User talk:Ed g2s/Archive18

Image DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Twiggy promo.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Angr 22:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Replaceable fair use: comment for image deletion
Hi, I have noticed that you have deleted the image which I had uploaded before by using the comment "Replaceable fair use". Sorry, But I can not understand what you mean as it is not explained in Why was my page deleted?. This picture is released in and represents the image of Living Persons. Maybe last time I forgot to mention its source... --Xaqzasta 11:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh! It is true. So what license you think may suit for a music band image that is made accessible through their own website? --Xaqzasta 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Heroes images
Ed, could you provide the specific reason and link to policy (as specifically as possible) for your removal of Heroes images? I'd like to know what we can do to remedy what you see as a problem. Also, could you provide an example of an article using a screenshot in a way that you feel does follow proper fair use? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed any images. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an example: . --Milo H Minderbinder 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a redlink - the image has been deleted, check the history before making assumptions of bad faith. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On deleting the screenshots
WTF? the screenshots weren't just a "gallery", they were used to illustrate the progress made during evolution of Windows CE. What's the next step, maybe purging Main Page/Screenshots of anything but Mozilla shots? --tyomitch 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair Use images are for critical commentary -- once again, why are they allowed on the aforementioned Wikipedia: page, which isn't even an article? --tyomitch 07:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Replace images
You deleted four images with the following statements:


 * 1) "Image:Cdch.jpg" (replaceable fair use, 48 hours)
 * 2) "Image:Motherhousegrass.jpg" (replaceable fair use, 7 days)
 * 3) "Image:KS0801005a006.jpg" (replaceable fair use, 48 hours)
 * 4) "Image:Pow8.jpg" (replaceable fair use, 7 days)

All four of these images met Wikipedia criteria for posting and were documented on the page as to why they met the criteria. You removed those images. So I have three questions:


 * 1) What does "replacable fair use" mean exactly,
 * 2) What was your purpose for removing the pictures?
 * 3) Will you put them back?

--Paul McDonald 15:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfree images can only be used under our Fair Use criteria, the first of which is that a free alternative could not reasonably be created. Upon reviewing these images again it seems the last one is of a now non-existent buildings, but nonetheless had no rationale (WP:FUC#10). For the other three, any Wikipedian could go a take a photo of these and freely license them, it seems. If you want to upload the last one again, please read WP:FU to decide whether or not it would be suitable, and how to do it properly. Thanks, ed g2s &bull; talk 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't really answer my questions... but you gave me rise to others: What exactly is an "unfree image" and why exactly do you not believe these images do not meet the critera when permission was obtained, the fair use policy was followed, and the descriptions were given?


 * I did some checking and it looks like you have a bot running to delete a load of images in a short period of time. Perhaps you should check the bot code.--Paul McDonald 06:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm not running a bot. To answer your questions explicitly:
 * An unfree image to which "a free alternative could not reasonably be created" as I stated.
 * They violate our policy (WP:FUC#1), which is in place to encourage people to create more free content wherever possible.
 * No.
 * An "unfree image" is one which is not free of copyright restrictions (free to modify, redistribute and sell without restriction). ed g2s &bull; talk 10:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So let me make sure I have this clear: I can't use the photos that I got permission to use and have to send someone else to take new photos and then get permission to use those instead?  Why can't we just use the photos that we have permission to use in the first place?


 * Precisely how do the photos violate WP:FUC#1 in the first place? I've read it several times and I just don't see any violation.--Paul McDonald 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Permission to use on Wikipedia only" is not helpful to us. Images must be freely licensed, that is, permission must be granted to anyone to use them for any purpose (including commercial use and making derivatives works). The part of FUC#1 I am referring to is "if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken" - so if a Wikipedian went a took a photo of the building - (s)he could release it under a free license, and we could use it. ed g2s &bull; talk 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that we have permission to use these photos on Wikipedia only?--Paul McDonald 13:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you used them under Fair Use. If you got them freely licensed you should say so. One has to assume you have no rights to use an image at all until it is demonstrated otherwise. ed g2s &bull; talk 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay then, one more question (and it's not really one directed at you, I guess) Exactly why does Wikipedia allow us to upload pictures under the "fair use" dropdown option and then not let that image be used? Probably more philosophical in nature...


 * Once I re-take all the pictures and upload them, exactly what "thingamajig" in the "dropdown box" do I select that will allow them to stay?--Paul McDonald 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The license drop down box is a collection of shortcuts to commonly used licenses. Some images are allowed under fair use - however it also contains some "traps" - such as for buildings and living people - that automatically get marked for deletion. The reasoning is that if people get a "you can't upload that picture" warning they might pick a wrong license instead. Deleting images which we know are copyvios is much easier than detecting copyvios that have been labelled as "My work: GFDL licensed". As for uploading your own work, it's up to you which license you choose, although you are limited to ones which allow free redistribution and modification. I suggest also uploading to Wikimedia Commons so the images can be used across projects. The drop down box also gives some suggestions for licenses under "Your own work (best practises)". ed g2s &bull; talk 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Template:California history sidebar
Please see my humble comments to the template. This affects the featured article of the California Gold Rush and many other WP:CAL project pages. Ronbo76 11:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I am a member of that project. Ronbo76 11:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can see my project tag on my user page. I am an active member and have a number of files on my Watchlist. I am up early to protect our featured article until user:NorCalHistory can review good faith edits to the gold rush article. Ronbo76 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, that's great - but neither you, nor WP:CAL own any articles. ed g2s &bull; talk 11:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

