Jump to content

User talk:Fred the Oyster/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Please help with Image licensing and Printing

I am not sure if this is the way to ask a question, so If not I apologize. I have given sourcing for most of the pictures and want to make sure that it is adequate so as not to get deleted. The other issue, is that on the wiki page the texta dnt eh images look great, but then when I go to Print and/or Print preview the pictures are disappearing and moving. Is there a way to stop this from happening?

Feb 11, 2010-- Colacasanova —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colacasanova (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the old Oxford comma?

(Just read your page sorry.) But cheers for the [currentyear] thing. You learn something new every day etc etc. RB88 (T) 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow

I don't follow this comment[1]. What exactly are you referring to? As an admin it is my responsibility to enforce community expectations, including civility. That is my sole motivation for that user's warning. You will see by my contribution history that my prior interaction with Malleus has been in an administrative capacity.

Perhaps you are simply misunderstanding the role and limitations of an admin. WP:ADMIN says "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article in an administrative role or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role.". It does speak of avoiding acting in an administrative capacity if there is a content dispute going on, but I don't believe I have ever been in a content dispute with that user.

I am not sure how you could accuse me of "coming from nowhere" when I clearly linked to the action by Malleus that brought me there. Perhaps you could clear up your position as its current vague state is not terribly informative. Being more specific would make your criticisms far more useful to the task of improving myself. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One would think by now Chillum that you would have realised that Malleus knows full well exactly what is and is not tolerated, and is intelligent enough to understand any ramifications that may result from whatever comments he makes. Posting such messages on his talk page is a waste of time, and you know it. Malleus isn't ever going to change his views, so why do you bother? You're just poking a bear with a stick. Parrot of Doom 00:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course he knows what is not allowed, but if he gets blocked without a warning he complains about no warnings. So he gets a warning. If Malleus is never going to change his views then does that mean that Wikipedia should change its views on incivility? Should we have a "chooses not to change" exception for civility? I am not poking the bear, I am defending Roux who has been complaining the Malleus has been popping in out of nowhere to take jabs at him. I don't appreciate my attempts to create a positive work environment equated to some sort of perceived witch hunt. The community has made its position on personal attacks and incivility clear and attempts to weaken it have no gained consensus. I will gladly let things slide, but not at the expense of other users being abused. If you wish to talk to me about this we can do it on your talk page or mine as I prefer not to debate with people on a third parties user talk page. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think he's more likely to complain about bollocks blocks like the one which happened only a few days ago. Have you ever considered that maybe Malleus has a point? It isn't incivil to state the truth when it stares you in the face. I would take what Roux says with a truckload of salt; I haven't ever seen Malleus tell anyone to fuck themselves with a chainsaw, as Roux did to me for pointing out a clear-cut case of lying on his part. The only people who get riled by Malleus are those who don't like to encounter people who aren't afraid to tell the truth. Parrot of Doom 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It's very simple. You and Malleus have a history. That history is strewn with vitriol. You both obviously dislike each other intensely (please don't deny it, it's quite obvious). It's pretty much a sure thing that your input, regardless of what policy and procedure state, will not calm any situation you and Malleus find yourselves in. You push his buttons and he pushes yours (again, please do not deny this). To me that makes it rather a common-sense decision that you resist the urge to fly in and defend us all from the anarchy caused by MF's straight talk. You are not the only admin around. You weren't even involved in the discussion that prompted your warning to him. Any prudent admin would have either waited for another admin to do the dirty, or would have recused yourself and actually asked a colleague to do it. Whatever your intentions there is no way any interaction with your goodself and MF would end up with a calming of the waters. Now please excuse me if I'm wrong, but it is an admin's job to pour water on a fire, not petrol is it not? I can only construe that your actions are that of someone wishing to bait MF. You know it and I know it, logic knows it as do most of the people who view his page. It's a rather transparent attempt I'm afraid. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a history of me asking him to follow policy, there is nothing personal on my side. I have already pointed out that this does not disqualify me. If you can point out some interaction that does disqualify me then I will reconsider. I don't know how to calm Malleus down, I don't think anyone does, but I can tell him what will happen if he is abusive to our editors. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't be obtuse. You and I both know that it is personal between you two, and that your history is far more than you just doing your duty. You know exactly the response you will get from MF. I'm sorry, but I find that to be an underhanded trick. As I said, you are not the only admin here. You should have stood well back and let another admin do the necessary. Any input from you would not have any desired effect and that on its own is reason for you to stand aside. Frankly you have either shown bad judgement or, as PoD has said you are intent on poking the bear. Either way nothing good can come from, but if you think that's good adminship then you and I are singing from different hymn sheets. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the vectorization-tagging!

