User talk:Ed g2s

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Start new discussion or e-mail me

[edit] Index

1 Index
2 Archived discussions
3 Recent discussions

[edit] Archived discussions

Archive 18

7.ii.07 – 22.iii.07

Archive 17

5.i.06 – 7.ii.07

Archive 16

13.xi.06 – 4.i.07

Archive 15

8.x.06 – 13.xi.06

Archive 14

13.viii.06 – 8.x.06

Archive 13

2.viii.06 – 12.viii.06

Archive 12

6.vii.06 – 2.viii.06

Archive 11

4.vi.06 – 6.vii.06

Archive 10

20.v.06 – 3.vi.06

Archive 9

2.v.06 – 20.v.06

Archive 8

6.iii.06 – 30.iv.06

Archive 7

16.i.06 – 2.iii.06

Archive 6

31.xiii.05 – 15.i.06

Archive 5

6.vi.05 – 29.xiii.05

Archive 4

5.iv.05 – 6.vi.05

Archive 3

15.xii.04 – 5.iv.05

Archive 2

14.ix.04 – 14.xii.04

Archive 1

14.viii.03 – 14.ix.04

[edit] Recent discussions

[edit] Photo

I've done one. It's on Commons at Image:Play off Final in Cardiff 2002.jpg

It's a photo taken by a friend of mine who has emailed it to me with permission for it to be freely used. Please will you review if it's OK for a potentially FA Wikipedia article. If so, please talk me through uploading it from Commons to Wikipedia. Thanks. --Dweller 11:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! --Dweller 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh guru of the photos (!), I've had a piece of feedback as a result of FAC on Ipswich Town F.C., "Image:Ipswich Town badge.gif and Image:Old ITFC Crest.gif lack a fair use rationale." How would I go about doing that? --Dweller 14:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:ThorpeCC.jpg

Well, it's true. For a moment I thought here is an image of Thorpe that could be used. I did not check for anything else as the license beneath clearly told CC attribution sharealike 2.5. Today's featured article without an image looking so bad, I did not hesitate to upload it :) Anyway, we cannot be sure. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments regarding a username change

Hi. I saw your comment on the talkpage of a user who recently changed his username. Ordinarily your suggestions would be well-taken. In this instance, however, the user is a minor who had been editing under his real name and has been subjected to serious off-wiki trolling and harassment. I know you were unaware of this but please be sensitive to this situation. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 16:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

[edit] Award!

Barnstar!!!

I, Emperor Walter Humala hereby award you an Excellent Userpage Barnstar, because dude...excellent userpage!!!! --Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 21:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ed g2s • talk 14:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear God...

I am wasting so much time on this damn website I may be in trouble with a capital "T" ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 03:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work - guessing no repercussions though? He is a silly little man, did he try and wrestle either of you again? And what on earth did Ben do to start a fight with some guy? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

Think I should take my name off the user page then? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll bin it. Probably best to not let the little darlings know too much hey. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, are you stalking my contributions? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite flattering actually - like your grooming me almost. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here - CATAM going slightly less well than could be hoped. However, I am getting closer to working out what <div BLAH> does so that's always a bonus. Hope you don't mind that I'm tearing your page to pieces to figure it all out. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not allowed or will bot clear it up?

Chelsea_F.C._Reserves has Image:Chelsea_crest.png on it - I've just deleted it but should I have? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More questions (sorry)

Mind having a look here, with regards this for me mate? I'm kinda sire I'm in the right and this guys just being anti-policy for the hell of it, but I have been known to be wrong. I was tempted to just revert it again but he's already slapped me with this and I've already reverted twice and don't want to get bitch slapped out of this place for 24 hours if I'm in the wrong. Cheers man. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm totally frazzled - I was reverting and editing from midnight until six this morning. I really don't want to do CATAM.

I thought I was right and he was being lame and going against the policy. Thanks for looking at it - I was just getting into my stride by the time that guy got arsey - I think he was annoyed as I tagged one of his photo's as {{no licence}} by sheer chance (I've just been looking at edits at special:recentchanges). Ho hum. I start the course work tomorrow. Honest ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and what page is the the new policy on - the link you left was a red-un... ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers - that'll be some good bedtime reading for me tonight. Have spent all day messing around with my userpage and I think ive just about got a hand of those

jobbies, and some template stuff. great fun. technically work as its gearing me up to use C right?? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image_talk:Mbragg1.jpg and there is a reply (identical) on his talk page. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What gives?

First you threaten vandalism. Then you WP:Stalk me and protect another user's vandalism, apparently just to lash out at me. You seem bent on disruption. I ask that you stop this immediately. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAME. Admin status does not exist so one can retalliate against one's perceived opponents. By "protecting" the page, you left vandalism intact, which is not constructive. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your pattern of disruptive behavior

Well, you've now gone digging through images I've posted, in order to challenge them. You even went through the article on Fashion House, even though that series did not even air in the UK. In just two days:

You disrupt and remove my contribution without discussion, consensus or a clear justification.

Enforcing policy does not require consensus, nor is it disruptive.
I challenge this action and you dare me to take you into arbitration.

I invited you to seek the opinion of a third party as you clearly didn't believe me.
You take my words and quote them out of context on a high-traffic talk page, along with your dare. This thinly-veiled mockery resulted in a personal attack being directed at me by an unrelated person.

