User talk:Ed g2s/Archive20

Zorro images
Is there a specific Wikipedia guideline for removing pertinent if undiscussed images, as you did with the Zorro page? Thanks. Mdiamante 03:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And more help, please...
Please cast an eye over this thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket Ta. --Dweller 08:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @ 2603:8000:6A01:6782:B18A:184A:DA89:168F (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Image:Southampton FC.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Southampton FC.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. bainer (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Conflict template
Hi,

Probably you are not aware that this template is used in many articles, the current dimensions of the template was decided after much contemplation, when changed this affects all the articles using the template. Please discuss your requirement to change and we might be able to accommodate it. And also make sure that you explain your edit using the edit summary. This way people will no your intention and would help avoid any conflicts rising out of your edits.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * hi maybe you didn't change the dimensions, but when you change the class of a table it can affect readers using certain browsers, anyway I have left your change as it is, but changed the border color to what it was.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 05:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming border color is my personal preference is not correct and its a failure to assume good faith on your part, the template was functioning perfectly before you changed the style to your personal preference (if it is not please explain your reasons for changing it). This template was created after much contemplation, to resolve conflicts in Sri Lanka Civil War related articles. The current template design has consensus amongst the editors who originaly contributed to the creation of it and subsequent improvisation of it. You changing the style to your whims and fancies is undermining the fellow editors work and is disrespectful. Please consider discussing this with editors in the templates talk page before you change it again.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed
Please take a look at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates. It's a lesson I've written (with some chipping in from some friends) and I'd really like you to look through the section on images. The lesson is aimed at relative newbies, so I've tried not to overload them with references to policies etc, but if, in your experience, there are some quick bits of advice that can be added, please feel free! --Dweller 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Template:Sri Lankan Conflict
Both of you guys should stop your edit war regarding the border of Sri Lankan Conflict or else I will list it under the Lamest edit wars. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie |undefined 08:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation
Ed, please explain why you have made this edit? And frakked up every LOE? Matthew 10:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "I'm adding masses of whitespace" was not in the edit summary. Use a sandbox before making damaging edits. Matthew 10:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Matthew 10:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * and you've broken it again. Matthew 15:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. Addendum: If you want to make style changes then please gain consensus :-). Matthew 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode list
Ed, please revert your changes to episode list. That strange formatting was there for a reason and this has been discussed before. -- Ned Scott 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry, but what the heck where you thinking, making that drastic of a change without any discussion, or even checking the talk page (where it was explained why it was like that)? -- Ned Scott 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. those banners are there with a reason. you just made 7 edits within 2 hours of about 100*60 transclusions, and it's still totally broken. Ned has well before on the talk page announced that he had the code for the fixed template available in his sandbox, and since he is the principal designer of the template, you might have taken that into consideration. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you intended well, but that's what always happens with this template. One change that looks harmless ends up in a succession of "little changes/fixes". That's why the warnings are there. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I reacted so much, I can be a bit of a spaz about stuff sometimes. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Episode list
Can you please edit the template so that if someone has specified an Image parameter that the template transcludes episodelist article to be fixed which would be a protected empty template. We could then use whatlinkshere on that to find any episode list template using articles which still specify image names. --Gmaxwell 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

