User talk:Ed g2s/Archive10

London July 2005 bombings - location maps

Hi there. I was wondering if, as the latest uploader of one of these two files, you'd be able to help with corrections to:

The problem is that both (still) show the wrong location for the Edgware Road bombing. The train had just left Edgware Road on the Circle Line/District Line tracks and was heading towards Paddington - hence the marker needs to be on the green/yellow line, slightly to the left of Edgware Road.

I'm also confused as to why the 7 July 2005 London bombings article is linked to the PNG file, but that that file is "not there", but seems to redirect in some way to the SVG file. Has the PNG file been changed to SVG and the link from the article not changed? Carcharoth 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PNG file links fine for me as well, but the "image" tab at top left is red, not blue. Is this normal? Carcharoth 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. I think I'm getting mixed up between the Wikipedia image files, and a Commons page I ended up on. I was looking for a file history for the Wikipedia image, but couldn't find anything. I was only able to find the file history (and hence you) on Commons. Do the Wikipedia pages not have file histories? Carcharoth 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. <checks picture> Wow! Corrected already. Thanks for that as well! Carcharoth 19:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer-europe.com

FYI - I have listed Category:Soccer-europe images at WP:PUI -SCEhard T 21:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more tube maps stuff

Hi again. I've just been looking at those nice geographical tube maps again, at Commons:London Underground geographic maps. I particularly like the ones of the District line and the Metropolitan line - both very different from what you see on the tube maps. What I got to wondering, after looking at some of the Wikipedia pages about the tube stations, was whether these maps could be adapted and combined to complement the "sucession" boxes each London Underground station currently has. These succession boxes currently give the "before" and "after" stations for each line running through the station, but this doesn't graphically show the distance or direction of the "before" and "after" stations, and the succession boxes also fail to show that some lines are using the same tracks. This overview of the direction in which the lines are heading from each station would be particularly nice for busy interchange stations such as Paddington station and King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, where several lines meet. Maybe this could be done by cropping areas from the combined maps that have already been done for zones 1 and 2? Though I've just noticed that those have map scales, but the underground line ones don't...

The other idea, which probably won't work, was to somehow get maps showing the depths of the various underground lines (the map would be a sideways looking, cutaway view, rather than from above). But that would only work if the GPS data was centred on the actual platforms and included relative altitudes as well - it would also depend how flat London is, as otherwise you would have to have GPS co-ordinates for the surface of each station, as well as the platforms below.

An alternative might be to just add a small thumbnail of each line's map to each station's page. Maybe with the relevant station highlighted? Or just add the current image for each line to a template used for each line? Something like Template:LUL line that is currently used for the succession boxes? Do you see any way that might work? Carcharoth 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll let you know if I find anyone. Thanks for the reply, and thanks again for doing these maps! Carcharoth 00:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

smile

E-Bod has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--E-Bod 04:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Rugby Ball

Correct licensing placed...thank you. Rowlan 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Reo-Coker

Hi there, I see you reverted a change I made in the England squad list.

Phil Neville replaced Nigel Reo-Coker today in the squad: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/england/5006754.stm

Did I not follow a correct procedure when changing the list? I'm still new to wiki editing.

Graham

If you find a copyright infringement

Copied From [Wikipedia:Copyrights

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.

If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.

If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.

In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.

Response

Please read and respond to the Bold text. This is referring to Text but I assume the same goes for images.--E-Bod 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright infringement

Text and images are very much different in how they are used and modified in a wiki, and as such are handled differently. What, exactly, is your point? ed g2s • talk 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I couldn't find a distinction on policy pages. My Point was (contrary to what you say) users are allowed to give permission for specific purposes. My other point was a re post of you should notify us if you change our user space.--E-Bod 00:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored." - means "if permission is granted to release the text under the GFDL" - not give specific permission for use in the article. Notification is for when one is removing large chunks of text from a page - not small icons from a talk page. The comment in the edit history is sufficient notification. ed g2s • talk 00:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I Don't think Rcmurphy will sue himself for a fair use Violation of his own work--E-Bod 00:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is not based on whether or not someone will sue. ed g2s • talk 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit vandalizing my talk page

