User talk:Ed g2s/Archive9

I noticed you removed logos from 2005-06 ECHL season citing fair-use policy. Just a heads up that the ECHL article is the same. I'd do it myself but I'm off to dreamland. Also, didn't realize that it wasn't fair use (I added a team's logo to existing info). Does fair-use cover articles about a sports team? (see my article on the Florida Everblades) Thanks for your time. -- Bladeswin | Talk to me | 02:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the logo should only really be used on the page about the team. Fair use has to add significantly to an article, and illustrate the subject of the text. ed g2s • talk 08:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general line of thought right now is that the logos will be removed, but we want a few days to complete stubs first. I've already got about 20% of them done this afternoon including all 10 Tier-II Junior "A" leagues and the 3 OHA Junior "B" leagues. I have about another 30 leagues to do, but none of them will be overly challenging. I will probably have them covered in the next 2-3 days. The request of the Wikiproject is that you leave it us though. A lot of us were not happy with how you handled some of our articles -- it is hard to make stubs when we can't find the link location for our logos because you keep deleting them before we can get stubs set up -- so, please leave it to us. I'm sure you'll find that the edits will be sufficient once completed.

This is an example of what the leagues should look like when I am done: Ontario Provincial Junior A Hockey League

As you will see, the league logo is the only logo on the league page and an individual team logo, appearing once, on each team page. I have been pounding away at this problem for the past 6 hours, so I am going to bed. I hope that you respect our wishes... if you do, you will see that the situation is fixed up. When this is complete I will be doing my box lacrosse leagues too, please leave those to me as well... I already know what I want to do with them. DMighton 07:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that, among other articles, this is only one of a few many articles you've edited. But did you check any information at all? Do you have any idea what you even edited? Chris Terry, a player for the Plymouth Whalers. Did you do any research as to who he is? His statistics are off, and his birthday was off too. All of the information was good and easily checked. Also, as I can see, you remove a lot of logos from things. Why? Doesn't it just make it easier to read and understand? What is the purpose of that?

Check your facts and help make Wikipedia easier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.11.202.209 (talk • contribs) .

I did not change any statistics or data. Using logos to decorate a table is not fair use. ed g2s • talk 13:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of the tables is getting messed up by your edits, resulting in parts of the infobox loosing formatting, entire portions of text getting removed, etc. You might want to actually take a look at one of the infoboxes prior to editing, and then see how it looks after the edit. Snickerdo 19:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still sort of new here, so why can't I put other shows'/movies' pictures on my profile page? It says in my history that you got rid of them - Zone46 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted images can occasionally be used under "fair use", but this does not include decorating your user page. See WP:FU for more information. ed g2s • talk 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info - Zone46 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed you added the borderless style for wikitables to MediaWiki:Common.css. I'm no css expert, but I've recently updated template:Infobox U.S. state so that the "grouped" rows are actual rows but without row borders (but with vertical cell separators). Doing this in a specific template seems a little ugly (and border-top doesn't seem to work with IE in a TR). Do you think toprow and mergedrow styles might be generally useful? If you could easily do this (or can think of other alternatives), I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, if you're a fan of Aussie rules, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL (join by adding your name to the list of participants). Also take a look at Category:VFL/AFL players and feel free to drop me a line with any questions, or on the WP:AFL discussion page. Cheers!

Rogerthat ^Talk 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You removed a link to one of my photographs from the Cologne article and also removed the copyright tag I added to this photograph from the picture's page:

1. What was wrong with the copyright template I used?
2. I added one of the new copyright tags. Is it OK now?
3. If not, what kind of info do I have to add (it's my own picture for ...'s sake)

and how do I do it, i.e. how can I change the content of that stupid template?

Some help please, if possible not in that judicial language... mr-t 17:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your license specified "free to use unchanged". Wikipedia requires that images are free to use for any use and allowed to be modified. ed g2s • talk 17:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

What you told me about licenses sounds like utter nonsense. Why did we have such a copyright tag (also called fair use at the time) for ages on wikipedia?

Why did this change all of a sudden? If you decide to remove images based on this argument, I seriously consider removing all my previous text contributions as well. Otherwise, please answer my questions or provide me with a copyright template that expresses my wish to contribute the picture and have it used according to the fair use policy.

