User talk:Garion96/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Image, copyright

Can you please tell me how the Jim Marrs image is in dispute? On the talk page, I list four other images (that I could find in 10 seconds) that fall under the same criteria. Why aren't all those images in dispute?

Seriously, the Jim Marrs image is just a low-res screenshot. There's no way this is in dispute, based on the other 1000s of images on wikipedia. I believe the dispute templates should be removed immediately. Timneu22 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I have told you consistently until you find an image to replace the current Paula White image leave it alone. If you don't like the image then say so don't just keep trying to get it deleted that very aggravating.Thank YouMcelite (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Nonsense. Garion96 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Please, delete it, I don't care... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlir91 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:1947 Indo Pak War.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Nard 22:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Garion. Good to see you too! Sorry our first interaction after my break was a conflict. :-( I'll expand my thoughts at the DRV. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored

I believe the commentary was unproductive or disruptive. I posted on his talk, you should read it if you haven't already. He claims to be drinking, I merely repeated this. He is combative, and seems to be focused on creating a hostile discussion. I believe that my action was appropriate in light of this, it is not unprecedented to facilitate civil discussion in this way. cygnis insignis 04:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And you missed a bit, the part I previously removed. The user ascribes a quote to me, but it is a total fabrication. Regards, cygnis insignis 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my response before posting? Genuine enquiry, it was quick. cygnis insignis 04:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hi,

On my talk page, you said: "Hi, I reverted this edit of yours. Perhaps I miss something but that didn't look like vandalism to me.". After a quick check, I think that you are correct. I don't know how the edit happened -- my guess is that it was either a screwup on my part or someone other than me editing with my userid. I have no time to check at the moment, but will take a look at it later. Again, thanks. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unrealistic attitude to fair use media

If you will find it easy to make a free image of Greg Norman, please go ahead and do it. For me it is totally out of the question to get hold of one. In my opinion your efforts in this field are nothing but an assault on Wikipedia, and a strong incentive for other users who have been doing their best to improve it to quit the project. ReeseM (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

All that because I tagged one image as replaceable non-free content? Which, as a matter of fact was extremely easy to replace since Wikipedia already had a non-free content image of him. See Image:Gerg Norman visit USS John F Kennedy.jpg, which I used in the article. For the rest, if you object to our non-free content criteria please state your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to change the policy. I don't think you will have much success, but then again, you never know. I do hope you change your mind and won't leave Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He is a golfer, so that image is both inappropriate and U.S. centric. Wikipedia should be about creating good content, not about ticking boxes. The policy stinks, but Wikipedia is now set in its bad ways, and your comment shows that people who agree with the policies are all too happy to see it retain its flaws. Policies are kept because of inertia, not because they are right. I won't be coming back. ReeseM (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

Is it possible to nominate yourself in Rollback Rights on English Wikipedia? Weirdy Talk 22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. Weirdy Talk 06:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Look here...

This may be small to read, but I can tell it says October 13, instead of September 28, take a look at it: http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product.asp?cmio=&sku=114817&master%5Fmovie%5Fid=8557. Skymac207 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't even believe you! Gabrielkat (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, look here: http://cgi.ebay.com/WHO-FRAMED-ROGER-RABBIT-1988-23X37-Original-Video-Post_W0QQitemZ270024383053QQihZ017QQcategoryZ60333QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p1638.m118. Skymac207 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.129.239 (talk)

Tag location

I noticed that, on at least some occasions, you place tags at the bottom of articles. I just wanted to compliment you; I agree with you that it looks better. Might I ask what prompted you to do this? Unschool (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

jakers list of ...

why did you delate it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.165.195 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant List of characters from Jakers! The Adventures of Piggley Winks? I deleted it because it was a copyright violation of this site. Garion96 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Talkheader

Hello. I've read the discussion, and the point you made, both of which I found quite interesting. I would have thought that the talkheader is necessary on all talkpages for the simple reason being that it is so useful to newcomers. When I first started out on Wikipedia, it was the talkheader template that told me how to sign my comments and how to use the page properly. I hate to think of the clangers I would have made had I not seen that earlier. If adding lots of talkheader templates is going to darken my image, I will indeed stop, but what are your views on this? Lradrama 12:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair point. I'll be a bit more conservative with them in the future. :-) Thanks for raising your views on the issue. Lradrama 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

