User talk:Garion96/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Reply:Bitting the Newcomers?

I left this on that user's page in reply[1].Regards, SchnitzelMannGreek. 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Biography articles should not be cluttered with long lists of red-linked credits. Also, do not revert corrections that improve articles so they meet Wikipedia standards. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no guideline to say they shouldn't, see also Wikipedia:Red link. Maybe some of these links don't deserve an article, but then the links should be removed. To remove the whole filmography from a director is just wrong. Garion96 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Red link clearly states, "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created," so please stop red linking the titles of obscure foreign films. Also, please stop reverting correct formats and proper capitalization and grammar as you keep doing at Michael Kehlmann. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

I dream of horses (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I dream of horses (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ashgromnies (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Can you please userfy The Armed and These Are Lights pages? Bringing up discussion of notability with admin who deleted them.

Mickey Rourke

Without going into too much detail which you can probably pick up on elsewhere, I'd actually have left the lead tag and addressed this one. We don't leave summaries of a filmography in the main actor article, the career is the summary for the table, or at least that's how I see it. Without digging too deeply because I'm very familiar with the layout, etc., on most featured articles for WP:ACTOR, Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, and Judy Garland are all examples of FAs that have filmographies on separate pages and none of them have a summary of the filmography for these very reasons. If I removed that tag, it would start something I don't want to get started. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the FA's in question all contain tables in the main article. Rourke's filmography was split out without leaving the table, hence the tag. Oh, and for what it's worth, Wildhartlivie, I've been editing film and actor-related articles for at least two years before you joined Wikipedia. And, that includes Mickey Rourke and Kevin Spacey, two articles you recently followed me to. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire to discuss anything with you Viriditas. Please do not attempt to draw me into a disagreement with you anywhere, especially not on someone else's talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Mickey Rourke

You're right, there are no tables on the three featured articles I pointed out relating to filmographies. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mickey Rourke

Hello, Garion96. You have new messages at Talk:Mickey Rourke.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

article for deletation :Michael Kehlmann

Thanks for warning me and for voting to keep it. ;-) Louxema (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done I have made a mistake in creating a sub-page User:Louxema/Signature but obviously, I don't achieve to make it work. Can you help me or delete it please ? I'd rather you help me in fact. see you. Louxema - 兔 talk with me - Angers, 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alone, but as you can see I finally achieve to make a signature. So I created it again (please don't delete it again) but thanks for your answers. See U. Louxema - 兔Talk with me - Angers 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I thought it worked like French wiki for the signature, but I'm not really good at thatkind of things. C U. Louxema - 兔Talk with me - Angers 12:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Potentially ugly image issue

Got a minute? I'm not sure if I should list them all at PUI or seek feedback on simply deleting them at AN. You can see how it's shaping up at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_July_15#File:ZABhutto_8.jpg. There are dozens more articles in his stable. He was listed for investigation at WT:COPYCLEAN over a week ago, and I forgot. As I'm looking now, I have little doubt there's infringement here. How do you think this is best handled? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for ease of reference, we're talking this guy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

My sentiment would be to speedy them all. In fact, I might do that. I don't really have time now, but I will look at it more in depth (to be sure) tomorrow and speedy them when needed. Garion96 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO certainly allows for it ("If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major prose contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately."), and there's no question that some of them are pasted. I hate to drop this work on your lap, though. If you get a chance to take a look tomorrow and decide that speedy deletion is appropriate, why don't we each start at one end and meet in the middle? (I think some of his very earliest may be okay for reasons I'm setting out at my talk page here.) If that's a good plan for you, I'll leave it alone for now, because I have a feeling I'll be listing 98% of his contributions. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

Question please answer: Can you tell me, how can I help wikipedia to have a good image of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, because I already some of his pictures in my pc. please tell me the way how i should upload it in a successfull manner ????? If this is a wrong place to ask a queston can you tell me where should i ask for help about it, because i can see you deleted the Picture of zulkar Ali Bhutto at first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHJ786 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 July 2009

Yes i do av

The picture is painting version of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's Image, which was taken in the cell phone by my cousin in pakistan's (karachi) museum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHJ786 (talk • contribs)

Where

where do i upload them ??? its a free content

thx.

