fascinating. Perhaps I could integrate more information into a subsection on the article about distributed file systems regarding the recent crop of fault tolernat ones. The List of file systems page does not feel apropriate for this. What do you think? --JerkerNyberg 07:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
|
You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified.
Regards, WilyD |
Regarding May 18, I think you can remove that day as long as you are watching the one remaining item for updates. If there is no update from OTRS within a week, I would delete it. --Spike Wilbury 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Irwell Sculpture Trail
Please explain why you have deleted the images. I have express permission to use the images.If you had bothered to go to my talk page you would have read this " * Image:Irwell001.jpg through Image:Irwell030.jpg - no tags, unknown origins
-Casito⇝Talk 07:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Irwell Valley Sculpture images were used with the kind permission of the guys who run http://www.irwellsculpturetrail.co.uk/ who also gave permission for some of their text to be used." Please replace images immediately —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harrypsauce (talk • contribs). 16:12, 5 June 2007
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Hi Garion96,
I've been trying (all day) to figure out why there were no edits to Cheyenne, Wyoming between October 2006 and May 2007, when the lightbulb belatedly went off and I remembered I could look at the logs for the page myself. Turns out, it was you. I gather there was a lot of material that was a copyright violation, and you removed 130 edits.
I know practically zilch about copyright policy; when I run across it, I just revert it, but I know it is still there in the history. (Slightly off topic: is that the wrong way to go about it?) I obviously have no problem with you removing all traces of it, except I think there was a lot of collateral damage (can't be sure, since I can't see the deleted edits). Surely all 130 edits weren't copyvio's?
Is there any way to restore the edits that weren't copyvio's? Or am I not giving you enough credit, and you reviewed the article and can assure me that no legit edits were harmed? Or is this something that just happens sometimes and I need to deal with it?
Thanks in advance, --barneca (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the reply. At least I know Cheyenne isn't so boring that no one cared about it for 7 months. --barneca (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, one more minor thing. Not sure what the etiquette is, so just I'll ask: it's kosher for me to link to your reply on my talk page at Talk:Cheyenne, Wyoming, right? I only ask because it might generate more complaints for you to deal with (although it is Cheyenne, Wyoming; how many complaints could there be?). --barneca (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Mahahual, Mexico
the entry seems to be deleted, due to copywrite violation in March. I'm not sure what that means, but I had spent a lot of time entering information. I live here, and granted, there was information that was not correct sometimes, but over-all it was OK. Its sad to see your down "deleted." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.63 (talk • contribs). 20:09, 8 June 2007
- See actually my response in the section above. The article started out as a copyright violation. Your edits were based (not your fault) on that copyright violation. Although I can't undelete the copyright violation you are free to start a new article. Or since you edit from an IP and can't create articles, ask me and I will make a mini stub of the article so that you can expand again from that. Garion96 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:SchapelleCorbyInCell.jpg
Hi Garion96. Referring to your question on my talk page, yes go ahead & delete it. I havea copy of the image here and we can always restore it later. Thanks Robert Brockway 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
RE: Possibly unfree Image:Samsung9.jpg
I had forgotten about these images. Go ahead and delete them, when I get permission from the holder of these images I'll re-upload them. Thanks. CAN 15:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Image Rod Stewart
Referring to your comments about fair use image not being allowed in info box for the artist Rod Stewart (the only photo on his page btw) - if that is the case, then I would like to point out to you that there are 10,0000's of images on Wiki that have to be deleted as well. You cannot have one rule for one and not for others. Perhaps you could take a look at Aerosmith page or Madonna's (singer) locked page (just as one example of many)and tell me how the many fair use photos on there managed to bypass scrutiny; as I say, if one rule is ok for one, its unfair to continually dispute others which are used in the same rationale. Personally Rod Stewart is not my cup of tea but I'm sure people would like to know what the bloke looks like !!! Sue Wallace 17:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Raycharlesmodernsounds.jpeg
Thanks for your reply, As an example above, can you come back and let me know if this will be deleted? Sue Wallace 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
On the Ray Charles page there are several album covers evident, with no fair use explanations at all cited. yet no-one seems bothered about it, and they have been there since 2005! The same with Aerosmith which I noticed you didn't comment on, has Image:Aerosmith - Toys In The Attic.JPG Image:Aerosmith - Pump.JPG Image:Aerosmith - Get A Grip.JPG Image:Aerosmith - Just Push Play.JPG together with another 15!!!!! album covers used, NONE of which have been tagged for deletion and have NO fair useage information added to them at all and have been there since last year!
