User talk:Ed g2s/Archive17

Protect Main page templates
Thanks to your ignorance and laziness, another picture of a mangled penis was on the Main page. Now, thousands of readers, including hopefully your own children, have seen this image, and we will be dealing with dozens of angry e-mails on OTRS. This is basic stuff. Get it right. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't know what the point of the changes to the Picture of the day are, or why the picture of the day should be any different than all of the other templates on the Main page—it looks like it just splits up things that will always be together for no reason—but it does quadruple the work necessary for protecting the Main page POTD and the chance that incidents like this will continue to happen. I hope you will assiduously protect these pages before they are on the Main page. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down a little, and remain civil. I commented on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. I didn't realise it would be such an immediate issue. It doesn't, however, quadruple the work required. All that needs to be done is one copy of the template be made for the main page. Seeing as POTD required 4 copies of the template before, this seems like considerably less work to me. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the old main page used only one template. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...which need to be created manually. The four versions of the POTD template contained duplicated content but all had to be created manually. I am setting up a protected version which will need to be manually updated using a subst (there's no other way), but this system will still be much more efficient than the last. Please try not to bite at users acting in good faith. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where were the three other templates used? —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User pages etc. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you unprotect these templates!? You can see all the templates that are transcluded on the main page, and their protection status, by clicking on edit on the Main page and scrolling to the bottom. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't, that's just a caching mistake. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cropping without quality loss
Hello, I just read in Image:ThoseEyebrows.jpeg, you can crop lossless. Could you tell how you do this. I thought the only possible lossless action on jpeg is rotating. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Beatles trivia
I understand your position about images, but why delete nearly all of them on the trivia page and not delete the ones on the pages they were taken from? Forgive me, dear sir, bit it smacks of bias, if I am allowed to say so. andreasegde 13:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider the conversation between us to have been settled, and finished (in an amicable way, of course) although I do wonder about your meaning of the phrase 'bad form'. Jolly hockeysticks, chin-chin, and all of that. All the best to you. andreasegde 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Bilson
Heya. I've reverted your edit to Rachel Bilson with the edit summary "fair use images are not for discussion (end of.) they are for critical commentary (which this image is providing) - please read the FUC - if you have any problems then discuss at talk page." -- you were also reverted by annother user yesterday, I'm of the opinion the image is providing critical commentary (being "discussed" as you worded it) - please take this to the talk page if you disagree rather then reverting, and hopefully we can all work together to correct any problems you may have. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Ever since you put the smack down on me several months ago for uploading failed first fair use criterion images and helped explain the policy to me, I've been following your lead to help clear up the massive amount of failed first fair use criterion images on Wikipedia. I just wanted to tell you thanks for that. Roguegeek (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interupting you
Hello,

i just wanted to tell you that i used your backroundimage for my userpage in the de.wikipedia.

mfg____Manecke 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use (mea culpa)
I uploaded the following copyright pictures some time ago believing their use in the articles on each person would constitute fair use. My intention was to enhance the coverage of British politicians on Wikipedia. However, I think in doing so I focused too much on my legal understanding of fair use rather than on the relevant Wikipedia policy itself. Having become more aware of the policy and its rationale I acknowledge that these images serve solely to show what the person in question looks like and therefore constitue replaceable fair use. I find myself now unable to justify their continuing on Wikipedia. I gather that as an admin you often deal with FU images and ask that you please delete them. I will remove them from the relevant articles. Need I tag them with db-author or will this request suffice? Many thanks, WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:AlanJohnsonMP.jpg
 * Image:DavidMilibandMP.jpg
 * Image:PatriciaHewittMP.jpg
 * Image:ArmsstrongMP.jpg
 * Image:StephenTimmsMP.jpg
 * Image:JacquiSmithMP.jpg
 * Image:BenBradshawMP.jpg
 * Image:EdMilibandMP.jpg
 * OK, I just wondered if you wanted the opportunity to delete them all now rather than wait 7 days (when someone will have to check they're truly orphaned etc.) WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have a good day. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please comment on this discussion
Person is wanting an image gallery of fair use logos of sports team in the Minneapolis, Minnesota article. Myself and another editor tried explaining this violates FUC#8 but she still plans on restoring the image. Village pump (assistance). Thank you.--NMajdan &bull;talk 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Background Image
I couldn't help but notice that yous somehow had a background image on your user page. If you wouldn't mind - I'd really appreciate some information on how you did this (I couldn't really determine what was going on, thanks either way DanielFolsom T|C|U 01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that's awesome, and I'm really sorry for this, but I have to ask you for a favor (just because while I could do something like what you showed me, I don't think I could do this)- if you have the time, would you mind putting the north america map in this template as a background for the whole thing template? I can't even express how much I'd appreciate it, but if you don't have time I completely understand, thanks either way though! -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 16:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I see what you mean, the guy who i'm creating this for (it was in requested templates) said that he wanted that with links in yellow, and I said I would do a few normal ones and what he said just so he could see the difference, but if you don't think it's possible I can tell him. Thanks anyways! -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dustin Diamond? I'm new....
Hello!