color in episode infoboxes
Hi ed, you contributed actively to a discussion of the use of colors in Infoboxes for television episodes. In a drive towards limiting the amount of spin-offs of Template:Infobox Television episode, this issue has again come up, and I was wondering if you would care to comment on my ideas to come to a "best effort solution". Thank you for your time. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask.
Are you the leader (or whatever it may be called) of the project United Nations?Yaanch 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Circle line.png
 * Image:Bakerloo line.png

Image:BadmarshandShri.jpg
I'm just a little confused at the moment as to why the image was deleted. As far as I know, I had what I took to be a fairly good reason (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and, at the time it was deleted, the image had been tagged for 15 days, at which point I assumed the debate had been abandoned. Can you shed a little light for me please? --JB Adder | Talk 13:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I had actually thought that the image was, given its frequency on sites that I took to be unaffiliated with either the band or the label, as free; maybe I was wrong there. Is there any other way I can find a free-use photo or alternative (given the restrictions that 1. I'm Australian, 2. The band's official site no longer exists, and 3. The photo that exists on the label's (Outcaste's) site may be copyright to them, and as such non-free)? --JB Adder | Talk 02:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lcd layers.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lcd layers.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

undeletion of jim gray img
Hi Ed, I wanted to let you know that I am undeleting the Jim Gray image you deleted recently. The reasons I feel it no longer is a violation of the first fair use rule are: subject is now dead, so no new free photos can be made, and a Creative Commons search on Flickr, Yahoo, and Google did not yield any free images. --Zippy 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FUC image deletions
While I might disagree on the pertinence of many deletion, I'm not opposing them, however, what I do want to gripe about is the apparent frequent occurences of deletions that do not even attempt to remove the links to these articles. It is my belief that littering articles with red image links is more damageable than having Fair Use images that might be replaceable, but are still consistent with the spirit, if not the law of WP:FUC. To take a specific example,when you deleted Image:Mharris.jpg, Image:Mcguinty77.jpg and Image:Eves.jpg, you created 14 redlinks, 3 of which in a featured list, not counting those that probably have been since caught since. Please take the time to deal with this issue when deleting images.Circeus 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:TopGear-Test-Track.jpg
You might wanna check the upload history. I uploaded an older image that was subsequently replaced (and I assume deleted by that upload by the system) with the one up for deletion done by another user. I merely helped in trying to sort out the fairuse stuff in a couple of areas. Ergo, your message was wasted to a now non-existant image that is acredited to me. Sorry that Wikipedia's coding problems led to the mixup. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not my image, so not my concern.--293.xx.xxx.xx 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of "replaceable fair use" images
Hello! Tonight, I happened to stumble upon two articles containing broken transclusions of images deleted by you. Do you routinely delete these images without orphaning them? If so, why? —David Levy 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are about 50 such images uploaded per day, and a backlog of thousands. Red links, rather than bringing the whole project to its knees, just get deleted by other editors once noticed. ed g2s &bull; talk 12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's unacceptable. The encyclopedia is written for readers, most of whom aren't editors.  When readers see broken links to nonexistent images, a highly unprofessional appearance is conveyed.
 * The two articles that I found last night (Kaavya Viswanathan and Lou Dobbs) contained transclusions to images deleted on 7 February. For nearly a month, readers saw these broken image links.  During that period, Kaavya Viswanathan was edited by three registered users and five IP addresses.  Lou Dobbs was edited by five registered users and two IP addresses.  Just think of how many people visited the articles and didn't edit them at all.  (And who knows how long the broken transclusions would have remained if I hadn't stumbled upon them?)
 * If you feel that orphaning these images is too much trouble, why don't you arrange for a bot to do it? —David Levy 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, the process is very time consuming. If these redlinks are such a great problem (I personally see the copyright violations as a more pressing concern), then one could easily have a bot crawl the deletion logs, however this is beyond my technical expertise. ed g2s &bull; talk 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's beyond mine too. Why don't you request that someone else's bot perform the task?  —David Levy 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

allowedin
Do you still need somebody to code the bot? I don't totally understand what is going on but I should be able to do it. BJ Talk 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Photographer's Barnstar
The Photographer's Barnstar Awarded to Ed g2s for improving Wikipedia with your photographic skills and contributions. You are appreciated! Cricket02 14:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, familiar talk page... :) ed g2s &bull; talk 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of custom kit on Vancouver Whitecaps page?
(kit template is for general colours, not sponsors etc. (they're also a copyright violation))

sponsors? its the bloody team name.... a lot of work went into those custom kits, the whitecaps fan community appreciated them, why would you remove them... i have permission to use the whitecaps logo... i know the entire front office staff and the director of soccer operations, Bob Lenarduzzi

and ive seen custom kits on other pages, are the whitecaps no good enuf to have custom kits...