C'est une belle journée

Hello Garion96,
Well, never mind then... I admit not really understand what is the problem, since most of these covers are on many websites. However, would it be possible to keep, in addition to the cover of the CD single, that of the CD maxi as "alternate cover" (I saw that some Wikipedians did it on other pages, for example: ...And the Women Who Love Them) ?. By the way, I did the same thing on Q.I, Fuck Them All, L'Amour n'est rien..., Redonne-moi, Pardonne-moi and Peut-être toi. I apologize : 1/ if I have done a bad thing 1/ for my english which is not very good.
Regards,
Europe22 (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I removed the extra covers from these articles and added the template {di-orphaned fair use|date=22 December 2007} on their pages.

Europe22 (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use

You recently tagged an image I uploaded as replaceable. Thank you for notifying me on my talk page. I have disputed the tag as it was added in error. This image cannot be replaced with a free one is it is an image of a fictional television character - the only images of the character are owned by the producers of the show.--Opark 77 (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page - that clarified things. It seems the image had been removed from the article I originally uploaded it for use in. I have restored it there. I concur that its use in the Elizabeth Bracco is inappropriate.--Opark 77 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Star

Hello, thanks for your message ! Europe22 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

People speculated to have been autistic

I notice you removed the reference to Hitler which was clearly referenced to Michael Fitzgerald's book on Autism and Creativity (see pages 25-27). You removed this as "unsourced" when in fact it was sourced. Do you mind explaining why? 121.222.120.183 (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a little of what Fitzgerald wrote, in case you doub't the reference:

Many of Hitler’s traits seem very autistic… He was a poor sleeper and had food fads. He recoiled from physical contact, was unable to forge genuine friendships, and showed an emptiness in his human relations. His conversations in the Men’s Home in Vienna were really harangues and invited no reciprocity, for which he lacked the capacity. In Munich he was distant, self-contained, withdrawn and without friends. His comrades noted that he had no humanitarian feelings.

He was extremely socially awkward and uncertain in small groups, he showed little human interest in his followers, and even one of his leading supporters accused him of ‘contempt for mankind’. In addition, a colleague, Gregor Strasser, thought that there was ‘something other-worldly about Hitler… a lack of knowledge of human beings and with it a lack of sound judgement of them… he lived without any bonds to another human being.”

His poor adaption to people was perhaps most obvious in his relations with women. During his life he took only a slight interest in a couple of women. One was his niece, Geli Raubal, who effectively became his prisoner and said ‘my uncle is a monster’; she apparently committed suicide in his apartment. His second relationship was with Eva Braun, who apparently attempted suicide by shooting in 1932 and died with him in the bunker in 1945.

His colleagues regarded him as a remote figure: he was an obsessive, and obsessives rarely make good or interesting company, except in the eyes of those who share the obsession or those in awe of, or dependent on, such an unbalanced personality. He was single minded and inflexible.

He spent a great deal of time with Albert Speer, examining architectural plans, and this remained a major focus of his life throughout. His other major interest was in the music of Wagner. His greatest interest, clearly, was in control over people and power over people. His ability to achieve this control and power was extraordinary:

He was able to extend that power until it became absolute, until field marshals were prepared to obey without question the orders of a former corporal, until highly skilled ‘professionals’ and clever minds in all walks of life were ready to pay uncritical obeisance to an autodidact whose only indisputable talent was one for stirring up the base emotions of the masses.

He was ‘an ideologue with unshakable convictions’. Hitler had ‘A bed compulsion, which demands that the bed be made in a particular way with the quilt folded according to a prescribed pattern and that a man must make the bed before he could go to sleep.’

Hitler did not use language for the purpose of interaction with others, but only for the purpose of dominating others. He endlessly engaged in long-winded and pedantic speeches, with ‘illogical arguments full of crude comparisons and cheap allusions.’ When Anton Drexler, the leader of the DAP, first heard him speak in September 1919, he remarked: “goodness, he’s got a gob. We could use him.’

