Index

Archived discussions

Archive 21

16.viii.07 – 28.v.08

Archive 20

26.iv.07 – 13.vii.07

Archive 19

23.iii.07 – 25.iv.07

Archive 18

7.ii.07 – 22.iii.07

Archive 17

5.i.06 – 7.ii.07

Archive 16

13.xi.06 – 4.i.07

Archive 15

8.x.06 – 13.xi.06

Archive 14

13.viii.06 – 8.x.06

Archive 13

2.viii.06 – 12.viii.06

Archive 12

6.vii.06 – 2.viii.06

Archive 11

4.vi.06 – 6.vii.06

Archive 10

20.v.06 – 3.vi.06

Archive 9

2.v.06 – 20.v.06

Archive 8

6.iii.06 – 30.iv.06

Archive 7

16.i.06 – 2.iii.06

Archive 6

31.xiii.05 – 15.i.06

Archive 5

6.vi.05 – 29.xiii.05

Archive 4

5.iv.05 – 6.vi.05

Archive 3

15.xii.04 – 5.iv.05

Archive 2

14.ix.04 – 14.xii.04

Archive 1

14.viii.03 – 14.ix.04

Recent discussions

I have reverted your recent edit to {{Extra chronology}} becuase it broke a large number of pages using {{Infobox Single}} and other templates. It is vital that you are careful when editing high-visibility templates, and caution should be exercised anyway when editing a protected page – this page is both of those things. I don't know exactly what caused the error, but I do know that having thousands of pages displaying broken markup even for ten minutes is a bad thing. Please test new template code first before applying it to a "real" template. Thanks – Gurch 13:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem was with {{Infobox Single}} as you say, fair enough, but in that case you should have edited {{Infobox Single}} first and then {{Extra chronology}}. Leaving 1% of the entire encyclopedia (yes, we have a lot of music articles) broken isn't really an option. Thanks again – Gurch 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but short note to say it was broken would've sufficed. The lecture is a little patronising, I did create those templates, so I'm aware of the implications. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm coming across as patronising, but somewhere along the line something has gone wrong. Your latest edit (17:00 UTC) to {{Infobox Single}} broke all articles using {{Extra chronology}} again. This time, it was reverted by somebody else; however the template now seems to be broken for all articles without {{Extra chronology}}. Please fix whatever is broken, or revert back to the latest working revision. Having broken markup – meaningless to most readers – at the top of 10,000 articles is as bad as having 10,000 vandalised articles. If this is not fixed soon, I will be forced to favour a working template over cosmetic changes and revert everything that was done today, in the interests of our readers. Thank you – Gurch 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last version was working (I think). Perhaps you need to purge the pages you are looking at. ed g2s • talk 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was a little confused there, sorry. Yes, the current version is working; when I left that message Getcrunk had just reverted it to an older, broken version, which confused me into thinking your last revision was broken. It would seem that Getcrunk forgot to purge the pages he was looking at, and mistakenly believed your last version to be broken, so reverted it. I see now that it is OK.

I recommend that you test any future changes on a separate, temporary template first – that way, you'll avoid confusing reverts and patronizing messages from me :) Thanks for the swift response – Gurch 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to just get things right the first time :) ed g2s • talk 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you constantly fail to. Every album page on my watchlist is currently broken because of your recent changes to this template. Please leave the {{Album infobox}} and related templates alone. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. Any breaking since Infobox Single was updated has been a result of people reverting and/or not purging the cache. ed g2s • talk 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help: (example removed)

Also feel free to pay a visit to A Call to Arms, Keasbey Nights, Keasbey Nights, and Rules of the Game and then tell me I just need to purge a few pages or that infobox single is to blame. Let me reiterate:
Please leave {{Infobox Album}} and related templates alone. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such emboldened warnings are neither helpful nor civil. ed g2s • talk 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it was a request, not a warning, hence the "please" at the front. Also thank you for fixing the problem, and please be more careful when editing templates in the future. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 23:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Use Concern

Hey Ed. Remember me? I'm the guy who posted the logos on all the NBA seasons pages, of which you told me was not allowed due to rules against images being used as decoration. While I understand that policy and have complied to the best of my knowledge, I do have a new question about it. Since the World Cup is going on now, I looked at some previous World Cup articles just for fun. However, all those pages uses flag images in the same way I used the logos on the NBA articles. Isn't that considered "decoration" as well? It seems kinda silly to me that wikipedia has so many restrictions on fair use images where one can use a PD imsge liberaly. If it's just a matter of PD vs. Fair Use, than I'm sorry to say that it seems to me that Wikipedia is being too conservative. Here's my view. If a flag is supposed to be a symbol of a country, than a sports logo is a symbol of a team or an organization. Moreover, templates aside, the logo should be used to identify said team or organization outside of that team/organization's main article. I mean, the flags on the different World Cup pages showcased not only the countries, but put the individual tournament in historical context, much like what I did with all the differing NBA logos through the different seasons, because how else is one to show the extent of the evolution of the NBA on Wikipedia? Just because we err on the side of caution, doesn't mean that we should devalue creativity altogether. But I guess that's just me. What do you think? Dknights411 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Flags n Emblems

Seeing as you removed the Emblems from the Copa Libertadores de América article, you may want to comment here. Thanks. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup

I saw your point of view from the revert that happen and Zidane wasn't there because he wasn't allowed back from the red card. Kingjeff 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warnings

Regarding edits made during July 10 2006 (UTC) to Windows Live Messenger

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss removing the screenshots, please talk on the articles talk page. If you continue to conduct your vandalism it will be considerd an act of war and you will be reported. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during July 10 2006 (UTC) to Windows Live Messenger

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning, next time you shall be reported for vandalism. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use boilerplate vandalism warnings when I am clearly not a vandal. Also do not waste other administrators' time making childish reports. ed g2s • talk 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings would not have to be given to you if you stopped vandalising certain pages. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I have clearly explained my actions and am making good faith edits, that is not vandalism. ed g2s • talk 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith stopped as soon as you refused to enter into discussion and you clearly abused power. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

As the creator of those images i shall change the liceanse on them from fair use, i have discussed this with a neutral editor. This will settle wether they are allowed to be used or not. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then the same could be said for Image:Ed g2s.png, it is freely licensed yet there is a possible copyrighted logo on the shirt. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still you are saying the image is free, i believe you are being bias here. (IE: It is okay for ed to upload an image under a free liceanse when it contains copyrighted material, however it is not okay for somebody else) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And i again can not see how you can justify it. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Space Science Data Center

How is the nasa logo not fair-use in an article about one of NASA's subdivisions? If you go to the NSSDC website you will see... suprise... the nasa logo. -Ravedave 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article IS about NASA though... the NSSDC does not have a logo becuase it IS NASA. -Ravedave 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for you to stand down

This is a request asking you to voluntarily stand down from your position as an administrator as i believe you jave abused your power to an extent which can not be tolerated anymore and you also now violate rules which you are intent on enforcing. if you do not wish to then i refer you to my comment at Talk:Windows_Live_Messenger#Screenshot_gallery.

