User talk:Ed g2s/Archive12

I have reverted your recent edit to {{Extra chronology}} becuase it broke a large number of pages using {{Infobox Single}} and other templates. It is vital that you are careful when editing high-visibility templates, and caution should be exercised anyway when editing a protected page – this page is both of those things. I don't know exactly what caused the error, but I do know that having thousands of pages displaying broken markup even for ten minutes is a bad thing. Please test new template code first before applying it to a "real" template. Thanks – Gurch 13:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem was with {{Infobox Single}} as you say, fair enough, but in that case you should have edited {{Infobox Single}} first and then {{Extra chronology}}. Leaving 1% of the entire encyclopedia (yes, we have a lot of music articles) broken isn't really an option. Thanks again – Gurch 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but short note to say it was broken would've sufficed. The lecture is a little patronising, I did create those templates, so I'm aware of the implications. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm coming across as patronising, but somewhere along the line something has gone wrong. Your latest edit (17:00 UTC) to {{Infobox Single}} broke all articles using {{Extra chronology}} again. This time, it was reverted by somebody else; however the template now seems to be broken for all articles without {{Extra chronology}}. Please fix whatever is broken, or revert back to the latest working revision. Having broken markup – meaningless to most readers – at the top of 10,000 articles is as bad as having 10,000 vandalised articles. If this is not fixed soon, I will be forced to favour a working template over cosmetic changes and revert everything that was done today, in the interests of our readers. Thank you – Gurch 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last version was working (I think). Perhaps you need to purge the pages you are looking at. ed g2s • talk 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was a little confused there, sorry. Yes, the current version is working; when I left that message Getcrunk had just reverted it to an older, broken version, which confused me into thinking your last revision was broken. It would seem that Getcrunk forgot to purge the pages he was looking at, and mistakenly believed your last version to be broken, so reverted it. I see now that it is OK.

I recommend that you test any future changes on a separate, temporary template first – that way, you'll avoid confusing reverts and patronizing messages from me :) Thanks for the swift response – Gurch 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to just get things right the first time :) ed g2s • talk 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you constantly fail to. Every album page on my watchlist is currently broken because of your recent changes to this template. Please leave the {{Album infobox}} and related templates alone. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. Any breaking since Infobox Single was updated has been a result of people reverting and/or not purging the cache. ed g2s • talk 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help: (example removed)

Also feel free to pay a visit to A Call to Arms, Keasbey Nights, Keasbey Nights, and Rules of the Game and then tell me I just need to purge a few pages or that infobox single is to blame. Let me reiterate:
Please leave {{Infobox Album}} and related templates alone. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such emboldened warnings are neither helpful nor civil. ed g2s • talk 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it was a request, not a warning, hence the "please" at the front. Also thank you for fixing the problem, and please be more careful when editing templates in the future. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 23:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Use Concern

Hey Ed. Remember me? I'm the guy who posted the logos on all the NBA seasons pages, of which you told me was not allowed due to rules against images being used as decoration. While I understand that policy and have complied to the best of my knowledge, I do have a new question about it. Since the World Cup is going on now, I looked at some previous World Cup articles just for fun. However, all those pages uses flag images in the same way I used the logos on the NBA articles. Isn't that considered "decoration" as well? It seems kinda silly to me that wikipedia has so many restrictions on fair use images where one can use a PD imsge liberaly. If it's just a matter of PD vs. Fair Use, than I'm sorry to say that it seems to me that Wikipedia is being too conservative. Here's my view. If a flag is supposed to be a symbol of a country, than a sports logo is a symbol of a team or an organization. Moreover, templates aside, the logo should be used to identify said team or organization outside of that team/organization's main article. I mean, the flags on the different World Cup pages showcased not only the countries, but put the individual tournament in historical context, much like what I did with all the differing NBA logos through the different seasons, because how else is one to show the extent of the evolution of the NBA on Wikipedia? Just because we err on the side of caution, doesn't mean that we should devalue creativity altogether. But I guess that's just me. What do you think? Dknights411 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Flags n Emblems

Seeing as you removed the Emblems from the Copa Libertadores de América article, you may want to comment here. Thanks. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup

I saw your point of view from the revert that happen and Zidane wasn't there because he wasn't allowed back from the red card. Kingjeff 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warnings

Regarding edits made during July 10 2006 (UTC) to Windows Live Messenger

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss removing the screenshots, please talk on the articles talk page. If you continue to conduct your vandalism it will be considerd an act of war and you will be reported. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during July 10 2006 (UTC) to Windows Live Messenger

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning, next time you shall be reported for vandalism. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use boilerplate vandalism warnings when I am clearly not a vandal. Also do not waste other administrators' time making childish reports. ed g2s • talk 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings would not have to be given to you if you stopped vandalising certain pages. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I have clearly explained my actions and am making good faith edits, that is not vandalism. ed g2s • talk 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith stopped as soon as you refused to enter into discussion and you clearly abused power. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

As the creator of those images i shall change the liceanse on them from fair use, i have discussed this with a neutral editor. This will settle wether they are allowed to be used or not. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then the same could be said for Image:Ed g2s.png, it is freely licensed yet there is a possible copyrighted logo on the shirt. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still you are saying the image is free, i believe you are being bias here. (IE: It is okay for ed to upload an image under a free liceanse when it contains copyrighted material, however it is not okay for somebody else) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And i again can not see how you can justify it. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Space Science Data Center

How is the nasa logo not fair-use in an article about one of NASA's subdivisions? If you go to the NSSDC website you will see... suprise... the nasa logo. -Ravedave 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article IS about NASA though... the NSSDC does not have a logo becuase it IS NASA. -Ravedave 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for you to stand down

This is a request asking you to voluntarily stand down from your position as an administrator as i believe you jave abused your power to an extent which can not be tolerated anymore and you also now violate rules which you are intent on enforcing. if you do not wish to then i refer you to my comment at Talk:Windows_Live_Messenger#Screenshot_gallery.

See: m:Requests for permissions or Category:Administrators open to recall would be better. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How amusing. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence

This Barnstar of Diligence is awarded for difficult, complicated, and thankless work that helps to keep both Wikipedia freely-reusable and clueless editors from receiving threatening takedown letters. Jkelly 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. ed g2s • talk 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More tube maps stuff

Well, it's not really the maps, but the GPS data. I've recently been involved in a discussion about tube lines and distances between stations. See here. I was wondering if there was anyway to get distances between stations from your GPS co-ordinates that were used to generate those maps. That would help pick out which stations are furthest apart. Failing that, a scale for the maps might help. Either that, or I'll have to look these bits of trivia up somewhere else, or maybe just time the journey between some of these stations.... :-) Carcharoth 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look into doing this at some point. Of course, the GPS co-ords for the stations won't give the actual tunnel distances, but it is a good starting approximation. I recently discovered that the deepest station is Hampstead, thanks to the big hill on top of the station! Carcharoth 10:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup footballbox backgrounds

Hi, I noticed you removed the backgrounds from the footballboxes on the FIFA World Cup articles, and added hr tags, to improve accessibility. My understanding is AWB lets you semiautomate this... So if it's easy for you to do, could you also consider doing the same for the FIFA Women's World Cup articles? (It'd save me having to do this manually.) Thanks. --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use image on my userpage

Oh, you only did this a long time ago (June 21), but I forgot about fair-use when I made those userboxes. Thanks for fixing it! the_ed1 7 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in List of Final Fantasy titles

Thought this might need the attention of an experienced fair use reviewer. Images identify but commentary is presented in form of bullets which vary for each subject. o/s/p 22:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful Editing on NRL

Hi, I understand your concern for the removal of logos on the National Rugby League page, but could you please explain youself as to why you removed the formatting of the tables? I can't see any policy against the use of formatted wikitables, so why was this done? Also, could you please review and make amends for your edits so that the tables are not disrupted in any way; at the moment, as a result of your edits, the columns are not lined up correctly. Cheers, --mdmanser 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the section National_Rugby_League#1908_-_1994:_expansion_of_the_NSWRL_Premiership for example. And as I asked previously, could you please explain youself as to why you removed the formatting of the tables?