I don't know if you were around for the TSBY time magazine picture cover scandal. It is similar to your misguided, power hungry actions. TSBY took it upon himself to become the protector of wikipedia. Despite instructions from Jimbo to go through normal channels, he deleted hundreds of Time magazine covers unilaterally, without a common consesus. Causing a major firestorm. Your paternal protection of Wikipedia is disgusting. I will continue to restore the image on my user page until you can show me a clear consensus otherwise or a letter from Jimbo stating that what you are doing is approved. I have no respect for what you are doing, it is counterproductive and simply causes anger and ill feelings on wikipedia. Stop threatening me with the little power you have, it is pathetic. I will continue to restore the image on my user page until you can show me a clear consensus otherwise or a letter from Jimbo stating that what you are doing is approved. In my view, your deletions are no different than the vandalism I did to your page, changing your color. In otherwords, you have no authority to do what you are doing. You are a vigilante who is attempting to unilaterally impose his paternal view of wikipedia on fellow wikipedians. Quit vandalizing my talk page.Travb (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you should cool down. Maybe calling what you are doing Vandalism (Both of you) is unproductive. Ed. You Have more blatant Fair use Violations to fry. Please target the Obviously Violations first and remove the Fair use Violations from the people who don't object first. also. As an admin you should be the Coolest person, not the hottest. (I'm not saying you are hot). Don't let you issues with one user spill into another. Each of us objecting to your removal of fair use Violations are individuals speaking in different tones. Unfortunately you can not read our facial expressions, so for each new user you should assume good faith. (and I'm not saying you haven't). Remember. Each of us are complaining for different reasons and try your best to deal with us as a special case. These pages are not going anywhere so you don't have to waste your time reverting while the issue is hot. You have received numerous complaints for rremoving fair use images. Sometimes you are write to remove them but don't take the rules to literally. Assume we are all just joking with you even if that is likely not the case. Don't let it get to your head. Remember this is a metaconflict. Mabe you should remove all decorative fair use violations first and get to the more debatable ones latter or sugest simbody else wo hasn't soiled ther hands in the issue gat involved--E-Bod 05:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you none of this is making me "hot headed". It is simply a case of enforcing policy: The image can only be used under fair use therefore it can't be used on his talk page. If he wants to get this policy changed he can take the discussion to a relevant page, we don't make exceptions because one user objects. I have never called it vandalism, merely violating policy - which is what is it. ed g2s • talk 13:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you were an admin, but now I'm more worried. You have used your admin power irresponsibly.

Err, admin privileges are block, protect and delete. Which of these have I have supposedly abused?

You are taking your version or fair use and imposing it on everyone.

I am imposing the long-standing policy at WP:FU.

You are reading what you want to read without discussing it with anyone. Stop it!! You are an admin, you should work on consensus, even when you think you are right. Have you noticed that a lot of people are complaining about your actions???

Yes, but when you make 100 edits, you expect a small percentage of them to be challenged, especially when you are removing material. I don't expect every user to understand all of our policies.

Doesn't it make you think you might be wrong?? Come on, think about it, discuss it. Cjrs 79 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed hundreds of times in the past - this is why we have policies - so we don't waste time replaying the same arguments over and over. ed g2s • talk 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like ed to answer me directly, since he has ignored my question:

I will continue to restore the image on my user page until you can show me a clear consensus otherwise or a letter from Jimbo stating that what you are doing is approved.

Please do not point to the fair use page, as TSBY has in the past. The fair use page became policy rather dubiously, outside of the normal channels that usually make a suggestion, wiki-wide policy. See User talk:Travb/Archive_4#Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria It appears this page became policy by one person deciding it should be policy.

I would like to know if you have gotten some consensus, or an okay from Jimbo, or you are simply unilaterally interpreting fair use the way you see it.

User:Yskyflyer wrote and said something to me which is just as relevant to you as it is to me:

You have built a bad reputation through this battle. Some of that reputation is spilling over on the rest of us.

I know that my bad reputation is probably hurting my cause, do you see how your unilateral actions are hurting your cause? I welcome less hot-headed diplomats like E-Bod becoming the face of reason in this debate, and if the reversion of my own user page stops, allowing him and others like him to take over (albiet I currently question whether E-Bod represents my interests).

