User talk:Garion96/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 9 |
Archive 10


Contents

Why the hell did you delete the image??

Return the Little Tragedies image, it's a public domain. M.V.E.i. 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please return me the information i wrote there. M.V.E.i. 21:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
They were the one ewho told me the fan allowed them to do anything they want with it, that's why since then it's the image they use the most. M.V.E.i. 10:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I had reported Spikowski's action to an admin here. The results could be seen on John's user page. Something to think about I guess. Roguegeek (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Au mckinley.jpg

I have a template this image appeared in watchlisted, and I noticed this morning it had been deleted. The nominator for deletion, Bleh999, apparently found a URL pointing to the same photo of American University's library online, probably by doing Google searches on image names. This seemed to indicate that the uploader's release of the image into the public domain was invalid. However, following directories upward, I found the site on which the image appears to be maintained by a college librarian in California who was educated at American University. Looking at the uploader's ontribs, most of them seem to be on topics having to do with Californian college libraries and American University. The uploader will probably not respond to queries, because she has not made an edit since February, but it seems safe to assume (unless we're assuming bad faith beyond all rationality) that the uploader and the person whose site it is on which the picture appears are the same. Since it seems the uploader's release into public domain was valid, could you please undelete the image? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For assuming the uploader is the same person as the webmaster of that site I do need more proof. So sorry, I won't undelete the image since I am not convinced the release into Public domain was valid. Feel free of course to ask for more opinions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Garion96 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Try a thought experiment: You upload a photo you've taken to Wikipedia and release it into the public domain. Anyone can use it for any purpose. Someone (maybe it's you, maybe it's not) takes the image that anyone can use for any purpose, and puts it on his or her faculty page at the community college where he or she works, which is allowable under the photo's permissive licensing. Then suppose someone at Wikipedia discovers the photo on that faculty page and decides that, because the image exists somewhere else, the uploader must have lied about the copyright status of the image when it was uploaded, and so the image should be deleted. That's a much more far-fetched scenario than to assume that the person on whose web page the image in question appears is also the uploader at Wikipedia, and by its logic, the deletion is still invalid.
Merely demonstrating that a free image exists outside Wikipedia should not be sufficient cause to delete it. --Dynaflow babble 22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Au mckinley.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Dynaflow babble 22:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Rosenthal

Oct.10,07-- Garion, I emailed your permissions referral but have heard back from no one. Please repost my article about Barbara Rosenthal. Bill Creston

Garion, this is going on and on. About my essay on BARBARA ROSENTHAL -- Matthiajs at the-artists.org has emailed you to say they don't hold the copyright, I do. THis is the origin of my article: First written about ROsenthal for The Video Historyh Project of Experimental TV Center. Then linked by the-artists.org to that site. THen I sent my same article to Wikipedia. Then you deleted it, saying you thought the-artists.org had the copyright. Then I wrote to tell you I wrote the article. Then you asked the-artists.org to verify that. Then Mathjias did. Then you said you needed my permission. SO -- I AM THE COPYRIGHTED AUTHOR. I GIVE YOU MY PERMISSION TO PLEASE RE-POST IT. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF eMediaLoft.org in New York City. Thank you, Bill Creston (Note: none of the items below on this page pertain to me, but I'm leaving them here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcreston (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Le Prix du Danger

1. Have you seen the film?
2. What kind of reference do you need to justify this sentence?
"There are no splatter scenes or any excess in violence."
3. The "misc" in not a result of any kind of research,
it's some basic things you see in the film,
they are not some sort of hidden messages,
they are obvious, they were meant to be obvious...
4. and why do you delete the "See also" as well?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikos papadopoulos (talk • contribs) 08:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Le Prix du Danger II