Is there anyway you can set up a bot or something to tag all appropriate Category:Scout logos thus? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not au fait with bot coding I'm afraid, but I am sure that a bot couldn't distinguish what images need vectorising and which don't. It would have to be a blanket thing or nothing. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That would be fine, it would be an exhaustive task otherwise. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with .SVG download

Fred,

It doesn't go very smoothly. What is wrong with .PNG?Daanschr (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with png. It's just that it's a pixel based format that doesn't scale very well. For graphics such as the one you uploaded a vector based format is much more efficient and will scale much better, to any resolution without losing picture quality. What are the problems you are having? May be I can help in some way? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Downloading .SVG went wrong, see: and File:UserDaanschrOctavianus.svg.Daanschr (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To gain better insight into the problem, what are you using to produce the image? And what are you using to convert the existing png file to an svg file? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I use GIMP to produce the .png file, copy it to Inkscape and safe it in .svg.Daanschr (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too au fait with GIMP, but it's primarily a raster package. Have you used vector shapes in GIMP to create the map outlines? If not you will need to import/place the PNG file in Inkscape then use the tracing function to create a new vector version. Then save that as an SVG, You can't just open a png in Inkscape and then just save it out to SVG without doing anything else to it. I can't give you specifics as I don't use Inkscape. I use Illustrator CS3 and CS4. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I see the problem. I've just tried to open the SVG you uploaded and the reason it's not working is that all the SVG is is a link to your local copy of the PNG file. Just open your version of the SVG file in a text editor and you'll see what I mean. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At first, i could see the .svg file, but after this edit, both pictures disappeared.Daanschr (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the order of events but basically what's happened is that you've overwritten your original png file with a copy of the svg file created by Inkscape. So basically they are the same file with different extensions. Open them both in a text editor and you'll see. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have downloaded a completely different version and discovered my problem with .svg has to do with Inkscape and GIMP instead of with Wikipedia. I tried to trace my .png picture, but after the tracing, i can't see the picture anymore. Is the difference between .png and .svg, that .png works with square pixels, and with .svg, you can make everything smoothly?Daanschr (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason i like to work with square pixels, is that i can produce maps quickly and thanks to the program Map Generator, they look relatively good. I have the impression that most pictures on Wikipedia are made with .png and .jpeg, so i prefer to continue making mine with .png.Daanschr (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that at all. Though if you look on commons etc you will find that the preference is for SVG and although the tag I left isn't specifically for you to convert your work it can be better to produce graphics like that in vector form to start with. The prime reason for using a vector form is that the image can be resized to any size with no quality loss and can be printed out at the maximum resolution of the printing device. That said, it isn't your responsibility to produce your maps in any program other than the one you feel most comfortable with. The tag I left leaves your image in a category that other illustrators can browse through and do the conversion themselves. So just to clarify, just because I left that tag on your image it doesn't mean that YOU have to convert to/produce a vector image, it notifies any editor/illustrator should they want to do it. On the bright side, just think of this as a learning experience :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I did look at a .svg picture on Inkscape and saw the difference with .png. The problem i have with it, is that it takes enormous more work to create good looking pictures, like the one i have made. I simply miss the manpower for this. I am unemployed at the moment and find it hard to get a job. In the meanwhile, i like to make a this historical atlas. I prefer to tell the story with some easy to make pictures to tell it. If the making process of these pictures gets very complicated, it spoils the fun for me. I have tried to get other people to join me in making a historical atlas, but the problem is that nobody stays. The only solution i can think of is to think out the format myself and have some people do some easy tasks, but i prefer to work with people as being equal, and that turned out to be impossible. I plan to continue my personal historical atlas on my user page. Maybe some very good maps can be converted to .svg, but than someone else has to make it more smoothly.Daanschr (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I do understand your sentiments. I also think that any image is better than no image at all, but from the project's point of view the quality of the images is more important than the fun someone had creating it. Like you I prefer to work in the pixel domain, in my case Photoshop. Ultimately though to get the best results one should use the correct tool for the job. But as I said previously, the onus is NOT on YOU to supply a vector version. Please don't feel that you have to. On the other hand if you wish to learn more about graphics production (and possibly gain additional skills that can help you get a job) then really you should experiment outside your comfort zone. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to find a job in this, it is purely hobby.Daanschr (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

SVG font rendering

How to get the text to behave?

Hi Fred, I see you recently tagged the PNG version of my RfA stats with {{vectorize}}. It doesn't really matter in this case (PNG is actually very efficient for a simple graph like this) but I'd love to have a working SVG workflow. The problem I have is that fonts don't render properly. This is how I created the graph:

  • Build graph in Excel 2003 on XP.
  • Set all fonts to be from the DejaVu family, per the allowable SVG font list on Meta (here).
  • Export extended metafile. I've tried several methods for this, but copying the graph from Excel and using paste special to place it as an EMF in PowerPoint 2003 is the most transparent way. I then right-click the image and "Save as Picture...".
  • Open in SVG program, in this case Illustrator CS4.
  • Use "Save for Web & Devices" and choose SVG 1.1, no font embedding, text as SVG, UTF-8, don't optimize for Adobe SVG viewer.
  • Test the file. Displays fine natively in Firefox, but Inkscape doesn't recognize the font and defaults to "Sans".
  • Upload to Wikipedia: libsvg doesn't recognize the font either!