Maybe you should allow someone else to take over this project, someone else like E-Bod who maybe shares your own POV and who can build a clear consensus before beginning to delete hundreds of images.

If you would have simply debated this in an open forum and got consesus, or got approval from Jimbo first, and fixed a link to this page in your deletion on my user page, I would have grudgingly abided by the decision, and this second firestorm would have been avoided.

Signed: Travb (talk)

15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that WP:FU is not official policy is verging on conspiracy theory. I'm sure Jimbo [1] and the entire board approve of its policy status. Either way - I haven't edit the policy page, so what I am enforcing is not "fair use the way [I] see it". ed g2s • talk 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educational reasons are fair use

"the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". Don't get into a revert war. Yes, there is a free image, but it does not depict the various colors, and types that the other images do. That should have been obvious. Malamockq 15:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Sorry, but you are wrong on this one. The pictures add a very important visual to the text, as they depict the actual color. Words like "cosmic blue", and "candy pink" are dubious, and need to be supported with pictures. Malamockq 15:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color samples would be irrelevant. This article is about Nintendo DS. Malamockq 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a camera and all those various Nintendo DS color types, then feel free to take photos of them all. But each of those colors has to be represented. Until you obtain these photos, the existing photos are valid under fair use. Malamockq 16:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant as color samples belong on a page about color. This is the Nintendo DS page, what's being discussed is Nintendo DS, as such the colors of the Nintendo DS should depict the Nintendo DS in its various color schemes. Malamockq 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use criteria

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information ... if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken"

Free photos could easily be taken, or colour samples created, which would give the same information.

I will repeat myself. If you can take photos of the various Nintendo DS's in the colors depicted in the article, then you may do so. But each one has to be properly represented. I've explained why color samples are not appropriate already, I will not go through it again.

"The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."

Using several fair use images to illustrate a minor point is hardly as little as possible.

The amount of work depicted was necessary to illustrate the point. I believe it's an important point to illustrate as it adds an important visual. Malamockq 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule Violation

I told you not to get into a revert war. You violated the 3RR. Malamockq 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were adding copyrighted material without a fair use claim, and as such I am justified in removing it. ed g2s • talk 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing the matter. You should have waited until we settled on an agreement. Malamockq 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported. [2] Malamockq 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image in the Michael Jackson article

This claimed fair use image is being used as the main image for the Michael Jackson article, but I've read somewhere that fair use images shouldn't be used if there is a free one available. Does this mean that this mugshot image should be used instead given that its the only free image available at the moment? Just wondering because I see a lot of debate about fair use images going on in wikipedia--58.169.11.224 09:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use Disgrace

|- |align="center"|

|align="left" width="100%"|

You have lost your right to involve yourself in matter of fair use for Uncivilly removing fair use images from other user spaces while your own user space is one of the Top Fair use Violators on Wikipedia. You are not Above the Law. You have been Warned repeatedly. Your actions as an Admin are Discraceful.

--E-Bod 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Haven't you Gotten rid of all the fair use images from your own userspace. You have no right to remove Fair use images from other userspaces and mainspace until you finish removing it from your own userspace. you're actions are uncivil and Disgrace full.

[3] Your user space is listed as one of the Top Fair use Violations and i am not Joking. This is Unexceptable coming from an admin and a Fair use Policeman. I have already removed some fair use violations from your userspace before and was blocked by one of your friends for braking WP:Point. How can Justify removing Fair use logos that are used with permission (based on a Listserv post that addresses permission not allowed when an free alternative is easy to obtain). For instance you uploaded Image:Westminster school crest.png without a copyright tag so it was latter tagged fair use. I think it is a greater evil to not even put a copyright tag than to use it as fair use. You are an Admin so you Definitely know better. I am outraged because you never gave me a warning and i was actually using an image for identification while you are using it as decoration. I am asking you Never Again use the Word Fair use If you find you need to efficiently remove fair use from other people's userspace without even a notice on their talk page but are one of the larges Fair use Violators on wikipedia

[4] When approaching users about removing the fair use images on their userpages, please be careful to be polite, and check to make sure that no one else has already brought it to their attention.