1. It's not besides the point. If you've seen the film you'll know that I am not making some deep sociological analysis.
I am just writing about things that are obvious in the movie.
2. Nowadays, whenever you say "thriller" people thing of Hannibal Lector and other crazy murderers; and don't ask me, who says so, just open your tv.
3. "it can be said", is just a polite expression
(God have mercy, we will have to give reference on "Earth is round" now)
4. Let me remind you that you removed all links.

administrators....why do they make me feel so tired? --Nikos papadopoulos 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Corona can.jpg

I'm having a hard time understanding why you reverted my removal of the deletion template on this image. The discussion was initiated August 20, and over a month later, after everyone who commented agreed the image should be kept, I removed the deletion notice. This is not an ongoing discussion, and there is no reason for the deletion template to remain. - auburnpilot talk 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I noticed the deletion template reappear, but didn't even notice I had removed the {{product-cover}} tag. - auburnpilot talk 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


RFC:Conductor infoboxes

currently underway is an attempt by a just a few editors to prohibit the use of infoboxes in articles of all classical musicians. in my view, the manner in which the policy was adopted was just a bit underhanded, and skeevishly done. if you are at all interested keeping the infoboxes, please go here and join the discussion. if you would like to loose them...well...just ignore this message. cheers! --emerson7 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but your last comment at the deletion review seems nonsense. Of course PUI would have been the best first step, perhaps that was the reason why the image actually was listed at PUI before deletion. So there was no incorrect deletion per process at all. Either way I am glad you got conformation that it was not a public domain image, I do hate wrongly deleting images. Now you also know what editors dealing with copyright problems are always encountering. Garion96 (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at it again, it was a little bit bizarre of me to say that. I've been working 15-hour days and not sleeping nearly as much as I should, hopping on Wikipedia when I absolutely can't stand one more minute of computer-mediated database-program-fixin' drudgery. In my fatigued state, my brain didn't make a couple of essential connections and interpreted Dhartung's second comment as implying the image hadn't been vetted through WP:PUI, even though I had seen its entry there just a day or two earlier and had actually linked to a diff from it. If you detected an accusatory tone in my comment, none was intended. Sorry for my confusion. --Dynaflow babble 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Terry Riley image - Disputed

As I stated, I believe the free rights to use this image will be granted. In the event they are not, I will obtain a free image from Mr. Riley or another source which will meet all requirements for the Wikipedia. Though I have posted some other images which were disputed and deleted, I believe that the subject is of enough significance in American music that a readily available free image can be obtained & posted in accordance with Wikipedia requirements. Cabreet(talk) 09:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Learned Estonian Society

Hello, the text in the article was not even copied over from a public source [[1]] so, please, why exactly did you delete it? --Termer 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Done

But if I have to hire a lawyer to defend myself, you're paying. :-O -- But|seriously|folks  01:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WT:MOSFLAG archives

Should we move the archives too, or leave them at the old place (which was the 2nd, not 1st, name of the page to begin with)? I was about to move them after fixing shortcuts, but you beat me to it in a sense, by fixing the archive box to point to the current locations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, this was just easier. Feel free to move them if you want. Garion96 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: ICD-10

Thanks for the opinion and the deletion. It's on my watchlist, and I'm sensing it may magically reappear in the not-too-distant future, since Arcadian is an admin too. I don't get to the CP page that often, but every time I look at the page it's got a two- or three-week backlog. I don't know why – it's easier to do than a lot of admin tasks. I think we just forget about it because the noise comes from the XfDs. If you keep working on it, don't do that long list of images that Videus Omnia added without reading an AN or ANI thread about it. (I'd link to it, but I don't remember where it is. How embarrassing.) - KrakatoaKatie 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How should they be handled? They've clearly been lifted from the uniforminsignia.net website? Videmus Omnia Talk 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply saying not to take action without reading the discussion. I haven't come down one way or the other. KrakatoaKatie 20:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning ICD-10, you stated on my talk page that "multiple people, including some admins, agreed it was a copyright violation." That contradicts what I see at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 September 29/Articles. Are there other links to places where this has been discussed? --Arcadian 22:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Adolfo Carrion

As I mentioned months ago when I asked for the removal of protection on the article, I have completed a biography. I welcome any constructive comments you could provide that would help me enhance the article or bring it closer to the perfect article.

