User talk:Buffs/Archive 9

Question about edit
I ran across this edit of yours,, and wanted to hear from you. I might agree with you that the colors on a helmet may not reach the threshold of originality. However, I see no evidence that the underlying illustration of the helmet is PD, therefore this image would still be non-free based on the helmet illustration itself, not on the team design elements. If I drew a picture of a pipe, I could still claim copyright over my illustration, even if it was depicting a utilitarian object. I believe the helmet image should be reverted back to non-free unless we can demonstrate that Chris Creamer of sportslogos.net has freely licensed the underlying illustration, or that some other source is the actual copyright holder and similarly has freely released it. -Andrew c [talk] 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct. My intent was to remove the "logo" aspect of the notice (as you cannot copyright a color of a helmet). However, that does not recognize the fact that the artist isn't represented here and the object depicted is certainly one artist's take (though I doubt it is Chris Creamer who owns such a copyright). I think we can find a free photo or something better to replace it. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great we are in agreement. I've tagged the image as being non-free replaceable for the time being. If we can't come up with something, I'd be glad to make an illustration of a football helmet myself (you can check out my illustration skills by looking at my Commons user page). -Andrew c [talk] 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Debate about WP:MOSLOGO
BQZ, you seem to have a good grasp of fair-use regarding logo usage. An issue has come up regarding a wave of logo removals and a discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. It has also been taken to the Administrators' noticeboard. Any comments you might have to bring this to a resolution, and help create a uniform interpretation of policy and guideline, in either direction, would be helpful. Thank you. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC) ]].
 * Hey, thanks for the response. No rush, but I thought your input either way would be very valuable. I don't care if it is decided that Hammersoft is right, as long as everything is applied equally across the projects, and the plusses and minuses are weighed as they are supposed to be. I'm just trying to bring the wave of edits to light so that it can be discussed in an open manner and get a standardized guideline. I'm not sure if there are others, on either side of the issue, that should be notified of the issue, or what the appropriate category might be for a request for comment, or if that is even needed. Thanks in advance if you do comment on the issue, either way. BTW, my gf is an Aggie, so I can sort of say Gig'em, unless they're playing Pitt. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, I've put in my two cents on the issue in the form of a primer on image issues, which I have also stored here for future reference. I'm hoping we can use this to elminate the inevitable confusion that pops up all the time.  I'm also hoping that with improvement we can inlcude this as a wikipedia policy somewhere.  If you guys want to improve the primer, please feel free.   BillTunell (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Phils logo
The following are trademarks or service marks of Major League Baseball entities and may be used only with permission of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. or the relevant Major League Baseball entity: Major League, Major League Baseball, MLB, the silhouetted batter logo, World Series, National League, American League, Division Series, League Championship Series, All-Star Game, and the names, nicknames, logos, uniform designs, color combinations, and slogans designating the Major League Baseball clubs and entities, and their respective mascots, events and exhibitions.

Okay, copyrighted may not have been right, but neither is it to say the logo is public domain.JaMikePA (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The image is indeed public domain, but that doesn't mean there aren't restrictions on its use. Another example of such an image would be a patent. This type of document is a PD document with restriction. In this case, you cannot use the document to create your own widget (like the one in the patent) and sell it. Do so and you will violate patent laws. However, you can take a patented design and make your own widget. The same goes for trademarks. There are restrictions (mostly to do with sale, endorsement, or profit), but that doesn't make them less PD. Also...


 * [[File:Example trademarked phrase.jpg]]


 * *This copyrighted statement may never be used anywhere outside of this user talk page. This statement is a trademarked phrase of BQZip01 and may be used only with permission of BQZip01 or designated legal entities.