Thanks for any help with keeping up the standards of articles!

mr-t 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairuse is a different matter. You tagged the image as CopyrigthedFreeuse, which is wasn't. Fairuse can only be used when there is no free alternative, and seeing as we already have free pictures of the cathedral, there is no need for a restrictively licensed image. ed g2s • talk 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, "Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images, but all user-created images must be released under a free license" (from WP:IUP). Thanks, ed g2s • talk 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your taste and professionalism... and very much on interpretation. There is no Cologne Cathedral from that side of the river at sunset. So, no alternative, right? :)

mr-t 17:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the photos available are adequate replacements for yours, no matter how you interpret it. Regardless, the above rule about user-created images makes the debate irrelevant. Either freely license your images, or don't upload them to Wikimedia. ed g2s • talk 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. Didn't I say the picture's free to use? Fair use is no copyright, it's a protection for alteration. remove personal attack. If I remove the copyright from the licensing part of the picture everything should be alright, even if I leave the copyright on the picture... freedom of the artist. As I (and many other main contributors to this article) liked the picture, I'll put it there again. Thanks for wasting my time...

mr-t 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing fair use and free use. You may not tag your own images as fair use. You may tag your images as free use, but you may not require that the image not be modified, as this is not free use. Unless you allow your image to be re-used freely (including modification), then we can't use it on Wikimedia. ed g2s • talk 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confusing anything. You seem to keep harassing people, at least that's what I make up from looking at your log here. I have now taken away all copyright notices on the picture and only added a request not to modify (which is not binding!). This is legally OK and it surely complies with any wikipedia policy (which is not the holy grale by the way). If you keep bugging other authors and articles with your changes, I'll need to report this. :(

mr-t 06:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not confusing anything."

Well you said "Fair use is no copyright, it's a protection for alteration.", which seems to indicate otherwise.

"You seem to keep harassing people, at least that's what I make up from looking at your log here."

Then perhaps you should look at my replies. A lot of people leave angry/confused messages on my page as I remove a lot of images which are incorrectly being used under fair use.

"I have now taken away all copyright notices on the picture and only added a request not to modify (which is not binding!). This is legally OK"

Yes, this is fine. The problem was it looked like your request was a legally binding part of the license.

"If you keep bugging other authors and articles with your changes, I'll need to report this"

I will continue to inform users when their images are incorrently/insufficiently tagged. You may report this is you like, but it would be a spectacular waste of time.

Nonetheless, I am glad this issue has been cleared up and you have licensed the image freely. I have updated the image page appropriately, please check if this is what you intended: Image:Cologne Cathedral Wiki.jpg. ed g2s • talk 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, noticed you removed the decoration from the VFL/AFL players subcats. Was wondering if you could revert them sans the logos - I don't understand why you removed the whole thing when the logo only needs to be removed under fair use laws...Rogerthat ^Talk 02:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For accessibility reasons, coloured text should be avoided where possible, and only used when necessary. Applying it to large sections of text looks messy, although if you really think it helps identify the team, you could probably find a compromise. ed g2s • talk 09:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you changing the colour of the text but not the removal of the borders. Rogerthat ^Talk 11:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could put them back if you really think it's worth it - but almost all other category pages use just text, like plain articles. ed g2s • talk 12:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to express my distaste for the global change made instating checkered backgrounds on all transparent images that (apparently) you made (see history of MediaWiki:Common.css on March 29. I don't see the practical use of this for 99% of users, other than making transparent diagrams and the like cluttered with visual texture that doesn't add anything. In a simple line-based diagram, the checkers really conflict (IMO). In any other image, they're just useless and make the site look unfinished and unprofessional. It doesn't seem like the decision was made based on any sort of consensus either. Put simply, I don't see how this contributes anything useful to Wikipedia - what does the average user care whether the image is transparent or not? It is very clear how it detracts, however. Anyone that finds such a feature useful can easily implement it with their user-specific CSS, as I have currently implemented a reversion of this change, so why force this on everyone?--Ktims 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The background was copied from the Commons where it has been very successful. For the cases where it does cause a problem, it is much easier to click on the image to see it on a white background, that in it is to load it up in an image editor to see the transparency, were we not to have it. If you like, take it up on the talk page, but I get the feeling that more people like it than dislike it, and so it should be enabled by default. ed g2s • talk 14:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My main objection in that case is with SVG images. Wikipedia's SVG rendering is already bad enough (and seems to have gotten worse lately :|), but it's better than none at all in a browser that doesn't support it. Thanks for the reply :)--Ktims 14:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, although diagrams in SVG should be suitable filled in - so the background shows us where these files need to be fixed... ed g2s • talk 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games the topic of screenshot galleries on video game consoles. Thunderbrand has indicated that you have been removing them from articles. Please state your reasoning. --larsinio (poke)^(prod)

Please STOP reverting galleries until this issue is discussed and resolved. And how about you help write the fair use rationale for these images? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you add comentary or give peopel a chance to add it, before removing it? You just trying to get me to violate 3RR--larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were not finding loopholes, were trying to adequately explain a topic. the CVG space depends oupon fair use, there is no free content when itcopmes to screenshots. And its an open issue, which is not settled. can you just temporarily hault all until there is a community consensus? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore it is your opinion that the jsutification given is just a way to "cheat" the system. I personalyl do not think you have enough information about the CVG aspect to this to justify what is and what is not fair use. "Fair use, ill know it when i see it" right, something like that? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) this is not the german wikipedia, 2) a game article without a screenshot showing it is usless IMO. 3) It is established that CVG screenshots are valid type of fair use material. 4) The question is do you think screenshots are useful in explaining the capabil.iteis of a video game console? If the answer is yes then the effort shoudl be focused on not mass deleting, but on implementing the images in teh proper manner; i.e. contextual references and fair use rationale--larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the images are not equivalent. At the leas tthe image showing the back of the console is not duplicated anywhere, and is quite important in the hardware section of the article. It's pretty obvious to see that --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:CRT color enhanced.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

A great job. Congratulations! ~ Veledan • Talk 19:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth did you make that 2006 FIFA World Cup map with the referency-things and the links and what's not? Did you use an application to give tou those x,y co-ordinates? Out of curiousity, what was it? +Hexagon1 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the coordinates from the original (Image:Wm2006.png) just by using Paint Shop Pro. Any image editor will tell you which pixel you are pointing at. Once I logged all those I divided them by the width to give normalised coordinates (so it can be rescaled), then a bit of CSS hacking (see {{tl:Image label}}) to overlay the labels. ed g2s • talk 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the logo from the infobox in there? It is supposed to show what the project's infobox looks like, and that can't be done without the image. I'm unaware of any policy that states fair use only applies in the main space; can you point it out to me? -- 9cds^(talk) 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:FUC. ed g2s • talk 15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a decoration it is meant to show the teams of those years and to showcase the history of the CFL. But if the logos have to be deleted then you have to organize it better like how I did it in the 1950's seasons of the CFL, not leave it messy and disorganized. Also I used the logos to show which players played for who and you deleted the logos, but did not write down the team names beside those players as a replacement, instead they are players representing nobody.

If you want to also delete Grey Cup logos and league logos then go to the NFL section and delete that sections Super Bowl logos and the league emblem and see what type of reaction you will get. Bestghuran - talk 9:56 PACIFIC, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If the team logos have to be removed that is fine, because it is in the rules, but you should have to organize the pages better than just remove the logos and then I have to fix up 40 years of CFL seasons. Also by looking at other sports pages and seeing that you are an avid sports fan from looking at your site you should know that other pages have their league emblems and Finals emblems showcased. Also I would feel much better that you should have discussed with me the issue before going delete crazy. Now, it already happened, but next time from sports fan to sports fan, discuss your concern or any violations with me first, because most likely I don't know, but also tell me so that I could manage the CFL pages better than the way you did it within Wikipedia rules.

Oh yeah, speaking of I don't know, what is the sig that I should fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bestghuran (talk • contribs) .

What's with the copyright paranoia regarding sports teams logos? I understand fair use but this seems a little overboard. Is there a discussion somewhere supporting these measures you are taking or are you being bold? — GT 20:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not copyright paranoia, the images are not illustrating the article and are therefore not usuable as fair use. See WP:FU. ed g2s • talk 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said "I understand fair use" so I was hoping for a more specific explanation. The logos illustrate the article as those teams are central to the event in question. I don't see any hard limits or requirements in the policy or guideline pages as to which sports articles permit the use of logos so I was wondering if you could point me to a discussion where this was decided. — GT 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images are serving only a decorative purpose, they are not adding anything to the article other than providing a visual identifier for some of the discussed teams. For fair use an image must add significantly to an article. ed g2s • talk 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FUC1:

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."

The names of the teams provides the information that the teams are important to the article.

FUC8:

"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

As discussed above.

ed g2s • talk 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks. — GT 22:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really should ban yourself from removing WP:FU. That edit is totally uncalledfor--E-Bod 05:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ed_g2s, your argument is extremely subjective. Wikipedia makes it clear that sports logos are generally okay from a legal point of view (most of the time). The subjectivity happens when you make assertions to the effect that the logos serve only as "eye candy". In North America, sports teams are associated witrh their logos in such a way that I'm sure many people strongly identify the logo as part of the team (as much so as the team name). In other words, I think an argument can be made that the logos significantly add to the comprehension of the list, in that the logo is as much an identifier of the team as anything else, and then might warrant a strong place in the list. So unless you can find a stronger legal ground for removing the images, I don't think you should edit any more without a discussion with the editors of the pages, as this is an issue that can be argued both ways. People like me will argue that they are important for the understanding of the subject, and you argue that they are decorative... who wins here? This isn't a black and white issue. Arch26 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you have an issue with a picture in a user's page, why not ask the user first? Cjrs 79 21:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how having a discussion each time I see a violation of the fair use policy is going to be anything other than a waste of time. I don't mean to be rude, but it's just a routine housekeeping task. ed g2s • talk 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ignore that - I thought I had removed a fair use image from your page. I rolled back my santa edits when I found a free image to replace it on the commons. I should probably run the bot again as the original implementation was using frame, making the images huge now. ed g2s • talk 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

Sports logos (and corporate logos) are almost always considered fair use (see Wikipedia:Fair Use) on Wikipedia as long as they conform to Wikipedia:Logos. The images that you deleted from Edmonton, Alberta did not appear to contradict any of these policies or guidlines in a manner that could be considered unacceptable. --Arch26 00:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You are the first person to bother me about Fair use. Don't you have some main space articles to edit? Anyway Out of all the things you want to find couldn't you have found something less nuanced. your edit doesn't make much seance. OK So you Couldn't find any fair use violations so you had to dig into not only my user page but a user sub page. And this is an image that links to the sight at hand so it should qualify as Fair use because it is a link to uncyclopedia. If you didn't know this is a joke sight. you should see Help:Fair Use and Uncyclopedia:Copyrights. Both Wikipedia and uncyclopedia have a comon ownership. Please fix all the templates you are breaking. This was part of a template. It was deleted becose uncyclopedia is not a sister sight, however the template was not removed because it was a fair use violation. Do you really think anybody would mind. The immage is a derivative work of the wikipidia logo and uncyclopedia cou;dn't care less let alone we are stepsister projects. Don't go fair use crazzy on everybody youu see. your proprity sholud be to fix artiles not anow the peple fixing artilces.--E-Bod 05:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. I Included a fair use image of sponge bob on my unabridged user box page. I left a coment about it on my own talk page and nobody commented on it. Yous said earlier that You need some wikilove. you are so asking for some personal attacks. I mean really it's not on my userpage. We are allowed to have our own personal sandbox on our userspace subpages. Please undo your edits. You might irratate alot of good faith wikpidians in the name of anti-fair use on images that . I mean really you can't bear to leave a comment on our talk pages becose you need to effectivly remolve all fair use from userspace even if the image is fairly being used. Don't edit in absoluts. I'll go back and spellcheck latter.--E-Bod 05:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the immage is not only fair but CC share alike [1]. So we are free to use it.

Take that [2] WP:FU in your Face--E-Bod 05:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take that [3]--E-Bod 05:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Do you get my WP:POINT. It is really anoying when people do this--E-Bod 05:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my message to Travb? [4] --Ligulem 11:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image are not allowed outside the main article namespace, see WP:FUC. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 11:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post any image. I wrote a message (text) on Travb's talk page. What is wrong with that? --Ligulem 11:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Must have been an edit conflict. ed g2s • talk 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um. <joke mode on>You need nearly three hours for an edit? :P <joke mode off>. Nevermind. No harm done. Have a nice day. --Ligulem 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, no idea how that happened then. Sorry. ed g2s • talk 11:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic, as one person wrote:

“All men who hold position do not abuse its privileges, and the man who serves...humbly and faithfully never will, for the moment he yielded to the temptation so to do, that moment would he cease to serve [his fellow wikipedians]; but there are many, alas! who sadly misuse the functions of their office, and prostitute every power and privilege to the gratification of self and the injury and embarrassment of their fellow men. It is dangerous to put some men into power. They swell up and become so distended with the ideas of their greatness and importance, that we are forcibly reminded of so many inflated toy balloons, which the slightest prick of a pin would burst and ruin forever. A very small office and a very little authority is sufficient to intoxicate some men and render them entirely unfit for duty.”

Thank God wikipedia has your good will and judgment to be protect them! I find maternal volunteer copyright police such as yourself misguided and who "prostitute every power and privilege to the gratification of self and the injury and embarrassment of their fellow men."

It really isn't about protecting wikipedia, is it? It is about you exerting your own will against others, and the empty satisfaction that you get from such power trips. Obviously, your immature, unwelcome, unneeded, and intrusive edits show that they should have an age limit to giving someone admin status. Pathetic.

So how did it feel when I changed your wikipage? I hope you had the same anger and disgust that I felt toward your heavy handed edits. Please don't waste my time explaining how you are protecting wikipedia from copyright violations, I have heard it all before (but I know this is not the last time I heard from you). Pathetic.Travb 12:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the uncyclopedia logo fair-use? This image which was the image proposed in their logo contest, and their current logo was photoshopped from, says "Photoshoppered Wikipedia logo", so wouldn't Wikimedia hold copyright on their logo as well? Does it count as fair-use if you display an image that is copyright Wikimedia on user-pages? (Sorry if I'm not making any sense, 11:55 pm here) +Hexagon1 (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the actual logo is an illegal derivivative work, it seems, and therefore Wikimedia owns all rights to it, right? (I don't know the US laws in this respect though) +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case neither licence is free, so it cannot be used in a non-main-namespace area, and I don't understand why Travb is upset, this is Ed g2s following the law and established Wikipedia procedure, not Ed g2s pushing through his evil agendas for world domination. +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a severe vandal warning for changing your user/talk pages, to make a point. And forming a group to fight admins is over-doing it, why can't he read Wikipedia:Fair use himself and see that user-pages do not qualify as fair-use. Well, I'm going to bed. Have fun with Travb. :) +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your removals of copyrighted logos used as decoration. I just checked Wikipedia:Fair use and could not find anything that would make decoration "fair" use. I support your edits of this kind. Good work.--Jusjih 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to your removal of the Uncyclopedia logo from my userpage and apparently many other pages on Wikipedia. The logo was created by me (Rcmurphy on Uncyc) as a parody of the Wikipedia logo, using only a partial overlay of the globe puzzle piece outlines to trace part of the potato face design. No part of the WP logo was used in my potato.

Uncyclopedia's license is not free, but I'd like to allow the logo to be used for Wikipedia userpages, userboxes, etc. - in other words, as "decoration" for Wikipedians. It's in the spirit of our project. --Rcmurphy 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see of WP's image policies, no images with commercial rights reserved are allowed. Is this correct? --Rcmurphy 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blue logo is not the one at the top of hte page, and is relevent ot its context in the article. The page no longer has alot of fair use images, so I dont know what the problme is with leaving it there, especialyl since its relevant to where its being discussed. Please do not remove. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not every variation its just one. There ar eno others, leave it be. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an american I was completely unaware of the European branding for the dreamcast, how do I know what blue the text is reffering to? Is it a aqua blue? Is it a midnight blue? Should i just put in-line teh r-g-b values for the blue? Why is it such a big deal to have hte european logo? Shouldnt it this be the responsibility of the users who have vested interested in the article to decide? And not someone whos more concerned about policy than the articles themselves. HOw about you dont go in with a shoot first ask questions later attitude and post the issue on the talk page, suggesting that it be remvoed for the reasons you have stated. Wouldnt that be more diplomatic? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 21:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[5]

Why did you delete the images, which I stated I had created ? Please put them back SirIsaacBrock 10:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on the gallery usage on this page? Thanks in advance, Flooch 13:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to contribute your knowledge on fair use. Wikipedia needs more people like you! Keep up the great work. ~ Flooch 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed,

thank you very much for fixing it so promptly :) --Gennaro Prota^•Talk 00:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get up to speed for what is allowed by FU policy and what isn't, and I was wondering if you would be interested in having a look at my rationale [6] for removing images from lists such as Chronology of PlayStation games which appear to be used for decorative purposes? Many thanks ~ Vic Vipr 11:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png and automated bot warning

I see you are intent on removing your warning - so here's another. Please ensure _every_ image you upload contains the right copyright tags. It is up to _you_, the uploader, to tag them properly. This is especially important if you are going to delete other's non-free and non-tagged images. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is up to the original uploader of the image to tag the image. I merely added transparency to what was, at the time, considered a free image. ed g2s • talk 12:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it not deemed free now? If it is copyright, why are you making derivative works from it? -- 9cds^(talk) 12:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my previous comment and the edit history of the image page. ed g2s • talk 12:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may Be totally Justified in Improving Images but Why didn't you just say this under the warning. Their was no reason to delete the warning because your explanation is enough to justify you actions. Removing the warning only makes you look bad. Their is no reason to violate the 3RR over it. My First imprssion looting at my watchlist and seeing sevral reverts makes me think. Humm This admin is a hot head. Their is no reason to call so much attention to the warning. Just coment under it or strike it out. keep cool--E-Bod 20:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is cluttered enough without having irrelevant bot warnings. The more separate messages I get, the more time I have to spend archiving. Thanks to 9cds I have another pointless discussion to archive, just so he could prove a point, but there you go... ed g2s • talk 00:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't proving a point. All warnings shouldn't be deleted, and justified or not they shouldn't be removed, and I replace any warnings on any user page if they are removed. -- 9cds^(talk) 09:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]