Thank you for your patience.Wbennin 18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

House (TV series)

I notice you've protected this article, and I thought I'd point out that the same user has inserted the same POV material into several other articles including Grey's Anatomy and ER (TV series). He certainly has an axe to grind, but keeps swapping IP addresses so he can't easily be slowed with a 3RR. Docta247 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. This user may or may not have a good point, but his methods and tricks leave a lot to be desired! Docta247 22:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

American Scientific Affiliation

I was surprised to see that the article was removed. I noticed the complaint concerning copyright and discussed how we should react with the ASA director on Wed. Oct. 17. The text and graphic are not copywrited. We now have no copy of the original and need to see your concerns so that we can respond. Thank you. jackhaas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhaas (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 October 2007


Galaxy Rangers

I found the original author of Betamountain.org [2] he is know as the user User:Rabbi Bob and ca an be reached at RabbiBob [at] gmail [dot] com says I copy his episode guides as long as i credit his links so you can contact him if you don't believe meDwanyewest 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Dwanyewest 20:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Received your message I can show you a copy of the email if you wish


Dwanyewest 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I haven't heard anything from the moderators should I email you the evidence i gained permission to reprint the original articles.

Ted Kirkpatrick

The image you tagged for deletion has been replaced. The original image came from the artist's personal collection, but I could never get clearance on whether he'd release it under Creative Commons or not, so I used another one from our site that I released into CC. Unfortunately, I'm not quite well-versed on the fair use tagging thing, so you may have to do some adjustin'. 5minutes 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix TV logo removal

I was previously not free to respond to what you did on the Phoenix Television article. Yes, I've placed quite a number of logos on the page, but I did that for a reason. There is simply no other article to house these logos, since individual articles of the "sub-channels" hasn't been created (as of "now"). Until those articles are started, I'll have to place all those "sub-logos" in the family article. If not, I'll get a message of orphaned non-free image, which will be deleted if not placed in an article. (FYI, I made those logos without any commercial intention)

So please consider my explanation, and not simply make any edits that may seem "right" to you. I'm open to suggestions. Regards. Hytar 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons tagging

Just wondering how getting me access is going... unfortunately I can't find the page in my watchlist so I can't see if it's been approved, but last time I checked it was about 2 weeks after I added my name and nothing had changed. Cheers, Timeshift 05:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For working tirelessly on patrolling unfree images and copyright violations, which ensures that Wikipedia is not under legal jeopardy[3] [4] [5] [6].--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, I can't get it to format) fixed, thanks to Dorftrottel

Deleted entry: Blackburn Museum and Art Gallery

Hello. I am new to this wiki editing and I have no idea how to contact you except via this, hope it works. I was looking at the Blackburn page and saw that the Blackburn Museum and Art Gallery page has been deleted. It says that its not a good idea to create another one. So why was the last one deleted? Hope I am signing this off correctly. --Pavillion32 12:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC) ps. I have no idea why my user name is in red.

Walt Disney Platinum Editions

I noticed you removed the images from the article Walt Disney Platinum Editions "per WP:NFCC". How exactly do they violate that policy? Do you dispute their fair use rationale or sourcing? I wrote the rationales to save them from deletion, but if you think they're not good enough I can fix them. Is the problem that there are "too many" fair use images? I know it's unorthodox to use images in a list, such as album covers, but I think it's fine in this particular case, since there's specific discussion about the covers, and there will never be an encyclopedic article about each individual DVD release. I'm not that gung-ho about keeping them in there, though, so if it's such a big deal we can leave them out. szyslak 17:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I am no advocate of "decorative fair use". I just feel this use is more than just decorative. szyslak 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, one image would be fine. I don't know why I even wasted the time cleaning up those images. I left you that message mostly to see if you had any other concerns besides their use in a "discography", as it were. One of my ongoing projects is saving images with no fair use rationale from deletion. I'm fairly new at that, and I feel like my rationales are adequate, but I wanted to make sure you had no concerns about that. szyslak 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dave Farrell Icon