See: m:Requests for permissions or Category:Administrators open to recall would be better. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How amusing. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This Barnstar of Diligence is awarded for difficult, complicated, and thankless work that helps to keep both Wikipedia freely-reusable and clueless editors from receiving threatening takedown letters. Jkelly 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. ed g2s • talk 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More tube maps stuff

Well, it's not really the maps, but the GPS data. I've recently been involved in a discussion about tube lines and distances between stations. See here. I was wondering if there was anyway to get distances between stations from your GPS co-ordinates that were used to generate those maps. That would help pick out which stations are furthest apart. Failing that, a scale for the maps might help. Either that, or I'll have to look these bits of trivia up somewhere else, or maybe just time the journey between some of these stations.... :-) Carcharoth 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look into doing this at some point. Of course, the GPS co-ords for the stations won't give the actual tunnel distances, but it is a good starting approximation. I recently discovered that the deepest station is Hampstead, thanks to the big hill on top of the station! Carcharoth 10:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup footballbox backgrounds

Hi, I noticed you removed the backgrounds from the footballboxes on the FIFA World Cup articles, and added hr tags, to improve accessibility. My understanding is AWB lets you semiautomate this... So if it's easy for you to do, could you also consider doing the same for the FIFA Women's World Cup articles? (It'd save me having to do this manually.) Thanks. --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use image on my userpage

Oh, you only did this a long time ago (June 21), but I forgot about fair-use when I made those userboxes. Thanks for fixing it! the_ed1 7 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in List of Final Fantasy titles

Thought this might need the attention of an experienced fair use reviewer. Images identify but commentary is presented in form of bullets which vary for each subject. o/s/p 22:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful Editing on NRL

Hi, I understand your concern for the removal of logos on the National Rugby League page, but could you please explain youself as to why you removed the formatting of the tables? I can't see any policy against the use of formatted wikitables, so why was this done? Also, could you please review and make amends for your edits so that the tables are not disrupted in any way; at the moment, as a result of your edits, the columns are not lined up correctly. Cheers, --mdmanser 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the section National_Rugby_League#1908_-_1994:_expansion_of_the_NSWRL_Premiership for example. And as I asked previously, could you please explain youself as to why you removed the formatting of the tables?

Is Separation of style and content a Wikipedia policy? I've seen a load of other pages that use formatting for their tables. Could you also please fix your edits which moved around the content within the tables too? --mdmanser 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my question. I asked if there was a policy (could you answer that directly - I'm not too sure myself). And with regards to your own question about the formatting - apart from the page looking a little brighter, it seems to be a lot easier to read as well. Could you also please fix your edits which moved around the content within the tables too? --mdmanser 01:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under [[User talk discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Thanks for fixing the columns though, I appreciate it. I hope this is all settled now. --mdmanser 01:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use template

Now that fair use has been amended to shorten the time frame for deleting fair use images, do you know if we have any templates that we can use to alert uploaders that the fair use image is about to be deleted in 48 hours unless fair use policy is applied?

Incidently, I fully support what you are doing on the Gameboy page. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell do you think you are?

Excuse me, but why are you tearing my user page into shreds? I am momentarily going to report you for vandalism, as you did not give me enough time to justify the images or get copyright status for them. You are nothing but a vandal, and although you will not respond to this, or when you do respond to this you will say that I don't follow policy, know that your actions will not be tolerated. You are a deceptive person, and I don't really give a goddamn bit what you say about me. --Paaerduag 11:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

Well, it's interesting that User:Jtdirl added on my talk page that you are removed personal attack. Perhaps it is not only me that finds your blunt and conclusion-jumping editing style as inappropriate and suspicious. The POLICY is that seven days is allowed for copyright information to be provided. You have FAILED to uphold wikipedia policy, so don't talk to me about following policy. I don't very much enjoy being told what to do by hypocrites. I think that all of your 'saintly' edits should be reviewed as they are clearly motivated by ulterior aims, and/or a simple desire to stir up trouble. --Paaerduag 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons episode

I have reverted your removal of the Simpsons family from the "List of.." page. As you well know, the existance of images on these pages (whether for the episodes in the list or the list itself) are in dispute and it would be good Wikiquette to hold off on removing anything you deem decorative until the matter is resolved. I can argue conversely and say if I hit "Random article" on the left and got that page and had never heard of the Simpsons, the article would be clearer if I saw an image of The Simpsons on the article page so I understand what kind of show it is. At the very least, you could have posted a notice on the talk page proposing a deletion on the grounds of decoration. I understand your position but it is poor wikiquette (and just plain rude) to enforce your opinion while so many others disagree. --Will2k 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dknights411

You got to watch out for this guy, 1998 1999 nba season was just fine, but he had to change june 25th day, the day when the season ended, it was there all the time, but he chose to play around, in his mind littlest of things are mistakes and personal attacks, see that the article gets corrected right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.246 (talk • contribs) .

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Republicanlogo.png)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Republicanlogo.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sporting Logo's

I see i'm not the only one angered by your removal of Logos from sport competition pages. Could you please stop doing it. It degrades the quality of these articles. These images are not used for decorative purposes in most cases but as informative tools. I request that you stop. I also back the request from others that you stand down as an admin- you have clearly abused your power. Ronan.evans 13:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Images

Hi, You have alot of images on your user page which i consider decrotive. Please could you remove them. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're free, so no. ed g2s • talk 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you even asking? Just do what Ed does and just edit someone else's userpage to your liking. Mikya 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When have I ever done that? ed g2s • talk 11:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use dispute over 2001 poster : Image talk:2001Style_B.jpg

Hi Ed, would you care to wade in on a discussion of fair use on a movie poster being used (as far as I can tell) in a non fair-use way? Thanks. P.S. keep up the good fight. Megapixie 03:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You: Note also that all the Academy Awards articles (e.g. 77th Academy Awards) have had the posters removed.

Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "overzealous"? -- Jason Palpatine 20:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely overzealous. -- Jason Palpatine 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, they were removed a while ago and not by me. ed g2s • talk 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the subject of the removal. And you're right, whomever is doing it is clearly very overzealous. -- Jason Palpatine 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I wasn't agreeing with you. As I have stated, I don't think the posters are necessary. ed g2s • talk 23:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Same back at you. ;-) Neith agree nor disagree. -- Jason Palpatine 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin intervention

I wish to request admin intervention for User:Esquire931 who is uploading fair use imagery at an alarming rate, despite being notified (see user's talk page). The images in question pertain to computer and video game related articles and does not declare sources or rationale, and are often redundant as they are mere copies of existing images. Combination 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AmFBfield.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AmFBfield.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —xyzzy_n 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Image on University of Colorado at Boulder

I am unclear as to why you removed the Image:University-of-Colorado-Boulder-sports-logo.png from the infobox on University of Colorado at Boulder page. Reading over your talk page, it appears you may have been attempting to enforce the Fair Use clause of images, of which this image applies. But the image is CU, is contained on the CU article and in the article namespace (although within a template). Could you please clarify for me? Thank you. --MECU≈talk 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is already used in the section about sports at the university. There's no need to have it twice. ed g2s • talk 18:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. Along the same lines, why did you remove the images that are marked {{Promotional}} from 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team page? Images like Image:Brian Daniels.jpg and Image:2006 Colorado football team media guide cover.JPG The promotional tag doesn't say it must only be used on that article refering to the pictured item, it simply states: to illustrate the work or product in question; of which I believe they were doing. (I am not refering to the School Logo Images used). --MECU≈talk 18:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your comment left on my talk page: I belive these meet criteria #8 on the Fair Use Policy page: specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text. --MECU≈talk 19:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a relevant point about the player: That he is noteable award winner. How else would you use a promotional image to make a relevant point about the player? --MECU≈talk 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute reolution: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific --MECU≈talk 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in Closer (baseball)

Why did you remove the logos in the closer (baseball) article? They added a graphical element to some otherwise boring tables. (In fact, there are none in the article, now that you've inexplicably removed the photo.) I'd say you brought down a perfectly good article.