Hitler was regarded as a great orator, even though his voice could be ‘distinctly unpleasant. It had a rasping quality and often breaks into a shrill falsetto when he becomes aroused.’ He was unable to carry on a normal conversation or discussion with people. Even if only one other person was present, he had to do all the talking. ‘His manner of speech soon loses any conversational qualities it might have had and takes on all the characteristics of a lecture that may easily develop into a tirade. He simply forgets his companions and behaves as though he were addressing a multitude’, repeating the same stories over and over again in exactly the same form, almost as though he had memorised them.

After the First World War ‘his awkward mannerisms’ were noted. At that time:

In his gangster hat and trenchcoat over his dinner jacket, touting a pistol and carrying as usual his dog whip, he cut a bizarre figure in the salons of Munich’s upper-crust. But his very eccentricity of dress and exaggerated mannerisms… saw him lionized by condescending hosts and fellow guests.

In his early days he wore the Bavarian costume. His clothes were not clean with ‘his mouth brown full of brown, rotted teeth and his long fingernails he presented a rather grotesque figure’. His gait was ‘a very lady-like walk. Dainty little steps. Every few steps he cocked his right shoulder nervously, his left leg snapping up as he did so.’ He also had a ‘tic in his face that caused the corner of his lips to curl upwards.’ People found his look ‘staring and dead.’

Herman Rauschning stated ‘that anyone who has seen this man face to face, has met his uncertain glance, without depth or warmth, from eyes that seem hard and remote, and has seen that gaze grow rigid, certainly has experienced the uncanny feeling: that man is not normal.’

At the home of Ernst Hanfstaengl, and upper-middle-class American, the host noted ‘his awkward use of a knife and fork.’

He ate ‘large quantities of eggs prepared in 101 different ways by the best chef in Germany, and a large variety of fresh vegetables prepared in unusual ways. In addition, Hitler consumes incredible quantities of pastries.’

Adolf Hitler meets the criteria for autistic psychopathy described by Hans Asperger. He was not schizophrenic… Lorna Wing renamed autistic psychopathy ‘Asperger’s Syndrome.

121.222.120.183 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Windows Logo

Reply to "Windows logo - I know you created it yourself. But it is still a copy of the trademarked/copyrighted Vista logo. See Image:Windows Vista.png." : Thanks, I didnt noticed it :) Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 12:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

re: reversed list

Okay, here's what you have to do (I use excel 2003, but I think its the same in Excel 2007.) This is a little tedious, but I believe is the only way of doing it short of manually moving each entry. Cut and paste your list into a single excel column. Add numbers (starting at 1 and going up) to the beginning of each entry. Then highlight the entire list and right click on "list manager." Choose sort descending, and this should reverse the list. Then cut and paste it into wikipedia and remove the numbers. Let me know if you have questions. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad it helped! Mr Senseless (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK

Didn't realise the category had been deleted. Serendi^podous 21:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you can help me; I'm trying to create a category system for Category:Harry Potter that I can just leave alone and not bother with. Problem is, categories seem to bother people. For instance, people seem to think that Category:Harry Potter films should list only the Harry Potter films, and not the cast members or any film-related attractions. Since the only alternative is to place them in Category:Harry Potter, where they appear even more incongruous, I'm somewhat at a loss as to what to do. Serendi^podous 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Whats your problem

You deleted the image of Mrs. Pacific Islands for "Fair Use" violation when it WASN'T listed as fair use, it was listed as a low-resolution image of her poster. Now you're debating the status of the same photo and questioning everything else I've added. Go bother someone else you zealot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novadogg (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't...read before you delete. I've already been through this with some other zealot. It was listed as a low-res version of her poster. Look at my comments and you'll see the apology from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novadogg (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is not the same as low-res poster, you admit it yourself. You're just determined to undo whatever I contribute aren't you. Have you taken the time to notice that the Chico's Tacos image you keep bothering is from EL PASO, TX. Mrs. Pacific Islands is from EL PASO, TX. I'm from EL PASO, TX. Go edit something you have First Hand Knowledge of. --Novadogg (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Doss Aviation is under Air Force contract to provide our flight school. They are under control of Air Education and Training Command (AETC) and have Active Duty Airmen assigned to that building in Pueblo. Whether or not it was the Airman or the civilian contractor who actually pushed the button on the digital camera that day is unknown to me but since it seems so important, I'll take a picture of it myself when I graduate from that school this summer....I'll make sure to get the surrounding area too this time and someone will still probably have a fit about it.