Why did you remove the flag icon in the Dave Farrel article? Just curious. --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫횆tell me about it 19:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but I do not see anything in that policy that states anything about placing a flag in an article. He is, indeed from the United States. Many other articles have this flag in them... Could you please explain this a little further for me? I don't quite understand what's wrong with placing it there. Thanks! --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫횆tell me about it 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but does this mean that every biographical article that has that icon in it needs to be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M79 specialist (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for clarifying that for me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by M79 specialist (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:backlinks

Hi there – the link you're talking about was a redirect to a page I deleted after this AFD. I deleted the redirect – one of nine to that list, I think – using Twinkle as [[WP:CSD#R1|]], and I didn't check behind it 'cause it was late and I got distracted. That's why. Sorry. - KrakatoaKatie 22:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Brocquy_A_Family.jpg

I uploaded said image, along with 'Lorca', following a discussion w/ Pierre Brocquy whihc in my understanding provided for CC use, atribution requested. There were two or three images.

It ouwld seem more reasonable to go to whoever uploaded the image and ask for clarification when the image is not a copyvio but simply "possibly unfree", rather than simply deleting anything we are uncertain about with absolutely zero notice.

Since my original uploads, it appears that User:Claude2 has uploaded another series of images from the same source, with amazingly an identical email text permitting use - looks very much cut & pasted...(Image:Brocquy Entremont.jpg et al.) Which leaves me at a quandary - 1. why remove an image that the owner allows us to use as ong as we attribute, 2. what about these images for which a user *appears* to have copied a permission from elsewhere (to wit, my emails w/ Brocquy) I find it very difficult to believe that m. Brocquy would have used verbatim the same text a year later....Eeeeek! Bridesmill 13:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Request to checkuser Wiki-Nightmare for several violating Wikipedia rules

Hi there, in AFD of Claudia Ciesla it was noticed by some users that the user Wiki-Nightmare has used several sock puppets to vandalise the article of Claudia Ciesla and to have his opinion assured about his frequent and continuous requests of deletion of this article. As well in the talk page of Claudia Ciesla this was noticed. This user is suspected to work with many fake-accounts which is sock puppetry. The suspected sock puppets are: Wiki-nightmare alias Pinktucano alias 84.176.226.134 alias 84.176.207.2 alias 84.58.229.82 alias 84.58.27.140 alias 84.59.35.232 alias 84.57.146.203 alias 84.149.130.227 alias 84.63.120.104 alias 84.63.120.73 alias 145.253.2.232 alias 145.253.2.236 alias 145.253.2.235.

Please also check this user for several times violating Wikipedia Rules due to vandalism and comments in bad faith. Also deleting and editing other users comments and showing aggressive behavior, see his exclamation "shut up and keep quiet" in Claudia Ciesla talk page, para. PROTECT THIS TALK PAGE AGAINST SOCK PUPPETRY. He made attacks and bad faith comments and untrue accusations. - In the former AFD it was detected by some users - that he vandalised the article of CClauda probably 20 times. Pls see former AFD. On 4 Nov. 2007 Wiki-nightmare used tag (Protection IP-Vandalism) to unprotected talk page of Claudia Ciesla. His sock puppet accounts all have edited the article, AFD and talkpage in relation to Claudia Ciesla and all give extensive commentary when discussing matters. They are making similar edits over and over. Also please see similarities in edit history. There are occassions where one stops editing and another starts. All making the same kinds of edits regarding Claudia Ciesla. The edit and comment style is sufficiently similar which concludes beeing the user Wiki-Nightmare. All seem to have same level of English language knowledge. All are detected to be from German ID`s. There is no way to assume good faith, when the only possible motive of Wiki-Nightmare it the deletion and to remove evidence of Claudia Ciesla in English Wikipedia.