Flagicons standard procedure(consensus) on tennis article infoboxes?

The mass of tennis players have the flags, which unless you plan on going thru them all I expect you to put it back on the pages you took it off of! This is further true of golfer articles! Go look: Andy Murray, John Newcombe, Novak Djokovic, Pete Sampras, Ken Rosewall, Bjorn Borg, Roy Emerson, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and for golf Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Nick Faldo, Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, Retief Goosen, which means you even though an Admin quoting rules are in the minority advocating for this point! Go to the appropriate talk pages on the individual articles or the topical project as a whole such as WP:TENNIS and WP:GOLF, and get consensus for you pov and don't remove them from random pages! TW-RF (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

re: expand to stubs

Oops! Thanks for the heads up :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Françoise Rosay.jpg and Wbrz

From the issue at project films...I tagged that image as a replacable non-free image. Its an autographed promo image of an actress he stole from a website. I tagged it as a replacable non-free image, however Wbrz continues removing the tag and claims that his FUR of "no free images have been allocated for this person" is sufficient. Can you take a look? Per the tag instructions, its my understanding that he should not remove that tag even if he does disagree. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he can't remove the tag. Although I don't think many admins will delete the image as replaceable though. I am not a fan of non-free content but by current consensus an image of an actress who died in 1974 is not considered replaceable. Garion96 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not a very good image even if its considered a valid non-free use, with her signature and a personal message all over it. I don't see how its not replaceable...there were cameras in 1974 :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir here. :) I tend to agree since we are a free content encyclopedia, current consensus however disagrees. Garion96 (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob...can you go ahead and review the image before he violates 3RR removing the tag? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Left a message and added the image to my watchlist. Garion96 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...am I too suspicious to wonder about this[2]? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox removal on Carthage

Oh, the horror! Without infoboxes, where would our readers be? Why, our Romulus & Remus infobox helped readers who didn't want to know the article know when these legendary figures were born and died, and for many battles in ancient history give the exact number of casualties, again saving the reader time. You are a brave man. I advertise my feelings on my user page (have you seen Utgard Loki's comment on infoboxes), but have never been that courageous. I salute you. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One of these days I really should change that red link on my user page to an essay. :) I really don't know why people prefer templates over actual prose. A single infobox on an article is already a lost cause (unless project classical music is involved) but a second infobox like the ones I removed today really is excessive. I just read the discussion here, that discussion and your comment make me glad to realise that I am not the only one who doesn't like them. Garion96 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're not the only one like that. Then there's those of us who like a tabular summary at the top where it's easy to access. - Denimadept (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't removed infoboxes from the top. Only somewhere pointless in the middle of the article. Or even worse, two infoboxes at the top. An infobox per infobox sake like the one you added on the Phil Spector article. Isn't there a business person infobox somewhere? Spector also was an executive at apple records, perhaps a third infobox would be in order. Garion96 (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason I added it. I don't have a /major/ issue with more than one infobox in some cases, for instance my normal {{infobox bridge}} plus an embedded {{location map}} or {{infobox nrhp}}. The {{infobox criminal}} one was new to me. If you go to the location I pointed to, you'll see the proximate cause for me to look at that article at all, which was to see how people justified the difference between OJ and this shmuck. I don't see them as different in any important way, but my challenger says they're being treated differently because one is white and the other is black. So far, I see it as the same ol' same ol' wrt infobox users and infobox haters. Don't get me wrong, please, I think there's definitely a use for moderation. If you look at the discussion I pointed at, it started with people not liking how {{infobox historical event}} was being used. I can agree with that one. Part of the point of an infobox is that it's kinda like Cliffs Notes: it's a summary at the top of the article so you don't have to read the 30 to 50K of irrelevant stuff to get the bits you wanted. That infobox was being scattered in the middle of articles, which I don't like. - Denimadept (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we actually agree. Admittedly I never liked Cliffs Notes, I prefer to read the actual material. :) Regarding Spector, he is most known as a record producer, hence the current infobox. To have a second infobox because he also is a criminal makes no sense to me. I personally would prefer the criminal one to be removed from the OJ Simpson as well, it's as pointless as the one on Spector. Garion96 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What happens if you remove it from the OJ article? What got me sensitized was the fiasco at Ponte Vecchio. Now I just try to avoid the article. - Denimadept (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're ahead of me here. Now to see what happens. - Denimadept (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Spector discussion

I read the section on the infobox, and I read the sections after that. I don't see the problem with including it. - Denimadept (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing infoboxes from the middle of the article

Hi, I too agree with removing infoboxes from the middle of the article, but have been challenged on it. Could you point me at some guidleines or essays that back this up? Thanks LK (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LK (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

INS Arihant

Hi! You removed my addition of Category:Nuclear-powered ships at the article INS Arihant What was wrong with it? Appreciate a clarification.CeeGee (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Robinson Devor

Hi - can you please tel me why "Robinson Devor" was deleted? Something about Police Beat? I assure all of the statements about my career and films are accurate. Thanks you.

Vogue Covers

Did you even look at the articles that the nominator mentioned. How can clutter be an argument if this is the only template on one of them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Deletion

You keep deleting (nay, vandalizing articles) my image contributions piecemeal... with out following proper procedures. As I have stated before, why don't you just take the initiative and remove them all? Here, start with this category and work your way out to Images_of_Wisconsin. Sulfur (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Brett

I understand the concerns of my overtagging. However according to reviewers, a book by Terry Manners may have little or no citations from most likely letters and people; therefore, we need to take its reliability and factuality into consideration. Is {{ disputed }} possible? --Gh87 (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response; I was very patient to hear you. For your consideration, I created a new section not too a while ago: go to Talk:Jeremy Brett#This article needs to reconsider the sources. --Gh87 (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of deprecated "future" templates

I saw that you deleted {{future road}} under G6. I just wanted to make you aware of the discussion at cent, where it was more or less the consensus that future templates should be tagged as deprecated and allowed the 14 days before actually being deleted. I personally would've gotten rid of them immediately following their removal from pages too, but to avoid inflaming the situation or accusations of railroading, it might be best to adhere to the discussion. Equazcion (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stravinsky and antisemitism

Please see the observation at Talk:Igor Stravinsky#Antisemitism. Rammer (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry....

Inre this diff... Sorry. I see that I have been doing incorrectly for months. Thanks for the second correction AND your patience. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Block EugeSer 14 and Kristelzorina as copyright violation sockpuppets?

From the articles selected to edit, and the editing behavior that includes many small changes without an Edit summary, it appears that User_talk:EugeSer_14, who you blocked on August 11, 2009 (but unblocked later) is now editing as Kristelzorina. Kristelzorina added [3] on August 26, 2009 which appears (?) to be taken without permission from a site with an explicit copyright [4]. I.e., they are continuing their long-standing habit of placing copyrighted material in Wiki. Yours, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote to Kristelzorina, detailing problems with their edits. They have the same editing behavior pattern as EugeSer_14. They say they are sorry, and will improve, but continue as before — adding or altering sales and other information with no citation or explanation.

They do seem to be a sockpuppet. It's highly likely they will continue as they have before. It isn't even that I doubt the bulk of their edits (although they have done vandalism in the past), it's just that they seem to be working from an unknown source, marching to their own drummer, ignoring Wiki rules or conventions that don't suit them. They are working the system. What's to be done? Block? Rollback all their edits? Without references, it's difficult to check their changes. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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

2001 (novel)

Well, I'll check the text of the novel proper, but Arthur Clarke's forward to the recent paperback edition certainly gives the impression that the destination was always Saturn, while using Jupiter's gravity as a slingshot to get to Saturn. Checking text of novel... Now that I've checked, you are half-right, but the decision to switch from Jupiter to Saturn was made before Discovery even launched (p. 107 of my copy), and is largely mentioned in flashback. I suggest you reinsert what you did (if you haven't already) but make sure you can not at all be construed as suggesting that change of destination took place mid-flight, because that is what I (and possibly others) originally thought you meant, and that certainly is not what happens in the book.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

flag icons

From my reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons), the usage (where unambiguous) is appropriate. Could you point me at a section which says it is not? --Nate^t/_c 12:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not there as a decoration, but for quick recognition, the whole point of info boxes is a summary, keeping the flag makes it easier to get quick idea of the origin. --Nate^t/_c 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s Ignoring the Godwin's Law point, I added a note about ambiguities, as they do come up (the one about Karate being Japanese or Okinawan, being a favourite) hence why I put the not in when I replaced the text you removed. --Nate^t/_c 12:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is still going on, isn't it? Well, just to add an innocent brush of irrelevance: Make sure it's not a U-know flag as: [5]. Nice dog chew toy too. Cheers! :) Hoverfish Talk 10:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.