Your comment was give in context, underneath my original post. I was inviting further input as you had not seeked it yourself. I am not responsible for other users' conduct.
You dig around and interject yourself into an unrelated edit dispute, about which you know nothing.

I protected a page being edit-warred on, knowledge of the dispute is not required. I did not get involved in the dispute.
You lock the disputed page, which freezes another editor's vandalism, then arrogantly dismiss both parties.

There was no vandalism, please read WP:VANDAL for a definition. I did not dismiss any argument.
Your talk page contains comments about how I am "lame" and an unrelated person is an "ass."

Again, I am not responsible for other users' conduct.
You start multiple (and, I believe, spurious) free content disputes on several of my contributions, about which there were no previous complaints.

You uploaded multiple replaceable unfree images.
As a "sysop," you have more power over the system than I do -- and evidently your believe you can get away with this because of status and "policy."

I believe I can enforce policy, as can any other user, admin or not. I am just as accountable as any other user, so if you still think I have done something wrong, feel free to report it as I see nothing wrong with my actions. ed g2s • talk 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion, this clearly fits the category of WP:STALK or WP:HARASS and possibly WP:POINT and WP:GAME. The rules apply to "sysops" too. Please cease and desist. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a sufficient response. You are not "enforcing policy." All of your statements above are either false or misleading, but time and space do not permit me to answer them in full. You have singled me out for abuse because I challenged you on a debatable matter of interpretation. You give no apologies, nor do you seem to understand the disruption you are creating. You clearly do not believe the rules apply to you, as you are carrying out a chain of harrassing actions. You refuse to see anything wrong with your actions. Please stop and think, then try to come to an aimiable resolution of this matter. Yakuman (数え役満) 17:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove screen shots?

List_of_The_Mighty_Boosh_episodes?? I'm pretty sure you'll say they have to go - I'm just checking ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

cool - i'll do it soon, Ive left a message in the talk page and if noone complains then ill just do it. On a separate note, that guy has a real axe to grind about free use policy and driving things forwards. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just ignore it. He can complain all he likes as long as he doesn't start re-uploading images, or edit-warring again. ed g2s • talk 19:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, I think we both need to start working. But first things first, poker tonight. ed g2s • talk 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know - i'm just knobbing around here. About 400 edits in the last 3 days is a bit too much I think. I've got no idea what was up that guys ass but he's shut up now... best of luck and all. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Up that guys ass?" Please read WP:POINT and WP:AGF at your earliest convenience. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] free images

Is it your contention that fair use images ought to be deleted before a free replacement is found? If so, where is this codified in policy/guidelines? What is the correct, community-approved procedure for such action? Feel free to reply on my talk page or here. Thanks, DickClarkMises 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:FUC#1 and the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. The reasoning being that the unfree material is allowed, it will discourage people from finding a free replacement. ed g2s • talk 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation resolution that you cite states that existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists. You seem to be circumventing community participation is such a process and deleting in spite of objections. Hence, your deletions seem to be to be unilateral actions that are not under the umbrella of said resolution. Can you show me a Wikipedia policy which enjoys community support that says that this means of deleting fair use images is correct? If not, we need to develop a process. DickClarkMises 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, would you agree that if Sobran died tomorrow that the image that you deleted could be restored? What about for individuals who are missing but presumed alive? DickClarkMises 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy says there has to be a process, not that you should unilaterally create a template that lends the appearance of process to actions that you take independently of community oversight. The process, in order to be legitimate, should allow the community to weigh in on whether the rationale offered for a particular fair use image is acceptable. You appear to be gaming the system to me. You say The en policy is to speedy delete non-compliant images after 48 hours. As you know, the speedy delete policy allows for a 48-hour deletion turnaround for "invalid fair-use claims." Others are contesting your pronouncement of the invalidity of these images, and so speedy deletion is inappropriate and gives the appearance of bullying, especially to a relative newcomer like Yakuman. I think that you need to carefully lay out the rationale for your actions, rather than soldier on as if this project did not require collaboration with others. Whatever your mission is, it isn't more important than maintaining community involvement in the encyclopedia project. DickClarkMises 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flikr Permission

Hey, I asked the person who owns this if he would release the copyright to it and he agreed, but I don't know how to do that so could you tell me? The guy has said that he's happy to do whatever he needs to to release the copyright. Cheers mate. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Flickr page seem to have vanished. Flickr has options to release images under Creative Commons licenses. He'd have to choose cc-by or cc-by-sa (if he uses nc (non-commercial) and/or nd (non-derivs) we can't use it). Any evidence of him saying he wants the images available under some specific free license will do, but emailing permissions at wikimedia is the best way. Also make sure it is a DVD screencap... ed g2s • talk 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've obviously knobbed this whole thing up. shigh. the image is here, and the guy said he'll release it. whats this about dvd??? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(Also, how do you link to en from commons???) ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In the words of Rachel Morris - for flips sake. Sorry mate, I just guessed that the guy had a really good seat, and a good camera. Never mind - I'll find a free one with your tool (if I use that I can just upload and stick on the cc template right?).

when you link to en, does it come up as en:Some Page?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ...adam... (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Thought so. Bit lame but I can live - just checking that I didn't miss a neat trick. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be useful - i need a 24 hour break. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replacable fair use to be decided...