I am not very experienced in use of Wikipedia-rules and dispute procedures, so I would be very thankful if you could review this and open case of suspected sock puppetry and several violating of Wikipedia Rules also due to bad faith, to have warned or block the User Wiki Nightmare. Thank you for your time. Greg Kaden --Kadenpress 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I saw, that you have an Request to ckeck me. Please check the User User:kadenpress 1, User:CClaudia 2 (she made personal attacks) and User:CClaudia Model too. And maybe User:78.51.251.146 3, User: 87.239.193.2 4, User:78.55.64.88 5 it´s the same writing as kadenpress but i´m not sure! Thank you Wiki-nightmare 12:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Garion96: Your Questions Answered. look at my Talkpage User talk:wiki-nightmare Thank you. Wiki-nightmare 22:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be interesting that Wiki-nightmare wrote to all German wiki-users who where involved in the deleting discussion at that time to ask for support in his matter deleting the article in en-wiki. None of them agreed with him to help. - Besides please see his suspected new sock puppets: Pinktucano, Pearlmango, 172.173.239.114, Pizzaz. Thank you --Kadenpress 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why ever not? It should not be forgotten that this wikipedians were involved in the german deletion-request as neutral users (they doesn´t given an vote at the german request). I don´t ask they to support my deletion-request only requested for theirs points of view. 1 Wiki-nightmare 01:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
He asked: Ich möchte dich deshalb bitten, an dieser Diskussion ebenfalls teilzunehmen.... English: I would therefore ask you, also to participate in this discussion.....--Kadenpress 02:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
But that isnt correct because i said: "Ich möchte dich deshalb bitten, an dieser Diskussion ebenfalls teilzunehmen um deinen Standpunkt zu vertreten." means : to take own point of view that doesn't mean my point of view!! There is a great difference! Wiki-nightmare 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also absolutely amazing how Wiki-Nightmare is adamantly defending the edit of Pizzaz in para. Reverted edit. Please also see his engagement in Talk:Claudia Ciesla for the fabricated or spoofed user ID 172.173.239.114. This might be also another indication for suspected sock puppetry. Thanks --Kadenpress 02:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time to review this case. Just wanted to let you know, that now the German ID 84.149.158.125 (pls also see here para.1) is appearing in Italian Wikipedia for deleting request. Pls also see the users "Vanigliabean" and "Beano" (not known in Italian Wikipedia) who opened the request for deletion there, using exactly the same arguments as Wiki-Nightmare before here in en-Wiki. 1 , 2, --Kadenpress 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Downright nonsense!! Deal with facts, not speculate!! I does not start anything (not even an AFD) on the italy wiki. I did not even speak english properly, how should I be able to speak Italian? I am not to be held responsible for everything what is pass on wikipedia! That sucks! What a topsy-turvy world! Thank´s Wiki-nightmare 03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Film flag icons

Thanks for putting a link to the guideline. I was unsure why you removed the flag icons from Mickey's Christmas Carol‎. ok so I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines and read the section stating that using flag icons should be avoided, as flags are less recognizable than country names. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) for a more detailed rationale so I went further and according to the manual of style it is appropriate for easily recognizable flags like Flag of the United States or Flag of the United Kingdom to be used. But it should be avoided in pros, or places of birth, etc.... I read more and apparently one should use a flag icon in a template if your going to state the country along with the image to avoid confusion. Since I don't want to make the template look ugly, I'm just going to say UK instead of United Kingdom and USA instead of United States. If you find any more out there could you do the same if there is an appropriate abbreviation available? Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 08:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue with OR and Noteability