 * This image and accompanying statement, despite what it claims, don't hold much water. Though the warning may deter some people from using it, it doesn't actually have any backing. First of all, the statement above is not eligible for copyright as it consists entirely of text. Even if it were copyrighted, it could still have potential use as a Fair Use image somewhere and those allowances are not annotated. Since this phrase is ineligible for copyright, it is a PD image. While someone could claim a trademark on the phrase as a slogan, it does not diminish the fact that the image is still PD. If trademarked, there would be restrictions on the sale of items with this image and use of this image with items for sale.
 * Now throw on top of that the image was released for use under an appropriate license and the trademarks/copyrights are not applicable at all and you have an image that has no justification for such a restriction.
 * By the same token, Major League Baseball does not have the authority to restrict Fair Use applications of their images nor legally allowable uses of their trademarked images. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be fair here to say that the content of the (first-mentioned) logo is in the public domain, but the use of the logo is not? In other words, if the logo is used in such a way as to call the trademarking organization into disrepute or misrepresent their brand, then civil remedies for damage would apply? But so long as the logo is used for reputable purposes and the trademark disclaimer contained on the image page is preserved, no rights are violated?
 * This is a tricky area. Lets say your (BQ's) example above had an "R" symbol (registered trademark) - would I be free to use it on my website with "nude army chicks"? Or any wiki article that mentions an army vet who took her top off for the camera? I'm not trying to provoke, just putting the end-state out there... Franamax (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a thorny way to look at it, but certainly a fair question. Let me see what I can do to explain my take on the subject.
 * No, it is not fair to say that "the content of the logo is in the public domain, but the use of the logo is not." That is not to say that the use isn't restricted though. Let's use the Texas A&M logo as the example. I can take the logo and [ http://www.stardock.com/products/mycolors/screenshots/Texas_am_University.jpg put it on my desktop]. I can paint it on my flight helmet. My wife has an embroidery machine and I can put the logo on a blanket. However, I cannot take that same logo, put it on objects, and sell them without permission from the school.
 * Let's look at the example you cited. The answer is no, you cannot. Your website obviously is not being used for informative purposes, but for commercial gain. By using that logo in such a manner, it would be trademark infringement. It explicitly prohibits the use of marks that are "likely to cause confusion, or to cause a mistake, or to deceive." Unless someone uses a trademark with the intent to violate those explicit conditions, I can think of no use of an uncopyrightable trademark within Wikipedia which would violate these conditions. If someone is going to take and misuse an image outside the control of Wikipedia, we cannot be held responsible. It is analogous to worrying about the use of car once it is sold. That is the responsibility of the owner, not the dealer. As for our free content mission, there is free and then there is Free. One has no restrictions whatsoever. Many of my uploaded images indicate you can't use it in certain instances and in all instances must credit me as the author. So, there are some restrictions on this freedom.
 * I agree that it is a tricky area, but let's see what we can do to codify this and make it easier to use appropriate images within Wikipedia. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedants
I was pleased to see these two edits of yours  (As an aside, I added a "source" in order to keep our pedantic "friend" happy.)

