User talk:Ed g2s/Archive14

MyWikiBiz discussion

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rossoneri 3

I've left a gentler message for him in place of yours. Sorry. DS 19:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain August 8/2006 edit and msg on the Montreal article

hi. i researched the capitalization rules for the linguistic terms Anglophone, Francophone, and allophone -- see my note in the discussion page of article. i waitied a few days for further discussion then corrected the article's terms according to The Canadian Style. you reverted all my changes, and left this note in your summary (per Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Enough - further reverts may result in blocks). um, terms like "Anglophone" have zero to do with logos, as far as i can tell, and why are you threatening me with blocks if i revert back to the correct terms? the source i cite is solid, although i'm open to discussion that perhaps there might exist a more definitive source (although the canadian government is quite a top-level reference, don't you think?). have you confused my changes with someone else's that had to do with logos? -- Denstat 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Saturn V infobox

Template:Saturn V infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image source for Image:Dragons den group.jpg is the only source. Will the image still be deleted if I don't provide another source? FellowWikip e dian 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiler League Results - July/August 2006

I can understand the removal of the copyrighted icons, but the new icons are inadequate, several actions are now not represented right anymore. Since you found the other icons, please tell me where to find:

second yellow (looks messed up now)
penalty goal (I can add "(pen)" also but if you have an icon why not)
missed penalty

And why is the layout of grey/white/grey/white/... removed? Looks crappy now all white. --Pelotas^talk 12:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you edited the tables too and removed the team emblems. Why is that? --Pelotas^talk 12:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the name change why is that? --Pelotas^talk 10:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the english wikipedia??? What was not english in that sentence??? Anyway, if you have a look at the category '2006-07 Domestic leagues', you'll notice after some browsing, that Corgoň Liga 2006/07, Danish Superliga 2006-07, Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07 and Second Fußball-Bundesliga 2006/07 are using the exact same article names. Maybe we need some sort of agreement or 'template' for the names since some other leagues use other names. For instance, Serie A 2006-07 uses an extra slash e.g. Serie A 2006-07/September --Pelotas^talk 12:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Utah state flag.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Utah state flag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. 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. Wwagner 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

I have just received a message from Vera, Chuck & Dave, who doesn´t understand why you took the Liverpool football club shield and lyrics to "Never walk alone" off his talk page. The Liverpool image was taken from the Liverpool football club page on Wikipedia. It seems a bit overly-harsh to me, especially as you have external links to various institutions on yours (even an estate agent). andreasegde 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you feel insulted (and I profusely apologise) but I was helping a relatively new user. I only told the truth (which you readily admitted) about the stuff that was on your pages. "Vera, Chuck and Dave" is new, and "Don´t bite" comes to mind. Isn´t there enough work to do on main pages without deleting something from an editor´s talkpage? Have fun. andreasegde 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of L.F.C. Emblem

Thank you for your explaination. However, I feel that you could have at the very least, paid me the minimum amount of common courtesy by informing me of the reason, at the time of it's removal. It is my intention, to contact David Moores and obtain Liverpool Football Club's permission to display it.

Politeness is a golden key which opens many doors. Vera, Chuck & Dave GM

Make sure that you specify unrestricted commercial and derivative use, and have them send an email to permissions AT wikimedia.org. You can find examples at Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission. Jkelly 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this information.Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesbrough FC

There is no 'naming convention' to use full stops in the middle of article titles. Middlesbrough F.C. etc, is something that just happened. It's been agreed twice now in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that it would be desirable to drop the full stops but no-one has had the time to do it globally. I've been moving articles as I come across them. Please discuss further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#F.C. or FC?. I will not revert but may propose a move to allow a consensus to be formed. Yorkshire Phoenix 11:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shortcut hack