Hi, Garion. Can You please take a look at this section on "Hostility to Calvinist Christians and Eternians" which has been added to the Anti-Protestant article? The entire entry appears to be non-noteable and original research added by a new editor. The editor is testy so, rather than engage in an edit war, I thought it best to contact an admin to help out. Cheers. Majoreditor 04:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I think we have it resolved -- Richard weighed in. Thanks, Majoreditor 04:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Undelete Image:AR-15 with Trijicon ACOG and Gemtech suppressor.jpg

Why did you delete this image? I took that picture and submitted it to the commons under GPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbooksta (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Why you reverted this edit?? Can´t see how this meets Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments??? Wiki-nightmare 01:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have responded at you. Please visit my TalkPage User talk:Wiki-nightmare Thank you. Wiki-nightmare 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A Clever idea 1 I consider it as the best conflict resolution! Thank you Wiki-nightmare 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox actor - Edit requested 7-Nov-2007

Hello. At 16:30, August 22, 2007 I contributed to Template:Infobox actor (backlinks, edit). The following day you kept my contribution and protected the template. I support your decision. – I write you at this user's suggestion. Please visit Template talk:Infobox actor#Edit requested 7-Nov-2007 and suggest improvements leading to action. – Conrad T. Pino 03:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see I am too late. It seems already solved. Garion96 (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking and I was surprised as you were to see the edit done. I'd believed it poorly constructed as reason for languishing and my interest in constructive suggestion. I'm still interested in feedback as other past protected edits died for neglect as Template talk:Imdb name#Edit from sandbox request 15-Oct-2007 and Template talk:Imdb title#Edit from sandbox request 15-Oct-2007. – Conrad T. Pino 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You did the fastest way to reach an admin. Just use {{edit protected}} when you want to request an edit on a protected page/template. But I saw the request isn't always carried out. I can't really help you with those though, I am not really a template techie in that regard. :) Just leave a message on the admin's talk page who denied your request for further info. Garion96 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you I'll do just that. Good bye. – Conrad T. Pino 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ban this IP please.

Hi. Can you please ban 203.0.101.131 because he has had what seems like a billion warnings and probably still isn't banned, even for a second. Can you please ban him for infinite? It's become apparent that this IP is used for vandalism. Thanks, Weirdy Talk 06:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note (sorry for hijacking your talk): User:Anonymous Dissident blocked it for 31 hours after today's vandalism spree, but you'll get much quicker response times by adding the vandal IP/account to WP:AIV. Note that we never block IPs indefinitely. (This one is a school) -- lucasbfr talk 08:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Monty Python

Agreed. I'll go through each of my edits again to clean up my work, but you should give editors a chance to fix their work before just blatantly reverting everything they've done? I appreciate you pointing out further work to be done on the article. Will you actually let me do the work or will you just undo it again? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Had you brought Life of Brian to my attention I would have fixed it immediately. Since I was in the process of cleaning up the individual bios in the Python article, I would have easily done so while I was in there. Once you leave a note on my talk page, I usually get to editing whatever needs to get done. Next time why not leave a note, and see if the editor does the job before undoing all of his work? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you have good faith in people that the intend to improve the articles they are editing. If you don't have the time to fix an article that is bad, you should alert the editor of the article that made the changes that you object to. Be part of the community and communicate with other editors with which you are working instead of a hack-and-slash editor. Having people continually working to improve articles is better than discouraging people from working on them at all. --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologize that I'm not as good an editor as you are, and I apologize for making four articles look pretty stupid. Please next time give me a chance to fix my mistakes. I want to be a really good editor here, and I'm trying really hard. Next time please point out the mistakes that I made, and I will fix them. I promise! --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's start from scratch...I double checked the Palin article, and I find no redundancy between the information I added and the information already in the article. The article was improved by my edits my expanding on the area of his career that he is best known for. What's your beef with it? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Flagging out