I'm new to wikipedia and am interested in adding visual aides (where appropriate) to articles that are lacking. I tried uploading a picture to the dustin diamond article and it seems to have been deleted... Please help me understand why. I was under the impression that I followed procedures correctly. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hempdiddy (talk • contribs) 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Hempdiddy 17:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is for free content, that is free of copyright, not just freely available on the internet. Copyrighted images are allowed under very restrictive circumstances (see WP:FU), one of which is we don't allow images which are deemed to be "repeatable", such as those of living celebrities. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 17:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What does "repeatable" mean? Hempdiddy 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mary Lynn Rajskub
I found the source info for the photograph. But I'm not sure how to add or if it complies with Wiki guidelines. kc12286 04:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)kc12286
 * Just curious, why are you listing it for speedy deletion. Is it because the image is older than seven days? I thought it was lacking the correct source info and that was why it was listed for deletion. kc12286 15:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KC12286

allowedin
Are you still working on the development of this template and/or the mentioned bot? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of requests
Hello! Could you use proper edit summaries? I've seen what you did at Mika (singer), and I still can't work out what "(rtfa)" means. The next edit had no summary. I see that you're giving edit summaries less than half the time, which can make life difficult for other editors. Thanks. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Renée Fleming image
Hi Ed g2s, I don't think we've communicated before, but I know you're involved in image copyright policy. If you have time, I'd welcome your comments at Talk:Renée Fleming. It's about a rather poor quality photo, taken by one of my students, which could replace the fair use image, but I have doubts as to how poor the quality can be and still have Wikipedia prefer it to fair use. Cheers. Musical Linguist 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Pete Sampras cover picture
I'm not sure why you removed the Pete Sampras picture, but please don't do it again without saying why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.41.98.1 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I did say why - that text next to my name on the history page is my "edit comment"... ed g2s &bull; talk 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Maryland state seal.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Maryland state seal.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --Durin 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're one to talk
"ABC's Terms of Use are completely irrelevant when claiming Fair Use. If you have a good claim it wouldn't matter if their terms of use were "you can't use these images for any purpose, anywhere". ed g2s • talk 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)" from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lost. --thedemonhog 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on copying a comment I've made onto my talk page... do you have a point you'd like to make? ed g2s &bull; talk 04:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:BMW_MOA &mdash; Jeff dean 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Seinfeld
Ed, I must urge you to discuss the page on the talk instead of revert warring, all images pass the FUC, also remember to provide reversion reasons rather then reverting a persons good faith edits with the [rollback] button, thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BMW MOA
How's this? "BMW MOA" Jeff dean 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Press Gang episodes
Hi Ed. You might also want to take a look at List of Press Gang episodes. I had a polite word with the uploader at User_talk:Jay_Firestorm. If you want to remove them, you'll have my support. The JPS talk to me  16:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good spot, it's much less stressful when you find them early. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Background image
Hi Ed. I stumbled on your talk page and enjoy your background image. Mind if I use it on my talk page? Cricket02 13:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I love it. Thanks much!  :)  Cricket02 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Administrators' noticeboard/3RR --Milo H Minderbinder 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
You have reverted thrice four times in the last 24 hours on List of Heroes episodes. If you do not cease your revert warring then I will block you under WP:3RR. As I'm sure you are intimately familiar with this, I will only point this out that the exception nearest in validity is this:


 * Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libellous material. Any of these actions may still be controversial, thus it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance. (Emphasis mine)

Your interpretation on the FUC has been documented, discussed, and essentially dismissed by consensus that your interpretation is not correct. Thus, removing the images cannot be considered a clear copyright violation nor even the clearest of cases considering the long standing controversy and volumes of discussions on your position. In fact, I would call it bleading-edge controversial. You can call it enforcing policy if you wish, but when the bulk of editors agree that your interpretation of policy is incorrect then you are enforcing your opinion, not policy.

I also assume you are intimate with Revert only when necessary.

Additionally, consider this a warning for future edit warring on this page. Three reverts is not entitlement: Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.

I do not consider this warning nor potential blocking a conflict of interest because, as you will note, I have not reverted the images on the page in question. Ever, as far as I recall. The extent of my involvement has been adding a new image and expanding the respective summary. I prefer discussion; you prefer reverting and deleting; and edit warring neither solves the problem nor is it helpful in any way.