Perhaps you can help? - Pointillist (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can try to help, but first I should tell you that the vectorize tag isn't an instruction to you personally. It puts the tagged images into a category and there are lots of editors who specialise in converting images to SVG format.
But on your other questions, I can sort of answer them. The problem is that I don't know if Excel outputs its graphs in vector format at it's own base level. If it does then I suspect the easiest workflow, considering you use Illustrator, would be to export the Excel file to PDF, then open that PDF file in Illustrator. If Excel has outputted its data in vector form then it's just a simple matter of saving it out as SVG. If it hasn't used vector data, then simply place the PDF into a new Illustrator document, then trace it (after messing around with the trace settings of course). As for the fonts. Well I find these to be the single biggest problem with SVG primarily because SVG being a text file it merely references fonts that are on the viewer's local system. To be honest I just normally have done with it and use outlines for any text I've used. I save it out as SVG 1.1, Fonts: Outlined and just use the default settings for everything else. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Fred, I know all that: I've already contributed major SVG files like the Boat Race map and AFAIK most of the examples on Wikimedia have their text converted to outlines because saving unconverted text in SVG isn't straightforward. Despite all that, since you are so keen to apply the {{vectorize}}/{{ShouldBeSVG}} templates, I'd like you to explain exactly how to fix my SVG files. Given your prolific templating of other editors, this should be your principal priority until it is resolved. - Pointillist (talk)
Why is it incumbent upon me to fix your files? Tagging the files is not an invitation for you to convert them, neither is it an offer for me to fix what ails you. I told you how to fix your files, or at least the way I'd do it. How you do it is up to you though, or are you suggesting that this particular file of yours would not be appropriate in vector form? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Your tagging says my image "contains information that could be stored more efficiently and/or accurately in the SVG format, as a vector graphic." Well, either that is a fair statement in which case you should help me fix it, or it is just "drive-by tagging" by someone who has only contributed two SVG files neither of which contained text. Either way, given that you applied the tag it is down to you to do the research to find the solution. - Pointillist (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not required to find any solution. You're the one who uploaded it and can't figure out how. If you wish to see it in vector form then the problem's yours. The fact remains that image is better in SVG format. I tagged it as such, that's where it ends for me. If a particularly image piques my interest then I may do the conversion myself. As for your charge of only having done two, well I'm sorry, but you are wrong. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From one GOM to another

After your scurrilous remarks about teenagers on Malleus's talk page yesterday I would like to award you the "Grumpy Old Man" barnstar, but unfortunately there isn't one - so have these instead ***. Actually I don't think you would be impressed with any kind of barnstar, really. I have to say, that having driven along Deansgate at midnight and had drunken arseholes trying to stop cars and get into them saying "give us a fuckin' lift" or smashing up bus shelters, I would agree with you completely. I'm thinking of having a tee shirt printed with "grumpy old man and proud of it". Why can't they be like we were, perfect in every way? Richerman (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mod or rocker? Parrot of Doom 13:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Who me? - neither. I have been called an aging hippie before now, but that was only at weekends and pop festivals. No fighting at all - just peace and love, man. Richerman (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I do have a t-shirt with "Grumpy Old Man" on the front. It came free with a copy of the DVD of the TV show of the same name. But yes I freely admit to being a GOM. I've never really been into the group scene, but I suppose the closest I ever got would be a hippy. Mostly due to a free-drinking, free-toking and free-loving lifestyle. So yes I'm all for the peace and love. Though to be honest having had a couple of kids who have been through their teenage years, well, let's just say my opinions fermented during that period. And I still like the idea of a Manchester munch. Putting names to faces, drinks to coasters and have a whinge about how this area has gone to the dogs, not to mention any goss that might be available that one can't really write about! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Works for me - mind you, as wikipedia contributors are supposed to be to be socially challenged (according to something I read last year) maybe we'd all sit there saying nothing - but somehow I don't think that would happen. Richerman (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh that's easily sorted: "so what do you guys think of chillum?". Hopefully that should start the ball rolling, that and sufficient alcohol! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
And by the end of the night you'd all be "my besht friends - and we'll always be friends won't we?" Just one thing - you said you were "never into the group scene" but you liked the "free loving lifestyle" - sounds damned selfish to me :) Richerman (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now that depends on the 'group' I was referring to. Now "group" and "free-loving" in the same sentence, well, that's a different thing all together ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Alerts -- please explain

The Barber National Institute is a nonprofit organization based in Pennsylvania that offers services to children and adults with developmental disabilities. The article "Barber National Institute" is intended to inform readers of the history, services, and credentials of the Barber National Institute. In fact, the Barber National Institute is a well known, well respected institution in the field of Autism, as well as other health services, throughout Pennsylvania and its neighboring states. Alerts have been posted on the article and it would be greatly beneficial if you could provide specifics within the article on the following topics: notability, conflict of interest, advertisement, and the need for more references. Any specific feedback will be greatly appreciated so that the readers get the very most out of the article. Thank you.

--ErieBarber (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ok..

Thanks for pointing out what I need to read; I haven't seen those articles, yet. However, I don't really see how you think it's advertising-I am not even an employee of the Barber National Institute; I have made this site as a project for my Advanced Technical Editing Course at Penn State. I am a professional writing major and have learned a lot about writing unbiased, neutral works and to be quite frank, I don't see specifically where in the article there is a ton of significant biased. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErieBarber (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...