Additionally, the text you used to replace the logos isn't bracket-linked to the teams' pages. So, assuming you had a good reason for doing it in the first place, I'd appreciate it if you would properly link them. Thanks. Woodshed 04:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I can see from your edits and talk page comments that you're something of a zealot on this issue (dare I say in constant violation of WP:POINT). I would merely remind you that you continue to bring down article quality with your actions. Woodshed 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: Blank2

Regarding edits made during August 1 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the image, it has a rationale. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during August 1 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the image it has a FUR, last warning. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it of hurt you so badly to add her name to the FUR, looks like i gota do it my self. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevent to Melora Walters as she was in this film. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is not policy, as the man said himself. Quoting it is not useful. I urge you to stop removing images from any page that involve sports until conclusion of the issue. --MECU≈talk 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC) User_talk:Mecu#Need_to_stop_user_temporarilly --MECU≈talk 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look in my archive. ed g2s • talk 15:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same link as above again, reply, I'm trying to call a truce. --MECU≈talk 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. --MECU≈talk 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would apply if I was disrputing Wikipeida. Enforcing our fair use policy is by no stretch of the imagination disruptive. ed g2s • talk 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe you have caused extreme disruption to wikipedia by violating 3RR three times, al editors involved could of spent there time bettering wikipedia however with this disruption you have caused this si not the case. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it to simply stop? Shouldn't you assume that we are in good faith as well, and can't you even agree that there is an argument over this? I don't see how it's too much to ask to just avoid sports logo images/pages during this discussion? --MECU≈talk 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if we stopped enforcing the policy everytime there was an open discussion (there are usualy several open at any one time) then we'd get nothing done. Your complaints are no different to the ones we've had hundreds of times before. ed g2s • talk 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Please provide links to these other discussions. --MECU≈talk 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please provide some examples of these discussions. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not helpful. Since there are so many instances, you should have no problem finding one or two instances of thourough discussion on this topic. I looked on your user page above, and none of that apply. --MECU≈talk 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an indexed archive, see NBA logos, sports logos, club logos etc. All similar complaints, probably with links to other talk pages. ed g2s • talk 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read all three of those you mentioned, none of them were throurogh discussions. More has been said about you removing images in this instance than the discussion of whether is is applicable in all three of those examples combined. I still challenge you to show a througough discussion of this topic, if you are to continue to claim this has been discussed and settled before. --MECU≈talk 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One week was clearly excessive, given the circumstances. I've reduced it to 24 hours. —freak(talk) 16:25, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, the block was finally lifted (albeit 20 odd hours after it was imposed) by the actioning admin. ed g2s • talk 13:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

Please remember in the future, when removing unlicensed media from articles where their use does not comport with our copyright policies, if you are reverted, you should block the reverter as well as reverting their edit. Editors who deliberately and knowingly violate our unlicensed media use policy may be blocked without further warning. Usually 24 hours is enough. If the person disagrees with the removal, they are required to discuss it first; reverting is not acceptable. When it comes to unlicensed media, we err on the side of exclusion. Regards, Kelly Martin (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I probably should've done that :) Funnily enough my ISP has been down for most of today, and I have come back to see that I am strangely still blocked, but I suppose most of you don't want to get involved in a wheel war. ed g2s • talk 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, ed, to say 'hi' and thanks for the amazing work you do in helping enforce policy. I know that it doesn't exactly make you popular amongst newbies and those who can't be bothered to read instructions (the regular insults on my talk page is proof of that), but your work is highly appreciated. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. Jkelly 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

I noticed that you removed the sports logos from the pages Minnesota and Minneapolis-Saint Paul which I put there, and I was wondering why you did that. Is there a rule or a guideline that frowns upon logos in articles? If so, could you give me a link? Thanks in advance Smarterthanu91 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously disagree on what the intent of the policy is, so let's clarify it. I have proposed a policy clarification on use of sports team logos at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\^talk 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block.

I apologise for any inconvienence it caused. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I know that you and I don't always see eye to eye with regard to the freeness of many images, but you have my complete sympathy and understanding in this regard. Bastique▼^parler _voir 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of fair use galleries

I appreciate your efforts to enforce Wikipedia's copyright guidelines. However, in many articles such as Atlantic Hockey, you have removed the images, leaving what are essentially duplicate lists of the teams in the leagues. It might have been more prudent to incorporate the team names from the gallery with the schools listed above. Powers 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "logos are of siginificant relevance to the teams, not the leagues, therefore decorative" ([2]: I was hoping you'd let this go until the current (copious) discussions were resolved. It is my opinion that the logos are indeed of significant relevance to the league, and therefore not decorative. As far as I know, there's no policy addressing which of those two opinions is correct. Powers 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, and I'm not suggesting that you stop your efforts in general. However, I believe discussion on sports logos in particular has picked up in recent days, hasn't it? There are plenty of other, more clear-cut violations that could be worked on until more of a consensus is reached on sports logos, I think. Powers 14:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my point is that it's far from clear whether this case is actually a violation or not. Powers 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're relevant because they provide identification (the same purpose they serve on the universities' pages), allow comparison of the logos, and illustrate the team mascot and colors. Powers 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so Jimbo's weighed in on whether sports team logos are relevant to their respective league articles? Perhaps you could direct me to the prior discussion on the topic. Powers 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the logos of member teams are indeed of historical significance to an article on the league. Plus, your cited Fair Use criterion #1 is about whether there are free equivalents available; since there obviously aren't in this case, perhaps you meant FUC #8? Powers 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That "free alternative" (the name) applies to ANY logo on Wikipedia, no matter where it's used, isn't it? Powers 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "identification", then. It seems to me most fair use logos are being used at the top of a company or organization page as identification. Historical illustration (to show the evolution of a logo) seems to be a separate issue. Powers 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems to me that part of providing encyclopedic coverage of a league is to show the logos of member teams. I grant it's not quite as obvious as on a team or university page, but it's not as clear cut as you seem to think, either. Powers 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of argument you're looking for. Your argument for including the logos on university pages is that they're significant aspects of the university. I say it's the same for leagues, but you're looking for something else. I'm not sure what. Powers 15:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"but what point are you making about the league with the logos of the teams." What point is an article about a team making with the logo of that team? The vast majority of them aren't making any point; the logo is there to provide a visual identification of the team. It's no different on a league page, as far as I can tell. Powers 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"especially when it comes to unfree media, usages of which need to be minimised." Ah, but what does "minimized" mean? Obviously, given current Wikipedia usage, it means "as little as possible without compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia", or something along those lines. There must be some caveat on "minimized" or else we wouldn't have any fair use images at all. The question is how far that caveat extends. That's what we need to define, by consensus. Powers 16:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Coast Conference

Just curious, why did you remove the logos from the article? AriGold 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Removal