You have done nether. I am asking you to Resign as an admin and to apologize. One of your friends who happens to be an arbitrator has ruined my reputation by Blocking me for Violating WP:Point on your page when i had done no such Disruption. I seek a Formal Apology from you as a Trophy on my User space.

I believe you have No right to Police a policy that you will not even bother to enforce on yourself

The Biggest Fair use Violators should not be the least Civil Fair use Enforcers. You should be Ashamed of Yourself. Please Review Every Image on your Userspace and apply the appropriate Copyright tags and remove all Fair use and Issue an Apology to Every last User that you have removed fair use image from their user space. You are a Disgrace. You have lost your right to Speak on the Issue of Fair Use.

You have Disrupted Enough Wikipedia articles that use Fair use Thumbnails for identification purposes. You have offended enough users and have been warned repeatedly on this talk page. Fair use may not be allowed on those pages but your violations are far worse and coming from you it is unacceptable.--E-Bod 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Why Haven't you Gotten rid of all the fair use images from your own userspace."

I'm pretty sure I have - although please correct me if you find one.

"Your user space is listed as one of the Top Fair use Violations and i am not Joking."

Those list are out of date - they've all been removed as far as I am aware.

"For instance you uploaded Image:Westminster school crest.png without a copyright tag so it was latter tagged fair use. I think it is a greater evil to not even put a copyright tag than to use it as fair use. You are an Admin so you Definitely know better."

That was almost three years ago (August 2003), when I wasn't an admin, and didn't know better.

"please be careful to be polite, and check to make sure that no one else has already brought it to their attention. You have done nether. I am asking you to Resign as an admin and to apologize."

You are quoting Interiot there not a policy. I explain my actions in my edit summary. "Fair use images removed per policy" is not being rude.

"One of your friends who happens to be an arbitrator has ruined my reputation by Blocking me ... I seek a Formal Apology from you as a Trophy on my User space."

I'm not responsible for his actions, although given this recent rant, I don't envisage many people standing up for you.

ed g2s • talk 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

II Am sorry I should have Checked the dates. I will double check and count how many Fair use Violations are currently on that page. For you information i did not create the template but i did want it to look official. I am sorry for threat. I will double check my points--E-Bod 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ed g2s • talk 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I actually am really sorry. That was the only one I could find and you have since removed it [5]. I should have checked the dates and threat was unacceptable. Yes you should have removed that image But being a long time ago and it was only one it's not as bad as i thought. I was just that I had already removed 3 others form you userspace so I expected you to have gone though your own userspae really carefully first. I i hadn't already told you about his it wouldn't be. I was Just shocked that at one time you were a tip fair use violator and you are now reformed. And OK that is not Policy but You should still fallow that advise as if it was policy. Again Sorry I hade made the wrong assumption that this was current. I was just really shocked when I found that page. I should have waited for a response. (And i did say i would regret that latter)--E-Bod 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute 17:59, 27 March 2006 [6] . You had 24 fair use images on your user space this year. This was not that long ago and Most the Fair use images were removed by Durin this month. This issue is not as old as I though. Yet When i made this accusation their were only one Fair use image on the page so I wasn't justified. I had false assumed the other images were still up. I'm still sorry for what I did but I am tad bit less sorry than i was a few edits ago.--E-Bod 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football World Cup mascot

Hi, I know that you get a lot of questioning over your fair use material removals, but I don't agree on taking down the images on Football World Cup mascot. While making articles for each individual mascot and including the relevant image in each is possible, it is unnecessary and counter-productive.

Apart from Goleo and Pille, none of the others have articles, and for good reason, since there is not much information on each: this would only lead to one-paragraph stubs all over the place (I would even merge Pille into Goleo). The same information is presented much more effectively and in a much more user-friendly way in one single page.

Plus, there is nothing in the fair use policy that says that images can only be used in individual articles, it is OK to use them to illustrate sections within one page, like here. You had previously removed the images from the article when they were in a "gallery", which I agree with, but the table now gives each mascot its own individual section which can be illustrated by the relevant image.

Some sections of the fair use policy you have invoked before:

"The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."

All the images in question are currently not being used anywhere else on Wikipedia.

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."

This is copyrighted material, so there is no free equivalent. The name and description do not give the same information. The latter gives some overall characteristics and context, but a visual is much more useful and complements it.