Did not know it had to be the new {ShouldBeSVG} tag, was using the old {vectorize} tag... Pfuchs722 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Vectorizing suggestion

Hi! Just a quick tip for much neater vector images (e.g. the girl scout badges): if you draw a same colored path intentionally overlapping another one (as you seem to do for small adjustments to shape), then simply unite them. This keeps your images free of (invisible) clutter. The "unite" button can be found on the "pathfinder" toolbar (more details). Regards, Quibik (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Alas I wish I could. Illustrator did a rather dodgy trace of the original image with spurious paths everywhere. I further compounded it by taking what, at the time, I thought was the easy option of using Live Paint to do the colouring. Unfortunately that just complicated matters. There are paths all over the place and I've tied joining, merging, uniting, all sorts of things but invariably it just screwed up the Live Paint groups. The only real answer is to go back and manually trace the image. Ordinarily I would have done that but at the moment I don't really have the time so made do with what I had until I can go back and sort it out properly when my current project is finished. What isn't helping is that what I'm seeing in Illustrator doesn't match how mediaWiki shows it. All the paths have no strokes and everything is done with fills, yet stroked paths show up in the SVG when WP displays the file. Bloody irritating it is too! Thanks for the advice though, it's very much appreciated. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Girl Guides

This one was made independently later. Maybe it will help? File:Vietnamese Girl Scout Association.png --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

More baseball

I saw you vectorized File:Baseball 1b.png. Here is the whole set, if you are interested in doing them too:

I think that's all of them. --Beao 13:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs, I'll get stuck into them when I've either finished the Girl Guide images (or when I get bored of them!) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File:SupelecLogo.png

Rather than tag for deletion you couldn't just have added the {{non free logo}} license template? – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And the reason you didn't when you uploaded the file is? It was your responsibility as uploader, not mine. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I made an error, but in the spirit of a collaborative project you could easily have added it rather than officiously slapping a deletion tag on it. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of collaborative effort I notified you of what it needed. You had the details, I didn't you were made aware and should you not do the necessary then the file would have been deleted. Do you think yours was the only one I tagged? How long do you think it would take me to change every incorrectly tagged file that I came across? You're moaning about having to do just the one you uploaded yet here you are berating me for not doing that which you should have done in the first place. You made an error, I didn't, so why is it you are giving me a hard time? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

University of West Alabama Webb Hall image

Fred, I have added the information you requested. Is this image good to go now? Sorry I'm making mistakes, but I'm just now learning how to upload images and how they work on Wikipedia. Please help me if you are able to. I appreciate it. Thanks! UWAFanatic05 (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup that rationale is fine, though there is still one 'large' problem, i.e.e the image size. It's way too large for a non-free image. It shouldn't be any larger than necessary, ie around 250 to 300 px on the longest side. I'd recommend that you resize it then upload it with the same filename so that it overwrites the existing image. Hope that helps. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Fred, thank you for telling me about the rationale. How can I resize the image? I was under the impression that if I resized it, when the image is clicked, it would not be big enough to view. I appreciate your help. I'm still trying to learn about these images. UWAFanatic05 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You will need to use an image editing program such as Irfanview, Photoshop and the like. The whole point of NFCC images under fair use is that they are low resolution and are sized at a level that they are large enough to see what the image is about (though not necessarily being able to see every fine detail) but to make copying it not worthwhile. Therefore it has to be the smallest size it can be whilst meeting that criteria. For a building 300px is plenty big enough to see what it looks like. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I can do that. Should I just go through on each of the images on the University of West Alabama page and make sure each resolution is changed? If so, I'll get that taken care of. UWAFanatic05 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the assigned deletion of my picture, but I don't know which copyright to use. I "made" the picture from a wallpaper that was free to download from the New Super Mario Bros. Wii Webiste. Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceMarioman (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know which specific one is best. The best thing you can do is look for similar images and nick the licence and FUR from that page and amend it to suit the image you uploaded. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!--Ice Mario!!! 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File:GammaPhiPetition.png and File:GammaPhiHouse4.jpg

Mind reviewing this now? I think I've added significant copyright information. Warbirdadmiral (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine. It did occur to me that it was a touch on the old side, but in the description you referred to an external website as the source with a recent date. I didn't intend downloading multi-megabyte PDFs to see what the copyright states of that site was. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And now this new one. I have the permissions to the file, and am the current owner of it. What would be the appropriate citation or reference on that? Thanks for your work. Warbirdadmiral (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This is where it gets confusing, if you own the copyright then you don't need permission, but if you don't own the copyright then you need to prove that you have permission of the copyright holder. I'm afraid you can't just say that you have their permission. The correct licence will depend on whether you received the copyright at the same time you gained ownership. Add to that what is it you actually own? As an example, I own a Pink Floyd poster but I don't own the copyright and therefore can't add it to Wikipedia without adding the correct fair use rationale and the appropriate licensing. Which basically means that I'm afraid I can't give you specific help as I don't know the exact circumstances. Only you can do that. Sorry. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know that I specifically prove that... and the information necessary *is* provided. I do own the picture, and the picture was never copyrighted in the first place (Situation was that my friend took it, and I use it as I administrate our chapter website). Since that is the case, would you mind removing the speedy deletion tag? Warbirdadmiral (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Technically it sounds like your friend is the holder of the copyright, not to mention the owners of the house. Though for the time being I placed a CCA licence on it. If it's not to your preference I'd suggest investigating the permutations found within the link in that licence template. I hope that helps. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Jamesnorrington380ppx.png