-Morbital


 * "Permission to use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Images must be freely licensed. No sports club would ever freely license their logo as it would allow others to use it commercially. You also have the kit sponsor in the upper left corner, and the team badge in the top right, which are both unfree. ed g2s • talk 12:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)"


 * both the umbro and whitecaps logos are already on this site... but they cant be on the whitecaps jersey? are you kidding me? how in the hell am i comercially benifiting by spending my time trying to maintain a free encyclopedia to make sure it is accurate... quit being an ass, seriously dude —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morbital (talk • contribs).


 * so whats the issue, sould i remove the caps a umbro logo... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morbital (talk • contribs).

Ev-In image...
Why haven't you informed me that you proposed EV-In.svg for deletion? It's your responsability to tell me, cuz i'm the uploader if you didn't know. Armando.O talk • Ev 03:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo removal
Hi. I noticed that you've removed all of the photos from today's FA. I understand you have good rationale for doing this, but I think having no photos in the main page FA makes Wikipedia look bad. Equally, Wikipedia would look bad by misusing photos in the main page FA.

Could I therefore invite you to check articles at FAC rather than waiting for it to appear on the main page? That particular article was at FAC for nearly a month. There was discussion there about the images fair use licensing, size, position, captioning etc and the cricket WikiProject would have welcomed your input at that point.

To that end, I'd like you to take a look at some other FAs and one nominee that I'm involved with, to check their images, Paul Collingwood, Adam Gilchrist and West Indian cricket team in England in 1988. Thanks, --Dweller 12:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the regular editors of Cricket World Cup is pretty insistant about restoring the fair use images you (in my opinion rightly) removed. Could you comment on the further discussions at Talk:Cricket World Cup when you're next around? You may also want to comment on the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png. WjBscribe 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see you've removed the images again. Please do respond point by point at the talk page. I (and I'm sure others) would find it very instructive for understanding fair use policy. --Dweller 12:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Learning loads. Generally speaking (ie not just about this particular article) I would presume that the "decorative" issue becomes quite subjective and difficult to deal with, with POV issues coming into play. --Dweller 12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence
Please, don't vandalise the Evanescence article. If you to test something, try the Sanbox. Armando.O talk • Ev 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the discussion. Armando.O talk •  Ev 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also check the Evanescence talk page before you delete any image. Armando.O talk •  Ev 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You have made a revert, but between the last version and the version you reverted, were m,any significant edits. I'm also reporting you, you have violated the WP:3RR policy. Sorry, but you may be blocked. Armando.O talk • Ev 00:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that I've only made two reverts. ed g2s &bull; talk 11:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of band photos
Ed g2s, when you removed your earlier note and changed the indentation level of Matthew's comment on Wikipedia talk:Fair use you made it appear as if Matthew was replying to Fritz, when he was replying to your comment. If you'd like to withdraw your prior comment, it'd be more polite to Matthew for you to restore your earlier message, but strikeout your comment by putting before and after your comment. Not that I think Matthew's comment is very sensible, mind you :-) —RP88 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * His message didn't read like a reply to anyone, unless I've missed something. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not (see my last sentence), but he marked it as reply to your comment. Perhaps I'm being overly careful? I've only been around WP a few months. —RP88 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I considered using &lt;del&gt; tags but as I didn't bother because it seemed no one had replied to my comment. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You really do wind people up, don't you
I knew I recognised that jumper and untidy mop. Sorry if idle banter isn't allowed on your talk page by the way. ...adam... 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Some day I would like to be as right as you are, but until then it's all a bit hit and miss. I'm learning though. ...adam... 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work on the fyi - had to sandbox it to get used to it but i see what you mean. Cracking. ...adam... 00:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Islam
Regrading this edit, is there any specific reason you changed the style of the template? --Bluerain talk 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C.
Hi. I wondered if you could cast an eye over the images in this (the article itself is currently at peer review, if you want to comment on the text) before I take it to FAC! Much obliged. --Dweller 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Friends' photos
Hi. I'm requesting some photos from friends which I plan to upload. I've never done this before. What do my friends need to do to make them free use? Where will I find idiot-proof instructions to uploading, so I don't screw it up? :-) Cheers, --Dweller 09:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::sigh::
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Seven_Network_slogans&action=history —   pd_THOR  undefined | 00:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, List of Nine Network slogans and List of Network Ten slogans seem to have the same contributers and thusly the same fair-use galleries. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 13:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of DanielMendelsohn.jpg
Hello:

I noticed that you deleted the image image:DanielMendelsohn.jpg last month. I received express permission for use of the headshot from the photographer, Matthew Mendelsohn, brother of the subject -- as I specifically noted in the image description. It should be returned.-- LeflymanTalk 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dominic West
If an image is replaceable then replace it, simple eh? Wikipedia should have good articles after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmanning (talk • contribs).