What is the purpose of the bizarre template code on {{shortcut}} (wrapping it in {{{1)? ed g2s • talk 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Template_talk:Shortcut#Template:Shortcut.2F and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_20#Template:Shortcut.2F for background of a silly little edit war which was settled by implementing that code. Basically, what the code does it to suppress the 'shortcut box' entirely if a blank 'parameter 1' is passed to it. This was set up to work in conjunction with things like Template:Policy and Template:Guideline... so that if someone calls {{guideline|foo}} they get a guideline header box with a shortcut box link to 'foo', but if they call {{guideline}} they get the guideline header but no shortcut box. It was constructed in the pre-parser function days using the 'blank parameter' trick... the same thing could now be done with a '#if:' statement, but in this case the blank parameter method is actually more compact and requires less evaluation. --CBD 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand I don't know all the ways the 'shortcut' template is used, but a quick search of the 'what links here' can produce a list of templates which transclude it. See below. --CBD 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board/Archives Template:Announcements/New featured pages Template:Barnstarpages Template:Browsebarcountryindia Template:CFD header Template:Codenowiki Template:Consentblock Template:Copyrightassistanceheader Template:Crlf Template:Db-nocontent Template:Db-reason Template:Descriptive Template:Did you know Template:Disputedpolicy Template:Dormant Template:Editsummary Template:Esp-guideline Template:Essay Template:FAC-instructions Template:Facts Template:GO header Template:Guideline Template:Historical Template:Humorantipolicy Template:IdahoSchool Template:In the news Template:Indefblocked-gibberish Template:Indefblocked-nonlatin Template:Indefblocked-vandalism Template:Infobox BPM Template:Infobox School Template:Leavemsg Template:Mapneeded Template:Neuroscience-stub Template:No license Template:No source Template:Nowiki Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced Template:Orphaned fairuse replaced Template:PeerNavbox Template:PFFAC-instructions Template:Ph:Renaming (moving) a page Template:Phh:Displaying a formula Template:Phh:Edit summary Template:Phh:Footnotes Template:Phh:Image page Template:Phh:Interwiki linking Template:Phh:Moving a page Template:Phh:Reader/ Template:Phh:Reader/1 Template:Phh:Redirect Template:Phh:Section Template:Phh:What links here Template:PISAC-instructions Template:Policy Template:PR-instructions Template:Process header Template:Proposed Template:Protection templates Template:RD header Template:RD header new Template:ReaMUKip Template:Redundant image Template:Rejected Template:Requests for checkuser header Template:RfAEditcount1 Template:RfAEditcount2 Template:RfPPHeader Template:Sandboxpaste Template:Style-guideline Template:Subst Template:Template messages Template:TestTemplates Template:TestTemplatesNotice Template:UnitedStatesCode Template:UnitedStatesCode2 Template:UnitedStatesCode3 Template:UnitedStatesCodeSec Template:Unverified user Template:Usc-title-chap Template:User galaxy Template:User montypythonbum Template:User Publicdomain Template:User suck Template:User Wikifun Template:User WikiProject Eritrea Template:User WikiProject Saudi Arabia Template:User WP:ALBUM Template:User-BSD Template:User-BSD-except Template:UsernameBlocked Template:UsernameBlockedCompany Template:UsernameBlockedEmail Template:Userwpa2 Template:USRepSuccessionBox Template:UtahSchool Template:Villagepump Template:Villagepumppages Template:Weasel-inline Template:WelcomeEmail Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline/ Template:WikiProject Userboxes Template:WikiProject Userboxes member Template:WP:A header Template:Wpa2

Soccer-europe images

Have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#soccer-europe.com images. Based on some evidence found by User:Qwghlm, it seems most likely that User:Soccer-europe.com's contacts are at BBC or Sky Sports and they're sending him pictures from the game broadcasts before the graphics are put on. This would seem to indicate that he does not hold the copyright to the images but is getting them illegally himself. I'm planning to nominate them all for deletion, unless you have any other insight on the matter. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Logos

I reverted your edits to Wikipedia talk:Logos#Football teams logos. The point of discussion was the inclusion of inline images, if you remove them, the discussion has no meaning.--BaldClarke 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUC #9: "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. ... They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion.". Thanks, ed g2s • talk 06:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I read it, no need to write it everywhere. I truly believe that you should remove the whole section from the talkpage, since it has no meaning now, but I did not revert, because you are formally right.--BaldClarke 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template French communes