Hello Fred the Oyster. I see you tagged a file I just uploaded, File:Jamesnorrington380ppx.png, as failing WP:NFCC#1. Yes, you are certainly correct that the portraying actor, Jack Davenport, is still alive. However, I should like to take the opportunity to remind you that posters/screenshots of movie characters are almost never replaceable. Kindly remove the tag, or direct me somewhere a free version of the file may be found, and I shall happily delete File:Jamesnorrington380ppx.png. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So a fan taking a snap of the guy whilst filming was taking place is an unreasonable possibility? Thanks, but I'll let another admin decide. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That is not an answer to question I asked so I'll ask you again. Where can a replacement for this file be reasonably found? -FASTILY (TALK) 01:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
As you well know, the whereabouts of a free replacement is irrelevant. It's the fact that it could reasonably be expected to exist, and I think I gave a perfectly reasonable scenario as to how a replacement could exist. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And if what you say is true, File:JD Salinger.jpg should have been deleted three times in a row. At any rate Rodhullandemu has declined your egregious request. I see you're doing a lot of image tagging, which is always appreciated, however, consider reading up on WP:IUP, WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, WP:FUG, WP:PERMISSION, Commons:Commons:DW, Commons:Commons:FOP. You'll may be surprised by how little you know (not that that's a bad thing). -FASTILY (TALK) 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh I can assure you that at my age I am well aware of how much I don't know. I also know that the further one passes the buck the longer it takes to get back to you ;) Oh, as for Salinger, isn't there something erudite and philosophical written somewhere on the project about other stuff existing not being an argument, but I'm sure an upstanding and knowledgeable admin such as yourself knew that. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The title page is all over the public domain. The logo is simply an edited version of the title page.

I've already written my rationale in the file's description. A simple Google search will prove me correct.

Mystery Vox (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:FURG and familiarise yourself with it if you wish to upload copyrighted images. The fact it's on Google is irrelevant. I hope that helps. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still figuring out how to use this site and I appreciate the help. I decided to use the non-template style for the Fair Use policy and I'm hoping it's sufficient enough for the article. Let me know if it's not. Mystery Vox (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A template isn't required to be used so long as a reasonable reason is given for the existence of the image on the WP servers. Having said that, using templates can be quicker and it helps by not accidentally leaving anything important out as the template itself will prompt you for anything that's really needed once you save the page. As for figuring things out, that's no problem. We all had to do it. The deletion notice itself isn't a bollocking as such, just a combination of information and a heads up. The file wouldn't be deleted straight away unless it was a really obvious no-no. Have fun, and keep trying, it's the only way to get there :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, but I just wanted to know if the file itself was okay now. :D Mystery Vox (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a FUR template so you could see how it was done. Your words would have done, but they weren't ideal and at least now you'll know how the templates work ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks a lot! You rock, dude!!! Mystery Vox (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with Non-free fair use images

Hello, I am trying to add copyrighted images to display work done by a living artist. After reading the NFCC article I am beginning to think that is not possible. Is there any way to display copyrighted images as a reference for a living artists work on their page? Any guidance would be appreciate. Thanks for you help. Sdazet (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid there isn't really unless it's an iconic image and there are reliable and non-trivial 3rd party sources that link and discuss both the artist and the image. I'm afraid you'll never be able to use the article for a gallery of his work. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. If you don't mind taking a look, would an interview such as http://www.lettercult.com/archives/529 be consider non-trivial? Thanks again. Sdazet (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The link stands as a perfectly adequate reference to prose in the article, but not for images. As I said it would need to be a culturally iconic graphic, for example check out the Andy Warhol article. Even he doesn't get to have some of his iconic images there. Whatever NFCC images are put on an article have to be there to demonstrate something that cannot be said in words. And good as Mr Doret obviously is none of his graphics have made iconic status yet. As a struggling designer myself I understand what it's like, but this is after all an encyclopaedia, not a graphic design brochure. Words are the predominant media here, not graphics, and even less so copyrighted graphics. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thank you for your help. Sdazet (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fred, what's up?