I don't create random articles about things I haven't seen or known. I add legit, firsthand knowledge. --Novadogg (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my candidateship

Hi. I would like to thank you for supporting my Requests for adminship/Magioladitis. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

About following consensus

You've reversed Danuta Lato's filmography with the classic circular reason "reverse order". At first I thought you just enforced your personal opinion about ordering, but I did some research and found Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) makes you right. So all I want is to request that next time you follow the consensus, just back it up with a link to the relevant manual. Thanks. -Lwc4life (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I usually do link to the corresponding manual of style. But it's not that important though, you don't have to link to the corresponding manual of style every time when you edit an article. Garion96 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so just write in the reason something like "Changed to the consensus style". -Lwc4life (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply redirects

First let me state when you came to me and made the query into the actor/actress I stopped making those changes. You never brought up to me about the United States/U.S. changes. Then today you inform me of the following:

See the discussion there. At least I would stop changing U.S. to U.S. which really does not improve the article.

You point me to the discussion that, you started. Further down in the discussion you then tell the group the following:

Is really neither better? I can understand that perhaps actress will be changed later into an article. But U.S. will always be a redirect. A redirect right now linked more and more since the editor is quite busy working on changing U.S. to U.S. right now. Along with other fixes of course. The editor is not only editing the article to change that.

Because of your wording you made it sound like that I am going out and aggressively targeting those changes. Which I am not (and by the way today is the first time you mentioned it to me). You took this to an outside group without first asking me about the U.S.

When I come across an article I look at it and make the decision. If U.S. is not in the article then I add it. If you look at most of edits with the U.S., they are added. I generally add them to the infobox. And I always look at the article as I am a foreign visitor reading it.

I think that when you came across my edits that it some how rubbed you the wrong way. Especially when I replied to you with the following:

I read WP:R2D and it stated:

If the linked term is printworthy and presents no other problems to the prose, there is no reason not to just link the term as is. There should almost never be a reason to replace redirect with redirect. This kind of change is almost never an improvement, and it can actually be detrimental.

I would like to know why you are targeting me? --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Hello - quick question. I have been adding flags to birthplaces of entertainers over the last few months (like Larry Fine, Moe Howard, etc.) They have slowly been removed. My thinking is that flags next to birth and death locations are not standard Wiki format, yes? Please advise. Thanx! Oanabay04 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, flags are slowly disappearing from infoboxes. Admittedly I am trying to help that. :) In general flags in infoboxes are being frowned according to the manual of style Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) and especially in birth at death section. Just the wording United States is more clear than a flag. Plus it helps to prevent really stupid edits. See this edit. Totally correct but utterly pointless. Even for that reason it is better to just remove the flag. Garion96 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds fine by me, and I agree; nice to have the flag, but hardly necessary. Thanx for your help!Oanabay04 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG

Thanks for taking the flags out. Did not know about the rule. If you are up to the challenge, please take out the flags in this cat. Category:Alpha_Kappa_Alpha_Founders. Happy holidays. miranda 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Voormann image

I have no problem with the deletion at all (seriously :). Do what you have to do. --andreasegde (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use Image:Shaun_Micallef_-_Thank_God_You're_Here.jpg

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I have deleted the image. - Mark 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Freddie Starr

Please see the edited rationale for this image: [1] --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

After this was queried I had another look at the image and its use in the article. It is not intended to show what Freddie Starr looks like, but to illustrate the article as a whole. I also had a look for a free image of Starr but came up with nothing (for some reason www.freddiestarr.com is offline at the moment) [2]. If anything, the image helps Starr and the publisher because it promotes the book that is mentioned by name in the article. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The page has now been redesigned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship and nationality