I have reverted your change of Template:French commune again. Your change makes the template look substantially different, at least with Firefox, and I disagree with this change. If you want your changes to be taken into account, please respect the work of other Wikipedians and leave a message on Template talk:French commune, where I have started a discussion about this topic. Thank you. olivier 05:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding some info on Template talk:French commune to help people who want to understand how to modify the template while complying to the guidelines? Maybe a link to another page. Thank you. olivier 10:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promophoto massacre

How in the name of all that's holy did you orphan a dozen images of U.S. State Attorneys General of my uploading without as much as a hello on my talk page!? How exactly can a designated promotional image not be fairuse in the article about its subject? How the hell else can one illustrate a biography if not with a portrait? Is fairuse impossible in those articles? I eagerly await the your justification of your actions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I did. You've cited me an assertion from a guideline, an assertion with which I vehemently disagree. What about my other questions? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude: they don't promote dead people. There are no {{promophoto}}s of dead people. Do you once again mean to tell me that {{promophoto}} fair use is impossible on a living person's bio? I am going to revert the whole set. If the truth is as you say, each image has no possible fairuse. Take one or more of these images to WP:IFD and solicit a consensus of your fellow editors. BTW, I am incensed at the way you've gone about obliterating large amounts of my work without as much as a courtesy notice! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you have no need to take them to IFD. However, I cannot accept your unilateral actions on the subject, guideline or not. I am entitled to request and receive full process. Note, that I am not dismissing the possibility that you are correct - but I am positive the case is not clearcut, and richly deserves that a consensus of users be formed before action is taken. Problem is, you've already tagged them for {{orfud}} and they need to be de-tagged and de-orphaned in order that they should not be deleted during the pendency of the IFD. In the interest of propriety etc. etc. may I ask you to roll your article and image edits back yourself? It'll take you a less than a minute with admin rollback. You may then pursue the deletion of the images through regular channels. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFD consensus will not bypass our fairuse policy!! It will determine what that policy requires!! If an IFD consensus decides our fairuse policy permits such use, then that will be the right thing to do!! You are driving me up - the - wall!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe an article I wrote fails WP:V and wish to have it deleted, you can propose it for deletion, but if I object (reasonably or not!), you have to build consensus for your action, just like any other editor. You've read the guideline correctly. I dispute the validity of that clause! I dispute the application of that clause to the images I uploaded, even if the clause itself is valid. I am not on IRC, IRC is not Wikipedia, I have no idea what took place there, and shouldn't have to. Your last posting on my talkpage was unresponsive. I believe you have been unilateral and obstreperous. On a personal aside, you have also seriously pissed me off. I am not going to revert you yet, and will now take this whole discussion to WP:ANI. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, stop removing valid fair use images. If CrazyRussian won't revert you, I'll do when I have time. Citing a passage that you probably added yourself from some random guideline isn't going to win you many points. Grue 06:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, stop making Wikipedia less useful. Stop reverting my edits as if they were vandalism. Promophotos are valid fair use. If you continue to harm wikipedia by removing useful information from our articles, I will have to block you. Grue 11:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has come along now to one of the articles you removed and image from and put in another unfree image under a much flimsier claim of fairuse. Is this really the result you wanted? - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing images and deleting articles without consensus. Your repeated disregard for Wikipedia policy is a blockable offense. - Kookykman|(t)e 13:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image use on A Wilhelm Scream

I'm afraid your wrong on this one. In any case, revert warring over this is simply wrong. I had hoped that you would have learned the last time this happened. If you revert once more without a discussion, I will block you. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that we're talking about Image:AWilhelmScream.jpg, this makes no sense to me. We don't know who the photographer or copyright holder is. Is the copyright to this image owned by the record company whose website is on, and do they intend it for wide distribution as othe biolerplate on our template implies? How is this image, and no other, important for that article; it could be replaced by a freely licensed image? So the image seems to fail Wikipedia:Fair use, which has been recently updated to emphasise this point. Jkelly 20:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the purpose of the image (to show the members of the band) is clearly replicable, and so the image is not permissable under our guidlines. ed g2s • talk 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate day picture

Sorry, I didn't notice that the image was fair use. I replaced it with one released for public domain now. Thanks for noticing. Happy ITLAP Day for you too. Regards --Hús ö nd 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!
		Ahoy, me hearty! How 'bout a good ol' jug o' grog? Reg-Arrr-ds Hús ö nd 13:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lost episodes

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thematic motifs of Lost

I have been struggling to get appropriate fair use rationales for two images in this article. I know that you have an interest in fair use debate and wondered if you could help in convincing the uploaders to add appropriate rationales/deleting the images. Image:LostPilotEye.jpg and Image:Pilot2backgammon.jpg are the images in question. Some recent discussion relating to the back gammon image is here and here. I understand that this is a trivial issue and will understand if you don't have time to help.--Opark 77 20:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detail on Football Kits

I was wondering as to why you have twice removed this image from the Leeds United page even though these aren't sponsorship or kit maker (such as adidas or nike) specifics? they are indeed part of the design, as shown here. If these lines on shirts are not allowed then I was wondering why this: some of these, most of these and some of these especially this and this are allowed? I agree that sponsorship and kit maker specifics (such as the adidas three stripes) should not be there but the lines present on the leeds shirt are simply part of the design. please let me know. thanks. --Chappy84 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lost episodes,,

hear me out, if you are so freaked out about the lost episodes, shouldn't you see the season 3 page and check if the poster really has anything to do with the article,,, it does, so does the episode list,,,

do you really care if the images are there? do you REALLY think anybody in ABC gives a flying fuck that a stupid website puts their little fucking pictures in a page,,, think about that --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kits

Hello. I see you removed the kit details from Sheffield Wednesday F.C. Can you do the same for Sheffield Wednesday Ladies F.C.? I can't, since it would be 3RR.--Panarjedde 22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football clubs

This is to inform you that the project page above is being considered for deletion. Please follow the links to participate in the discussion. I note the value of the kit template you created, and believe it is worth keeping, but possibly somewhere else. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Monobook.js

Hmm. I thought I already disabled the table button [1]? Now you did again??? Puzzled. --Ligulem 13:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did have had an outdated cache, as the button already went away thanks to my edit. I'm going to revert your edit, if you don't mind. We either disable that code on the top-most level (as I did it with my edit), or we remove that stuff completely. Keeping some brain dead code there serves not much prupose. --Ligulem 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No source image

Image:Broomfield nick.jpg has no source and will be deleted in 7 days. YellowDot 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, although despite the available history, I was not the orignal uploader. There are no undelete logs from that far back but I guess it was user:personaljesus, see contrib. ed g2s • talk 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

Hello, Ed.

I see you removed the decoration from Sheffield Wednesday F.C. page, but Dan1980 is still reverting. On Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ignoring_consensus, they suggested to have a some editors reverting to the article version without the decoration, so to let him understand not to revert again, or incurr into 3RR. Would you mind revert those pages with me?

Thanks, Panarjedde 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed and appreciated your contribution to Sheffield's article. Can you do the same for Shelbourne F.C.?--Panarjedde 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little help if you could

I know you usually take your big stands where fair use is the issue, but you're good at making a point so I think you can help here. In an FAR, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spacecraft propulsion, some one has been defending the lack of references and if I keep trying to explain the need for references by myself I'm going to snap. If this isn't your thing, I'll understand. Jay32183 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright question

Would you say this image is PD as labelled? It's a photo of a bunch of copyrighted logos - what does the policy and/or the law say about it? Thx. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd day the logos are precisely the subject of the photo! - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Italian Football

Hi ya. I see you add to Italian Football articles from time to time. Just wondering if you want to check out Wikipedia:Italian Football. We are just hoping to organise our efforts towards improving articles better. If you want to sign up just put your name down under participants on the project. You can do as much or as little work as you like and any ideas on improving pages would be great. Niall123 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy logo

I don't quite understand your reasoning for the removal of the Family Guy logo from ALL of the non-screenshot episode pages. Fair use on Wikipedia is to illustrate the article in question, which, being relevant, is exactly what the logo was doing. From the comments left on this page you seem a bit trigger-happy when removing imagery. Dancraggs 00:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]