You may (or may not) be interested to watch the progress of this. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Guideline
What do you think of the guideline of Non-free content point 5? In the case of the ASU Sparky logo, I think it prevents its use in the athletics section because a Sparky the Sun Devil article exists. Using common sense here, I think the Sparky logo is a pretty useful identification tool for ASU. Who recognizes ASU's seal and logo outside of AZ? I also think it is a more valuable identifier than the pd-text one that you have in your collection. Of course, this plays into my useful identifier stance which you may not completely agree with. Regardless, I think point 5 is flawed for this reason, and WP:IAR serves here. I think, based on policy that every article should be inherently notable and self-sufficient on its own, point 5 needs to be modified. (Edit), it seems you are answering my question on the ASU talk page. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm hesitant to merge/delete articles. The content of Sparky seems too specific for the generalized ASU article and probably doesn't deserve a whole paragraph there, but that depends on how important Sparky is to the culture of the university, a point I cannot speak to. Perhaps it is better merged to Arizona State Sun Devils, but I'd feel better if ASU editors spoke to those possibilities. Regardless, interested to hear your though on point 5. Personally, because of article independence, I don't like it. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I have no objection including the information in the University article. Perhaps we should specify in guidelines that either the university article or primary school's athletics article depending on which one is most appropriate. Thoughts? — BQZip01 —  talk 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In Sparky's case, it appears to me to better fit into the existing athletics article. Perhaps we should add merge tags and start a discussion on that. As for a guideline, what if there is also an article on school traditions? In that hypothetical, such an article could also be another possible location. I'm having a hard time getting ahold of how independence of individual articles can be reconciled with a guideline for limiting the use of fair-use non-free content. I'd be interested to see any draft you'd come up with.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly would a logo be a tradition? Traditions are beliefs, customs or practices (i.e. always standing during a football game) or lack thereof (i.e. not walking on the grass around a memorial). — BQZip01 —  talk 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of something like Ol' Sarge, I could see it being thought of as a tradition. An Ol' Sarge logo might be appropriate as an illustration. For example, in the Sparky the Sun Devil article, it talks about the Pitchfork (hand gesture) being derived from the logo. Speaking of Miami, there is the "U" hand signal derived from the "U" logo. When does a "traditional" logo become tradition itself? I'm thinking of hypothetical situations where logos might be appropriate for illustration of traditions. I don't know if any exist but I'm trying to account for a variety of possibilities or future scenarios in articles perhaps not yet created. Perhaps I'm reaching, but I'm just trying to be thorough. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The hand gesture has an article and simply describing the fact that it looks like a pitchfork and linking to the image/athletics article should be enough. As for Ol' Sarge, it isn't a tradition as defined by even Wikipedia, it's a logo, character, or mascot. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg
This is not an example of simple stylized text or simple geometric figures. I do not think it qualifies for PD-textlogo because it is not just the letter U. There is a distinct difference between that U and this or even the words. There is no simple font that can emulate the University of Miami's U logo.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 10:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the law states that it is required to be simple.
 * I'm not saying there isn't a difference in between the logos you mentioned, but that isn't the issue at hand.
 * The thing is that this is a "U" and it is intended as such (I don't think there is any debate about that). As such its "intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text..." (see U.S. Code Congr. & Admn. News, 94th Congress, 2d Sess. (1976) at 5668). Ergo, it is not eligible for copyright. It certainly is eligible for trademark protection and should be afforded all protections under those laws (namely the Landham Act). — BQZip01 —  talk 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any link off the top of my head that says this, but it was my understanding that the split "U" was also meant to serve as a stylized depiction of a spinning hurricane funnel. I don't know if that changes anything. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a hurricane funnel?
 * Hurricanes don't look like that from above or split from the side.
 * Without a source, it's just WP:OR. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hurricane cloud, not funnel, like this, but obviously more abstract. I swear I've read that somewhere, but I don't have a citation at the moment. If I get some time I'll see if I can dig around for it. This was some time ago so I don't know if it was on-line or not. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, with an on-line search, I can find nothing conclusive about the idea that the "U" is a stylized hurricane. There was discussion of the possibility on a blog at SI that it was derived from the meteorologic symbol (see here), but nothing more concrete than my previous speculation that someone had read it somewhere awhile back. Anything else that might have been useful was in pay-per-view newspaper archives. It is certainly possible that the hurricane symbolism is more of an old urban myth than reality, and there is no mention of this symbolism on the Hurricane's official website. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which symbol is it supposed to be. I don't see anything representing the "arms" of the "U" in any of those weather symbols (and I look at them just about every day with my flying job. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The hurricane one, with one of the two arms bent up to form a "U". As I said, I was under the impression it was an abstraction of a hurricane of some sort, and it may not have been true. But going by the blog I apparently wasn't the only one to had that in the back of my head somewhere so I'm not completely crazy. There nothing about it in the official UM description about that so I think it is a dead issue unless some other evidence comes up. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clear up some misinformation: the U logo is in no way a "stylized hurricane," nor was it created or intended as such. It is, in fact, a simple "U" that the University specifically chose as its logo in order to distinguish itself among a large group of other universities with the initials "UM" .  The logo, being nothing more than a letter, is not copyrightable for lack of originality, and for a time, the University, concerned about that problem, adopted an alternate U logo that featured a silhouetted football player catching a pass in the center of the U, the addition of the football player making the logo more than just a letter and thus sufficiently original to receive copyright protection (other sports featured comparable images in the middle; e.g., a baseball player batting).  The alternate U logo was never added to the helmets, failed to catch on, and was ultimately abandoned after a few years.  That was roughly 20 or so years ago.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further verification. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I've found another issue. Per Miami's new visual identity, the U is supposed to have a white border around it and not simply an encompassing tranparency.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well that should be an easy fix. I'll see what I can do.


