User talk:Ed g2s/Archive13

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

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

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

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" ([1]: 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have replied to your message [2] on my talk page. Thank you. BigDT 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. -DoctorW 23:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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