300 Soundtrack Image
Perhapos you were unaware that a discussion regarding this image is ongoing. I would ask that you wait until a consensus is arrived as to the interpretation of the policy being cited as cause for its removal. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was never really married to the idea of the soundtrack image anyway (a great many FA articles don't have them); more annoyed at the rather pissy way it was removed by another, and the end-run logic used to justify it. I expect admins to behave better, and from his behavior, he is racking up some pretty negative karma.
 * The uber-immortal image, however, is in fact discussed in the article. You will have noted that the image was placed within the Depiction of Persians section. The image specifically addressed the argument in that Persians were depicted as malformed monsters and the like, the image directly representing that portrayal. This image (a European promotional poster) represents a rather significant bone of contention both in the article and within the state of Iran. I think perhaps you were not aware of the image's role in the section, and will agree to revert your removal. If you are too busy to do it yourself, I will do so at the end of the day. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  11:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. I didn't notice that you had also removed the Leonidas fighting image. The Spartan method of fighting is actually discussed in the article. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  11:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Xerxes suggesting that Leonidas give up is also discussed in the paragraph above the one where that image appears. If it's not clear, it might just be a matter of layout. Hewinsj 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be disruptive at 300 (film). You removed images despite the "silence of consensus" with these images having existed in the article for quite some time, so if you want to challenge the images, do so on the talk page first. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, just letting you know that you're at three reverts at the 300 article. Please don't revert war, much less violate 3RR.  --Minderbinder 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you did not take numerous editors' warnings to heart. You are to consider yourself edit-warring if you, instead of waiting for a discussion to complete, continue to revert an edit. You now have five editors telling you that you are wrong in this particular instance. Forgive me, but wouldn't it be prudent to discuss the matter before taking unilateral action? You have violated 3RR and are edit-warring. These are bad signs when trying to have people consider you to be reasonable. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually just three reverts so far. The first two you have listed aren't reverts but initial edits removing the images.  Also, consecutive reverts only count as one.  --Minderbinder 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, the reason I've considered your edits to be disruptive was initiated by your immediate removal of images from the film article without initiating any sort of discussion. This isn't a case of quickly removing libelous content from someone's biographical article. As I've shown you, discussion took place on choosing the images, and your edit (and subsequent reverts) were flying in the face of that. You are obviously on a mission, and I would advise you to treat images like these on a case-by-case basis. This isn't a list of episodes, but rather an intentionally limited selection of images to illustrate the Plot section. Your idea of illustration is apparently different from mine. I've responded to the proposal at the talk page for the policy of non-free content, as I've already gone there before to explore the application of film posters and the rationale that could potentially be abused to embark on a mission to blindly rid articles of certain images. Apparently, this is already the case, and I do not feel that such missions are in Wikipedia's best interests. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You've been blocked for 3RR for 24 hours. Edit warring is unacceptable in disputes, and despite being warned you've continued. Perhaps discuss things like many people have asked you already?  Majorly   (hot!)  23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The 4th edit was on a completely separate issue, please undo immediately. ed g2s &bull; talk 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Three-revert rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." (emphasis mine) - 3RR violated. Matthew 23:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your claim "3RR not broken". Which of the four reverts listed are you saying wasn't a revert?  FYI, 3RR applies to any four edits, "separate issue" or not.
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." --Minderbinder 23:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The 4th was by a different editor on a different matter, and was simply to add "see pictures". It was part of the next stage of the debate, in which we are working out a way to alter the article to justify the image. It is completely separate from the original dispute and edit war. Furthermore, that edit was the only content based revert - the others are policy enforcement. ed g2s &bull; talk 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, you're still edit warring. It's disruption as well as a 3RR violation. I think you should cool down for a little while. Matthew 00:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing disruptive about enforcing policy. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, you are correct in stating there's nothing wrong. That would be if policy unequivocally supported you without bringing opinion in. I also must point out that it isn't exempt from 3RR. Matthew 00:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A report for the same edits resulted in "no block, removing copyright violations" - Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR Given that decision - the latter report seems invalid. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From looking at it I see that it presents different diffs. Matthew 00:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Ed made an additional revert even after getting being reported and warned the first time.  --Minderbinder 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is the one extra edit. However the first ruling was on the grounds of me enforcing policy in the first three edits, and so they were effectively struck off as 3RR violations. By the time I made the last edit I had been cleared of any wrong doing, and as such the 4th edit on the different issue was a first revert. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Ed, I do truly understand you are miffed at this block. But, this disruption has to stop... it isn't helpful to Wikipedia. My personal opinion on this is that your arguments are straw man based. You do state your enforcing policy, but consensus disagrees with you (thus, consensus vs. opinion), also 3RR makes no exception for this. Matthew 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who violate policy can and should be reverted till doomsday, regardless of their proclaimed "consensus" to do so. — freak([ talk]) 00:32, May. 11, 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just about to mention that I would be willing to unblock you, but I just saw that this fine fellow went ahead and beat me to it. As someone who just yesterday inadvertently made more than three reverts in one day, I can surely understand your situation.  By the way, this is a cool looking user talk page.  Cheers   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Special treatment, huh? This is what I meant by the roost that you all rule. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My admin status has played no role in this dispute. Your accusations of bias are unfounded. I have had no contact (that I can remember) with the above two admins in the past. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You were blocked by one admin. This shows that your so-called "enforcement" is not widely accepted across the board.  I'm not talking about bias toward you, specifically, I meant admins in general.  But that's right -- no cabal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Lost episodes
In response to the edit war at List of Lost episodes, I protected the page. You were one of the two parties in the edit war. I'm sure that you have been an admin long enough to know that edit warring in general isn't acceptable and can lead to being blocked, regardless of whether you have good intentions. It would have been helpful for getting a consensus on that page if you had postponed your reverts to discuss the issue. If you look, there is a fair use rationale on the image that has some merit. It seems possible that that image could be used somewhere, and I am certain it warrants dicussion. CMummert · talk 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion I saw agreed that one image per episode is not acceptable. I never saw agreement that no fair use image could ever appear on a list of episodes page. That image has a fair use rationale for that particular page and it could probably be put at the top along with some critical commentary. Your actions in reverting the image without discussion are not helping to bring the issue to resolution. CMummert · talk 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it needs some commentary. On the other hand, if you compare the screenshots on various movie pages, you see that it doesn't need very much. Minderbinder kept putting the image somewhere that had no commentary - so move it to the top of the episode list and add some. It's the blind reverting (both by minderbinder and by you) that's the problem. There must be some compromise that everyone can agree to. CMummert · talk 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is responsible for moving articles forward rather than reverting (WP:EW), and in this case I don't believe you have any recourse to NONFREE since it is clear that little work would be required to make this use acceptable. I am going to unprotect the page, but I will be watching the situation there. I have asked minderbinder to work towards a compromise, and all I am asking you is to do the same. CMummert · talk 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you continued to edit war on that page, rather than working towards a compromise, I would pursue administrative action. It is be just as easy to fix that article as to revert it. Your firm stance is not helping anything here. CMummert · talk 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AN thread
So you know, minderbinder and matthew are calling for your head over on WP:AN. - M  ask?  14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's new eh. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology and advice
First of all, I would like to apologize for my incivility toward you. I failed to conduct myself in a reasonable manner. I would like to revisit the discussion about what content would suffice to provide fair use rationale for non-free content. First, I'd like to explain the methodology that I have used based on my time working with film articles. Traditionally, my line of thinking has always been to have a limited number of fair use images, and they would be ones that best represented the content. It has perhaps been simpler to choose images for sections related to production information, such as the design of a character. For the plot summary, there seems to be a conflict in bringing together the story and the images to illustrate it. On one hand, the plot summary is supposed to be succinct, which robs it of any detail that may otherwise support a screenshot. Traditionally, for this section, discussion has taken place among editors to determine what images would best illustrate the major components of the story. This would include the major characters, events, and locations. The mindset has always been to go beyond "purely decorative" and to choose images that would illustrate for the reader the neighboring content. Since we summarize the plot, there is rarely more than a handful of sentences for any given event in the film, which conflicts with the apparent requirement that there must be sufficient detail to warrant the screenshot.

I would like to impart some advice to you, if you are willing to hear me out. First of all, I have generally relied on film articles of Featured Article status for guidance in improving other articles. They are supposed to be the best film articles that Wikipedia has to offer. So please consider that many editors have been accustomed to this traditional approach, and we are finding it unfair that this upheaval is taking place so late in the project's development. I have watched and participated in discussions where editors of film articles frequently engage in discussion about whether an article has too many non-free images or a poor selection of them. We are not attempting to exploit any loopholes or push our luck in defining fair use rationale. I would recommend that if you and other editors are seeking to ensure that the non-free content policy is followed, that you take this viewpoint into consideration. I personally don't think that there's as clear of a case for removing inappropriate images from film articles as there was one for lists of episodes. I would suggest that, if you mean to investigate the world of film articles, you present a case explaining how non-free content should be used and what alternative methods can be used to address whatever image issues a film article may have. I think an explanation of how a screenshot can be used in the plot summary (if at all) as well as other sections of the article. Your action at 300 may have been seen as brusque because of how we are accustomed to the traditional approach, and I think if you want to instigate change, you should initiate discussion and give editors a chance to respond, with access to the alternatives that we can pursue.

Another way to encourage the correct application of the non-free content policy would be to provide examples where the fair use rationale is appropriately designated. This may require visiting one or two Featured film articles and re-shaping them accordingly, so that it can serve as a guiding light for editors to follow. I think that such an approach would reduce hostility over seemingly disrupting articles. In the future, I will try to practice image use more in line with what this policy requests, but I still feel that there needs to be clarification about how screenshots can be inserted into summarized Plot sections, if at all. I hope you understand that being more passive in dealing with non-free content and giving more involved editors the understanding and the responsibility of handling images would be better in the long run. If you are interested in discussing how we shape this approach, I can help share the kind of perspectives that we have had in the past and suggest what would make editors more reciprocal to change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Allison-brewer.jpg
I think you were a bit hasty in deleting the image, as you can see from it has been deleted and undeleted before. Please see the explanation I have posted on the [Image_talk:Allison-brewer.jpg|talk page]. Thanks for your consideration. - Jord 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments
You now have your own RFC page, Requests for comment/ed g2s. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Replaceable fair use
Hi, your edit to this template messed up the day categories in Category:Replaceable fair use images. Could you fix it? It would take you probably a few seconds, it would take me a bit longer...:) Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The daily categories are being created through the Category:Replaceable fair use images page. That links still to the old name of the categories. See for instance today's category which is Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 13 May 2007, which is the old name. Garion96 (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it. Garion96 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