Hey. This has been on my mind for a little while, but I was wondering why the replaceable fair use images had now been split with the introduction of your new template bak in February. What exactly is the significance of this template in regards to the other one, as it makes the backlog appear much larger, though it's probably not. I guess what I'm asking is was there a discussion on your rfu2 template I missed, or did you just go and add it? Since the addition of it, the backlog is now immense and quite intimidating to admins. I'm not opposed to it or anything, just wondering why it was created really.--Wizardman 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.--Wizardman 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:NASA Worm logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:NASA Worm logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant to SVG, speedy deleted. ed g2s • talk 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thoughts?

Can I get your input on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Flatout2 scr2.jpg? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:SCOTUSCase

Please read the comments on the talk page and respond and gain consensus before changing a widely-used and accepted template. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you take a look at this

I've attempted to dispute the fair use claim on Image:019.jpg on the grounds that the specific use is not spelled out in the fair use rationale and another user is acting like I have no right to do so. Would you mind giving your opinion on the matter. Jay32183 05:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what Jay means to say is: "Please come to my aid, I ran into a disagreement, and your immediate intervention is necessary to intimidate the opposing party." To be clear: aside from bad faith accusations of vandalism and disruption, Jay has put absolutely no effort in dispute resolution. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption used for the Titanic bow image, on April 14 2007's main page

Hi Ed,

apologies in advance if you are not the person I should address this to:

The shipwreck had been underwater for just under 95 years at the time of the photo.

The RMS Titanic entry, though, seems to state that the photo is from a 1985 French expedition, which would give about 1985 - 1912 = 73 years. And, of course, 95 years would mean instead that the photo has been taken this year. Which one?

Thanks, Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 11:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

This is the RfAr I was talking about - if you're interested. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radiohead cover

This is the album with the cover of Radiohead on it: Version_(album). Trivia - love it. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Police

Could you please reply to my comments on Talk:The_Police#Fair_Use? Thanks in advance! Kind regards, Maartenvdbent 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost logo

There was no copyvio in the image you recently deleted.--Kamikaze 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, it was entirely different from the "free promo photo" and the only problem with it was just I licensed it by mistake as "fair use". And, actually it wasn't the lost logo. It was a image created by me, its source being a self-taken image, precisely a screenshot. No one holds the copyright over a "I hate Lost" image.--Kamikaze 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] template question

{{DVDcover}} only has one criteria for using the image under fair-use, and that is "to illustrate the DVD in question". Doesn't this effectively open the door to simply allowing fair-use image galleries of DVD covers; or simply allowing people to use DVD covers to decorate any "DVD releases" section w/o any comment or critical commentary?

I realize that WP:NFCC#8 prohibits doing so, but the template counters it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I realize! :^) But shouldn't the template be amended to comply with policy? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] id="FUC" -> "NFCC"

Regarding this edit, I would suggest keeping both ids for backwards compatibility, at least during a couple of months. -- ReyBrujo 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding userpages

Are you telling me Image:NGC 4414 (NASA-med).jpg is a non free image and cannot be used on userpages? Check the file links please.--Kamikaze 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decorative use of sports logos

Hi Ed, I know you are very involved in enforcing proper use of sports logos. I'm having issues regarding that at 2007 NHL Entry Draft which has also spilt onto my talk page. ccwaters 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KC_Stadium_at_night.jpg

Just got

“

All images on our Image Bank are copyright and cost free.

Regards

Rob Walton DipM ACIM E-Marketing Manager Marketing Communications Yorkshire Forward

”

What licence, if any, would this be classed as then? Or is it a no go? Cheers mate ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

...adam... on commons is too close to adam apparently - so it wouldn't let me have it. But commons:User:Adam hasn't edited since August 2005 - fancy deleting it and moving me to commons:...adam...?

Was it a late one last night then? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image review

Please cast your eye over the pix at Norwich City F.C.. Thanks! --Dweller 09:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is great because it's still gobbledigook to me and I'm keen to learn more about image licensing. Let's take this slowly. With the coat of arms, how would I create a free version? With the photo, I'm not the original author, but I have the original author's permission by email to use the photo freely. --Dweller 10:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dweller"

[edit] Zorro images

Is there a specific Wikipedia guideline for removing pertinent if undiscussed images, as you did with the Zorro page? Thanks. Mdiamante 03:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And more help, please...

Please cast an eye over this thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#WC_ITN Ta. --Dweller 08:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Southampton FC.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Southampton FC.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. bainer (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lankan Conflict template

Hi,

Probably you are not aware that this template is used in many articles, the current dimensions of the template was decided after much contemplation, when changed this affects all the articles using the template. Please discuss your requirement to change and we might be able to accommodate it. And also make sure that you explain your edit using the edit summary. This way people will no your intention and would help avoid any conflicts rising out of your edits. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

hi maybe you didn't change the dimensions, but when you change the class of a table it can affect readers using certain browsers, anyway I have left your change as it is, but changed the border color to what it was. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 05:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming border color is my personal preference is not correct and its a failure to assume good faith on your part, the template was functioning perfectly before you changed the style to your personal preference (if it is not please explain your reasons for changing it). This template was created after much contemplation, to resolve conflicts in Sri Lanka Civil War related articles. The current template design has consensus amongst the editors who originaly contributed to the creation of it and subsequent improvisation of it. You changing the style to your whims and fancies is undermining the fellow editors work and is disrespectful. Please consider discussing this with editors in the templates talk page before you change it again. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Ed

