User talk:Seoidau/Archive 3

Integrating infoboxes
I was wondering if it is a good idea or a bad idea if merging rail, bus stations and wharves' into 1 template instead of 3 separate templates. Can you have some suggestions? Ta.

matt-(my page-leave me a message) 12:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I am imagining that it could work (and I guess eventually one day someone would ask of it). Maybe an issue could be some editor who doesn't know what they are doing may use the wrong elements, but I'd make sure there is a comprehensive how-to.  Would you like me to take a look at making one?  SEO75  [  talk  ]  01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well of course the more people working on it the merrier. I have created a thingie called Template:TL Infrastructure for now. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tasos90 back (January 19)
Hi. Tasos90 is back this morning editing with the IP address of 211.31.38.196. You had previously blocked that IP. Still doing the same edits as always. Just so you know. SEO75  [  talk  ] 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this - blocked for two weeks. It's weird as the IP address is an Optus one that is supposed to be portable but he's been on the same one for a long time. I'll watch it when the block expires to see what happens - Peripitus (Talk) 04:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Clive Peeters page
Hi Seo75, I'm a little unsure why you keep removing information from the Clive Peeters page. Can you please explain your actions? I have put up quite a lot of information on this page and I am an employee of the company with permission to use the information that has been put up. At the same time I am quite new to Wikipedia and may not understand the reasons for your deletions. Can you please let me know? Thanks Wags05 (Matt) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wags05 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply, you're writing an advertisement, and Wikipedia is not for that. I suggest you read all the information posted on your Talk page, and the linked articles that explain how to contribute – especially with the issue of conflict of interest.  As an example, Harvey Norman is an article you can look at and see it is more encyclopedic and not purely to flog the company.   SEO75  [  talk  ]  07:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading an image from a website to be used as an visual aid.
I would like to know what to do regarding the file I am uploading 4D_TRAIN.jpg I got the image from a website to upload to an article for the viewers of the article to be able to have a clear view of the train itslef. What am I supposed to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattycraft (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have ownership of the image or permission from the copyright owner to have the material on Wikipedia. If it isn't your image, it could be copyright theft.  You have received a number of warnings about this before on your Talk page.  S<SPAN STYLE="font-size:87%">EO75</SPAN></B> <sup class="noprint Template-Fact"> [  talk  ]  09:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Urban Structure Brisbane article
I dn't know why you delted this information, it is all truthful information, if you don't belive me, check the references. And the subrubs I specified are becoming commercial districts so it is important to specify this. If you believe some of this information can be fixed, please be my guest. Thanks for your understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.44.53 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't me. Revision history is handy though, as are edit summaries.  <B>S<SPAN STYLE="font-size:87%">EO75</SPAN></B> <sup class="noprint Template-Fact"> [  talk  ]  01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on IAG branding
Hi, thanks for writing to me about IAG branding. I have to disagree with you about IAG's current branding. I worked with IAG for a number of years and was heavily involved with its re-branding. I can confidentally confirm that on 2nd July 2008, IAG refreshed its logo to the image I submitted on Wikipedia. Your comments about this logo being a current brand in false and highly incorrect. With all due respect with maintaining the integrity of information on wikipedia, please ensure you know about what you are commenting before submitting them. One thing I need to agree with you on is that I am unsure if the image if your use on the website, I merely copied it of iag.com.au and believe I made reference to this when submitting. I look forward to reading your reply on this.

Also, I will attempt to expand on the story of IAG's ownership of CAA. Thank you again for your feedback. Nathan1987 (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Heck, this is from 2007... From my recollection, the brand in the article back then was from their latest Annual Report.  In any case, I have updated the article with the brand used in their latest annual report.  Thanks for the reminder.   <B>S<SPAN STYLE="font-size:87%">EO75</SPAN></B> <sup class="noprint Template-Fact"> [  talk  ]  23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How was my edit vandalism?
I was helping Pepsi by requesting a citation to prove that it is a soft drink.--219.89.68.141 (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If it isn't soft drink, what are you suggesting it is then? <B>S<SPAN STYLE="font-size:87%">EO75</SPAN></B> <sup class="noprint Template-Fact"> [  talk  ]  21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Seo75. I wanted to take a second and thank you for adding FU rationale to File:CherryCokeBottle.jpg to bring it inline with current Wikipedia guidelines in regards to FU of images. That was a really old contribution of mine and it was surely well out of date with current standards. Wikipedia is in sore need of people like you who are not afraid to do the right thing and update these older copyrighted FU images with the new expectation of FU rationale templates. Too often I see admins taking the easy route of drive-by pot-shotting old contributions because they are too lazy to do the proper thing like fixing it themselves; they'd rather just see it deleted. I'd like to blame laziness but part of me also knows that there is a bloc of Wiki-admins who are staunchly communist and would like nothing more than to see copyrighted anything eliminated from Wikipedia (I'm looking at you, Wales), because they do not understand, or will not accept, the reasons that fair-use on Wikipedia should be emboldened and embraced rather than eliminated. Back when I uploaded this image, there was no formal FU policy in place regarding templatized FU rational, so I certainly appreciate your updates to this particular image, especially since it kept me from having to do so and refamilizarise myself with whatever arcane red-tape policy these bureaucrats put in place.. I've been inactive on Wikipedia in so far as editing for ages. Anyhow, thanks again. --Jeff (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)