Seems strange to me how one page with one measly picture in the infobox that has had fair use criteria added to it, (by the way I copied that information off other album cover criteria and they have stayed), is deemed as "no way that can stay"!! Yet other pages, such as I've mentioned, plus many more, including stills of music videos (COPYRIGHTED), posters (COPYRIGHTED) and album covers ARE left alone and allowed to stay. No-one has questioned the legitimacy of the many copyrighted video stills on Madonnas page?? Why is this?? Why are some images deemed "necessary" (even when there are already many images on one page) yet one fair image for a page is questioned?? Does it perhaps depend on whether the administrator involved is a "fan" of the material they are investigating? Sue Wallace 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer - But I would like to know specifically why several video stills are used on the Madonna page and are deemed "necessary" even though they are subject to copyright, obviously this must have been noticed as someone has "locked" the page! How come their criteria is OK, when others are deemed not? Please can you explain the difference? again I am led to wonder whether pages are all being treated exactly the same? Sue Wallace 00:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the new rod stewart photo, it clearly states at the source "This photo is public" Sue Wallace 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reply, yes sorry I didn't realise that, its the first time I have ever been on that site.
By the way, if there is now a blanket ban on all album cover pics used, how come the up-loader is asked to explain usage, why not just delete with no questions asked, please can you explain the rationale you use, and if it's the same as others. Thanks. Sue Wallace 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, could you please take a quick look at led zepplins page and tell me if they have met the correct fair use criteria for album photos - many thanks Sue Wallace 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| I, Smee, hereby present Garion96 with The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Thank you for giving me helpful correction on usage of a template, and taking the time out to do so in a polite manner. Yours, Smee 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
- Quick side question
- Are there any pages in particular that you feel I should go back and remove the {{Talkheader}} from? Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 04:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
Archaeological Geophysics
You have twice removed an image from this article (3030-mag.jpg). This image has been released fair and square into the public domain by the copyright holder. Unless there is some other reason than the license that you are deleting it, it should be restored, or replaced by another better example. Tapatio 04:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am an officer of the company holding the copyright to this image, and have released it (and the other images used in this article) into the public domain - Geoffrey Jones, Archaeo-Physics, LLC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.16.187 (talk • contribs). 21:37, 10 June 2007
- Thanks for releasing the material under the public domain. To be sure, could you send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org permitting re-use under the GFDL. When the permission arrives I will undelete the image. Sorry about this whole ordeal but we have to be careful regarding copyright. Garion96 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Dprk nampo dam.jpg
I can't understand why this immage is suspected tobe unfree. I have personaly asked Mr. Sobolev for permission to use the immage in e-mail.
Previously I also asked one of admins if this is O'K and he required only to attach the e-mail with responce. Shmuliko 12:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
album covers
Thanks for your help on this. I did read the discussion, I did come away understanding this better, and yes you was correct in regards the Rod Stewart pic. I did find a free one eventually LOL. Sue Wallace 14:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Publicity photos
Why is a non-free image acceptable in the article on a movie character (Jack Bauer) but not for the actor (Kiefer Sutherland)? If it's non-free somewhere, it's non-free everywhere and fair use justifications don't matter. Thanks. --shift6 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Trader Joe's
Why did you delete the picture in the Trader Joe's page? The Quiche is typical of what you can find at TJ store. Whole Foods Market has picture of their products. That is just another grocery chain. So TJ picture should be left along. WLee 05:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:Two images listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images
Hi. Thanks a lot.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion removed from WP:PUI
You recently removed the discussion regarding Image:Maroon5Promotional.jpg. It's the only image I've ever posted there, and maybe I'm just confused as to the process (the page is somewhat vague), but I don't see what the point was. The uploader argued his points as to why it is a free image, and a self-described "fairly new" editor argued that it is an un-free image. The discussion then sat idle for three weeks before it was removed with no apparent action. Is that what "processing" is referring to? LaraLoveT/C 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick reply! I'll take it to review. If such images were allowed for use, I think every band article would have one in use. I just can't find anyone to delete it. LaraLoveT/C 18:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Picture Removed
why was the picture removed from the Joe Payne article? Permission was given, and was clearly noted, which is why the picture had been used for nearly a year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.71.11.119 (talk • contribs). 19:01, 20 June 2007
- Because the edit summary, when the picture was uploaded, stated that Joe Payne gives permission to use this photo. Which is not clear enough for wikipedia. There has to be clear permission that the image can be used for noncommercial and commercial use and that the image can be modified. Garion96 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Rashi picture