Is Separation of style and content a Wikipedia policy? I've seen a load of other pages that use formatting for their tables. Could you also please fix your edits which moved around the content within the tables too? --mdmanser 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my question. I asked if there was a policy (could you answer that directly - I'm not too sure myself). And with regards to your own question about the formatting - apart from the page looking a little brighter, it seems to be a lot easier to read as well. Could you also please fix your edits which moved around the content within the tables too? --mdmanser 01:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under [[User talk discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Thanks for fixing the columns though, I appreciate it. I hope this is all settled now. --mdmanser 01:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use template

Now that fair use has been amended to shorten the time frame for deleting fair use images, do you know if we have any templates that we can use to alert uploaders that the fair use image is about to be deleted in 48 hours unless fair use policy is applied?

Incidently, I fully support what you are doing on the Gameboy page. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell do you think you are?

Excuse me, but why are you tearing my user page into shreds? I am momentarily going to report you for vandalism, as you did not give me enough time to justify the images or get copyright status for them. You are nothing but a vandal, and although you will not respond to this, or when you do respond to this you will say that I don't follow policy, know that your actions will not be tolerated. You are a deceptive person, and I don't really give a goddamn bit what you say about me. --Paaerduag 11:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

Well, it's interesting that User:Jtdirl added on my talk page that you are removed personal attack. Perhaps it is not only me that finds your blunt and conclusion-jumping editing style as inappropriate and suspicious. The POLICY is that seven days is allowed for copyright information to be provided. You have FAILED to uphold wikipedia policy, so don't talk to me about following policy. I don't very much enjoy being told what to do by hypocrites. I think that all of your 'saintly' edits should be reviewed as they are clearly motivated by ulterior aims, and/or a simple desire to stir up trouble. --Paaerduag 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons episode

I have reverted your removal of the Simpsons family from the "List of.." page. As you well know, the existance of images on these pages (whether for the episodes in the list or the list itself) are in dispute and it would be good Wikiquette to hold off on removing anything you deem decorative until the matter is resolved. I can argue conversely and say if I hit "Random article" on the left and got that page and had never heard of the Simpsons, the article would be clearer if I saw an image of The Simpsons on the article page so I understand what kind of show it is. At the very least, you could have posted a notice on the talk page proposing a deletion on the grounds of decoration. I understand your position but it is poor wikiquette (and just plain rude) to enforce your opinion while so many others disagree. --Will2k 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dknights411

You got to watch out for this guy, 1998 1999 nba season was just fine, but he had to change june 25th day, the day when the season ended, it was there all the time, but he chose to play around, in his mind littlest of things are mistakes and personal attacks, see that the article gets corrected right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.246 (talk • contribs) .

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Republicanlogo.png)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Republicanlogo.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. —Bkell (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sporting Logo's

I see i'm not the only one angered by your removal of Logos from sport competition pages. Could you please stop doing it. It degrades the quality of these articles. These images are not used for decorative purposes in most cases but as informative tools. I request that you stop. I also back the request from others that you stand down as an admin- you have clearly abused your power. Ronan.evans 13:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Images

Hi, You have alot of images on your user page which i consider decrotive. Please could you remove them. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're free, so no. ed g2s • talk 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you even asking? Just do what Ed does and just edit someone else's userpage to your liking. Mikya 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When have I ever done that? ed g2s • talk 11:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use dispute over 2001 poster : Image talk:2001Style_B.jpg

Hi Ed, would you care to wade in on a discussion of fair use on a movie poster being used (as far as I can tell) in a non fair-use way? Thanks. P.S. keep up the good fight. Megapixie 03:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You: Note also that all the Academy Awards articles (e.g. 77th Academy Awards) have had the posters removed.

Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "overzealous"? -- Jason Palpatine 20:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely overzealous. -- Jason Palpatine 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, they were removed a while ago and not by me. ed g2s • talk 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the subject of the removal. And you're right, whomever is doing it is clearly very overzealous. -- Jason Palpatine 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I wasn't agreeing with you. As I have stated, I don't think the posters are necessary. ed g2s • talk 23:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Same back at you. ;-) Neith agree nor disagree. -- Jason Palpatine 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin intervention

I wish to request admin intervention for User:Esquire931 who is uploading fair use imagery at an alarming rate, despite being notified (see user's talk page). The images in question pertain to computer and video game related articles and does not declare sources or rationale, and are often redundant as they are mere copies of existing images. Combination 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AmFBfield.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AmFBfield.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. —xyzzy_n 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Image on University of Colorado at Boulder

I am unclear as to why you removed the Image:University-of-Colorado-Boulder-sports-logo.png from the infobox on University of Colorado at Boulder page. Reading over your talk page, it appears you may have been attempting to enforce the Fair Use clause of images, of which this image applies. But the image is CU, is contained on the CU article and in the article namespace (although within a template). Could you please clarify for me? Thank you. --MECU≈talk 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is already used in the section about sports at the university. There's no need to have it twice. ed g2s • talk 18:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. Along the same lines, why did you remove the images that are marked {{Promotional}} from 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team page? Images like Image:Brian Daniels.jpg and Image:2006 Colorado football team media guide cover.JPG The promotional tag doesn't say it must only be used on that article refering to the pictured item, it simply states: to illustrate the work or product in question; of which I believe they were doing. (I am not refering to the School Logo Images used). --MECU≈talk 18:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your comment left on my talk page: I belive these meet criteria #8 on the Fair Use Policy page: specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text. --MECU≈talk 19:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a relevant point about the player: That he is noteable award winner. How else would you use a promotional image to make a relevant point about the player? --MECU≈talk 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute reolution: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific --MECU≈talk 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in Closer (baseball)

Why did you remove the logos in the closer (baseball) article? They added a graphical element to some otherwise boring tables. (In fact, there are none in the article, now that you've inexplicably removed the photo.) I'd say you brought down a perfectly good article.

Additionally, the text you used to replace the logos isn't bracket-linked to the teams' pages. So, assuming you had a good reason for doing it in the first place, I'd appreciate it if you would properly link them. Thanks. Woodshed 04:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I can see from your edits and talk page comments that you're something of a zealot on this issue (dare I say in constant violation of WP:POINT). I would merely remind you that you continue to bring down article quality with your actions. Woodshed 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: Blank2

Regarding edits made during August 1 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the image, it has a rationale. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during August 1 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the image it has a FUR, last warning. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it of hurt you so badly to add her name to the FUR, looks like i gota do it my self. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevent to Melora Walters as she was in this film. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is not policy, as the man said himself. Quoting it is not useful. I urge you to stop removing images from any page that involve sports until conclusion of the issue. --MECU≈talk 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC) User_talk:Mecu#Need_to_stop_user_temporarilly --MECU≈talk 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look in my archive. ed g2s • talk 15:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same link as above again, reply, I'm trying to call a truce. --MECU≈talk 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. --MECU≈talk 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would apply if I was disrputing Wikipeida. Enforcing our fair use policy is by no stretch of the imagination disruptive. ed g2s • talk 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe you have caused extreme disruption to wikipedia by violating 3RR three times, al editors involved could of spent there time bettering wikipedia however with this disruption you have caused this si not the case. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it to simply stop? Shouldn't you assume that we are in good faith as well, and can't you even agree that there is an argument over this? I don't see how it's too much to ask to just avoid sports logo images/pages during this discussion? --MECU≈talk 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if we stopped enforcing the policy everytime there was an open discussion (there are usualy several open at any one time) then we'd get nothing done. Your complaints are no different to the ones we've had hundreds of times before. ed g2s • talk 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Please provide links to these other discussions. --MECU≈talk 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please provide some examples of these discussions. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not helpful. Since there are so many instances, you should have no problem finding one or two instances of thourough discussion on this topic. I looked on your user page above, and none of that apply. --MECU≈talk 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an indexed archive, see NBA logos, sports logos, club logos etc. All similar complaints, probably with links to other talk pages. ed g2s • talk 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read all three of those you mentioned, none of them were throurogh discussions. More has been said about you removing images in this instance than the discussion of whether is is applicable in all three of those examples combined. I still challenge you to show a througough discussion of this topic, if you are to continue to claim this has been discussed and settled before. --MECU≈talk 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One week was clearly excessive, given the circumstances. I've reduced it to 24 hours. —freak(talk) 16:25, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, the block was finally lifted (albeit 20 odd hours after it was imposed) by the actioning admin. ed g2s • talk 13:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]