User talk:Udsieq

dbim template
Why are you putting dbim templates on pages that do not deserve them? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop now. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's disruptive to mark a lot of images as "corrupt or missing" when this is clearly not the case. Please don't do this again, or you may be blocked. Grand  master  ka  04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like I have an apology to make. I sincerely apologize for reverting your work re: CSD Commons, though it was all in good faith and I waited for replies on AN/I prior to reverting. My full reply, and opinion that the template should have big bold letters/be reworded so this misunderstanding doesn't occur a third time (apparently this is the second in as many days), is here at AN/I. Gotyear 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chrissawyerlocomotion.jpg
Thank you or bringing this issue to my attention, Udsieq, but as you'll notice, I tagged the image with Template:Boxshot, which was a valid and accepted copyright tag at the time. I strongly believe it was the responsibility of the individuals that deleted that template to correctly recategorize the images assigned to it. Failing that, it becomes the responsibility of those individuals policing copyright tags, such as yourself, to recognize these situations and correct them without putting editors like me on the spot.

Copyright issues are the single most divisive issue on Wikipedia and it does no service to anyone to automatically assume that uploaders are acting in bad faith. A bit of common sense and experience anywhere down the line could have fixed this without bothering me. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that Alex Covington
Brian.Burnell 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chevaline2.jpg
Usdieq, why are you putting notices for deletion on images that you assert are not labelled with their copyright status, when any reasonable interpretation of their labelling by a person who's first language is English suggests otherwise. In these circumstances, your action is verging on vandalism IMO. For your edification the labelling is repeated here.


 * " ...the photo was ... shot by Chris Gibson of the Skomer website at who has licensed its use on Wikipedia. Contact User:Brian.Burnell for further details of the copyright owners consent."


 * WHAT PART OF THAT LABEL ARE YOU UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND?

Had you bothered to inquire of me as the label suggested you would be made aware that the photographer (Chris Gibson) as the copyright owner sent me an email with his WRITTEN CONSENT. You would also be able to see a copy of his email, subject to the usual provisions about safeguarding his and my privacy.

The labelling stated clearly
 * who shot the photograph (always the copyright owner, unless stated otherwise)
 * who licensed its use on wikipedia

If you have any logically reasoned suspicion that the labelling was in bad faith or untrue, then the burden of proof lies on you to prove it.

'''If you suspect I lied, then prove it! I believe the street language goes something like this; put up or shut up.''' Brian.Burnell 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: The user who's page this is stopped contributing to wikipedia after the above posting  by B.Burnell, who himself stopped contributing in Dec 2006 after being permanently blocked. -- maxrspct   ping me  21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)