Hi, I was not involved in the creation or deletion of Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., but I came across your deletion comment in passing. Your comment reads "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/103.html". Out of curiosity, I checked that URL, and found it to be the text of a 1916 United States Supreme Court decision. Since that text is a work of the federal government, it is not subject to copyright. Was there any other speedy deletion criterion applicable to the article, or is it something that can be restored and improved? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 75th Regiment Indiana Infantry

I was the creator of the article 75th Regiment Indiana Infantry. In checking your deletion comment "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ourancestry.com/CivilWarBattles/75thRegimentIndianaInfantry.html" I discovered that you erroneously applied the standard to the article. Both the site that you cite and the article I created used the regiment's official records housed in the U.S. National Archives and cited by Frederick Dyer in his 1908 study A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion. Both the official records of Civil War regiments and Dyer's Compendium are works in the public domain. The article should be restored. Spacini (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Are you willing to respond? Will the article be restored? Spacini (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the standard tag that we use for ACW articles that rely on Dyer:

Attribution

• This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain: A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion by Frederick Henry Dyer

Dyer's work is a pre-1923 U.S. imprint (it was published in 1908 utilizing the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, a U.S. government public-domain imprint). Dyer's Compendium has been reprinted many times, but the original copyright was never renewed. Spacini (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question...

It's been a long time, but it appears I simply deleted a talk page and not the article itself. The article had already been deleted and I cleaned up after it with a G8. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Worry not, my friend.  :) I'd rather have something like that pointed out to me than have a real error go unnoticed. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thornwillow Press

Dear Garion96

I do not understand what the copyright infringement was that caused the deletion of the Thornwillow Press article that you removed. Thornwillow has been in business for 24 years and is one of the foremost printers and publishers of handmade limited edition books.... there were several sources listed to back up the legitimacy of the entry. and i want aware of any copyrighted material in the article. As anadministrator, if you could help me get it reposted so that it conforms to the necessary standards, i would be greatly appreciative.

thank you, Froben

Froben (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I would request that you Undelete Template:Future as the item you mentioned in your deletion reason did not appear to be a valid deletion discussion. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell Scroll edit

Hi Garion96! Your removed a "current" tag from the Hell Scroll article. I added the tag because of the last sentence ("It is currently on display at Tokyo National Museum.") which I believe either documents a current event or simply lacks dates. If you know for how long it is on display, I would be grateful if you could add dates. From my experience exhibitions at the TNM are changed regularly and I would not expect it to be on display for more than a couple of months. If that is the case and the scroll goes/went back to the Nara National Museum, I think the sentence should be removed from the article. bamse (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply and sorry for misusing the current tag. bamse (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Please see sources at List of Scientologists. All entries are duly sourced there. I will add them to the appropriate individual articles as well. Cirt (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Sources added to the individual articles [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] [11]. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional Cleansing

Nutritional Cleansing content was not copied from another page. I have the authorization to post the content, from my website. Please allow me to re-create this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriousclean6955 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 September 2009

