User talk:Ed g2s/Archive19

jobbies, and some template stuff. great fun. technically work as its gearing me up to use C right?? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image_talk:Mbragg1.jpg and there is a reply (identical) on his talk page. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First you threaten vandalism. Then you WP:Stalk me and protect another user's vandalism, apparently just to lash out at me. You seem bent on disruption. I ask that you stop this immediately. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAME. Admin status does not exist so one can retalliate against one's perceived opponents. By "protecting" the page, you left vandalism intact, which is not constructive. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've now gone digging through images I've posted, in order to challenge them. You even went through the article on Fashion House, even though that series did not even air in the UK. In just two days:

1. You disrupt and remove my contribution without discussion, consensus or a clear justification.

   Enforcing policy does not require consensus, nor is it disruptive.

2. I challenge this action and you dare me to take you into arbitration.

   I invited you to seek the opinion of a third party as you clearly didn't believe me.

3. You take my words and quote them out of context on a high-traffic talk page, along with your dare. This thinly-veiled mockery resulted in a personal attack being directed at me by an unrelated person.

   Your comment was give in context, underneath my original post. I was inviting further input as you had not seeked it yourself. I am not responsible for other users' conduct.

4. You dig around and interject yourself into an unrelated edit dispute, about which you know nothing.

   I protected a page being edit-warred on, knowledge of the dispute is not required. I did not get involved in the dispute.

5. You lock the disputed page, which freezes another editor's vandalism, then arrogantly dismiss both parties.

   There was no vandalism, please read WP:VANDAL for a definition. I did not dismiss any argument.

6. Your talk page contains comments about how I am "lame" and an unrelated person is an "ass."

   Again, I am not responsible for other users' conduct.

7. You start multiple (and, I believe, spurious) free content disputes on several of my contributions, about which there were no previous complaints.

   You uploaded multiple replaceable unfree images.

8. As a "sysop," you have more power over the system than I do -- and evidently your believe you can get away with this because of status and "policy."

   I believe I can enforce policy, as can any other user, admin or not. I am just as accountable as any other user, so if you still think I have done something wrong, feel free to report it as I see nothing wrong with my actions. ed g2s • talk 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, this clearly fits the category of WP:STALK or WP:HARASS and possibly WP:POINT and WP:GAME. The rules apply to "sysops" too. Please cease and desist. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sufficient response. You are not "enforcing policy." All of your statements above are either false or misleading, but time and space do not permit me to answer them in full. You have singled me out for abuse because I challenged you on a debatable matter of interpretation. You give no apologies, nor do you seem to understand the disruption you are creating. You clearly do not believe the rules apply to you, as you are carrying out a chain of harrassing actions. You refuse to see anything wrong with your actions. Please stop and think, then try to come to an aimiable resolution of this matter. Yakuman (数え役満) 17:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_The_Mighty_Boosh_episodes?? I'm pretty sure you'll say they have to go - I'm just checking ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cool - i'll do it soon, Ive left a message in the talk page and if noone complains then ill just do it. On a separate note, that guy has a real axe to grind about free use policy and driving things forwards. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just ignore it. He can complain all he likes as long as he doesn't start re-uploading images, or edit-warring again. ed g2s • talk 19:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I think we both need to start working. But first things first, poker tonight. ed g2s • talk 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know - i'm just knobbing around here. About 400 edits in the last 3 days is a bit too much I think. I've got no idea what was up that guys ass but he's shut up now... best of luck and all. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Up that guys ass?" Please read WP:POINT and WP:AGF at your earliest convenience. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your contention that fair use images ought to be deleted before a free replacement is found? If so, where is this codified in policy/guidelines? What is the correct, community-approved procedure for such action? Feel free to reply on my talk page or here. Thanks, DickClarkMises 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:FUC#1 and the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. The reasoning being that the unfree material is allowed, it will discourage people from finding a free replacement. ed g2s • talk 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia foundation resolution that you cite states that existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists. You seem to be circumventing community participation is such a process and deleting in spite of objections. Hence, your deletions seem to be to be unilateral actions that are not under the umbrella of said resolution. Can you show me a Wikipedia policy which enjoys community support that says that this means of deleting fair use images is correct? If not, we need to develop a process. DickClarkMises 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you agree that if Sobran died tomorrow that the image that you deleted could be restored? What about for individuals who are missing but presumed alive? DickClarkMises 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says there has to be a process, not that you should unilaterally create a template that lends the appearance of process to actions that you take independently of community oversight. The process, in order to be legitimate, should allow the community to weigh in on whether the rationale offered for a particular fair use image is acceptable. You appear to be gaming the system to me. You say The en policy is to speedy delete non-compliant images after 48 hours. As you know, the speedy delete policy allows for a 48-hour deletion turnaround for "invalid fair-use claims." Others are contesting your pronouncement of the invalidity of these images, and so speedy deletion is inappropriate and gives the appearance of bullying, especially to a relative newcomer like Yakuman. I think that you need to carefully lay out the rationale for your actions, rather than soldier on as if this project did not require collaboration with others. Whatever your mission is, it isn't more important than maintaining community involvement in the encyclopedia project. DickClarkMises 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I asked the person who owns this if he would release the copyright to it and he agreed, but I don't know how to do that so could you tell me? The guy has said that he's happy to do whatever he needs to to release the copyright. Cheers mate. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr page seem to have vanished. Flickr has options to release images under Creative Commons licenses. He'd have to choose cc-by or cc-by-sa (if he uses nc (non-commercial) and/or nd (non-derivs) we can't use it). Any evidence of him saying he wants the images available under some specific free license will do, but emailing permissions at wikimedia is the best way. Also make sure it is a DVD screencap... ed g2s • talk 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've obviously knobbed this whole thing up. shigh. the image is here, and the guy said he'll release it. whats this about dvd??? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, how do you link to en from commons???) ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of Rachel Morris - for flips sake. Sorry mate, I just guessed that the guy had a really good seat, and a good camera. Never mind - I'll find a free one with your tool (if I use that I can just upload and stick on the cc template right?).

when you link to en, does it come up as en:Some Page?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ...adam... (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thought so. Bit lame but I can live - just checking that I didn't miss a neat trick. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be useful - i need a 24 hour break. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. This has been on my mind for a little while, but I was wondering why the replaceable fair use images had now been split with the introduction of your new template bak in February. What exactly is the significance of this template in regards to the other one, as it makes the backlog appear much larger, though it's probably not. I guess what I'm asking is was there a discussion on your rfu2 template I missed, or did you just go and add it? Since the addition of it, the backlog is now immense and quite intimidating to admins. I'm not opposed to it or anything, just wondering why it was created really.--Wizardman 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks.--Wizardman 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:NASA Worm logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to SVG, speedy deleted. ed g2s • talk 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get your input on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Flatout2 scr2.jpg? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the comments on the talk page and respond and gain consensus before changing a widely-used and accepted template. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to dispute the fair use claim on Image:019.jpg on the grounds that the specific use is not spelled out in the fair use rationale and another user is acting like I have no right to do so. Would you mind giving your opinion on the matter. Jay32183 05:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Jay means to say is: "Please come to my aid, I ran into a disagreement, and your immediate intervention is necessary to intimidate the opposing party." To be clear: aside from bad faith accusations of vandalism and disruption, Jay has put absolutely no effort in dispute resolution. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed,

apologies in advance if you are not the person I should address this to:

The shipwreck had been underwater for just under 95 years at the time of the photo.

The RMS Titanic entry, though, seems to state that the photo is from a 1985 French expedition, which would give about 1985 - 1912 = 73 years. And, of course, 95 years would mean instead that the photo has been taken this year. Which one?

Thanks, Gennaro Prota^•Talk 11:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the RfAr I was talking about - if you're interested. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the album with the cover of Radiohead on it: Version_(album). Trivia - love it. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reply to my comments on Talk:The_Police#Fair_Use? Thanks in advance! Kind regards, Maartenvdbent 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no copyvio in the image you recently deleted.--Kamikaze 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, it was entirely different from the "free promo photo" and the only problem with it was just I licensed it by mistake as "fair use". And, actually it wasn't the lost logo. It was a image created by me, its source being a self-taken image, precisely a screenshot. No one holds the copyright over a "I hate Lost" image.--Kamikaze 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{DVDcover}} only has one criteria for using the image under fair-use, and that is "to illustrate the DVD in question". Doesn't this effectively open the door to simply allowing fair-use image galleries of DVD covers; or simply allowing people to use DVD covers to decorate any "DVD releases" section w/o any comment or critical commentary?

I realize that WP:NFCC#8 prohibits doing so, but the template counters it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I realize!  :^) But shouldn't the template be amended to comply with policy? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, I would suggest keeping both ids for backwards compatibility, at least during a couple of months. -- ReyBrujo 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me Image:NGC 4414 (NASA-med).jpg is a non free image and cannot be used on userpages? Check the file links please.--Kamikaze 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, I know you are very involved in enforcing proper use of sports logos. I'm having issues regarding that at 2007 NHL Entry Draft which has also spilt onto my talk page. ccwaters 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got

“

All images on our Image Bank are copyright and cost free. Regards Rob Walton DipM ACIM E-Marketing Manager Marketing Communications Yorkshire Forward

”

What licence, if any, would this be classed as then? Or is it a no go? Cheers mate ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...adam... on commons is too close to adam apparently - so it wouldn't let me have it. But commons:User:Adam hasn't edited since August 2005 - fancy deleting it and moving me to commons:...adam...?

Was it a late one last night then? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cast your eye over the pix at Norwich City F.C.. Thanks! --Dweller 09:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is great because it's still gobbledigook to me and I'm keen to learn more about image licensing. Let's take this slowly. With the coat of arms, how would I create a free version? With the photo, I'm not the original author, but I have the original author's permission by email to use the photo freely. --Dweller 10:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dweller"