Ed, you are acting unilaterally in your interpretation of policy yet again. There is no consensus in support of the actions you are taking. You are well aware of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. You have decided to decentralize the discussion by unilaterally acting on all these different article pages. Therefore, the Talk pages of those articles is a good place to leave a pointer to the current discussion. Since you prefere I not address the message to you, I will change it to a simple pointer. Johntex\^talk 16:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because my interpretation of the policy, as verified by the countless number of users and admins who write and enforce it, agree that I am right. I am well aware of your "if it's useful and we probably won't get sued..." philosophy, but that's is completely wrong. Almost every other sports page (outside these athletic conferences) doesn't have team logos. If you want to change this, you get the policy changed first. ed g2s • talk 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one that needs to change the policy. No policy prevents this use of the images. I ask you again to please discuss clarification of that policy at the link I provide, instead of unilaterally acting on your opinion. Johntex\^talk 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are aware of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific, but if not, please forgive me for not notifying you before now. Could you please state here whether you will or will not agree to the mediation process? Failure to reply within 7 days (with proven activity over that time, ie, that it is assumed that you are therefore aware of this message) will result in a negative response (ie, that you will not agree to mediation) to be assumed. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what became of the protection request. I'm not sure how much more "stern" one might get. I'll have to admit that I am at a bit of a loss as to what the best way to proceed is. My impression is that blocking users over this issue is contentious, reverting it repeatedly got you blocked, and protection isn't the right tool. Discussion at WP:AN perhaps? Are you subscribed to wikien-l? Jkelly 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt much real decision-making is going to get done until WikiMania is over. Jkelly 17:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello, could you please help me resolve the dispute with User:Lowg on the SCG/SER issue on both UEFA Champions League 2006-07 and UEFA Cup 2006-07? I feel that the two flags adequately represent the situation and this is a good compromise, but Lowg refuses to budge and this is turning into an edit war. Since you're aware of the issue and had weighed in on an earlier compromise, could you please add another voice to this discussion? Thanks. - Pal 19:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it to a vote

Is there anyway we could put the conference logo images to a vote about whether they are needed and are a copyright violation? --Josh 04:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S-off and S-Par

Heja, I can see why you cleaned up these both templates, but why did you deleted the colors of the background, too? Phoe 16:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we shall add a new color or use none? Do you know that these templates are only headers for succession boxes? (Look here Edward Seymour, 12th Duke of Somerset. If we can't use colors, I find it difficult to distinguish between the individual boxes and their relations. Phoe 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that it already implements a background color ... did you mean white ? This is the only color, the template or header has got now. Thanks for your friendly answer. ;p Phoe 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. After you wrote it, I've seen the grey color. It's a little bit weak ;-). I would n't like to be a pain in your brain, but is there a chance to make the headers variable? If they're all grey, it's so monoton. Thanks for your patience. Phoe 18:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the infos. Phoe 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment at User_talk:Phoe#Templates. By the way, don't principles of use of embedded styles apply equally to talk or user pages? I mean things such as using orange backgrounds, or proprietary fonts specified for signatures ;) JRawle (Talk) 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted your latest changes, pending discussion. Please can we discuss this this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization#Coloured_headings before changes are made? --BrownHairedGirl 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re use of computer icons

Could you swing by Talk:Dark Castle if you have time? The discussion concerns use of software computer icons for identifying a product, which in this instance is used for what I believe to be a decorative purpose. Combination 19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has entered a phase where it's just going in circles. Any advice as to how one should proceed at this point? Combination 16:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

You've taken a picture of Jimbo? 8-0 Rock on! $ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-T|ε|C|L-) 21:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, he's not that elusive is he? ed g2s • talk 21:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stc-600.jpg

Hi. I've removed the "no license" tag from this image. This tag produces "This image does not have information on its copyright status." That is clearly not the case - the copyright status, copyright owner and source are all very clearly stated. Now you may wish to list it for deletion as non-compatible with Wikipedia, but this was not the way to go about it. Mark83 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF badges/crest will not be available anywhere else, so fair use will be the only way to keep them I think. I think lowering the resolution and adding a fair use rationale as per Image:18 Squadron RAF.jpg would suffice. But I'm sorry to split hairs, as I said the tag may serve your purpose but it is incorrect. There is zero debate over its copyright status, and that's all the tag refers to. I agree about your license concerns, but that has nothing to do with the tag.

I uploaded the majority of RAF badges/crests, so to save yourself time I'm happy to consider myself notified if your tagging anymore. Mark83 22:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Copyright

You left a message on my talk page about an image of Jack Straw I uploaded. Looking at the image, you appear to have commented that crown copyright is not sufficient. Should I put the copyright holder as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? TreveX^talk 23:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Israeli conflict Template

Why are you reverting my edits? Why shouldn't the individuals be in alphabetical order or the organizations have logos, ha? It took me some time adding them, BTW.190.40.23.107 03:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my RFA

Hi, Ed. I have been indicated to be an Administrator and, as I work mostly on the same kind of things as you (fair use vigilance), I believe you may have a relevant opinion on either I may be helpfull in that position. If you have the time, leave your opinion on my RFA. Thanks in advance. Best regards, --Abu Badali 00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons description pages

I have replied to your message [3] on my talk page. Thank you. BigDT 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of Urquhart castle.jpg

On User talk:Dino, you note,

==Image copyright problem with Image:Urquhart castle.jpg==

Thanks for uploading Image:Urquhart castle.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Gee, if crown copyright isn't good enough, I guess the image's toast. Oh well.

dino 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big East Article

Please see talk page for the Big East Conference article before removing images again. If you are going to remove them from this page, you will also need to remove them from all similar pages that are listed out on the talk page. This is the only way to be consistent. If you remove them from ONLY this football conference page and not all the rest of them, it has generally been seen as due to a personal bias. I have restored these images several times and to be honest, I have no problem with them staying or going...but if you are going to remove them from here, please remove them from all the similar articles listed. Thank you. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring other editors is hardly a good attribute of a sysop. Simply writing "per last comments" also does not address the issue put forth. Does this issue need to be addressed by mediation or the arbitration committee? May I inquire why you and so many other people who have removed images from this page do not seem to have an interst in removing images from other football conferences? Why don't you go ahead and try removing those images from one of the other pages listed in the talk page. Are you afraid of what kind of backlash it will cause? --ScottyBoy900Q 02:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No...but what is wrong is being so selective in which articles you decide to enforce your own policies in. To keep things consistent, you either need to remove them all or keep them all until a consensus is reached. You don't seem interested in listening to anyone elses opinion however. Either leave it alone until a decission is made, or keep removing the galleries from all of them as intenseley as you've focused on this one. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I always assume good faith until I see someone maliciously reverting edits where the majority of people seem to want to keep something. Until this issue is resolved and a solid policy is drawn up, either be fair in your editing or just stop editing. You say you have previously deleted the galleries from some of those other pages...they have since been restored. Why are you not following up with them as well and deleting them once again? --ScottyBoy900Q 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well maybe malicious is too strong of a word. But it does seem like that to many people when admins take it upon themselves to implement policies only where they feel like it. If you're going to do something, do it right or not at all. Also realize that wikipedia is not just admins. All editor input needs to be taken into account. When yo usay that you and other admins have discussed it, that sounds like no care at all is placed on the vast majority of editors. If you would, please provide a link to the policy where logo use on football pages has been laid out. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Once again, I mentioned I don't really have an opinion either way where this issue goes, I just want there to be equal treatment for all involved articles. When editors are continuously doing things to one article and then forgetting about the others, that is wrong, completely unfair, and totally unequal. And once again...can you please provide a link to the appropriate policy you are referencing (the one about these galleries needing to be removed). If it does not exist in a way you are claiming, you should be treating all articles fairly and waiting for such policy to be enacted. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:U.S. time zones.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:U.S. time zones.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Craig R. Nielsen 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Other uses" discussion