Flagicons

There is an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons). Please wait until this discussion is concluded before making these changes. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have read the previous discussions and typically it is you and User:Gnevin and User:Aspects arguing with other editors in endless discussion. I have never seen one thread that ended in WP:CONSENSUS. There was longstanding usage of flags until last year when this crusade started. Most of the changes were undone until you guys pushed on this front again this past spring and now there appears to be another push by you and User:Aspects. I am arguing that WP:CONSENSUS needs to be reached and then a clear directive needs to be added to the actual MOS page. I would contend that the fact that you have never challenged this topic on the MOS page itself you have not established consensus. I am not going to go through articles and add flags right now, but I am going to block your removals until you get real consensus. You are very persistent but you are not very convincing. I am a very flexible editor and open to persuasion. Please explain to me where you have established consensus and I will happily get on board. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• I contacted the people who cared about this topic as you and the several other users already appear active on this topic. You have to admit that your idea of consensus on this is really just two or three likeminded users who have pushed this agenda very aggressively. Most people just go along with these kind of edits. I am proposing a very specific discussion on this topic. You should feel free to involve those you feel are necessary and let's get consensus on this speciifc item since it appears to be your objective to permanently remove all flag icons from wikipedia. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The best way is to start an RFC, but that is premature since you only discussed it for a couple of hours. Including of course a bunch of reverts. And if you look at the archives it is more than just two or three like minded people. And besides the fact that I should feel free to canvas, you were still blatantly canvassing. Something that actually is discouraged on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Garion - I did not appreciate your blanket reversion of my edits in the middle of the discussion. I have restored these edits. I would like to avoid a 3R situation with you. Despite your assertions you and two or three like-minded editors on an obscure MOS page do not create consensus to make such broad reaching edits across so many articles. I want to be civil but your blanket reversions are not consistent with best practices. And contacting users who have been involved with a discussion is not WP:CANVAS it is courtesy just as you would contact editors involved with an article if there is a major discussion underway. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all I wasn't aware of the discussion. Second of all see wp:canvass. To quote "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Garion96 (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Removing ROLLBACK from my account is really abusive on your part. Perhaps I should have simply undone your edits. But I have consitently used this tool well. Just because you are in a disagreement with me over the subject of flag removal should not empower you to do this to me. I left a discussion on your page. I would ask that you restore this immediately as a review of my edit history over the last year will demonstrate that I have been a very positive user of Rollback. I really do not want to have to go through the process of discussing this with other admins.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Asked for second opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion on rollback removal. Garion96 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you listing this incident there but I would hope you can resolve this constructively. I did use rollback in this case given your mass reversion of a series of edits that were in the process of being discussed. The use of rollback allowed for a more efficient process given the sheer number of edits you had made. I misinterpreted your edits as an abusive attempt to overwhelm the discussion by making so many edits in such a short period of time. At the time I was reverting your edits I did consider them to be unproductive edits. I should have been quicker to Assume Good Faith and use undo instead with a full edit summary. Consitent with best practices, I discussed my rollback almost immediately on your talk page. Would you have removed my rollback if we were not already in a disagreement over this issue? I would think in principle you should not be the one to remove my rollback. I appreciate you seeking out a second opinion but it really shouldn't even be necessary. With the possible exception of this situation I have consistently used best pracices in employing rollback to keep vandalism out of the hundreds of articles I actively watch. I would hope that we can work together productively and that my rollback rights will be restored. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that according to you, you are entitled to do everything during the discussion you started. Including rollbacking my edits which I did before I was aware of the discussion and which you did 24 hours later. Rollback is used for vandalism, I also sometimes make a mistake with that, but not mass rollbacking during a discussion. Garion96 (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Garion - Rollback is for unproductive edits such as vandalism. But another example of an unproductive edit is the following:

08:08, October 2, 2009 Garion96 (talk | contribs) (11,984 bytes) (rv per wp:mosflag)

02:30, October 2, 2009 Urbanrenewal (talk | contribs) (12,050 bytes) (adding back flag, changing back text)

21:36, October 1, 2009 Aspects (talk | contribs) (11,984 bytes) (Removed flagicons per WP:MOSICON) (undo)

I had already edited every one of these pages using undo and then you undid each of my edits across dozens of pages. While this is not be vandalism it is the beginning of edit warring. While I probably should have used undo, in all honesty from your perspective, how much difference is there between me having undone your edits and rolling back your edits? I guess I am not going to convince you but I think given the fact that you were simply undoing or "rv"ing my edit you can see how someone might perceive this as unproductive, particularly in the context of the ongoing discussion. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I undid your additions because they were against wp:mosicon. I did not used rollback but provided a link to the guideline and I was not aware of the discussion you started. You on the other hand did rollback 24 hours afer the discussion started and you definitely were aware of that discussion. See a difference there? Garion96 (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As you will see from my edit history, my first inclination was to undo your edits with a link to the discussion. Then I left a note on your page. It was only after you continued undoing each of my edits that I did use rollback.

11:52, October 2, 2009 (hist) (diff) PAI Partners ‎ (undoing, per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)) (top)

11:51, October 2, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Garion96 ‎ (→Flagicons: new section)

11:50, October 2, 2009 (hist) (diff) CIBC World Markets ‎ (undoing, per discussion on MOS discussion page) (top)

11:50, October 2, 2009 (hist) (diff) Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller ‎ (undoing, per discussion on MOS discussion page) (top) 11:49, October 2, 2009 (hist) (diff) Miller Buckfire & Co. ‎ (undoing, per discussion on MOS discussion page) (top)

Each of the edit summaries included a link to the discussion and then I left a note on your page referencing the discussion. Had you not made quite so many changes, I probably would not have used rollback, I was attempting to be efficient.

As has been pointed out already by others WP:MOSICON is a not wikipedia policy in the same way WP:NPOV, etc. Instead, it is a guideline that certain editors have created and have been pushing aggressively, so it is not like my edits were somehow against Wikipedia policies. They are against style guidelines that have garnered very serious discussion over time. And as for the difference, there is not really as much difference as you suggest, certainly not enough to remove my rollback rights because you were unhappy about my edits. You should at least be able to see how your edits could be perceived as unproductive given my initial attempts to involve you in the discussion and the fact you continued to remove flags. If you say you were unaware of the discussion, I will take you at your word but I tried very hard to include you. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a guideline. But just look at some date arbitration cases. People in general should follow them. Especially if there is consensus to do so. For instance, the same consensus which was shown in Talk:JPMorgan_Chase#Flagicon_in_infobox. Nevetheless, you simply went happily along including flags.

Regarding rollback, it is simple. If rollback is used for non-vandalism it should be removed. Mistakes happen with rollback now and then, but mass rollback like you did? Or even simpler, you alerted me of your disagreeing with the guideline on yesterday afernoon. After that I stopped removing flags. You however were aware of the discussion, you started it and 24 hours later you decide to use rollback on my edits. Garion96 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Show me a case where real consensus was reached. On JPMorgan Chase article the only users to agree were the same users from WP:MOSICON. There are literally 5 users propagating this flag issue. None of those users had ever made another edit to the JPMorgan Chase article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Reference necessary}}

Thank you for adding the {{tfdend}} template to the Reference necessary talk page. It was very much needed and I was not sure if only Administrators could do it. But, there was no consensus in the deletion discussion on how it should look. I put it back to the pale pink highlighting that it had been since the summer (PhilKnight’s version) because that version did not generate the issues that the later yellow color did. I did not put it back to the yellow — the color to which you referred in your edit summary — that gave rise to complaints, outright removals of it from articles, and the deletion discussion. I put it back to the pale pink. The font color change that you just put it to is already generating complaints. I was trying to take it back to where no one had been complaining about it. Hence, since there was no consensus as to look, I do not understand your undoing my putting it back to pale pink, or our making any other changes as to look. In fact, the look you chose to put it back to is not even the way it looked during the deletion discusion! So, why can we not have it pale pink until we can come up with something better? It was the least offensive look and did not engender as much backlash as other versions, including JackLumber’s version to which you returned it. No consensus in a deletion discussion does not mean the template is frozen; no consensus in a deletion discussion means that the template is not deleted. Or, at least that’s how I understand what one may do with articles/templates that survive deletion discussions. As I understand it, we are supposed to attempt to improve the template in order to eliminate the reasons why some editors wanted it deleted. That’s what Jack and I were doing with the edits since the deletion discussion, which was exactly what we had promised in the that discussion if the template survived. (P.S. Please respond here; I will have your page watchlisted.) Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not realised you changed it to a different colour. I just noticed the highlighting and thought it was the same as before. Considering the history of the template and the complaints I still think the highlighting needs to be gone. The complaints started after the the highlighting changes on the 14th of july. That version, te me, is the least intrusive. Garion96 (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod from TV Guide's List of the 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time, it has already survived AfD.

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from TV Guide's List of the 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama頭 19:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Re: Template:Future product

Thanks for quick reversion. I was under the impression that all such templates had been removed from mainspace articles, so I went ahead and deleted it. Terrible lack of judgement on my part for not checking the "What links here" page. Happy editing, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

McDuck

If the obvious Scottish stereotype is unacceptable, then the unfounded speculation about Andrew Carnegie reference also has to go, especially since the article itself says it's speculation. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that edit as well. The article is so poorly sourced that I'm loathe to hold any section of it hostage, but I think your reasoning was nearly irrelevant. Uncle Scrooge was created by an American for an American audience, probably with no concern whatsoever for international reception. He predates me, but I can tell you that when I was a child, the "Scotsman=stingy" stereotype was in full force in American popular culture. By making him Scottish, much of his character was immediately expressed to the reader, and didn't require explanation. A stingy Canadian or a stingy Frenchman just wouldn't have fit. It would be best if sourcing could be found for this, though.

You are right that the stingy Scot stereotype isn't international, and that's the reason that the international versions don't have him be Scottish. I've been reading about Oom Dagobert for years, and he isn't a Scot because the Dutch don't share the stereotype.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the main point is that Scrooge isn't stingy because his character is Scottish, but because his character is based on Ebenezer Scrooge, the rich miser from Dickens' A Christmas Carol. As I said while editing the page, the stereotype of Scottish people being miserly is not recognised internationally, and Kww proved this with a very interesting example from the Netherlands. In addition, I have lived in Scotland and England most of my life and even in these countries there is no such stereotype. Most people have never heard of it and would even say that it doesn't exist. After all, a stereotype is "a widely held image or idea of a particular type of person or thing ", and this certainly isn't 'widely held' at all. Scrooge McDuck is known to be stingy and mean because he is rich, like Ebenezer. At the same time I agree with Baseball Bugs, the other sentence about Andrew Carnegie doesn't seem to be sourced either, so perhaps that should go too. My concern is with the claim that "His Scottish heritage plays on the stereotype of Scotsmen being miserly", because I severely doubt that the idea of Scottish people as misers is a proper stereotype, considering hardly anyone knows of the existence of this idea. Thanks to all for an interesting debate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.8.71.13 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck wasn't invented today, and he wasn't invented internationally; he was invented 60 years ago, in America, when the Scottish stereotype was well-known here. Disney cartoons, as with much of pop culture of that era, frequently played on stereotypes. Yes, "Scrooge" implies stingy. And so does "McDuck". Maybe not now, but in 1950 it did. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me that in America at the time the character was made this stereotype was very popular, I was unaware of this. I agree with what you are saying but what's left is the "maybe not now". By saying this I guess you agree with me that the stereotype is definitely not as popular anymore, it is either dead or dying out. Go to Scotland or anywhere in the UK, ask a random sample of people if they know of the stereotype and the majority will have never heard of it. The same would happen in America today. Maybe we could change the article to something like "His Scottish heritage plays on a once popular American stereotype of Scotsmen being miserly" or "His Scottish heritage plays on a stereotype of Scotsmen being miserly which was popular when the character was invented in the 1940s". It doesn't sound great, but maybe we can come up with something if you or anyone else has some better ideas? Either way it's a shame the are no citations to back that this old stereotype was central in inventing the character. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.91.227 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your removal of catagory on Roman Polanski page

Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with a child, so why do you object to Category:Convicted child molesters being in the article? Dream Focus 10:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3#Additional statement re Meursault2004

Just drawing your attention to my statement on the matter.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Collapsible Templates

Hi, I noticed you removed the collapsible template I added. The reason for placing this here is because the discussion is extremely long and difficult to navigate within. The collapsible template has been added here in a discussion that is a lot shorter in size, so it seems justified to replace the collapsible template. Thanks.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  310° 47' 45" NET   20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Even there it is a bit excessive, but at least it is a finished part of a larger discussion. Plus it contained a large list, that can be a reason to collapse. The discussion you collapsed on Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff however was still ongoing. To clean up clutter on talk pages it is much better to just archive old discussions. Just don't overuse the collapse option. Like you did here. Garion96 (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you do have a point, but the fact that the discussion on Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff was still ongoing was my reason for collapsing rather than archiving as its size of 239kb is huge and it is very difficult to navigate. As for the List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates article, I'll agree now that it is better uncollapsed. I'll remember not to overuse the collapse option in future, thanks for that advice.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  333° 28' 0" NET   22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

logo removals

I noticed that you removed team logos from multiple articles along with the corresponding rationales on that image's page. Is there a good reason for this? I know there has been ongoing contention over this issue for quite some time but am unaware on any new consensus calling for the removal of logos from articles about the team that uses said logo. Zeng8r (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Rabbi Eliezer Gordon.jpg

Why was this deleted? That was certainly not the result of a debate resulting in consensus for deletion! As I wrote at WP:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 10#File:Rabbi Eliezer Gordon.jpg, it's quite likely to be PD, and if it turns out not to be, then a fair use rationale can easily be made. I still haven't heard back from the author of the article from which it was copied, but what's the hurry? Leave it up, and eventually if we don't find any more information, we can make it fair use. The Commons copy, though, is vulnerable to a challenge, and fair use won't save it. -- Zsero (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a listing of 10 September, you had all this time to make a non-free content rationale, why haven't you done so? Regarding the rest, quite likely public domain on Wikipedia equals not being in the public domain. Despite your incorrect statement on the PUI, we do need proof an image is public domain. Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made a free use rationale, because I'm still waiting to hear from the author of the article, which could establish the PD beyond "quite likely". And no, we don't need absolute proof; circumstantial evidence is good enough in a court of law, so why not here? The circumstantial evidence I presented is strong: What are the odds that a photo taken before 1910 was first published with a named author after 1923? (Anonymous publication would make it PD.) And how long would you wait before deciding that an unknown author has surely died? Do you need a death certificate? -- Zsero (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, the image on Commons won't be vulnerable right? However the image on Commons is vulnerable for the same reason it has been deleted here. Garion96 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons needs to be surer of things, because they don't have the fallback position of fair use. The fact that we can claim fair use here means we don't have to be so hasty to delete something we're fairly sure is PD. -- Zsero (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. We need to be as certain regarding copyright as Commons. We use non-free content when no free image is available and only when it passes all the criteria. WP:NFC is most definitely not used as a fail safe system just in case we are incorrect in copyright. Garion96 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

TfD question

I was wondering about the prolonged discussion on the Jim Carrey template. I have decided it doesn't help to keep responding to the person objecting to the deletion for a couple reasons. One is that it likely isn't going to conclude as long as people keep responding to him. The other is, from experience with this editor, that he seems to be quite satisfied in continuing long and repetitive debate. Then there is the dispute in which I am involved with him regarding another unrelated article, which is going to go to ArbCom. In any case, what I am wondering is how long this is going to continue with the template, given the previous template deletion for the same thing, the overwhelming consensus against the editor's position and the time frame. I promise you, had I realized this was something this editor had created, I would have brought this to another WP:ACTOR member for nomination for deletion rather than subject everyone to the extraneous stuff. Any thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, I was surprised that he didn't revert me last time. I'm afraid it's going to be a neverending saga. I think the best way to let this close is probably not responding. Look in at the other article from time to time and keep me in check, will you? :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I see the editor in question is making comments about letting the article thing go for a while if I'll tell him a little about my health issues. I think I will briefly, the dispute there really is stressing me out. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Aspects

Your wrote on my talk page the following paragraph:

Blocked

For this personal attack you are now blocked for 48 hours. Garion96 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please open your eyes!. If you did, you would notice that guy (or gal? I'm not sure at this point) is dedicated to annoy other users, as deducted by the number of complaints & insults in his/her talk page! He/she is even proud of doing so: he/she adopted a phrase I had delivered as an insult, "The Tireless Destroyer", showing he/she actually likes it! One wonders, how such a malicious and twisted person ever got to be appointed as a Wikipedia Administrator? Don't you have rules for filtering rabble from hampering this encyclopedia? It would seem like all is set up to promote such situation! --AVM (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)