Please take a look at User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates. It's a lesson I've written (with some chipping in from some friends) and I'd really like you to look through the section on images. The lesson is aimed at relative newbies, so I've tried not to overload them with references to policies etc, but if, in your experience, there are some quick bits of advice that can be added, please feel free! --Dweller 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Template:Sri Lankan Conflict

Both of you guys should stop your edit war regarding the border of {{Sri Lankan Conflict}} or else I will list it under the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 08:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

Ed, please explain why you have made this edit? And frakked up every LOE? Matthew 10:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm adding masses of whitespace" was not in the edit summary. Use a sandbox before making damaging edits. Matthew 10:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Matthew 10:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

and you've broken it again. Matthew 15:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem. Addendum: If you want to make style changes then please gain consensus :-). Matthew 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode list

Ed, please revert your changes to {{episode list}}. That strange formatting was there for a reason and this has been discussed before. -- Ned Scott 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but what the heck where you thinking, making that drastic of a change without any discussion, or even checking the talk page (where it was explained why it was like that)? -- Ned Scott 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. those banners are there with a reason. you just made 7 edits within 2 hours of about 100*60 transclusions, and it's still totally broken. Ned has well before on the talk page announced that he had the code for the fixed template available in his sandbox, and since he is the principal designer of the template, you might have taken that into consideration. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you intended well, but that's what always happens with this template. One change that looks harmless ends up in a succession of "little changes/fixes". That's why the warnings are there. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I reacted so much, I can be a bit of a spaz about stuff sometimes. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Episode list

Can you please edit the template so that if someone has specified an Image parameter that the template transcludes {{episodelist article to be fixed}} which would be a protected empty template. We could then use whatlinkshere on that to find any episode list template using articles which still specify image names. --Gmaxwell 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		I, Lahiru_k award you with the right half of The Half Barnstar for meeting the criteria of it by managing to survive from one of the lamest but considered to be a productive, edit wars regarding the border color of the {{Sri Lankan Conflict}} Good Luck!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Soundtrack Image

Perhapos you were unaware that a discussion regarding this image is ongoing here. I would ask that you wait until a consensus is arrived as to the interpretation of the policy being cited as cause for its removal. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was never really married to the idea of the soundtrack image anyway (a great many FA articles don't have them); more annoyed at the rather pissy way it was removed by another, and the end-run logic used to justify it. I expect admins to behave better, and from his behavior, he is racking up some pretty negative karma.

The uber-immortal image, however, is in fact discussed in the article. You will have noted that the image was placed within the Depiction of Persians section. The image specifically addressed the argument in that Persians were depicted as malformed monsters and the like, the image directly representing that portrayal. This image (a European promotional poster) represents a rather significant bone of contention both in the article and within the state of Iran. I think perhaps you were not aware of the image's role in the section, and will agree to revert your removal. If you are too busy to do it yourself, I will do so at the end of the day. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done. I didn't notice that you had also removed the Leonidas fighting image. The Spartan method of fighting is actually discussed in the article. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Xerxes suggesting that Leonidas give up is also discussed in the paragraph above the one where that image appears. If it's not clear, it might just be a matter of layout. Hewinsj 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be disruptive at 300 (film). You removed images despite the "silence of consensus" with these images having existed in the article for quite some time, so if you want to challenge the images, do so on the talk page first. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, just letting you know that you're at three reverts at the 300 article. Please don't revert war, much less violate 3RR. --Minderbinder 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you did not take numerous editors' warnings to heart. You are to consider yourself edit-warring if you, instead of waiting for a discussion to complete, continue to revert an edit. You now have five editors telling you that you are wrong in this particular instance. Forgive me, but wouldn't it be prudent to discuss the matter before taking unilateral action? You have violated 3RR and are edit-warring. These are bad signs when trying to have people consider you to be reasonable. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually just three reverts so far. The first two you have listed aren't reverts but initial edits removing the images. Also, consecutive reverts only count as one. --Minderbinder 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, the reason I've considered your edits to be disruptive was initiated by your immediate removal of images from the film article without initiating any sort of discussion. This isn't a case of quickly removing libelous content from someone's biographical article. As I've shown you, discussion took place on choosing the images, and your edit (and subsequent reverts) were flying in the face of that. You are obviously on a mission, and I would advise you to treat images like these on a case-by-case basis. This isn't a list of episodes, but rather an intentionally limited selection of images to illustrate the Plot section. Your idea of illustration is apparently different from mine. I've responded to the proposal at the talk page for the policy of non-free content, as I've already gone there before to explore the application of film posters and the rationale that could potentially be abused to embark on a mission to blindly rid articles of certain images. Apparently, this is already the case, and I do not feel that such missions are in Wikipedia's best interests. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 3RR for 24 hours. Edit warring is unacceptable in disputes, and despite being warned you've continued. Perhaps discuss things like many people have asked you already? Majorly (hot!) 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The 4th edit was on a completely separate issue, please undo immediately. ed g2s • talk 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=3RR|Second 3RR report on same issue. First result was "no block, removing copyright violations"}}

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." (emphasis mine) - 3RR violated. Matthew 23:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your claim "3RR not broken". Which of the four reverts listed are you saying wasn't a revert? FYI, 3RR applies to any four edits, "separate issue" or not.