Hi again. Following our first meeting I tried to go deeper into it (the Comics wikiproject's consensus) as you've seen. In the end there was no real MoS and the arguments "for" don't hold up in my view, so I guess you could say I've apparently turned 180° on this issue. The response wasn't too widespread from the group's side (though thanks for helping to fan a debate) so I can't see any substantial consensus in the end ether, hence no BOT removing all flags on comicsproj templates. I don't feel I can rush out and clean up all the instances on my watchlist, or every existing case, that might be viewed as POINTY, so I guess I'll wait on that a while.. But I'm one less that will stand in the way if others choose to do so. Cheers. MURGH disc. 12:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA - thanks

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity - question on RS & OR

Hi Garion. I need another set of eyes to examine an issue concerning Christianity. User Daanschr is removing a sourced sentence from encyclopedia Britannica, claiming that he doesn't consider it a reliable source unless he can examine the primary research used to compile the statistics. Maybe I'm wrong, but that sounds like Original Research. Your help is appreciated. Thanks. Majoreditor (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you change the lawsuit section of Kitchen Nightmares?

You removed edits - why are you disputing them?

If you wanted a cite, say that. Removal is not a first option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 November 2007

What do you dispute, SPECIFICALLY?

I stated that Dillon's had a caberet - this is controversial? Google it, it's not!

Is it controversial to say McDonalds has Golden Arches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Hunting me down maybe?

Look I clearly too the time to follow wikipedia rules and thank you for make it more difficult now I have to go completely out of my way to prove my point even further. The images are of fair use and all are accurate. If you want to help then by all means help not leave me messages make it seem like I just post things to post things. Thank You Mcelite 07:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

No problem

The fault is all mine. I was originally just going to leave the PS for user futurebird, but then as I was scrolling down, my own comments caught my eye, and on a whim I decided to make the correction. So I ended up making two edits (one correction and one PS), but explained only one in the edit summary. You were doing your job entirely correctly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I do actually need help with citing, I was hoping another editor would look at the sources and maybe cite them, but I will try and see im I can cite them myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing

Thank you very much I would appreciate it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Several years ago

in this case Nov 2004, I spent some happy times uploading EP covers, such as Image:AlanPriceSet1.jpg onto wikipedia. Now I am watching them fall like a line of the million domino set-ups. I have yet to hear of a record company complaining, but that's not really the issue, is it? Anyway, this is the nature of change. Thanks for the notification. Life is good, Carptrash 23:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me up-to-date on the image thing. Most of the images that I've uploaded are either mine (87%) or pre-1923 stuff (7 %) and watching the remaining stuff, mostly covers (6%) go is not too hard when someone is friendly enough to do wht you are doing. Oh yes, all % here are in carpmath. Carptrash 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Worded better?

Is this better wording for that? SkierRMH (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for an administrator

and since we just had a pleasant, if not entirely satisfying exchange, I thought I'd try you. There is a style of architecture called (at least in the United States) Tudor Revival. However if you click on that link you will end up at Tudorbethan architecture, a very unsatisfying article from an American's point of view because that term is not widely used here. The only mention of the US in that article employes an very ambiguous "this" pronoun that, to me, makes it tough to figure out just what this might be. Anyway, I think/feel that wikipedia needs a Tudor Revival article of its own, even if it just refers to an American style. Canadians call in Neo-Tudor, but I suspect Tudor Revival will work for them too.

If you let me know that you'll do this I can toss together a Tudor Revival stub very quickly, including the appropriate references. Thanks, Carptrash 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So it turned out that I was looking for someone (anyone) who could provide good directions. My NOW is pretty much tied up with my septic tank, but the New Future is not too far away. Thanks again, Carptrash (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I'm confused. lol

I don't know what happened I used an actual picture I took a while ago when I got the chance to see a marbled cat, but my image was deleted. I also did some of the others over, and followed the guidelines.... Should I do them over?Mcelite (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite