User talk:Thomas Hugh

Mudflap girl
If that information is to be added at all, it must be added in an appropriate manner -- and dumping it into the top of the article is not an appropriate manner, and will not become any more appropriate no matter how many times you choose to edit-war over the matter... AnonMoos (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

To Drmies and AnonMoos,
In your edit/undo of the revisions to the Mudflap Girl entry, you say that new information should be entered in the correct form. I am not nearly as familiar with the edit forms or formatting for wikipedia as you are. The trademark ownership for an image is clearly relevant information to an image. I would say that the legal ownership of a particular image is one of the most important facts to that image's public use or knowlege- which is why I put the information at the top of the article. If you have another suggestion or a more knowlegeable way to format this information, please let me know. Thank you Thomas Hugh (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you knew something about the law, then you would know that trademark does NOT "protect an image"; rather, it protects the right of the trademark holder to use it exclusively as an emblem in trade. So File:Coca-Cola logo.svg is not "protected" at all by copyright, but is still under trademark (and of course many trademarks do not involve images at all).  It's really your responsibility (as someone who wants to add material to a Wikipedia article) to make sure that your contributions contain factual relevant  information which has been added in a suitable form in a suitable place... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My edits only informed that the imaged was trademarked. That is a verifiable fact through the records of the USPTO Surely that is relevant to an article about the image. Thomas Hugh (talk)


 * Thomas, I think the basic issue, aside from formatting, is that I find it difficult to see how this kind of information is of encyclopedic value. But I am going to call in an extra pair of eyes. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And you are correct when you say that the "image" is not protected under the law. I did indeed mean to say that "the use of the image" is protected under the law. I would say that if someone goes to a public forum to find out about an particular image (i.e. the Mudflap Girl) that any parameters on the use of that image like a trademark registration would be of great value to their knowlege of that image. Do you not think so?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Hugh (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 August 2010


 * Hi, Thomas, and Welcome to Wikipedia. :) I see you are already well under way of learning about our consensus process, one of the behind-the-scenes secrets that many of our readers do not know about. The content of a good many of our articles is hashed out through conversation behind the scenes. [User:Drmies|Drmies]] had asked for my input here because I do a lot of work in the copyright area, but I see from your latest note here that you're not confusing these issues, so it really comes down to consensus over whether the information belongs...and that always brings into question what different editors think is and is not encyclopedic.


 * Personally, I think you make a pretty good point about the relevance of the information here. Since the article is specifically about an image, the trademark status of the image does seem relevant to me. The place to make those points and invite interested contributors to weigh in is probably the article's talk page. If there is not clear consensus formed there, then you can follow various dispute resolution possibilities, all meant to bring in wider participation to help settle the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and your time in looking at this, Moonriddengirl. It was never my intention to disrupt or offend any of the "behind the scenes" action of Wikipedia. Indeed I appreciate the tutoring that everyone has offered this afternoon. I will definitely start any future edits on the talk page or in "the sandbox" so that a concensus can be reached before any edit goes up. It was only out of inexperience that I would do/undo an edit directly on the page and for that I owe an apology to [User:Drmies|Drmies]]. I also appreciate your agreement on the issue of whether or not the trademark status is relevant information, as such an often referenced source I did/do feel that information on how someone can/cannot (i.e.- in commercail trade) use an image they are researching (because to be honest most people are researching an image because they have an intended use for it) is relevant/important to the overall knowledge of that image. This entire afternoon has been a great learning experience. Thank you for that.


 * No apology to me necessary--au contraire, I should apologize for not having put a welcome template on your page myself. Also, the consensus that Moonriddengirl mentions is real important: there is no behind the scenes stuff (at least, there ought not to be!). And I'll tell you something else: if Moonriddengirl and you both see the relevance of that information in the article, then relevant it is. I would ask you, of course, to provide a reliable source. In general, the more you explain edits (in edit summaries and on talk pages, as you did today), the better it is. So: apologies for us getting off to a rough start, thanks to Moonriddengirl for the welcome template and the useful advice, and to all a good weekend. Thanks Thomas, thanks AnonMoos, thanks especially Moonriddengirl (totally different from Mudflapgirl of course). Drmies (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to all. Thomas Hugh (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :D I didn't mean to imply that you were disrupting the behind the scenes action; on the contrary, you're taking part in it! We're all volunteers here trying to build the best free encyclopedia we can, and I appreciate your input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)