You were previously involved in discussions relating to whether the wording of templates such as {{otheruses}} should simply say "For other uses" as it currently does or should read differently. I've started a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#"Other uses" of what? and thought you might be interested. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments you made to Scottyboy9000Q

I read your comments on ScottyBoy's talk page and to be quite honest, I'm completly and honestly disgusted. I've never felt so insulted on Wikipedia, not EVER!!! And I've been involved in some nasty vandal affairs. Contrary to what you may think about us sports editors, I'm 100% fully aware about what Wikipedia stands for and what the grand picture of this website is. However, I also believe that we cannot rule this entire website on the basis of guidelines if there is a large amount of confusion on some of the policies, like fair use for example. What may be black and white to you and a few others is not so to the rest of the editors here, and that is something that you should recognize. Also, you must know that ALL of my edits on wikipedia was made to make wikipedia better as an encyclopedia, and not to make it look like ESPN or Sports Illustrated. The inclusion of the NBA logos were an encyclopedic tool to be used to help track the course of a team through NBA History. The current logos on the main NBA page were a tool to help visually identify a team, since there are no other alternatives to logos anyway. This isn't "Man, Wikipedia looks boring. Let's spruce things up a little!" as it seems like you are putting it. To me, this whole issue ISN'T about logos. I mean I would personally prefer them on, but that isn't the issue here. This is about Wikipedia as a whole, and how not listning to new ideas simply because "It violates wiki-policy" will not only harm wikipedia's potential for growth, bit will deter new users and potential editors from participating on what is otherwise a fantastic project. Considering the fact that you are indeed an administrator, your actions and your (now apparant) biases concerning Wikipedia's editors, myself included, is sad indeed. You make it sound like sports editors are out to ruin Wikipedia, when that isn't the case at all. My intentions were to make Wikipedia the best web resource available and all of my edits were in accordance to my interpretation to Wikipedia's policy, always have been and always will be. But if you think that I am too misguided to edit here, then maybe I shouldn't edit here at all. But I believe in Wikipedia so much to let it end like this. I hope you know that I'm not at all impressed with your attitude about this whole issue, especially your decision to ignore our concerns. Dknights411 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about logos. I was talking about the discusion to change the fair use policy, or any other policy issues for that matter, itself. Moreover, we SHOULD care about how other editors feel, because those editors bring in new ideas and information that helps Wikipedia grow every day. Not caring if individual editors leaving for one reason or another is not the right way to be an administrator. I would try to work with every user if they had a problem, and be open to any possible ideas they have about Wikipedia's policy if they have issues. You chose to stick to the policy, despite the fact that so many editors have an issue about Fair Use, not just logos, but the whole concept. Wikipedia is more than a "free content" encyclopedia. It is a community of editors who all have ideas on how to improve Wikipedia. Those attempts do not deserve to be shot down and thrown out the wayside just because the policies are supposidly final. You may say I'm in the wrong, but IMHO, you are in the wrong with the way you've chosen to approach this issue, I'm sorry to say. Dknights411 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic logo infobox deletions from NCAA conference pages using AWB

Your use of AWB to repeatedly remove previously accepted image infobox's from NCAA related articles is in violation of the rules of use of AWB (specifically using it to make controversial changes) which can be viewed here. I ask that you cease and desist immediately, or measures regarding this matter will have to be taken, in accordance with WP policy. Thank you! -- CollegeSportsGuy 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RDenn.jpg

User created images must be uploaded under a free license, please either release the image under an appriopriate license, or if you really don't want to do that, let the image be deleted. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already have taken care of that. Thanks. Doc ♬ talk 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urquhart Castle, again

There are two other images on Urquhart Castle already, with no copyright problems. Image:Urquhart castle.jpg can die, with no great loss. Ain't worth it. I'll be more careful in the future.

dino 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S-off

Hi, please can you correct your correction on Template:S-off and Template:S-jud; it had made the templates looking like here Neil Kinnock. Thanks Phoe 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick work Phoe 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair use policy on images

On the List of Cornell University people page you deleted most of the images with the edit summary comment: "please do not use fair use image to decorate this list." I read what material I could find on fair use, and I'm afraid I don't see the problem. I'm sure I missed something, but your explanation is not sufficient for me to identify it. I don't see a conflict with the counterexamples at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. I'd appreciate it if you would cite the relevant Wikipedia policy and post a slightly fuller explanation on the Talk:List of Cornell University people page. Also, if you have suggestions for how we might get acceptable images of famous and widely identifiable people (like Dr. Joyce Brothers, to cite just one example among many), I'd be grateful. Thanks. -Do c t or W 23:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be less threatening please? Thx

Hi Ed. An editor complained that you were being a bit heavy handed with threatening to block editors for including sports team logos in galleries and such. A block threat, even in an edit summary, is pretty hair-raising to most editors. Anyway, I'm sure you're not really going to block other long-term productive editors for single reverts over sports team logos while all this is being straightened out (right?), so it really seems kind of like verbal overkill.

I would say that I'd never seen reference to a talk page as indication of a policy before. If somebody wants to put together a task force to clean up all the sports teams logos if and when it's agreed that it needs to be done, that'd be different. Herostratus 03:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail permission to use V20001.jpg

I can get an e-mail sent to me I suppose but I do not see what further evidence of permission that it would add. If I had been lying up to now about getting permission orally, inventing an e-mail would not be beyond me. JMcC 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale kit

I noted your reversion of Rochdale's first team kit a few days ago. Your comments on team kits would be appreciated on this discussion. After consensus has been reached, we will take it from there as to whether the Nike trim should be on or not. It should be noted though that the Nike trim in question is used by a few other teams, and therefore isn't just a 1-team specific image. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 12:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Re: tpl

i will happily change my summary, however teh template had been functining very well for several weeks and has been implemented into alot of articles very succesfully. I do also plan to further your idea on using templated colours however that will take some time, but also hex functionality should remain. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) PS: For ease lets converse on the talk ;)! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: It would help if you dont revert the changes as im currently writing a templates/implementing them as i speak. So just leave it till im finished? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldnt revert without discussion either, everything was working well for several weeks. But if you dont intend to revert i intend to improove it ASAP. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was three days and your the only one that has seemed to have objected. It should at least be left until a concensous is reached, if it does fail i will remove all instances my self. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note; You your self did not propose the changes you just made, so i dont understand why you are upset with the colour adition?. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your being pretty bias here, you just made major changes without proposing them, i added an optional value (also wikipedia is not papaer, colour is encouraged); Look i dont want to argue so lets just leave it at this ok? I intend to imrpoove it in a short time. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 23:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC) PS: They do change appearance, text was centerd which is now left'd. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 23:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you need to self revert pretty quickyl, your changes havent worked correctly see some episode pages for an example. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, color is trivial on the Web, and almost everyone can access it. This is very expensive for paper, and so color doesn't get used much in paper publishing. Wikipedia should take advantage of this fact, especially with illustrative diagrams and photographs. (from meta) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also i believe your changes have broke the tpl on a few pages (example Beware the Creeper) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 23:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What drawbacks? It can visually link pages together. Also wikipedia should try and be aestheticly pleasing (thus why we use monobook now, right? and not plainess) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 23:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the colours do make it look profesional in that they visually link. If a concensous says remove then so be it, but it should be left there till then. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz discussion

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rossoneri 3

I've left a gentler message for him in place of yours. Sorry. DS 19:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain August 8/2006 edit and msg on the Montreal article

hi. i researched the capitalization rules for the linguistic terms Anglophone, Francophone, and allophone -- see my note in the discussion page of article. i waitied a few days for further discussion then corrected the article's terms according to The Canadian Style. you reverted all my changes, and left this note in your summary (per Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Enough - further reverts may result in blocks). um, terms like "Anglophone" have zero to do with logos, as far as i can tell, and why are you threatening me with blocks if i revert back to the correct terms? the source i cite is solid, although i'm open to discussion that perhaps there might exist a more definitive source (although the canadian government is quite a top-level reference, don't you think?). have you confused my changes with someone else's that had to do with logos? -- Denstat 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Saturn V infobox

Template:Saturn V infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image source for Image:Dragons den group.jpg is the only source. Will the image still be deleted if I don't provide another source? FellowWikipedian 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiler League Results - July/August 2006

I can understand the removal of the copyrighted icons, but the new icons are inadequate, several actions are now not represented right anymore. Since you found the other icons, please tell me where to find:

second yellow (looks messed up now)
penalty goal (I can add "(pen)" also but if you have an icon why not)
missed penalty

And why is the layout of grey/white/grey/white/... removed? Looks crappy now all white. --Pelotas^talk 12:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you edited the tables too and removed the team emblems. Why is that? --Pelotas^talk 12:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the name change why is that? --Pelotas^talk 10:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the english wikipedia??? What was not english in that sentence??? Anyway, if you have a look at the category '2006-07 Domestic leagues', you'll notice after some browsing, that Corgoň Liga 2006/07, Danish Superliga 2006-07, Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07 and Second Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07 are using the exact same article names. Maybe we need some sort of agreement or 'template' for the names since some other leagues use other names. For instance, Serie A 2006-07 uses an extra slash e.g. Serie A 2006-07/September --Pelotas^talk 12:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Utah state flag.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Utah state flag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

I have just received a message from Vera, Chuck & Dave, who doesn´t understand why you took the Liverpool football club shield and lyrics to "Never walk alone" off his talk page. The Liverpool image was taken from the Liverpool football club page on Wikipedia. It seems a bit overly-harsh to me, especially as you have external links to various institutions on yours (even an estate agent). andreasegde 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you feel insulted (and I profusely apologise) but I was helping a relatively new user. I only told the truth (which you readily admitted) about the stuff that was on your pages. "Vera, Chuck and Dave" is new, and "Don´t bite" comes to mind. Isn´t there enough work to do on main pages without deleting something from an editor´s talkpage? Have fun. andreasegde 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of L.F.C. Emblem

Thank you for your explaination. However, I feel that you could have at the very least, paid me the minimum amount of common courtesy by informing me of the reason, at the time of it's removal. It is my intention, to contact David Moores and obtain Liverpool Football Club's permission to display it.

Politeness is a golden key which opens many doors. Vera, Chuck & Dave GM

Make sure that you specify unrestricted commercial and derivative use, and have them send an email to permissions AT wikimedia.org. You can find examples at Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission. Jkelly 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this information.Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesbrough FC

There is no 'naming convention' to use full stops in the middle of article titles. Middlesbrough F.C. etc, is something that just happened. It's been agreed twice now in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that it would be desirable to drop the full stops but no-one has had the time to do it globally. I've been moving articles as I come across them. Please discuss further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#F.C. or FC?. I will not revert but may propose a move to allow a consensus to be formed. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 11:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shortcut hack

What is the purpose of the bizarre template code on {{shortcut}} (wrapping it in {{{1)? ed g2s • talk 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Template_talk:Shortcut#Template:Shortcut.2F and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_20#Template:Shortcut.2F for background of a silly little edit war which was settled by implementing that code. Basically, what the code does it to suppress the 'shortcut box' entirely if a blank 'parameter 1' is passed to it. This was set up to work in conjunction with things like Template:Policy and Template:Guideline... so that if someone calls {{guideline|foo}} they get a guideline header box with a shortcut box link to 'foo', but if they call {{guideline}} they get the guideline header but no shortcut box. It was constructed in the pre-parser function days using the 'blank parameter' trick... the same thing could now be done with a '#if:' statement, but in this case the blank parameter method is actually more compact and requires less evaluation. --CBD 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand I don't know all the ways the 'shortcut' template is used, but a quick search of the 'what links here' can produce a list of templates which transclude it. See below. --CBD 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board/Archives Template:Announcements/New featured pages Template:Barnstarpages Template:Browsebarcountryindia Template:CFD header Template:Codenowiki Template:Consentblock Template:Copyrightassistanceheader Template:Crlf Template:Db-nocontent Template:Db-reason Template:Descriptive Template:Did you know Template:Disputedpolicy Template:Dormant Template:Editsummary Template:Esp-guideline Template:Essay Template:FAC-instructions Template:Facts Template:GO header Template:Guideline Template:Historical Template:Humorantipolicy Template:IdahoSchool Template:In the news Template:Indefblocked-gibberish Template:Indefblocked-nonlatin Template:Indefblocked-vandalism Template:Infobox BPM Template:Infobox School Template:Leavemsg Template:Mapneeded Template:Neuroscience-stub Template:No license Template:No source Template:Nowiki Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced Template:Orphaned fairuse replaced Template:PeerNavbox Template:PFFAC-instructions Template:Ph:Renaming (moving) a page Template:Phh:Displaying a formula Template:Phh:Edit summary Template:Phh:Footnotes Template:Phh:Image page Template:Phh:Interwiki linking Template:Phh:Moving a page Template:Phh:Reader/ Template:Phh:Reader/1 Template:Phh:Redirect Template:Phh:Section Template:Phh:What links here Template:PISAC-instructions Template:Policy Template:PR-instructions Template:Process header Template:Proposed Template:Protection templates Template:RD header Template:RD header new Template:ReaMUKip Template:Redundant image Template:Rejected Template:Requests for checkuser header Template:RfAEditcount1 Template:RfAEditcount2 Template:RfPPHeader Template:Sandboxpaste Template:Style-guideline Template:Subst Template:Template messages Template:TestTemplates Template:TestTemplatesNotice Template:UnitedStatesCode Template:UnitedStatesCode2 Template:UnitedStatesCode3 Template:UnitedStatesCodeSec Template:Unverified user Template:Usc-title-chap Template:User galaxy Template:User montypythonbum Template:User Publicdomain Template:User suck Template:User Wikifun Template:User WikiProject Eritrea Template:User WikiProject Saudi Arabia Template:User WP:ALBUM Template:User-BSD Template:User-BSD-except Template:UsernameBlocked Template:UsernameBlockedCompany Template:UsernameBlockedEmail Template:Userwpa2 Template:USRepSuccessionBox Template:UtahSchool Template:Villagepump Template:Villagepumppages Template:Weasel-inline Template:WelcomeEmail Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline/ Template:WikiProject Userboxes Template:WikiProject Userboxes member Template:WP:A header Template:Wpa2

Soccer-europe images

Have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#soccer-europe.com images. Based on some evidence found by User:Qwghlm, it seems most likely that User:Soccer-europe.com's contacts are at BBC or Sky Sports and they're sending him pictures from the game broadcasts before the graphics are put on. This would seem to indicate that he does not hold the copyright to the images but is getting them illegally himself. I'm planning to nominate them all for deletion, unless you have any other insight on the matter. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Logos

I reverted your edits to Wikipedia talk:Logos#Football teams logos. The point of discussion was the inclusion of inline images, if you remove them, the discussion has no meaning.--BaldClarke 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUC #9: "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. ... They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion.". Thanks, ed g2s • talk 06:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I read it, no need to write it everywhere. I truly believe that you should remove the whole section from the talkpage, since it has no meaning now, but I did not revert, because you are formally right.--BaldClarke 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template French communes

I have reverted your change of Template:French commune again. Your change makes the template look substantially different, at least with Firefox, and I disagree with this change. If you want your changes to be taken into account, please respect the work of other Wikipedians and leave a message on Template talk:French commune, where I have started a discussion about this topic. Thank you. olivier 05:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding some info on Template talk:French commune to help people who want to understand how to modify the template while complying to the guidelines? Maybe a link to another page. Thank you. olivier 10:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promophoto massacre

How in the name of all that's holy did you orphan a dozen images of U.S. State Attorneys General of my uploading without as much as a hello on my talk page!? How exactly can a designated promotional image not be fairuse in the article about its subject? How the hell else can one illustrate a biography if not with a portrait? Is fairuse impossible in those articles? I eagerly await the your justification of your actions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I did. You've cited me an assertion from a guideline, an assertion with which I vehemently disagree. What about my other questions? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude: they don't promote dead people. There are no {{promophoto}}s of dead people. Do you once again mean to tell me that {{promophoto}} fair use is impossible on a living person's bio? I am going to revert the whole set. If the truth is as you say, each image has no possible fairuse. Take one or more of these images to WP:IFD and solicit a consensus of your fellow editors. BTW, I am incensed at the way you've gone about obliterating large amounts of my work without as much as a courtesy notice! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you have no need to take them to IFD. However, I cannot accept your unilateral actions on the subject, guideline or not. I am entitled to request and receive full process. Note, that I am not dismissing the possibility that you are correct - but I am positive the case is not clearcut, and richly deserves that a consensus of users be formed before action is taken. Problem is, you've already tagged them for {{orfud}} and they need to be de-tagged and de-orphaned in order that they should not be deleted during the pendency of the IFD. In the interest of propriety etc. etc. may I ask you to roll your article and image edits back yourself? It'll take you a less than a minute with admin rollback. You may then pursue the deletion of the images through regular channels. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFD consensus will not bypass our fairuse policy!! It will determine what that policy requires!! If an IFD consensus decides our fairuse policy permits such use, then that will be the right thing to do!! You are driving me up - the - wall!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe an article I wrote fails WP:V and wish to have it deleted, you can propose it for deletion, but if I object (reasonably or not!), you have to build consensus for your action, just like any other editor. You've read the guideline correctly. I dispute the validity of that clause! I dispute the application of that clause to the images I uploaded, even if the clause itself is valid. I am not on IRC, IRC is not Wikipedia, I have no idea what took place there, and shouldn't have to. Your last posting on my talkpage was unresponsive. I believe you have been unilateral and obstreperous. On a personal aside, you have also seriously pissed me off. I am not going to revert you yet, and will now take this whole discussion to WP:ANI. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, stop removing valid fair use images. If CrazyRussian won't revert you, I'll do when I have time. Citing a passage that you probably added yourself from some random guideline isn't going to win you many points. Grue 06:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, stop making Wikipedia less useful. Stop reverting my edits as if they were vandalism. Promophotos are valid fair use. If you continue to harm wikipedia by removing useful information from our articles, I will have to block you. Grue 11:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has come along now to one of the articles you removed and image from and put in another unfree image under a much flimsier claim of fairuse. Is this really the result you wanted? - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing images and deleting articles without consensus. Your repeated disregard for Wikipedia policy is a blockable offense. - Kookykman|(t)e 13:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image use on A Wilhelm Scream

I'm afraid your wrong on this one. In any case, revert warring over this is simply wrong. I had hoped that you would have learned the last time this happened. If you revert once more without a discussion, I will block you. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that we're talking about Image:AWilhelmScream.jpg, this makes no sense to me. We don't know who the photographer or copyright holder is. Is the copyright to this image owned by the record company whose website is on, and do they intend it for wide distribution as othe biolerplate on our template implies? How is this image, and no other, important for that article; it could be replaced by a freely licensed image? So the image seems to fail Wikipedia:Fair use, which has been recently updated to emphasise this point. Jkelly 20:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the purpose of the image (to show the members of the band) is clearly replicable, and so the image is not permissable under our guidlines. ed g2s • talk 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate day picture

Sorry, I didn't notice that the image was fair use. I replaced it with one released for public domain now. Thanks for noticing. Happy ITLAP Day for you too. Regards --Hús ö nd 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!
		Ahoy, me hearty! How 'bout a good ol' jug o' grog? Reg-Arrr-ds Hús ö nd 13:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lost episodes

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thematic motifs of Lost

I have been struggling to get appropriate fair use rationales for two images in this article. I know that you have an interest in fair use debate and wondered if you could help in convincing the uploaders to add appropriate rationales/deleting the images. Image:LostPilotEye.jpg and Image:Pilot2backgammon.jpg are the images in question. Some recent discussion relating to the back gammon image is here and here. I understand that this is a trivial issue and will understand if you don't have time to help.--Opark 77 20:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detail on Football Kits

I was wondering as to why you have twice removed this image from the Leeds United page even though these aren't sponsorship or kit maker (such as adidas or nike) specifics? they are indeed part of the design, as shown here. If these lines on shirts are not allowed then I was wondering why this: some of these, most of these and some of these especially this and this are allowed? I agree that sponsorship and kit maker specifics (such as the adidas three stripes) should not be there but the lines present on the leeds shirt are simply part of the design. please let me know. thanks. --Chappy84 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lost episodes,,

hear me out, if you are so freaked out about the lost episodes, shouldn't you see the season 3 page and check if the poster really has anything to do with the article,,, it does, so does the episode list,,,

do you really care if the images are there? do you REALLY think anybody in ABC gives a flying fuck that a stupid website puts their little fucking pictures in a page,,, think about that --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kits

Hello. I see you removed the kit details from Sheffield Wednesday F.C. Can you do the same for Sheffield Wednesday Ladies F.C.? I can't, since it would be 3RR.--Panarjedde 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football clubs

This is to inform you that the project page above is being considered for deletion. Please follow the links to participate in the discussion. I note the value of the kit template you created, and believe it is worth keeping, but possibly somewhere else. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Monobook.js

Hmm. I thought I already disabled the table button [4]? Now you did again??? Puzzled. --Ligulem 13:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did have had an outdated cache, as the button already went away thanks to my edit. I'm going to revert your edit, if you don't mind. We either disable that code on the top-most level (as I did it with my edit), or we remove that stuff completely. Keeping some brain dead code there serves not much prupose. --Ligulem 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No source image

Image:Broomfield nick.jpg has no source and will be deleted in 7 days. YellowDot 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, although despite the available history, I was not the orignal uploader. There are no undelete logs from that far back but I guess it was user:personaljesus, see contrib. ed g2s • talk 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

Hello, Ed.

I see you removed the decoration from Sheffield Wednesday F.C. page, but Dan1980 is still reverting. On Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ignoring_consensus, they suggested to have a some editors reverting to the article version without the decoration, so to let him understand not to revert again, or incurr into 3RR. Would you mind revert those pages with me?

Thanks, Panarjedde 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed and appreciated your contribution to Sheffield's article. Can you do the same for Shelbourne F.C.?--Panarjedde 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little help if you could

I know you usually take your big stands where fair use is the issue, but you're good at making a point so I think you can help here. In an FAR, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spacecraft propulsion, some one has been defending the lack of references and if I keep trying to explain the need for references by myself I'm going to snap. If this isn't your thing, I'll understand. Jay32183 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright question

Would you say this image is PD as labelled? It's a photo of a bunch of copyrighted logos - what does the policy and/or the law say about it? Thx. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd day the logos are precisely the subject of the photo! - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Italian Football

Hi ya. I see you add to Italian Football articles from time to time. Just wondering if you want to check out Wikipedia:Italian Football. We are just hoping to organise our efforts towards improving articles better. If you want to sign up just put your name down under participants on the project. You can do as much or as little work as you like and any ideas on improving pages would be great. Niall123 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy logo

I don't quite understand your reasoning for the removal of the Family Guy logo from ALL of the non-screenshot episode pages. Fair use on Wikipedia is to illustrate the article in question, which, being relevant, is exactly what the logo was doing. From the comments left on this page you seem a bit trigger-happy when removing imagery. Dancraggs 00:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mouse in mousetrap.jpg

Hi, we have a somehow controversial User:KPbIC whose nickname looks like the Russian word for Rat (КРЫСА) written in Cyrillic. The image is constantly used as an attack against him. Do you plan to use the image for an article? Maybe it is possible to delete it? Currently I put it into the BadImage list [5], but this is a sort of a kludge. abakharev 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in portals

As you might know, I've created an amendment for fair use in portals after the discussion located at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It would be great if you could express your opinion, in support or against. ddcc 01:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Dickinson Pic

I agree with you in that the picture is not ideal, but we haven't got any others, and I don't think it can cause confusion or be PoV or anything like that. Thoughts? yandman 08:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that for a "no". yandman 13:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity stills

Thanks for your contributions to celebrity articles. However using plain publicity stills of living celebrities discourages other users from acquiring free images and so is prohibited by our policy ("An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like ... would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use"). Fair use is a last resort for unrepeatable images that are of particular relevance to the article, such as those of historical significance. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 08:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I am not the first person to say this, but I am mega confused! Firstly, I don't want to break the law/rules - but as with most areas of the law, there are grey areas, which Wiki has tried hard to define clear lines for all to keep inside - I want to do that. You will note from my edit record that I upload relativly few images for that reason - I want to be clearly inside the rules on licensing. However, perhaps you can educate me here. I have tagged all of the images in question as "Promotion" (as advised by another "knowledgable" editor on this subject), but having read through the various Wiki notes, perhaps I should be tagging them as Promophoto? I have been careful to load images where used in Bio's uploaded from mainly their agents websites - which having read the rules on Wiki again, would fall inside the Promophoto tagging. So my conclusion at present, is that I am tagging these images incorrectly as Promotion as opposed to Promophoto. However, your first point is my greatest confusion at present - agree that free use would be prefered over fair use (and that if that is the case, then all these images could be tagged with "Fair use/replace with free" tags). However, the "discourage/remove/therefore to encourage" piece seems a bit too righteous? I realise this whole license tagging area is fraught with difficulty, and I am just trying to get it right - but having had previous discussions with experts on this subject, another different view is most confusing. Best Regards, - Trident13 10:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it has been clarified what was meant by WP:FUC #1. That is images need not necessarily be existant on Wikipedia for them to be considered "available". See Wikipedia talk:Fair use#.22Repeatability.22_criterion. Obviously for dead or exceptionally reclusive celebrities this may not be the case but "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like ... would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use" (note that "fair use" means "acceptable to use on Wikipedia under Fair Use". Actual Fair Use can only ever be validated by a legal ruling). ed g2s • talk 11:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. ed g2s • talk 11:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bose images

Just wanted to let you know that UKPhoenix79 has reincluded all the images into Bose Headphone Family (and removed the replace requests), as well as removed the no rational tag and replacement requests on several of the image description pages. Not sure what step should be taken now about this matter... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in Previous Bose Headphones, which has the same problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairuse logo galleries in television station articles

Are you up to dealing with yet another egregious abuse of fair-use images? Often-massive galleries of the bug logos are showing up in articles for local TV stations. For example, see this old version of KRIV-TV. Plus, most of these images are extremely poorly sourced, when they're sourced at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sony α

Hi, I added a rationale for fair use on the camera image. Does that suffice? -- Lycaon 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. I am the owner of such a camera myself and will make a picture of it one of these days (very soon). At that time I will replace the 'fair use' image. Ok? Lycaon 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook.css

What do you mean "line heights were working before and broke afterwards"? There was a change to the global monobook css that changed the line heights. With that I was just reverting the global change locally. It should have looked like it did three days ago or so after I made the change. —Mets501 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting it back. —Mets501 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your fixups to Template:Replaceable fair use. Your wiki-fu is more powerful than mine. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that you know

I find your handling of the issues regarding images in the pages I created and did my best to make better, at least according to my judgement, exceptionally inappropriate. I do not have time or patience to discuss that, this just serves as a definitive proof to me that my contributions to WP are not welcome. Therefore, I have decided to quit WP.

I don't think this is of any importance to you, and that WP would lose anything, but I just wanted you to know that as one day you might do this to a really valuable contributor. I also know you won't understand. Have a good night. Bravada, talk - 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have had deleted two of your messages from my talk page, so I guess I owe you a bit of explanation. The pictures of cars and logos have been uploaded to WP for quite some time, and WP has been one of the busiest and most recognized sites in the Internet for quite some time now. I have not heard of a single auto company complaining about either. I have also done my share of replacing FU images with free images wherever I could, and it sometimes required going more than a few extra miles, to say so.

I don't think it is the most urgent to go accross articles and delete any image that is quite unlikely to pose a copyright infringement while so many articles contain what might amount to libel, expletives or simply false information, not to mention the heaps of articles which are not written in a way an encyclopedic article should be (style, MoS, NPOV etc.) I am not expecting an answer. I would rather like you to take some time and think about it. You might also want to take a photo of Towa Carson at that time - that should be very easy. Bravada, talk - 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I promised myself I won't get involved into that... Now, please create a Citroen logo, a Towa Carson photo and a Lancia Phedra photo. Moreover, I somehow wasn't discouraged to create free photos for articles where there were fair use ones, but I certainly am now that they get deleted with such a poor rationale. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get the feeling that you would be willing to accept any other point of view than yours as valid. Therefore, I believe debating with you could only inflict more stress on me, so I will not pursue that further. Actually, I even envy you, as believing in one's own infallability is a great way to feel good all the time. Bravada, talk - 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, I don't understand your Flickr tag cloud image removal from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud article. You suggested "you can illustrate a tag cloud with a free pic, not fair use" and removed the pic but has not added a better one. I think it would be good to provide the article with a pic you think is better, or to keep an old one. Please suggest.

Thanks!

Denis Krukovsky, author, Blogoforum.