Okay, I saw the tag, and reduced the image. Twice. It's in compliance, and doesn't need a tag. Why do you keep tagging it? AkankshaG (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read either the tag or the edit summary I left. That tag is there to show that you have reduced it, not to tell you to reduce it again. It's so admins can delete the old large versions of the files from the server. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems redundant, since I replaced the image. There isn't any use of the prior images, so there's no chance of violating any copyright claim, as the images are not displayed anywhere. AkankshaG (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
They aren't displayed, but they do remain on the server. This is why admins are referred to being "in charge of a broom". It's maintenance tasks like this that need doing. Once the file(s) has been deleted the admin dealing with it will remove the tag. A lot of things on WP may seem strange or "redundant", but strangely enough they are invariably required for one reason or another. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags on Michael Doret

Regarding maintenance tags, if I feel that I have done what is being asked (specifically the citation tag) is it fine to remove them or should this be done by a moderator? Thank you. Sdazet (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily if you feel you've met the demands of a maintenance tag you can remove it yourself. In this instance I removed it as you've done a pretty good job of referencing what needed it, there were a few claims that still need them though and I've highlighted then with a citation needed tag. I hope that helps you some. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Very helpful. Thanks again Fred! Sdazet (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD Declined - David Tyler

I have declined the speedy deletion of David Tyler as there was sufficient notability asserted in the article. WP:CSD#A7 only applies to articles where no notability has been asserted. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Stephen! Coming... 13:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fred- I am currently writing the article JFK Medical Center, and I have added the logo. I am confused as to why I am receiving the message- is the image marked for deletion, or was it just a waning that it is not in any articles? E2eamon (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's both. Although you have completed a FUR there isn't an article for it to go in. Any copyrighted images need a reason to exist on Wikipedia's servers and the FUR is giving the reason why you think it should exist it, but it only applies to the article you used in the FUR template. As that article doesn't exist then the FUR does not apply. If you are going to create the article, then you should do the article first then upload the relevant images. When the article exists the DI notice no longer applies so it is quite acceptable to delete it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks- I understand now. E2eamon (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Fred- thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page the other day. I really appreciate it. E2eamon (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion nomination of File:ChakrasColour.jpg

Hi, I've left a comment here about the above file. Please can you take a look? Thanks. Xxglennxx (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Fair use Image tags

You recently tagged, File:The Letter of Marque cover.jpg and File:Clarissa Oakes cover.jpg for not having rational. Book covers, especially ones not in hi resolution, are automatically in fair use as long as they are only used in the article directly related to it, see Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. There is no need to state any more rational. Sadads (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you are incorrect. There has to be a specific rationale for each and every article the NFCC image appears in. Please see WP:FURG. There are no automatic fair use rationales. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What are my rationals missing? Nothing, they have type, where they are used, where they are from, and are already in low resolution. Sadads (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


  • Article can be re-written and was already declined for deletion today. See other user's comments. Will re-submit an article from CNBC to address your concerns. However Ebony Magazine conducted an interview with the subject (with a full-paged PICTURE) but the interview is NOT available online. Is every interview in Ebony Magazine documented online. Pls. pick up actual copy because Reference is as follows: Adrienne P. Samuels, Sr. Editor Ebony Magazine. FindArticles.com. COPYRIGHT 2008 Johnson Publishing Co. COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning (Milanbijoux (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

SVG conversions of non-free logos

Perhaps I now understand why your response at the graphic lab was a bit touchy. You have participated in this activity. I really don't see the point. [2] vs [3] How is the SVG in any way superior to the first? Please use an objective eye. The typographical treatment in yours is nothing short of an insult to the original. The color difference is bizarre. The figure is missing a shape on its pants (plus some of the shapes are terrible approximations of the original. The half ying/yang shapes are too pointy in yours, as are the large marks at the top being too skinny. I'd like to hear why you think your version is better, but I'd urge you to reconsider your efforts with non-free logos, and instead focus towards free content. -Andrew c [talk] 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but please don't try to rope me into your soapboxing of your "pet peeve". If someone makes an image request, and I have the time, inclination and interest then I shall do my best to help with that request. May I suggest that as a sysop, and if you truly think that these images shouldn't be replicated as SVGs then shouldn't you be deleting those requests on sight? The requests for copyrighted logos that is. After all it's your pet peeve so why is it others should be making it happen? I don't make policy, I have no interest in what others think about my work, I come here to help, not to be criticised. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You're just not getting it. Administrators are always right, even when they're wrong. Bit like the fucking police really, but that's a story that will hopefully have its day in court. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
In some things I am indeed a slow learner, obstinate even!. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd bet you ain't even half as obstinate as me. I'm preparing a case against Trafford Council for installing traffic lights that don't meet the Department of Transport's recommendations in their 1996 1/06 Traffic Advisory Leaflet. I won't bore you with the details, but Trafford and the GMP have colluded in a scam to get traffic out of Manchester as quickly as they can, regardless of the consequences. Their time has come. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Not boring at all, I know a set of lights like that in Reddish. Main road: almost perfect traffic flow. Feeder road: half a mile tailback every working day rush hour. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ooo these wouldn't be the lights for Edge Lane at Stretford Mall would they, which appear green for about 7 seconds? Parrot of Doom 11:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not big brother, and I don't abuse my admin tools (or at least not knowingly, and I'd welcome constructive criticism in that department), so I think Malleus' comments are a bit off base. I'm not here waving an admin stick. I wasn't trying to put you down or criticize for spiteful reasons. I apologize if it came off like that. I just think that this is an important issue (and others at WT:NFCC seem to be in agreement). And since it may effect your work, I'd like to dialog with you regarding it (especially if we revert back to the official images, and yours get deleted). I'd like to explain why I (shall I say "we") believe that line of work is counterproductive, and hopefully encourage you to share your talents in other ways (especially regarding free content). If you like SVG conversions, check out the 1000+ images in Category:Images that should be in SVG format. I'd be glad to leave you alone from this point on, as you don't seem to care what others think of your work. Just wonder if that will change when others think your work should be deleted.-Andrew c [talk] 02:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to abuse your admin bit. All you have to do is go through the images you disagree with and either remove them from the workshop page or remove the {{vectorize}} or {{ShouldbeSVG}} tag from logos you think shouldn't be converted. As regards the images I have already created, to answer your point, no I don't care if they're deleted or not. The reason I am doing this is to learn. In real life I am a designer in the pixel realm. I want to move out into the vector realm but need lots of experience on the technical aspects of Illustrator before I can concentrate on the creative aspects. So basically I am using these images to teach myself and gain experience manipulating vector images. So for me it's the journey, not the destination that counts. This is why I have no interest in what people think of the images I create. At this moment in time I am not interested in perfection, just the techniques involved, such as creating complicated compound shapes and using pathfinder functions. These are the elements that are giving me the most trouble in my adaptation. So please don't ascribe your values to me, I have reasons that you are totally unaware of. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hamdija Custovic