Look. I know we have our differences and have spoken many words over the subject. I would like to see this issue resolved but that can't be done with an edit war, only discussion. If we have to take this to mediation or RFC or arbitration then so be it, but edit warring will not be the answer.

This warning will be given to anyone on this page but you are the only one habitually & consistently reverting as well as the only one to hit 3 4 reverts in 24 hours. Cburnett 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Milo has put on you the noticeboard and has counted 4 reverts. I have updated my post accordingly. Cburnett 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing images out of process
You're again acting too hastily; you removed the image at Mika (singer) with no warniong, no message of explanation giving a time limit, etc. When I replaced it, another editor did the correct thing and added refu-c, with an expiry date of 7th February; you then ignored that and removed the image again. Please stop this. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no overriding reason to remove this image before the time linit has elapsed. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter images
Hey - I noticed you'd tagged the image HarryPotterCovers.jpg with possible copyright infringement. I was wondering what the rationale for that was, as I believe the book cover protection covers that. Thanks &mdash; mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Year nav BC
02-February-2007 (also in Ludde23-Talk): Okay, I have created "Template:Year nav BC" to handle any year BC, from 1 BC or earlier (fairly complex). For balance, when displaying years after BC, it shows the year-link but adds tiny " CE " such as "3 CE " as opposed to "3 BC " (most years are BC). Putting tiny BC/CE makes the table more narrow, allowing more text to the lefthand side, and the larger numerals are more visible as link choices to click. Complexity: Yes, it is fairly complex, but with the current internal comments, I think it could be understood & modified. Also, I intend to add a few more comments & "see-alsos" linking Wikitable help-pages. Vandalprone: It's dangerous; however, I plan to create a redundant variation as "Template:Year nav BCE" showing "BCE" not "BC" dates; those 2 templates could be compared, if one breaks, to help spot hidden vandalism. (Can you imagine if the Wiki-editing software were open to anonymous IP-address modifications?) It appears any article should be verified once-per-month for hidden vandalism/glitches, but that also promotes improvements, based on formats or images/artwork from other articles. Reserving verification time once-per-month can make it tolerable. BTW: I was stunned at the myriad number of current years-BC article names. Later. -Wikid77 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mischa Barton
In this edit you removed Image:Mischa Barton portrait.jpg, and deleted the image in Commons, as a likely copyvio. Can you review Image:Mischa Barton.jpg, which is uploaded by the same person (I think from the same flickr source). I added the image to the article, but then took it out, upon some doubts. I'ld like to know if its useable, or should be deleted. --Rob 15:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Putting "del" tags around a source where the image uploaded was ACTUALLY found, and STILL IS presently = clear defacement of work/vandalism. I don't really care if you "like my tone" or not... I'm here to add information that I know about and learn; not trot around on egg shells and kiss ass.

How else do you expect me to express that defacing the source where "x" image was found, is unacceptable. My tone was fine... I didn't launch any personal attacks, or anything like that. Just clearly stated, if correct specifications I've added (such as where I got the image from) were defaced... then I'd report said defacement. - Deathrocker 09:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Videography
What's wrong with having images on the chart for Shania Twain videography? You claim those screenshots are visual aids, but aren't all pictures visual aids???? Accoring to this, screenshots can be used for "discussion of the cinema and television" which is what is being discussed on that page. The music videos are being discussed. --Thankyoubaby 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Danica Patrick
On 2007-02-07, you deleted Image:Danica Patrick.jpg with the following explanation: "replaceable fair use, 7 days". While one user had claimed that the image was replaceable fair-use, I had disputed that claim (see Image talk:Danica Patrick.jpg). No consensus had been reached on the issue and so this deletion was inappropriate. I would appreciate it if you would restore the image pending such a consensus being reached. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The image was being used to illustrate the person, not in an article or article section about the book, and as such is replaceable. Your claim that because the book is an autobiography any article about her is also about the book was tenuous at best. ed g2s &bull; talk 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But Deletion still should have waited until some concensus has been reached since it was not clear cut in this case? —MJBurrage • TALK  • 18:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the image made it eligible for speedy deletion: "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate.". ed g2s &bull; talk 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The image had been tagged with a version of template:fair use disputed which states “If no acceptable rationale can be provided, this image may be nominated for deletion in the future.” The version used also gave directions for adding a green bordered tag if there was a reason to support the fair use of the image. (Now that the page is deleted, I cannot find the specific templates). I responded as directed and included comments on the talk page. No where in the tag does it say it may be speedily deleted, only that it may be suggested. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The replaceable fair use template is for images which fall foul of WP:FUC #1, "Images that do not comply with this policy within 48 hours after notification to the editor who uploaded the image will be deleted.", see also WP:CSD #7. ed g2s &bull; talk 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)