File talk:ETrade.svg

HS,

Two Three Four people believe the image is nothing more than letters and either an asterisk or arrows. This equates to NOTHING that is copyrightable and we've all made changes accordingly. It is incumbent upon you to explain what is wrong in this analysis as consensus currently runs against your views. — BQZip01 — talk 03:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (Tally accordingly amended. - F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 06:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Yeah. Cough. One, a person who has been blocked for copyright violations and still has massive difficulty in properly attributing and labeling images. Two, a person who re=licensed this image and tried to call it "minor additions", effectively making it vandalism. . Three, a person who has tagged over 60 images this month for movement to Commons. That's not discussion, that's not consensus, that's not anything. The idea that three people agree this was free is absolutely, categorically absurd and is stretching the truth so far as to make on easily see right through the transparency of the toilet paper it's written on. THAT is consensus to you? Unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The four I am counting are myself, Salavat (who initially tagged the image as PD), Sfan00 IMG (who apparently agreed the image was indeed PD), and Fastily (whom I asked for an additional look-in to see if I was missing anything; he was as shocked/dismayed as I was with your actions). We have all made changes to this file indicating we believe it is ineligible for copyright.
 * Your insinuations that any of the aforementioned have done anything wrong is not conducive to civil discourse.
 * Retagging an image with proper licensing is a pretty minor change in the grand scheme of things. It was not labeled as a minor change in an attempt to hide such an edit. Accusing the person of vandalism, just because you disagree with the changes, is something that is explicitly stated as an uncivil act.
 * Sfan00 IMG has indeed tagged images for moves to the commons. If it didn't meet the criteria for the move, he wouldn't have tagged it. Why you think that tagging 60 images for such a move is a reason to discount his opinion is beyond me.
 * I have repeatedly asked for an explanation as to what in this image is copyrightable and you have yet to provide any response short of disparaging the contributions of other editors. Despite such a request above, and the fact that you yourself stated it should be taken to the talk page, you still have not given a single reason as to why the image is anything but text. Instead you attempted to marginalize/vilify the actions of other contributors (a logical fallacy). I suppose that I could up the count to 6 people who disagree with you, but that wouldn't be entirely accurate, but it is worth noting that among the 7 contributors to this page you are the only one who believes this image is copyrighted.
 * If you disagree, please explain why. If we cannot address your concerns or still believe all of us are wrong, I'd recommend WP:PUF for further discussion. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, Hammersoft, will you please stop trying to delete everything that has questionable copyright?

TheClerksWell (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Like, could you stop harassing Hammersoft? It's not cool.  Drop it.  - F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now this is wikihounding... — BQZip01 —  talk 03:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just the Etrade logo, no harm in using it on Wikipedia. Come on now everyone. It's just text and an asterisk.

TheClerksWell (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)