"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

The images are, in my opinion, the essence of this article. The mascots are themselves the subject of the article, and each table entry is specific to each one. Thus, they "specifically illustrate relevant points" within the text, and their contribution is far from just "decorative".

Please let me know if you still disagree, so that we can settle this. Thanks a lot, --Gabbec 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. --Gabbec 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Cubs logo

Why are you singling out Billy Williams (baseball player)? Or are you just getting started? I would also like to know how the Cubs are harmed financially by having that logo in the ballplayers' pages. The harm / no harm question seems to be the primary issue of "fair use". Wahkeenah 13:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Electra

Just because a mugshot is the only free photo available does not mean it's appropriate to use. It's implied derision of the subject. Wahkeenah 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased point of view is better than no picture at all? WRONG! Wahkeenah 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marvin meets Rover.jpg

What's the appropriate tag for an image of unknown origin that was circulating on the Internet? Wahkeenah 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Images, etc.

Since you're the new sheriff in town, do you also plan on removing the pictures from every Television Episodes List or what? Lumaga 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many images you removed from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania article page - Image:PhiladelphiaEagles_100.png (3KB, MIME type: image/png) Philadelphia Eagles logo - has the following text on the image page: "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Most of the images have similar tags. Why did you remove them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdK (talk • contribs)

The template message is an over simplification of our fair use policy. For more detail see WP:FU. ed g2s • talk 22:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that your thoughts about the fair use poicy are ill-founded. The articles List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and List of South Park episodes have both been Featured Lists. This means that they are among the best lists on the Wikipedia. They also include screenshots for every episode, just as the Lost Page had before you removed them. The fact that two exemplary lists feature so many images should indicate to you that the pictures on the Lost page should be restored. Alkane-man 14:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are you Wasiting you time on Pages that Benifit from fair use images where the Policy needs to be interpreted where there are Other Users of Fair use that are Blatentlys inaproprate. This lost case is Not a Clar cut case and abody can edit the Policy page and have it say what the y want it to. That Policy page is Monitered by Peple who agree with the Policy, It does not represent the Consensouls Of the Comunity. It may Represent the Fundamental Rules of Wikipida that are not negotiable, however thoes rules are up to interpeteaton and Sometims i agee with your interetaton and someins i Don't. Someties i Don't mind. You are not Enforcing the Curent Poliocy but you are rather Pushing a Change how Episode lists are used. While we have rules. Thes rules were made to Protect Wikipidia. Do you really think you edits are Contructive.

If you want to chagne the Policy for Navigon lists with Fair use images you need to make a policy and find Consensouols for it.

You should Channel your controbutons the obvous Fair use Violatons first.--E-Bod 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to reason removing images by saying it has not been discused, please participate in the discussion. There are plenty of things in the discussion you can reply to. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Re: Harry Potter

I was hoping that you would be willing to answer some of the concerns I raised regarding your recent removal of HP images on the Harry Potter talk page. TonyJoe 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, Talk:Harry Potter#GA. ed g2s • talk 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Please refrain from editing user pages in the future, as your edits can have unintended consequences. I understand your concerns about copyright violation, but the appropriate course of action is to leave a comment on the user's talk page. Thank you. — Chris ( t c ) — 01:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use montage

This [7] particular montage of fair use images has me puzzled, could you take a look at it and see if it qualifies as fair use? Thanks ~ Vic Vipr 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Usage

Hiya Ed, I undertand why you had to edit my page, but it just seemed to be code you removed. How is that a problem?(Halbared 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Template:LUL_line

Pages that use Template:LUL_line, for example St Katharine Docks, appear to be broken. I see it was you who originally set this up. Please could you have a look at it? I can't figure out how it's supposed to work! Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion needed