 * Unless it's just me, the new logo doesn't appear to be rendering properly.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably because of the (R) and some corruption in the file(?). It should look something like this: . I've also reverted the image.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what is going on but your split U image is no longer rendering. Racepacket (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC on trademarks
I have reverted your attempt to re-merge your various issues into the RfC that is intended to answer two questions. Frankly, I am getting increasingly disgusted with your overt attempts to control significant discussions I am involved in. Knock it off. If you want to start an RfC on the separate issues you raise, be my guest. If you want to contribute to discussions specifically regarding the two questions I raised, be my guest. But to add all sorts of additional questions to the original debate muddies the picture and prevents effective discussion from reaching a proper conclusion. You are being disruptive. If you insist on merging these discussions into one huge gelatinous mass again, I _will_ report you for disruption. STOP. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Report me if you feel you must. You don't own the discussion and threats don't work with me. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, how about you revert CamelBinky then too, hmm? I don't buy for a second that you are so stupid as to believe what you are doing is innocent and has no implications for the RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop the taunting.
 * I never said it didn't have any implications for the RfC. As a matter of fact, I think it has implications when its removed; that's why I reverted it.
 * As for being innocent, well, I don't think I've done anything wrong, if that's what you are saying. If you leave this page alone, in a few days it will be archived. I dont think there's anything left to discuss in the thread anyway. I have no problem in archiving the whole thing, but it should be kept together. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue
Are you going to do anything in terms of that e-mail that you sent me about that minor issue? If it's already happening right now, please tell me. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should also check this out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Apparently it already appeared: Today's featured article/December 22, 2007, Sorry -MBK004 20:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Neener neener nee-ner!
Check your E-mail for a communication.... NDCompuGeek (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification
If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

logo discussion results
I noticed a certain user aggressively removing logos from college athletics season articles today. I remembered reading a couple of ridiculously long debates about this issue a while back, so I searched a bit and found a mediated dispute on the topic from last summer in which you were a major participant. However, I can't find any final ruling or consensus on the issue that would justify today's removal of logos.

So, what were the arguments last summer ever resolved? If so (or if not), could you point me to an archive of the last word on the subject? Thanks, I really appreciate any help you could give here... Zeng8r (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussions you are interested in have been ongoing since at least 2006
 * Previous discussions in 2006 and 2007
 * Beginning of current debate: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_39
 * Talk pages: 2005 Texas Longhorns football team 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game
 * Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1
 * Informal mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Wikipedia:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos
 * Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 2
 * The arguments weren't resolved (and I suppose are still ongoing), however, a tentative truce has been reached that basically no one will add or delete images under certain criteria from articles.
 * If there are specific articles that are problematic, I will look at them, just let me know which ones. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I'd never heard that this issue ever came to an official resolution, but thought I may have missed something. Guess not.

Garion96 deleted a bunch of long-standing fair use rationales from, then removed the image from the corresponding season articles for not having rationales. At first he claimed that removing logos from such articles was standard wikipolicy. He's since replaced the logos with a non-copyrighted script logo that's not actually the official one, but I guess will do.

It just irks me to see users slash away at stable articles with no more reason than "I don't like it". Thanks so much for your help. Zeng8r (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC
I am trying to understand the concept and I do understand, but I do understand how it is enforce. The last two times that the Castilla article had its logo removed, pointed out that other reserve team were not in compliance and its logo remained. How in the world is anyone going to find a free image on a copyrighted logo?! I can draw a logo, but that will just copying a copyrighted logo. Hell, I do not htink I can download the original Castilla without violating some rule!! I checked my favorite clubs: Arsenal, Ajax, Bayern and Porto. All have reserve team articles using their parent's logo! I would like to correct the error, but how can I do that if I can't find an example of how to do it? Raul17 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, thanks! I didn't know how, but I finally see what is to be done from the Florida Gators article and then from the Real Madrid article. I guess I am too low on the food chain when I ask the big boys what to do or where to go!! Thanks! Raul17 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I think we have Hammersoft on the ropes. If you ask me, I would suspect that there are possible 3E issues here (If you know what I mean). I'll leave that for you to bring up though. Hopefully HS is down for the count! Erector Euphonious (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * EE, I'm not really interested in putting him "down for the count". The only thing I'm interested in is getting the antagonistic behavior to stop. As for these two being the sam user, I highly doubt it. They both have edits that directly overlap. Could he be a VERY determined sockpuppeteer? I suppose so (there are many times where 3E stopped editing and Hammersoft started), but I doubt it. If you have some evidence, go ahead and submit it. — BQZip01 —  talk 15:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * EE looks to be a sock of the Axmann8 impostor. Don't pay him no never-mind. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 15:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol...interesting turnout...I have one IP (whom I suspect to be a sockpuppet of TomPhan) against me and another supporting me. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * EE and his endless list of socks are very good at accelerating a fight, so if they had one on each side, that would accelerate it even more. Or it could be coincidental. But if you think of all the socks as just one single, gigantic sockfarm, it simplifies matters. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps it isn't a farm at all! — BQZip01 —  talk 16:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, could be a factory. And looks like a joyous place to work, too. No wonder the typical sock has a serious 'tude. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing is, my comment was in response to something Tan said about "acting on" something. But I also debated which place to put it. The other option was where you put it. So it can stay that way, I reckon. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 16:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know I don't have any idea what is going on here, but I couldn't help notice the sockfarm reference, and I had to interject this little nugget of wisdom: Did You Know... that socks are the larval form of hangars?  It is the rotation and heat that causes them to mature.  Thus, an explanation as to where all our socks have gone, and why our hangar collection is continually growing.  Just sayin....   - NDCompuGeek (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC) ☺
 * Another mystery solved through the wonders of wikipedia! →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * — BQZip01 — talk 00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here ya go: →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness, my Pacer ain't hacking it anymore. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, the Flying Fishbowl. Ahead of its time, so to speak. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 03:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bryan AFB
Do you have any information on that that you could put on the page? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. It has just about everything I can think of about it. The Air Force/Army weren't always as historical minded. I know it was an initial training base during WWII, became Air Force with the same role in 1947, and was eventually retired with A&M taking possession of it. I know they did some Homeland Security testing on barricades in 2002-2004 and I think it was used as a drag strip at one point as well. I have NO references for that though. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Darn, thanks for the help though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you know what, I think I have a book about A&M's Corps of Cadets that mentions it. I'll see what I can find. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Semper Fi
Way to have my back, bro. Hope to see you soon. Nathanelrod (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sul Ross Statue photo
As a primary contributor to the Texas A&M University article, I'd thought I'd ask you before making this change. Do you think it would be appropriate to exchange File:Sul Ross Statue.JPG for this photo I've taken: File:Sul Ross Statue Texas A&M.jpg?  Jujutacular  T · C 22:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Logo question
Thanks for the info on the logos. I understand you are saying that FUR tags should not be used on files like Syracuse and Houston because they are text logos. These should then include the PD-textlogo and Trademarked tags. Instead, the FUR tags should be used for every page the logo is used for logos that aren't text (e.g., the Providence Friars logo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Providence_Friars_logo.svg). Is that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strafpeloton2 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice Flag
Hi BQZip01,

At the top of your user page adn talk page, there is a vertical American flag, i have looked at your pages in both IE & Firefox, and in both cases, the flag obscures everything from the just beneath the Wiki logo to just above the 'Recent changes' tab. Its your page, and i am not trying to argue that you should change it, but, it might help navigation from your pages, and the appearance of your pages as well. Best, Darigan (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, the message did seem to come out of the blue didn't it.


 * I was checking the 'Recent Changes', partly out of curiosity and partly to check for vandalism, and there was something on a page about you and another user. Can't remember what page exactly, but i think it was an admin noticeboard. I clicked through to find more about it, and thats when i saw your user page


 * I don't particularly mind where the flag does or doesn't go, but i thought i should 'flag'-up the fact that it obscured some of the links. Best, Darigan (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Note
Hi. In response to this ANI thread, I think it would be good if you could avoid Hammersoft for the time being. If he makes a mistake, there are other editors and admins to clean up. Thank you. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm going to make stronger request since you didn't take Julian's suggestion to heart (in fact, I can't see that you even acknowledged it anywhere): there are other editors who can deal with these things. The arbitration committee has in the past taken a dim view on harassment and contributions stalking.  I realize harassment may be in the eye of the beholder, but in the most recently linked example on the ANI report you clearly are stalking his contributions.  If you really think that Hammersoft is editing disruptively, RFC/U is that way.  I can see from your contributions that you are clearly productive in areas that don't intersect with Hammersoft, so I'd like to make a request that you avoid Hammersoft wherever possible.  I'm not saying any of this to threaten you, just to advise you that you look like you're starting on a path that can lead to blocks and bans. Syrthiss (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Syrthiss, I appreciate the comment (you too Julian). I agree with you that I could be going down a path I don't want to go down (i.e. one that leads to blocks/bans/unpleasantness), however, in this case, I'm not. Let's talk about the "most recently linked example". HS is apparently upset because I corrected what he asked to be corrected. He's not upset that a rationale was fixed and a proper FUR added. He's upset that I was the one that did it.


 * My issue is that he is doing a self-appointed job halfway. While copyrighted images certainly require fair use rationales for use on Wikipedia, HS's view is "if they don't have a rationale, I'm going to remove it." Let's just use a college logo as the example. This particular logo is not eligible for copyright because it consists of a single letter and is labeled as such. Then some user comes by and says to himself, "wait a minute! That's not a free image! It's trademarked!!!" and labels it as copyrighted. Shortly thereafter, someone such as HS notices the image and the plethora of uses not permitted by our fair use criteria. This user then looks at the list of places the image is used and goes about removing the image used on scores of user pages, templates, etc. This will take a lot of time to fix because the pages are scattered across Wikipedia and not linked from anywhere. In this situation, it would be FAR easier to simply fix the templates used. In a similar venue, an image is used in an appropriate way sans a FUR (the seal of a school on the University's page). Now instead of fixing the FUR, HS, or someone like him, removes the image from the page and nominates it for deletion as it was the only use.
 * We are supposed to be creating a quality encyclopedia as well as one that is as free as possible. Making Wikipedia more free at the expense of quality doesn't help the matter.
 * On a larger scale, I think HS is trying to wield power against newer/uninformed users and I infringe on that power/authority. I find it inappropriate that he chastised a newer user and give him bad advice and I let him know that. I also gave him the courtesy of explaining my actions and where policy/guidelines of WP were being violated; it wasn't my opinion, it was WP's. Instead, he should be trying to help the newer user. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let us further look at some of HS's recent work: File:Lucha_Libre_AAA.png. He has nominated this image for deletion, but it is simply missing either a correct tag as the image is uncopyrightable or a FUR. Instead the image will be deleted in 4 days. By your logic, I cannot fix this image or I must request someone else fix the image just to avoid the appearance of hounding. I cannot undelete a valid image and, if deleted, I would have no clue as to where the image would be found to replace it. The volume of images in this situation that could simply have been fixed has been perpetuated around Wikipedia by certain editors (not just HS) under the attitude of "it's not my responsibility to fix images" and "I'm just ensuring that our policies are followed". The problem with these rationalizations with these actions are that they don't build a better encyclopedia; they just increase tensions. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I may have mentioned on the ANI, I'm pretty ignorant on the image side of things. I cannot speak to that.  Without delving into your contributions, I assume that you've tried to explain your concern to Hammersoft in the past?  If you have (I think I at least remember ANIs on it, tho that isn't the optimal venue for having someone listen to you IMO), and he hasn't understood, and you are confident that policy and guidelines are on your side I think you have two options: let it pass, or WP:RFC/U.  The RFC would allow others to comment on the situation, but would likely (to me) be the more stressful of the two actions both for you and for Hammersoft.  If he is indeed damaging the Encyclopedia, then that is a matter that needs to be addressed.  Even good faith actions (as I am sure he is intending) are sanctionable if they are being applied incorrectly.


 * I don't want to seem that I am pushing for an RFC. I guess I'm saying that if he has 'forbidden' you from his talk page, and you still see a fault in how he is approaching the encyclopedia, then RFC in my view is one of the last venues available to you.  If I can be of help (assuming any of this was helpful), let me know.  ps - you can reply here without a talkback notice, I watch the pages I comment on usually. Syrthiss (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File:University of Arizona Block A.svg
If you did not get my email yet, this is what I want to accomplish when it comes to the college logos. If even one of us is wrong about the copyright about it, at least we should get the logo right and in a good version. No luck with Baylor, Arkansas, Bama, Arkon. Consider this as my olive branch. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. We should have the best quality image we are allowed (regardless of its "free" status). FWIW, it's AKRON. The only reason I know is that their mascot is the "zips"...kinda goes along with my name and was a bigger deal when I was in college (see my user page and Traditions of Texas A&M University). — BQZip01 —  talk 19:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. What I try do is I use the Hexidecimal (#ffffff) when I first can, then RGB. For SVG files, I either take the official EPS file and save it into SVG or I take a PDF file and play around with it. I want to start on the free logos, but if you need a certain logo done, let me know on my talk page please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a reasonable edit to remoev "whitespace" and is appropriate, IMHO (admittedly, I'm not looking at policy on this, but unless the whitespace is part of the logo, it shouldn't be a problem). — BQZip01 —  talk 16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I do tend to do that with flag images, but not with college logos. The only thing I will do is change #ffffff to #fff and change #000000 to #000. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A slight problem
For two of the schools, Ball State and Boise State have said that what we currently use for the sports logos does not meet current university guidelines. Honestly, I feel very odd about using a sports site when many of the universities have logos to download (or for me to extract) from. I am not sure how this plays out on your end, but it comes out like this for me; if accuracy is our main goal, we must get that first. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Universities often have many trademarked logos, some of which are not in the "official" guide. I have no problem with uploading other logos, as long as they meet our fair use criteria and the law on the matter. They won't necessarily be the free logos. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know there is a bunch of logos that each school use, but since you are specifically using them for the BCS, I am looking for the athletic logos. I just got the U of Buffalo logo edited, now will upload. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I found one that the university has not sanctioned and will not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that the text version wasn't the logo at some point, only that it isn't currently. At the bottom of the page is a newer version which should be the acceptable text-only alternative. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you had that text version uploaded around October 2009, this style sheet came out about 13 months earlier. I think I might have a trick up my sleeve for Cincinnati. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea. If we know a logo is historic, we should name it as such. Also, thanks for the branstar. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. If you need to migrate something or apply a better name, you have my blessing. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Want to contact the folks here and explain what is needed? Since it is for the web, we should use RGB colors (but Inkscape can do CMYK). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject
Hi, I've noticed you've been involved in editing Big 12 related articles. I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondered if you'd like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver
- Dear BQZip01, we could REALLY use your help if you're available. As I recall you have somewhat of a large success rate with the articles you take on. I think you'll find Vancouver quite the mess to take on. Hope you're up to it. Mkdw talk 06:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ernest P. Worrell.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ernest P. Worrell.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  05:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Noted...and fixed. It appears that some IPs have taken it upon themselves to remove the image from the articles with FURs. Images have been appropriately restored and the FURs now apply. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Specifically, this thread. Please forgive the intrusion on your talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Marshall University logo
I uploaded File:Marshall University Bar M logo.svg, but anything else you want from http://www.marshall.edu/logo/StyleGuideManual.pdf ? I am trying to work on the bison logo, but I am not happy with the way the PDF looked. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. I'm good with what I have. If I need anything else, Il just upload a jpg. — BQZip01'' —  talk 10:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will use my bison head version to replace File:MarshallThunderingHerd.png. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to do some of these yourself in the future, download and install Inkscape. This can open a lot of PDF files. The only PDF files I had trouble with was with Bama (because of the way the document was made by the university) and I think Ball State. Other logos are hidden behind student only access areas. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FA-Team revival
I've made a proposal to bring the FA-Team out of inactivity—with a mission a bit different than we're used to. This is just a generic note I'm sending to members asking for their input. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting the vandalism of sockpuppeteer is perfectly acceptable behavior, especially when that person is a banned user. Furthermore, I am trying to do exactly what you asked above ("When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors", however, you have seen fit to just remove all forms of discussion instead. WTF? Make up your mind. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand why I filed a report on you at WP:ANI do you? I'll tell you now.  It has nothing to do with whether the File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg is free or non-free.  Tell you the truth, I could really care less.  The reason I have been on your case is that you have repeatedly made disruptive comments (i.e. rudeness) towards me and other users, swore, made 4-chan like troll comments, and violated 3RR.  I mean sure, that user might be sockpuppeting, but that really isn't the concern I'm having.  I understand you are frustrated with other users who disagree with you but know that is not a license to take it out on other users.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fastily, WP:3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. IMNSHO, "contributions" by banned users are de facto vandalism and are not permitted; if you will note, I did not revert your contributions, only that of IP WP:SPAs (sockpuppets) who are here to harass me personally. I've expressed frustration and asked for instances where you thought I was rude in order to retract them. Hopefully this satisfies your concerns. I also find your reaction to be quite hostile and unhelpful, especially for an admin. Hopefully you and I can discuss things more amicably through our truce and come to a better relationship/form a better consensus for Wikipedia. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, those reversions were found to be from a sockpuppet of User:TomPhan. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos
User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unanimous keep; not a shock. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Email
You have Email. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 08:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Make that 2 emails. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded to the first. E-mail response to follow on the 2nd some time tomorrow (I need some sleep). Thanks. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your time. I should sleep, but I am drawing Hiroshima Prefecture flags. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You should inline your images
Why? Because NeutralHomer is inexorable and you cannot stop him. What he wants he gets. It's much easier to give in now and save yourself endless weeks of grief than to stand up for yourself in the face of his insistence. Crafty (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if that is now what NH wants, it is part of our policies at NFCC, Point 9. While it does not say anything about trademarked images, but it would be easier to just inline them all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True. We can never really understand what Homer wants. The real question here is "how much pain do you need in your life?" the answer ofc is "significantly less than Homer can take!" - surrender! Whilst honour may not be yours, a long editing life will be. Crafty (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I will never surrender of my own free will." :-) I'm good, but thanks for your concern. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hooah...  Ahodges7  talk 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)