Thank you for contributing to the Citizenship and nationality guideline that I have proposed. If this contribution constitutes support for the proposal, please consider indicating this in the 'Request for comment' section of the talk page. – SJL 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kent McCord image

Do you know why this image (McCord5.jpg) has been deleted? I moved it from the infobox, where it didn't pass fair use guidelines, to where it illustrated a specific character, added a detailed fair use rationale to the image page, and disputed the nonfree template. Did I waste an hour of my time trying to get it all done properly, only to be totally ignored? I have no idea who actually deleted the image, but you're the one who tagged the image and left the notice on my talk page, alerting me to the problem. (I've spent a lot of time writing unique FURs for images, but there always seem to be some I've missed - and the rules have changed substantially as well.) Perhaps you can tell me what happened and why. Either way, happy New Year! --Karen | Talk | contribs 09:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Red links

A red link can easily be recreated if someone wants to turn it into an article. I have done that when I wanted to create articles on a particular word or subject. IMHO, that makes more sense than leaving red links that are distracting. Pinkadelica (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..I had no idea my assault on red links was discouraging others from creating articles. I'll be more careful in the future. Pinkadelica (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Flags

Sounds good to me! I was using an existing template from somewhere, and I guess most articles seem to have the flags in at some point. Some of the country letting codes were hard to track down! Lugnuts (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Names around the world

You had deleted "Names around the world" section in Duckworth article and as a reason you refer to some wikipedia rules. But there is written just about dictionary definitions, not translations. Wikipedia does not have service where are more different translations of some term in one place. I think it is interesting part of the article how different translators translated character's names in other languages and it should be there. I possibly would approve it, if you moved all definitions in national wiktionaries and thus people can access such kind of information on "Wiki family pages". What you did is just pure deletion without providing adequate compensation.

Wikipedia rule "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" clearly does not include translations of fictional characters, read this section carefully, not just its heading.

I don't really expect you can change your mind and I will not take part in "editing contest", but it is a real pity, because you deprive people of interesting content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.125.19 (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

MOSFLAG addition to Cecil Frank Powell

Hi. I had the above linked article in my watchlist as a slight contributor, and noticed that you had added a MOSFLAG to the page, although the record shows no given reason. Since there are no actual flags in the page text, I am puzzled as to the problem, and thought to seek an explanation. Thanks. LSmok3 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comic book creators and flags...

First off, I'm not jumping you because you're removing them. I understand your reasoning and really isn't something I think is worth fighting about.

However...

If you are going to pull them, you may want to hit all the article using {{Infobox Comics creator}} since almost all of them have flags in place. I'm suggesting this so it doesn't look like you're picking and choosing where the MoS is applied, if a handful should go, they all should go.

- J Greb (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I suspected it was a case of "get the rest in the near future" but I just wanted to make sure. - J Greb (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Partial song lyrics

I noticed that you had a knee-jerk reaction to removing the partial song lyrics from article "We Are the World" within minutes of them being added. Have you been involved discussing that article recently? I had emphasized that the lyrics must remain incomplete, omitting parts of 16 lines, and completely omitted the song's intro segment and extensive ad lib section at the 3rd chorus. I believe that the presentation of the partial lyrics constitutes fair-use for review and commentary, and I explicitly warn others not to complete those 16 partial lines, or add the extensive ending section to the lyrics for other parts by Bob Dylan, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Bruce Springsteen, and James Ingram. Are you familiar with the copyright law which applies? (I will check back here for a reply.) -Wikid77 (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the legal term fair use. Although even using that is stretching it since you copied the complete lyrics. Ok, the last verse perhaps is missing but it's identical to the verse already written before. Despite that, the legal term fair use is more lenient then the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Copy & paste complete lyrics definitely does not pass those criteria. Garion96 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of public domain content for being a copyright violation

You deleted Index of cooperation for being a copyright violation. It is not. The web page that it is supposedly a copyright violation is the on-line version of Federal Standard 1037C, which is (mostly) a work of the United States government and thus not copyrighted. (See {{FS1037C}}.) It did say this at the bottom of the article. Please restore it. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nova Scotia settlers

Please help me put all my sources (the one in the paragraph) as references. I will then use all the rest of the sources I have listed as resources. Here is the article Nova Scotian settlers (Sierra Leone) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for the support and I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Concealing derogatory edit-summaries

24-Jan-2008: I recently found one of those derogatory remarks disguised as "just testing the antivandalbot" replacing a whole article, while enshrining an obscene edit-summary by User:Gazpacho (who often polished the "Bill Gates" article in a positive spin). I read that WP now can suppress derogatory/obscene edit-summaries. Can it suppress/skip that one:

From: Diff in "Wikipedia:Vandalism" oldid=178370680

Gazpacho (Talk | contribs)

(←Replaced page with 'WIKIPEDIANS: YOU ARE NOT CHANGING THE WORLD. WIKIPEDIA IS SH*T. YOU CAN EDIT IT FOR A HUNDRED YEARS AND IT WILL STILL <<omit>>. FIND SOME OTHER USE FOR YOUR LIMITED TIME ON EARTH')

I see now that User:Gazpacho was blocked for "Repeated Vandalism" in December 2007. User:Gazpacho frequently removed any criticism in "Bill Gates" and now has posted comments like that. By replacing/blanking the article "Wikipedia:Vandalism" that comment was guaranteed to be seen by hundreds or thousands who might view the edit-summary comments. Can that revision-increment or edit-summary be either auto-skipped or suppressed? I'll check back here in a few days. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries can only be seen when you look at the history of the article, not just by googling for it. In general we don't hide vandalism revisions. There are some exceptions of course like per WP:BLP. Also, removing every revision like the one you pointed out would be an enormous task and not worth the energy doing. Garion96 (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free promotional discussion

Hello, Garion96. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Flag

What is discouraged at MOSFILMS is having just a flag, because not everyone can tell what the flag for each country looks like. The difference between that and what is there is that what is on the page is actually both the flag and the country's name. It not only serves to satisfy those people that like to use the flag icon to idenity countries, but names the country so that there isn't any confusion. Not to mention, it's actually 10 characters less than actually linking the name "United States".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What difference does it make? I already told you the purpose, it allows for a compromise between those that like the flags and those that understand that having just a flag will cause confusion, while at the same time taking up less space in the article. It may not be significant space, but it's still less. So, the question becomes, what difference does it make? Maybe you come across someone that doesn't know a country by name, but recognizes the flag (highly unlikely, but you never know with today's editors). The point being, since that particular style of icon is not what MOSFILMS is talking about when it discourages usage, and it takes up less space than simply typing out the country's name, what difference does it make that it is there?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. To me, it isn't the same thing as not putting a comma in a date just because you know that when you link the date the comma will automatically be placed. One is simple grammar while the other is not. This way, maybe someone wants to know what the flag of the country is, and they can click either the flag that appears and go right there. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia that are unnecessary in the long run, so it isn't like this is the beginning of the breakdown of Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikified Box

Why was the wikified box taken away from the Mary Matalin article? It's not in sections and is missing citations, therefore it currently does not meet the standards of wikipedia. --Zombiema7 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Panerai triviacruft

As I am getting sick of this piece of edit war by a particular user, I have no choice but to place this on WP:RFC/ECON, feel free to have your say there. Willirennen (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

monty python

i'm not arguing with you about your removal, but maybe you should look at the category description - it specifically states that it's for films with prominent anarchist characters, and dennis devotes an entire diatribe to anarcho-syndicalism.80.42.7.111 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If King Arthur himself was an anarchist perhaps, but I don't think a minor character from a 5 minute scene warrants the whole movie named anarcho-syndicalism. Garion96 (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm not identifying the film as anarcho-syndicalist - i will repeat, the description of the category clearly states that it denotes films with prominent anarchist characters, and dennis talks at length of his little commune, based on an anti-hierarchical system of consensus democracy, mutual aid, egalitarianism (all anarchist principles) - personally, i think the category's poorly named, as it leads to this confusion of thinking the film is out to propagate a certain ideology or something, which i'm not implying at all - i think a better title would be "anarchism in film", but that's a different matter. never mind, i'm not arguing necessarily for you to put it back, i was just concerned that you didn't know where i was coming from. cheerio :) 80.42.7.111 (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)