Don't be ridiculous. This picture is so old that it was never in copyright. So what difference does it make where the original uploader got it from? If you really wanted to know, you could try asking him, but whether we know or not, there's no potential copyright problem, and therefore no reason to delete it. Zsero 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- How could I possibly provide the uploader's source? I can't read his mind. If he's not responding to email then maybe he's no longer active on WP, but the picture is famous, and centuries old - older than any copyright laws anywhere in the world. What difference could it make where the uploader happened to find it - whether he scanned it himself from a book, or found it on some web site? No matter where it came from there's no possible copyright issue, and that's all that matters. Zsero 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- What policy requires a source? The picture is famous. It's printed in books, and all over the place. Plenty of pictures of historical people are in WP without any source. I've just looked at [Image:William1.jpg], [Image:William2.jpg], [Image:Henry1.jpg], [Image:Stephen.jpg], and [Image:Henry II of England.jpg], none of them have a source, and I'm sure the same is true of their successors, but I couldn't be bothered going on down the chain. I don't see anybody demanding a source for any of them. So why are you suddenly demanding one here? Why should I or anyone go looking for a potential source just to satisfy you? If you're so curious, do your own research. Zsero 22:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- All Wikipedia:Images#Uploading_images says is that a source should be noted. And if it had said that at the time this was uploaded, maybe the uploader would have done so. But there was not even a recommendation at the time, so it's unreasonable to expect it of him, and he doesn't seem to be around now. In any case, it doesn't say that there's a policy requiring it. You're the one with a bee in his bonnet about deleting a picture that's obviously old. Why? What does it bother you? Why put so much energy into deleting a picture where there's clearly resistance, instead of hunting down pictures where there isn't anybody protesting? Have some common sense and leave it alone. I am not your research asssistant. Zsero 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The source of the image is clearly http://www.jabad.org.ar/notasdetail.asp?idnota=1206¬a=si please unprotect the page so that it can be added. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:Your message on my talk page
Gah, I don't think I want to get involved in that. I know nothing about the image or anything, just came across it while deleting the unsourced stuff in the oldest category. It would be a damn shame to lose it. J Milburn 16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, best of luck with that, seems sad to lose the image... J Milburn 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Ted Kirkpatrick
You had deleted Ted Kirkpatrick's page. While the page has been re-created, I was curious as to what prompted the deletion on or around May 27. Was it a copyright issue because the text came from Ted's own biography page? Thanks! 5minutes 13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Ted had contacted me and asked what had happened, and I had assumed that this was what had occurred and had explained to him that I had observed a recent, stronger push for respect of copyrights here at Wikipedia (one I heartily support). I'll make sure to pass your message along to him. Again - thanks! 5minutes 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- On Ted's image: I don't know if I can find one. He passed it to me in an e-mail yesterday (he's not quite savvy with editing in wikipedia and asked me to post it for him - I run the band's message board). As it's a part of the band's press kit (not available on the web), so I went with the best option I could and then put the "Non-free promotional" tag in it to ID it as "non-free" and "promotional", which, according to Wikipedia's standards, would qualify as fair use. If someone else has a free image to replace it, that'd be fine. 5minutes 12:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Boy, you guys are getting to be sticklers about copyright, huh? It's a little silly, IMO, but OK. Them's the breaks. I've contacted Ted to see if he'd be willing to release this or another image under a free license. If you'd keep that image out there a little while longer without deleting it, I'd appreciate it. I'll either replace it with a free option or remove it in the next few days. At the same time, I have to wonder how tightly you guys are enforcing this. I notice that this image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buddy-Rich2.jpg) is released under a similar non-free license and has been out there since January. My guess is that there's probably more than one free picture of Buddy Rich out there that didn't come from drummerworld.com. 5minutes 12:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Famous hermits, huh? That actually sounds like a cool band name. Now if I could just find a lead singer named "Herman". Thanks again for working with me/Ted! 5minutes 13:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Still, the exact meaning of the phrase Universal executives thought the ending tested poorly escapes me. I'd understand if it said something like on preview screenings the ending tested poorly. Although no such screenings are even mentioned. Sorry, English is not my native language, but it seems to me that the wording as above is rather obscure. Dart evader 04:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- True, that sentence needs to be explained more/sourced or simply removed. But tested at least makes more sense, tasted doesn't make sense. Garion96 (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- However strange it may sound, I think that tasted poorly could have been quite appropriate for that phrase. The film's ending, indeed, was somewhat cruel and even shocking. It could easily give a 'poor taste' in someone's perception. Dart evader 08:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
List of polio survivors
Hi Garion,
I've been working on the List of polio survivors with two other editors who are interested in polio-related articles. We are reaching the end of the process and hope to submit it to FLC soon. I'd very much appreciate if you could look at the text and point out any areas for improvement. Thanks, Colin°Talk 22:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Hope you don't mind... I've copied them to Talk:List of polio survivors so we can all discuss them. Colin°Talk 17:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a response to your comments. Thanks again. Colin°Talk 17:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
RE:Image:AngelRamosTelemundo.jpg
Thank you Garion,you know how it is, I'm so wrapped up writing articles that sometimes it is hard to keep up with some of the changes being made in policy. By the way, you were right, those were "lame" reasons for a PD. Tony the Marine 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
ABC Notation
Hi Garion, I see the ABC Notation page has been removed for copyright reasons. Almost all of that page was taken directly from Chris Walsh's ABC Notation page which is marked as copyright. I would think that information about ABC notation would be acceptable if the content were original and would be very useful to many. Is it possible to put the page back and simply remove the content, replacing it with a note asking for original content?
--Robin Beech 13:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: KAYANI
Hello Garion, I understand you have removed my entry "Kayani". Can you explain why please? Thanks Peter --Peter 13:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Peterkeyani--Peter 13:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)