AWB wikitable fix went wrong on a nonstandard table
Hi Ed - thanks for your efforts to standardize wikitables. I know from personal experience that it takes some dedication to carry out a mundane job like that using AWB! However, at User:Geometry guy/Grading scheme and WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Grading_scheme, you edited a table with a rather nonstandard structure (it has tables within tables) and messed it up. The first time round I just fixed it, but now you've done it again. Could you either fix this one by hand, or skip it when you go through the list using AWB? Cheers, Geometry guy 13:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. It is probably a good idea to filter out user space pages anyway when using AWB.

Why?
What was wrong with using that image? And you make me look like a vandal... -  Bagel7  What ya say,what ya say,what ya say,what??? 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Being a good Samaritan
I spotted this plaintive cry for help and figured I know nobody as well-equipped to help as... ... you. --Dweller 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Apprentice Candidates template
Hi Ed, I understand that you've changed the apprentice candidate template for accessibility reasons - however, it is modelled on the 'big brother end game' template which seems to be able to justify itself in its current state. Just wondered why it's allowed on one template but not for another! Cheers, Seaserpent85 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's messy workarounds
So anyhow, since you're the only one who's figure out how to get background images to work, I was wondering if you knew of a way to tile those backgrounds. I'm working on Portal:Halo, and I want to have the headers be a background tiled horizontally. I just want your input if you think/know of a way to make it feasible. David Fuchs 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of non-free images in licensing templates
MZMcBride requested I solicit your input at Template talk:MultiLicenceWithCC-By-All-IntEng. The issue is using non-free logos and other images to identify license status, specifically the Creative Commons logo and buttons. Creative Commons's policy in regards to copyrights says that most of the content of the site is under cc-by-3.0 (and probably earlier as 3.0 is rather new..) except those things listed under the trademark section. The images and buttons are listed under the trademark section. Thus, the logo and buttons are not licensed according to the previous statement which means they are non-free. As such, their usage is subject to our policies on the use of non-free content which prohibits the use of non-free content outside of the main namespace. Image:Somerights20.png and Image:Somerights.png has already been replaced with Image:CC some rights reserved.svg in many license templates, but a few were missed. Any templates or other non-article usages of Image:Ccl logo.gif, Image:CC-logo.svg, or other offical logos should be removed or replaced with Image:CC some rights reserved.svg or such. The specific buttons should probably be replaced with Image:CC BY.png, Image:CC ND.png, Image:CC NC.png, and Image:CC SA.png as appropriate. Kotepho 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Grad
Congratulations on your graduation! Matthew 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ed g2s &bull; talk 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
The Original Barnstar To Ed g2s, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. -Susanlesch 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Handicapped ISA image, again
Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Handicapped ISA image, again Another attempt to use the ISA image. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey dude!
hi Ed.. i got a question 4 u.. i know that kit-templates shown the colors of the teams.. but it wont be better if people can see the complete kit with details and colors?... it will look better and more realistc... if u say thtat's ok i can make especific details for all the teams in the world.. i promess, well idk if u r in charge of this but thats my question!

i'll wait 4 an answer! oh great job by the way..

Omar Martinez 🇪🇨, Guayaquil, Ecuador —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omar 89 (talk • contribs).

Kits on Wikipedia
Recently a member of this website made some kits to go on the Arsenal page that look very much like the actual Arsenal kits. However, I have noticed that you removed them because (in your words), "Kit template is for colours, not design details."

The same happened with the new Manchester United home shirt.

I can't see how there is nothing wrong with providing better detail to kits. How is this a bad thing? Surely the more realistic the shown kit template is to the actual kit, the more accurate Wikipedia is.

Have you checked other members' views on this - do you know if you allowed to keep reversing the detail added to kits?

Alexcavell 09:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Template question
Ed, is Non-free allowed in an active template? Videmus Omnia 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

hepl, can't found something!
hey i remember last year i found a list of all german players who has caps and goals with the national team (name, year, caps, goals and teams, for example:)

103 caps, 14 goals (Bayern München)
 * Beckenbauer, Franz (1965 to 1977)

.. but i cant found it right know! i dont remember if the list was on german or in english...mmm i think that was in german...but the fact is that it exist!, so would you mind to help me to find it?... i'll apreciate this! thanx!

Omar