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." --Minderbinder 23:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The 4th was by a different editor on a different matter, and was simply to add "see pictures". It was part of the next stage of the debate, in which we are working out a way to alter the article to justify the image. It is completely separate from the original dispute and edit war. Furthermore, that edit was the only content based revert - the others are policy enforcement. ed g2s • talk 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, you're still edit warring. It's disruption as well as a 3RR violation. I think you should cool down for a little while. Matthew 00:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive about enforcing policy. ed g2s • talk 00:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed, you are correct in stating there's nothing wrong. That would be if policy unequivocally supported you without bringing opinion in. I also must point out that it isn't exempt from 3RR. Matthew 00:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A report for the same edits resulted in "no block, removing copyright violations" - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ed_g2s_reported_by_User:Arcayne_.28Result:no_block.2C_removing_violations_of_copyright_policy.29 Given that decision - the latter report seems invalid. ed g2s • talk 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

From looking at it I see that it presents different diffs. Matthew 00:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. Ed made an additional revert even after getting being reported and warned the first time. --Minderbinder 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is the one extra edit. However the first ruling was on the grounds of me enforcing policy in the first three edits, and so they were effectively struck off as 3RR violations. By the time I made the last edit I had been cleared of any wrong doing, and as such the 4th edit on the different issue was a first revert. ed g2s • talk 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ed, I do truly understand you are miffed at this block. But, this disruption has to stop... it isn't helpful to Wikipedia. My personal opinion on this is that your arguments are straw man based. You do state your enforcing policy, but consensus disagrees with you (thus, consensus vs. opinion), also 3RR makes no exception for this. Matthew 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who violate policy can and should be reverted till doomsday, regardless of their proclaimed "consensus" to do so. —freak(talk) 00:32, May. 11, 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that I would be willing to unblock you, but I just saw that this fine fellow went ahead and beat me to it. As someone who just yesterday inadvertently made more than three reverts in one day, I can surely understand your situation. By the way, this is a cool looking user talk page. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ed g2s • talk 00:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Special treatment, huh? This is what I meant by the roost that you all rule. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My admin status has played no role in this dispute. Your accusations of bias are unfounded. I have had no contact (that I can remember) with the above two admins in the past. ed g2s • talk 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked by one admin. This shows that your so-called "enforcement" is not widely accepted across the board. I'm not talking about bias toward you, specifically, I meant admins in general. But that's right -- no cabal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Lost episodes

In response to the edit war at List of Lost episodes, I protected the page. You were one of the two parties in the edit war. I'm sure that you have been an admin long enough to know that edit warring in general isn't acceptable and can lead to being blocked, regardless of whether you have good intentions. It would have been helpful for getting a consensus on that page if you had postponed your reverts to discuss the issue. If you look, there is a fair use rationale on the image that has some merit. It seems possible that that image could be used somewhere, and I am certain it warrants dicussion. CMummert · talk 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion I saw agreed that one image per episode is not acceptable. I never saw agreement that no fair use image could ever appear on a list of episodes page. That image has a fair use rationale for that particular page and it could probably be put at the top along with some critical commentary. Your actions in reverting the image without discussion are not helping to bring the issue to resolution. CMummert · talk 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it needs some commentary. On the other hand, if you compare the screenshots on various movie pages, you see that it doesn't need very much. Minderbinder kept putting the image somewhere that had no commentary - so move it to the top of the episode list and add some. It's the blind reverting (both by minderbinder and by you) that's the problem. There must be some compromise that everyone can agree to. CMummert · talk 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is responsible for moving articles forward rather than reverting (WP:EW), and in this case I don't believe you have any recourse to NONFREE since it is clear that little work would be required to make this use acceptable. I am going to unprotect the page, but I will be watching the situation there. I have asked minderbinder to work towards a compromise, and all I am asking you is to do the same. CMummert · talk 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you continued to edit war on that page, rather than working towards a compromise, I would pursue administrative action. It is be just as easy to fix that article as to revert it. Your firm stance is not helping anything here. CMummert · talk 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN thread

So you know, minderbinder and matthew are calling for your head over on WP:AN. -M^ask? 14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What's new eh. ed g2s • talk 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology and advice

First of all, I would like to apologize for my incivility toward you. I failed to conduct myself in a reasonable manner. I would like to revisit the discussion about what content would suffice to provide fair use rationale for non-free content. First, I'd like to explain the methodology that I have used based on my time working with film articles. Traditionally, my line of thinking has always been to have a limited number of fair use images, and they would be ones that best represented the content. It has perhaps been simpler to choose images for sections related to production information, such as the design of a character. For the plot summary, there seems to be a conflict in bringing together the story and the images to illustrate it. On one hand, the plot summary is supposed to be succinct, which robs it of any detail that may otherwise support a screenshot. Traditionally, for this section, discussion has taken place among editors to determine what images would best illustrate the major components of the story. This would include the major characters, events, and locations. The mindset has always been to go beyond "purely decorative" and to choose images that would illustrate for the reader the neighboring content. Since we summarize the plot, there is rarely more than a handful of sentences for any given event in the film, which conflicts with the apparent requirement that there must be sufficient detail to warrant the screenshot.

I would like to impart some advice to you, if you are willing to hear me out. First of all, I have generally relied on film articles of Featured Article status for guidance in improving other articles. They are supposed to be the best film articles that Wikipedia has to offer. So please consider that many editors have been accustomed to this traditional approach, and we are finding it unfair that this upheaval is taking place so late in the project's development. I have watched and participated in discussions where editors of film articles frequently engage in discussion about whether an article has too many non-free images or a poor selection of them. We are not attempting to exploit any loopholes or push our luck in defining fair use rationale. I would recommend that if you and other editors are seeking to ensure that the non-free content policy is followed, that you take this viewpoint into consideration. I personally don't think that there's as clear of a case for removing inappropriate images from film articles as there was one for lists of episodes. I would suggest that, if you mean to investigate the world of film articles, you present a case explaining how non-free content should be used and what alternative methods can be used to address whatever image issues a film article may have. I think an explanation of how a screenshot can be used in the plot summary (if at all) as well as other sections of the article. Your action at 300 may have been seen as brusque because of how we are accustomed to the traditional approach, and I think if you want to instigate change, you should initiate discussion and give editors a chance to respond, with access to the alternatives that we can pursue.

Another way to encourage the correct application of the non-free content policy would be to provide examples where the fair use rationale is appropriately designated. This may require visiting one or two Featured film articles and re-shaping them accordingly, so that it can serve as a guiding light for editors to follow. I think that such an approach would reduce hostility over seemingly disrupting articles. In the future, I will try to practice image use more in line with what this policy requests, but I still feel that there needs to be clarification about how screenshots can be inserted into summarized Plot sections, if at all. I hope you understand that being more passive in dealing with non-free content and giving more involved editors the understanding and the responsibility of handling images would be better in the long run. If you are interested in discussing how we shape this approach, I can help share the kind of perspectives that we have had in the past and suggest what would make editors more reciprocal to change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Allison-brewer.jpg

I think you were a bit hasty in deleting the image, as you can see from the log it has been deleted and undeleted before. Please see the explanation I have posted on the [Image_talk:Allison-brewer.jpg|talk page]. Thanks for your consideration. - Jord 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

You now have your own RFC page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ed g2s. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Replaceable fair use

Hi, your edit to this template messed up the day categories in Category:Replaceable fair use images. Could you fix it? It would take you probably a few seconds, it would take me a bit longer...:) Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The daily categories are being created through the Category:Replaceable fair use images page. That links still to the old name of the categories. See for instance today's category which is Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 13 May 2007, which is the old name. Garion96 (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Garion96 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AWB wikitable fix went wrong on a nonstandard table

Hi Ed - thanks for your efforts to standardize wikitables. I know from personal experience that it takes some dedication to carry out a mundane job like that using AWB! However, at User:Geometry guy/Grading scheme and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Grading_scheme, you edited a table with a rather nonstandard structure (it has tables within tables) and messed it up. The first time round I just fixed it, but now you've done it again. Could you either fix this one by hand, or skip it when you go through the list using AWB? Cheers, Geometry guy 13:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. It is probably a good idea to filter out user space pages anyway when using AWB.

[edit] Why?

What was wrong with using that image? And you make me look like a vandal... - Bagel7^{What ya say,} _{what ya say,} ^{what ya say,} _what??? 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being a good Samaritan

I spotted this plaintive cry for help ([1]) and figured I know nobody as well-equipped to help as... <ahem>... you. --Dweller 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apprentice Candidates template

Hi Ed, I understand that you've changed the apprentice candidate template for accessibility reasons - however, it is modelled on the 'big brother end game' template which seems to be able to justify itself in its current state. Just wondered why it's allowed on one template but not for another! Cheers, Seaserpent85 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's messy workarounds

So anyhow, since you're the only one who's figure out how to get background images to work, I was wondering if you knew of a way to tile those backgrounds. I'm working on Portal:Halo, and I want to have the headers be a background tiled horizontally. I just want your input if you think/know of a way to make it feasible. David Fuchs 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of non-free images in licensing templates

MZMcBride requested I solicit your input at Template talk:MultiLicenceWithCC-By-All-IntEng. The issue is using non-free logos and other images to identify license status, specifically the Creative Commons logo and buttons. Creative Commons's policy in regards to copyrights says that most of the content of the site is under cc-by-3.0 (and probably earlier as 3.0 is rather new..) except those things listed under the trademark section. The images and buttons are listed under the trademark section. Thus, the logo and buttons are not licensed according to the previous statement which means they are non-free. As such, their usage is subject to our policies on the use of non-free content which prohibits the use of non-free content outside of the main namespace. Image:Somerights20.png and Image:Somerights.png has already been replaced with Image:CC some rights reserved.svg in many license templates, but a few were missed. Any templates or other non-article usages of Image:Ccl logo.gif, Image:CC-logo.svg, or other offical logos should be removed or replaced with Image:CC some rights reserved.svg or such. The specific buttons should probably be replaced with Image:CC BY.png, Image:CC ND.png, Image:CC NC.png, and Image:CC SA.png as appropriate. Kotepho 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grad

Congratulations on your graduation! Matthew 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ed g2s • talk 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

The Original Barnstar

To Ed g2s, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. -Susanlesch 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Handicapped ISA image, again

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Handicapped ISA image, again

Another attempt to use the ISA image. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey dude!

hi Ed.. i got a question 4 u.. i know that kit-templates shown the colors of the teams.. but it wont be better if people can see the complete kit with details and colors?... it will look better and more realistc... if u say thtat's ok i can make especific details for all the teams in the world.. i promess, well idk if u r in charge of this but thats my question!

i'll wait 4 an answer! oh great job by the way..

Omar Martinez , Guayaquil, Ecuador —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omar 89 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Kits on Wikipedia

Recently a member of this website made some kits to go on the Arsenal page that look very much like the actual Arsenal kits. However, I have noticed that you removed them because (in your words), "Kit template is for colours, not design details."

The same happened with the new Manchester United home shirt.

I can't see how there is nothing wrong with providing better detail to kits. How is this a bad thing? Surely the more realistic the shown kit template is to the actual kit, the more accurate Wikipedia is.

Have you checked other members' views on this - do you know if you allowed to keep reversing the detail added to kits?

Alexcavell 09:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template question

Ed, is {{Non-free allowed in}} an active template? Videmus Omnia 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:EinsteinSzilard.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:EinsteinSzilard.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hepl, can't found something!

hey i remember last year i found a list of all german players who has caps and goals with the national team (name, year, caps, goals and teams, for example:)

Beckenbauer, Franz (1965 to 1977)

103 caps, 14 goals (Bayern München)

.. but i cant found it right know! i dont remember if the list was on german or in english...mmm i think that was in german...but the fact is that it exist!, so would you mind to help me to find it?... i'll apreciate this! thanx!

Omar

[edit] Barnstar

This is for the excellent Template:Soccer icon, it is so much better the the original footballs with flags stuck next to them, it looks classy and its soo easy to use. So I award you this barnstar!! --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ed g2s • talk 09:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Taxobox begin

Template:Taxobox begin 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. — Verisimilus T 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwich City player of the year

Hi. A question for you, oh guru of image licensing! I'm working on taking this article to FL status. It really needs images of the trophy and Barry Butler, after whom it's named. If I can't find free images, can a convincing case be made for using a fair-use rationale for either/both? The trophy is not particularly notable in terms of its design, etc, just in terms of the honour. --Dweller 12:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, helpful. I was doubtful about both, but you give me some hope with the trophy. Let's see, eh? :-) --Dweller 13:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems I'm not being very clear at WP:F about my question, as I'm getting answers to questions I've not asked! If you could help, I'd appreciate it. I don't know why I need to be told it's possible/better to get a free image - doesn't my posting at the page (and having a dash of common sense) presuppose that I already know that? --Dweller 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] images

There's an article at FAC (James Milner) and I wondered about the licensing of its images, particularly Image:Milnercross.JPG, which originates from Flickr... --Dweller 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thanks for feedback. Can I invite you to contribute at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melodifestivalen --Dweller 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jo or Joanne Guest?

Your input is welcome at Talk:Joanne Guest#Page title: Jo or Joanne? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] userpage

I dont know if it gets boring to hear this, but your user page is the nicest one I've ever seen. I wish I could understand half of the stuff in the code.. =)! Felicitaciones! --01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use and football club season articles

I see you've changed the football club season template removing the logo from it. I just don't agree with your choice, I really don't see where the logo feature might fails WP:NONFREE. The main subject in a club season article is the club, isn't it? So the club logo can be featured. Next time I'd rather if you start a discussion before making such a controversial edit. Thank you. --Angelo 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not just mentioning the team, you're making an article about it. It's quite different. --Angelo 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

These articles are actually forks of the main club article, and are thought to cover a particular period (i.e. a football season) in their history. You can therefore understand the article is about to cover a given season for a club whose logo is depicted in the infobox. This happens in compliance with WP:NONFREE #8, because it adds significance to the article. --Angelo 11:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A logo visibly describes the subject the article is about (as you're just covering facts related to a single club, rather than a player's biography, which can instead consider several other clubs), so they increase readers' understanding. In any case, even if you don't agree, you're not allowed to change the template, because you've got no consensus in support of your own view of the things. --Angelo 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject is not a specific season, but a specific season for a given club. It's different, and IMHO you still fail to see this difference. In any case, I am going to open a thread at WP:WPF about the issue and see what other people think about it. Lastly, you are suggested not to change the style without a proper consensus as well (as I've noticed you used the summary only to describe the logo removal, but not to indicate your style change, and this wasn't fair to me). --Angelo 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technosexual and Gigolo Joe

Hello Ed,

If you look carefully, I provided a reference for the claim that Gigolo Joe has become a technosexual icon.

http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/asksam/archives/2007/05/sam_and_the_tv_ep_10_what_wome.html

--Loremaster 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons episode images

You do realize that all of the images you are removing from Simpsons episode pages illustrate key plot points right? And those key plot points are discussed in the plot section of the article, thus meaning that the images are all discussed in the text? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just being an image of a key plot event does not mean the image itself is discussed in the text. On that logic you could justify an complete visual storyboard everytime we write a plot synopsis. The rationale on the image page should detail exactly what about the article (of significance) the image is illustrating, and how it greatly increases the readers understanding of that topic. ed g2s • talk 11:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just stop will you? You got blocked for being so disruptive on 300. Alientraveller (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Enforcing policy != being disruptive. Any blocks made were in error, and were overturned. ed g2s • talk 11:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you delete all movie posters then? Such images are there to identify the main topic. And you were blocked quite rightly for being a nuisance. Don't do it again. Being an administrator does not make your opinion higher than other people. I hope you can listen now before you get blocked again, and clearly you must be an ok editor apart from your rabid hatred of copyrighted images. And if you're going to reply on your own talk page, don't waste space then by replying on mine too. Please accept that nothing else can illustrate a whole topic. How else will people know what a Simpsonized Lionel Richie looks like? Clearly, they wouldn't be here if they saw the episode. Alientraveller (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again: I have never been blocked. I put my reply on my talk page because you removed it from your talk page - in a public forum it's only fair we both have our say, would you not agree? Crossposting is not a "waste of space". The article does not discuss the appearance of a "Simpsonized Lionel Richie", if it did you would have a good case for using the image. ed g2s • talk 11:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE IMAGES UNTIL THE DISCUSSION IS OVER! Being an admin does not make your opinion higher than anyone else's. Alientraveller (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

When dealing with unfree content we don't add content until it is fully justified. So do not re-add the images until the discussion has concluded. ed g2s • talk 11:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I am going to give you a caution for deleting images without good reason. Jaw jaw, not war war. Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Alientraveller (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The rather good reason is that they are in violation of our local policy and foundation policy on non-free content. Until you can demonstrate otherwise, the images must not be added. Posting a template warning is pretty meaningless. ed g2s • talk 11:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not care, but it is your problem that you must discuss with the main editors of those articles, who are only doing what is a general rule of a main image to identify the whole article. But if you attempt to delete those images, I will revert you and report you as a vandal for not trying to determine consensus via discussion. People disagree with you, and they don't agree, that's life, just accept it. Alientraveller (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"a general rule of a main image to identify the whole article" - no such rule exists with regards to non free content. I strongly suggest you actually read WP:NFC. The consensus, as already determined by our policy in response to Foundation policy, is that such images should not be used without proper justification. ed g2s • talk 11:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Could you create a new geographical representation map, similar to Image:London_Underground_full_map.png?

Maybe two, one with the current London Overground layout and one with the future layout? Simply south (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:POTD size/2007-01-21

Seems like there are about three dozen of these. Are they still needed? Would you mind if I deleted them? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DLR map

hello mr map man Image:Docklands_Light_Railway.svg needs to add Langdon Park DLR station thx

[edit] Map generation script?

Hello! I have a list of GPS coordinates with associated names etc. for the Regional Transportation District's light rail system. I noticed you've created what are geographically accurate maps of London Underground rail lines. I see that at London Underground geographic maps, you wrote a PHP script which does this. What's necessary to make possible the release of this script, which would no doubt be useful to myself and others trying to generate nice maps like yours, for other rail networks? If it needs some cleanup or improvement, perhaps I can help with that? Please let me know.. I would really appreciate it. Thank you! --Beta Centauri 08:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Meetups

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

We're hoping to have regular meetups in London. The next one is on May 11th Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9. Another Sunday lunch in Holborn. Come along! -- Harry Wood (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello... it's been a while!

I opined here and thought of you. Your expertise would be gratefully received!

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:JanuaryCalendar

I was looking at January 31. I wanted to click on Template:JanuaryCalendar to see February 1. The >> takes me to February 2008, which has no links to February 1.

I suggest either placing Template:FebruaryCalendar onto February 2008 or creating some sort of button on Template:JanuaryCalendar that takes me to Template:DecemberCalendar and Template:FebruaryCalendar. Any thoughts or suggestions? Kingturtle (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Football kit

Hi Ed g2s,
I am User:Anoymous101 on Wikinews. I noticed you contributed to Template:Football kit and I think Wikinews could benefit from the template in its Football articles. Unfourunately howevery the GFDL is not compatible with Wikinews' CC-BY. As a ressullt, I am asking you (and other contributers to the template) if they woud mind dual-licensing their work on the template (with CC-BY) so it can be usd on Wikinews. Please reply at the talk page for my IP address.
Thanks for reading this message,
Anonymous101 on Wikinews (82.32.52.223 (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Salford

Hello,

I'm putting together a new article (well, list) of tallest buildings and structures in the City of Salford. It's not likely to be a "sexy" list, like New York City's to say the least, but non-the-less, was wondering if you'd be willing and able to help produce an image like (but not as extensive as) Image:Tall buildings in London.svg for the city? My draft article is at User:Jza84/Sandbox2.

If not, would you be able to give me some tips on how you went about it? I am fine with photoshop and illustrator if need be! Hope you can get in touch. Thanks. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alison Wheeler at AfD

Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Alison Wheeler at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Eastmain (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia local wiki (wikimetro.org) feedback request

I am a Wiki developer, have spent the past 12 months developing wikimetro.org in asp.net as a local wiki and would like to ask for (expert) feedback. www.wikimetro.org a local wiki 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Jeff Brauer

Sorry for any inconvenience caused Thanks and Regards, Jeff

[edit] Football kit details

Erm, do you mind explaining why you feel the need to remove details from football kits? If people see fit to put in the work to include minor details on club kits, then by all means let them, but there's no need to remove the details completely. I mean, if the kits were including sponsors' logos or the club badge, then that would be understandable, but minor kit details is nothing worth deleting. – Pee Jay 10:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Non-free allowed in

Template:Non-free allowed in 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. Collectonian (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:London eye christmas night.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:London eye christmas night.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 06:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Manchester United FC.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Manchester United FC.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Eye and parliament small.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Eye and parliament small.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

[edit] Eiffel tower featured pic

Hi there
I've nominated for delisting here the featured picture of the Eiffel tower that you nominated originally. Perhaps you could participate in the discussion?
Cheers, Pstuart84 Talk 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Koh Samui FP

Hi
An FP which you nominated is up for delisting here. Perhaps you would like to participate in the discussion?
Pstuart84 Talk 14:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mouse-mechanism-cutaway.png

The image you nominated as a featured picture is being considered for delisting. Though it is a great image, I do not feel it still lives up to the FP standards. Reguiieee (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia award templates