Can you please help me and put the right template or should i upload a image in the wikimedia commons.I have no idea what i am doing wrong but the picture is my work.I'm new here.I tried to correct it a few times but all the templates seem to be wrong.Thank you Malamala82 (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malamala82 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If indeed the picture is your own work, then you would need to prove that. Normally that's done by using the original image from the camera so that it maintains its EXIF data. The correct licences would be either one of the Creative Commons variations or a GFDL licence. You can find information here. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you please check if it is ok now.Thanks a lot :)Malamala82 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Perfect :) You can just leave the other one and it will automatically be deleted. Thanks for taking the time to get it right, it's much appreciated. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Finally lol :) Thanks a lot for your help! Malamala82 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Melinda-gordon-gw.jpg

Is this file now meeting the Non-rational etc etc etc. Having made it up in quite a hurry, i merely forgot all about it so i would appriciate it, if you could make sure it is ok now. Thanks DonnaNoble08 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Stanley John Olsen.jpg

Hello. It was at least a week ago that the Arizona State Museum emailed permissions for this file to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I don't know what is needed of me beyond this to make this legit. Wikipedia hasn't replied to at least two of these emails, to my knowledge. Please do not force a deletion of this file when Wikipedia's bureaucracy is not allowing for its legitimization.

I appreciate your efforts to support Wikipedia and I mean no disrespect to you whatsoever.

Kotoku (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Likewise I appreciate your efforts and I did not perceive any disrespect. Unfortunately until OTRS authorise it then the rules apply I'm afraid. This isn't a life or death thing so there's no rush even if this one is deleted, once the authorisation goes through then it's a simple matter of re-uploading it. What I'd suggest doing in the meantime though is go to Wikipedia talk:Requesting copyright permission and bring up the matter there. The OTRS volunteers there will be able to do the necessary. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:IAAF logo.svg

A tag has been placed on File:IAAF logo.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip [i.e. a Word document or PDF file] that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You contacted me at 7:09 pm (UTC) today (26/02/2010) saying that File:DualShock3.png was missing copyright information. I think this is either incorrect or I am misunderstanding what is missing. The image is created by me (I photographed my controller and edited out the background) and is licenced under with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License, and is labeled as such (with the template for said licence). Am I misunderstanding what is needed? Is there a specific tag or something which needs to be added for it be considered legitimate? Please clarify AlphathonTM (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot take a photograph of a copyrighted object in the manner you have done and then claim copyright on it yourself. If you had used the object in some obvious and creative way then that could possibly be okay, but the way you've done it is no-no I'm afraid. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there a page you can send me to which states this? As far as I am aware that is not the case, and if it were then surelly all identifying pictures on Wikipedia (pictures of products etc) would be disallowed. Copyright law is there to prevent people, companies etc from duplicating something. I have not done this. What is on there is not a duplication of an existing work, but a representation of it. I shall look into it, but please reply if you can provide such evidence taht this is no allowed.AlphathonTM (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, a quick search has turned up that I am indeed in the right here - Image_use_policy#User-created_images. It clearly states "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright, though others may continue to hold copyright in items depicted in such photographs". Therefore the copyright of the PHOTO lies with me, with the copyright of the CONTROLLER lies with (presumably) SCEI. The "creativity" in this case the creation of the photograph. From reading this I also notice that it may need the trademark tag, for use of the Sony and PlayStation logos, but it would seem that that the photos copyright lies with me. AlphathonTM (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) In technical terms what your photograph is is what is called a "derivative work", the only creative input you have given to it is to choose the angle at which it was taken and remove the background (the one thing you could have claimed copyright on as it happens). A derivative work cannot take over the copyright from the original copyright holder. You could try to declare it as a copyrighted image and then seek to use a fair use rationale though that would depend on how the image was being used. Try asking at WP:FAQ/Copyright. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not a derivitive work. It is not based upon an existing work, nor is it derived from one. As I said, Image_use_policy#User-created_images clearly states "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright". The work in question is an image. The image is not derived from the 3D object that is the controller. I shall pose the question of who the copyright holder is there and see what they say. AlphathonTM (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, where do you suggest I ask about this? Is the talk page a suitable place? regardless, this further reinforces my point - Copyright#Derivative_worksAlphathonTM (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Alphathon is probably right. Not everything can be or is copyrighted, and I'm certain there's no copyright on that controller. The only copyright here is the copyright on the photo. Quoting from one of the articles on copyright: "copyright is a legal concept that gives the creator of a work the exclusive right to use that work for a limited time", a situation that just doesn't apply here. The only conceivable copyright that could be breached with this controller is if someone began to produce copies based on Sony's design drawings of it. But the copyright breach then would be of the copyright on the drawings, not the controller. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. By extension your (Fred the Oysters) rationalle would suggest that the copyright of any 2D creative work (photgraph, drawing, painting etc.) of a copyrighted item would be property of the copyright holder of said item (for example this image would become property of SCEI). I believe the logos themselves are covered under the trademark tag anyway (which I have added since discovering it). AlphathonTM (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Sony and PS3 logos do raise a question, however. Parrot of Doom 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Now the logos I can at least undertand as possible infringment, being 2d works being reproduced in a 2D medium. However, are they not covered as trademarks as long as they are tagged as such? Apart form anything else this should not have been tagged for Speedy Deletion, at least in the way it was (missing licence tags). The closest reasoning I can find is "F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement", but as this is clearly ambiguous, should at least be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files. AlphathonTM (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It should also be noted that for new copyright to apply to the image, there does not have to be some obvious and creative way in which the item is used. It simply has to be creative (i.e. the process from original to final involves creation - in this case of an image which did not exist before). Of course the new copyright is only on the new creation, but in this case (the creation of an image) that makes the image my property. The controller itself (the original copyright) has not been copied, only represented. A good anaolgy would be if a newspaper mentions something that happened on a TV show. They aren't reproducing it, they are representing it in a different medium (as long as they are paraphrasing, not directly quoting the whole script). AlphathonTM (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Jake Hovin is a ****

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

-FASTILY (TALK) 02:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The proper citation date for Mason's book Inside Out

Mason's book was first copywrited in 2004, but first published in 2005. According to WP standards, editors use the publication date, not the copywrite date in citations. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

"Book: author(s), book title, publisher, date of publication, and page number(s) if appropriate."

GabeMc (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, it was first PUBLISHED in the UK in 2004. How many more times? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Right on, I see now, Weidenfeld & Nicolson October 7th, 2004. That's what I originally thought as well. GabeMc (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Hii Fred, i cannot upload anymore images, it says you have blocked it, this is quite distressing for me as i have not finished my article yet and need to finish uploading the pictures. I don't understand what has happend, the images i have used are mostly my own from my own camera, the ones which are not mine i have cited refercences, please let me know what is going on so i am able to finish my article, thanks xx

Firstly I haven't blocked anything, I'm not an admin so don't have the power to. As for the situation you find yourself in, well all I can say is that you ignored the copyright warnings, along with the information they hold, and continued to upload files that weren't in line with Wikipedia policies. Please read up on WP:ICT before attempting to upload any more. If you have any problems understanding, what can be a quite confusing procedure, please ask for any help on the talk page of that article. The editors who hand round there know far more than I do. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Joseph Stack in Billy Eli Band.jpg

Are you a real person or a bot (or both)? You were on that photo so fast I thought it must be a bot.

I've added a fair use rationale. I've never done that before, can you look at it please? Also, is it ok to use it in the article in the meantime? (already there) Also, can you delete the higher res version if needed? - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably a bit of both, but as fars as the FUR goes, it seems okay to me, but I'm no expert beyond whether an image needs one or not. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Scrabble

Thanks for continuing to work on my other requests. Sometimes fights find me here (comparing our talkpages, we're of similar temperaments) ;) , but I never intend to fight with you. You do great work and it is much appreciated. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I didn't consider it a fight, not even close to being one. I disagreed with you that's all. You disagreed with me. That's how things go. It certainly wouldn't prevent me from helping out with your requests, if I can manage to do what you request that is :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask (and I know I'm pushing)-your Girl Guide images, black and all, are improvements over what we currently have, and yours are more correct. If you have free rein to use your judgment, remove bordering where you see it unnecessary but leave it in where it makes sense to you, would you be willing to have a go at the remaining GG emblems? You do great work and it is good for Wikipedia. Thanks either way. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry mate, I had intended to reply sooner, but I have a memory like a sieve and get easily distracted. When I get a chance I'll have a stab at a few more. At the moment I'm mulling over a possible design for your latest request. I'm a bit tied up at the moment as some deadlines are getting close, as is the mither from some clients. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have the same short atten-hey look, something shiny over there! I'm back, where was I? Take your time, I am just glad you're willing to give them another chance. This month, the focus for the Scouting project is Girl Guiding and Scouting, sorely lacking on the 'pedia. I've written most of the national articles, but source material is hard to come by, so it's nice to at least have them looking good and putting the best face on. Thanks! Now I have to look up mither. ;) --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster/Archive_1&oldid=1136187404"