Hi, I saw a lot of fair use questions here. Hope you don't mind one more. :) Could you have a look at Pinocchio (1940 film). There is a gallery of movie posters there. Do they qualify as fair use? I would think not, but I am not 100 percent sure. Thanks. Garion96 ^(talk) 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx, I indeed thought so. But it's nice to have it comfirmed. I will remove the images again. Again, tnx. Garion96 ^(talk) 19:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you are also an admin. If possible, as an admin, could you have a look at Pinocchio (1940 film) & Alice in Wonderland (1951 film) including talk. See also User talk:Garion96#Poster. I really am not interested in doing a revert war. Garion96 ^(talk) 12:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're back. This time with a stub attached to the image section. I already reverted once but didn't help. Garion96 ^(talk) 09:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be over. Thanks for your help. You might want to see my new barnstar on my userpage. :) [8] I might even keep it at as a Geuzen name. Garion96 ^(talk) 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the article link above, it's something dutch, it means taking up an insult as a name of pride. Garion96 ^(talk) 21:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process deletion

Your deletion of Template:Inconclusive was out of process and completely inappropriate. That template was created by me explicitly for use to clearly indicate results on Requests for Checkuser. The use of the same image on a template does not constitute recreation, and deleting it without even so much as a word to me was totally beyond the scope of approprite action. I suggest that in the future, before you delete something as a recreation, you consult with the creator and determine what the real background is. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright vandalism

Where can i see COPYRIGHT VANDALISM defined ? Thanks alot .tg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseeker (talk • contribs)

3RR

Firstly I would like to apologize for my actions towards you in the past. For instance with your conflict with Trab I did realize the extent of his copyright Violations

Secondly you requesting more opinions on a far use case that you had gotten ino a revert war over so I had to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ed_g2s.

You are Definitely Justified in removed fair use in some situations. You probably are justified in other cases. Blatant Copy Vios should be removed while other cases need some consideration.

Regardless of whether an image or text or whatever belongs on Wikipedia you cannot continue to offend other users while enforcing Fair use issues. And you can’t clam you can’t encounter Fair use without offending people. Hear are my suggestions

At least try to pretend you understand why the images were used and express some gratitude for their good intentions.

Suggest alternatives or other helpful ways the user can contribute.

I Don’t mind if you use a Template or other boilerplate messages to talk to users, Please go out of your way to point out more constructive ways to contribute. If they copy Test from a webpage tell then that

We appreciate your efforts to add new content to Wikipedia, however we cannot accept coping and pasting copyrighted content. Wikipedia can use more content so please continue to find new sources for out articles, however in order to incorporate these sources you need to read the source, put the source down and summarize it in your own words. Do not try to copy and past and retroactively change it into your own words.

Or for images you can suggest they take their own picture as a replacement or write a fair use rationally to defend their edits.

As in the case of the Lost series I guess you can’t find a free alternative, however one could argue that the images are used for identification (web navigation) purposes and so are fair uses of the images. However Fair use did not warrant a revert war. Especially because in the mists of your reverts Unrelated legitimate edits were included and both of you reverted back and for the ignoring all the edits made in-between yours. If you need to you should by hand only fix the part that violates WP:FUC and if the person reverts back you should discuss it on the talk page first, wait a while and by hand revert again. But do not bring by standing edits into it. If you were going to remove the images you could at lest make the Boxes less odd shaped --E-Bod 23:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The report has been Archived--E-Bod 00:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

knife anatomy

I noticed you have listed Image:Kitchen knife anatomy.jpg on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I have made a new version of this image using a free knife image. Would it be agreeable to you if I uploaded this and removed the image from Wikipedia:Copyright problems? I ask primarily because the template you added says "do not edit this page" and I want to make sure I'm following the correct procedure. Thanks! — Chris ( t c ) — 05:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright issues for dummies

Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies. This page, Although it's name appears uncivil if we tell people to see it seems to explain the Copyright issue very nicely and could be a quick way to explain your removal of fair use images. I think the reason so Manny people object to your removal of fair use images is that you never address why you are removing them. you simply state it is policy. this explains why the policy is the way it is and it can prove an invaluable tool if it is touched up a bit to not seem remotely offensive.--E-Bod 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ugh

A lot of bozos on this Wikipedia. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg -- serbiana - talk 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed g2s, I noticed that you deleted the Subotica image, because "it was uploaded after May 4, 2006". However, if you actually looked at the file history, you would see that it was uploaded May 24 2005. You would also see a source for the image is www.subotica.co.yu/en/index.htm. Before you delete, or tag for deletion, any more images, I would suggest that you actually take time to read their source info. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions)