User talk:Brossow/Archives/2006-05
Mustang GT question
[edit]Are you the final word on all things Mustang GT at Wikipedia? I'm still relatively new here and don't understand the pecking order and decision making policies. Duke53 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Duke53
- No, definitely not. No one besides Jimbo Wales is, really. Did you have a question or concern? ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Friday]], [[April 28]], [[2006]] @ 19:47 (UTC)
- It just seemed to me that you made a change ('Sporty Coupe') arbitrarily and did it with a smartass comment besides. You also removed some pictures that I thought were pertinent to the article. Duke53 05:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Duke53
- I don't recall removing pictures in that or any recent edit. "Sporty Coupe" isn't even a real class of car, so for someone to make that change was asinine. It is, by virtue of its very existence, first and foremost a pony car. It is, in fact, the source of the term. A lot of work has gone into that article by serious editors and for someone to "arbitrarily" change the designation to some made-up class like "Sporty Coupe" is just plain wrong. I know you've had some confusion in the past about image removal and who did what (last time, I was the one who actually RESTORED images that you and placed and someone else had removed, if you'll recall) so I'm going to assume that there's some confusion again. If I'm wrong, please point out the edit in question (using the page history tab as a starting point) and I'll try to explain my changes. ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 14:53 (UTC)
- Just did some quick research and the only image change I've done in the Ford Mustang article recently was this edit on April 9. In that edit, I put back a picture that someone else had removed. I explained this previously in a comment now archived here. Hope this clears things up! ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 20:49 (UTC)
- I don't recall removing pictures in that or any recent edit. "Sporty Coupe" isn't even a real class of car, so for someone to make that change was asinine. It is, by virtue of its very existence, first and foremost a pony car. It is, in fact, the source of the term. A lot of work has gone into that article by serious editors and for someone to "arbitrarily" change the designation to some made-up class like "Sporty Coupe" is just plain wrong. I know you've had some confusion in the past about image removal and who did what (last time, I was the one who actually RESTORED images that you and placed and someone else had removed, if you'll recall) so I'm going to assume that there's some confusion again. If I'm wrong, please point out the edit in question (using the page history tab as a starting point) and I'll try to explain my changes. ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 14:53 (UTC)
- It just seemed to me that you made a change ('Sporty Coupe') arbitrarily and did it with a smartass comment besides. You also removed some pictures that I thought were pertinent to the article. Duke53 05:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Duke53
Removing NHL logos on team pages
[edit]Okay, I understand why the little versions of NHL team logos were removed from season and draft pages. However, I don't understand why you're removing the logo from pages about the teams themselves. Since they are on the page of the team they're illustrating, I don't see how having those images on the team pages would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Could you explain how it is a violation of policy in that case? - NeoChaosX 23:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The large logo is acceptable under fair use in order to illustrate the team's logo. However, the small logos are not essential to identify the team in question and are instead just used decoratively; therefore, the images are not usable per fair use rules. It's pretty straightforward when you know the law, but a lot of people don't understand fair use and when it does and does not apply. In this case, the logo can only be used if no acceptable non-copyrighted alternative exists and if its use is essential in illustrating the subject in question (and other criteria, but those are the big ones here) and here the repeated use of the small logo serves no purpose other than ornamentation, even if it is on the team's article page. ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 23:43 (UTC)
AWB and categories
[edit]Ok, so you've archived our conversation after a few hours and to top it off the conversation was still going? Are you trying to ignore anyone who has a different opinion then you? It is up to you to respond to issues raised by your edits. Please read my last few messages and reply to them. Qutezuce 00:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've said all I can say. It's a difference of opinion and my last comment on it was that I was done going around in circles with you. It's a waste of my time and yours. I was done with the conversation and it was archived, but if you want to keep bickering, go ahead. I really have no more to offer on the subject, so it'll be rather one-sided I'm afraid. ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 00:23 (UTC)
- Yes, you've said what you've wanted to say, but it appears you have not read my last couple of comments. You think it is going in circles because you have not read my comments. It is a difference of opinion. So each opinion should be respected, not trampled upon. By turning off auto-alphabetization you are respecting those with different opinions from your own. By leaving it on you are saying that your opinion is the only one that matters.
- No, by turning it off I'm deferring to those with a different personal preference. You demand that your preference be respected with no consideration for MY preference. You are being amazingly hyporcritical when in one sentence you demand I stop changing articles to suit my personal preference and in the next laughably suggest that each opinion should be respected, when in fact you're blatantly demonstrating ZERO respect for mine. Therefore, I really am done with this roundy-round and will leave it to you to ramble on. If you have nothing new to add, however, I'd ask that you do so on your own Talk page as I'll soon be adding this to the archive as well. It's not that I'm unwilling to discuss other editors' concerns; it's that I detest having to repeat myself in print and there's clearly no solution that will make both of us happy — just the "solution" that will make you happy.
- Whats to stop me from reverting every one of your edits and simply saying "its a difference of opinion" to you as justification? So you see why that is not a solution, but what I am proposing is a solution. Qutezuce 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Reverting my edits would be juvenile and pointless. I'm not sure at this point if that would stop you or not. Your edits subsequent to my edits have done NOTHING but revert back to your personal preference, and how ironic it is when you point out ad nauseam that personal preferences shouldn't be imposed yet you are doing precisely that. My changes are being done in the context of larger, actually significant edits. Reverting those wholesale would amount to vandalism. Now, seriously, I'm done with this. Good night. ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 01:00 (UTC)
- While I don't quite understand what the big deal is re: category sorting, it does seem like you're using WP:AWB as an advantage in an edit war. I'd ask that you cease and desist in case someone uses this type of argument as a reason to turn off WP:AWB for everyone. This is a good example of the type of thing that can ruin it for the rest of us. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in an edit war. I dunno what you're seeing, but virtually all of my edits today have been one-pass deals. Took a couple stabs at one article and reverted a punctuation error that for whatever reason actually seems to be promoted by the MoS. No war here. *shrug* ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 01:51 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is that if this guy you're having an argument with here pursues this up the chain, it could get ugly. Just like the sweeping decree that user boxes are uncool and the gathering storm of people trying to eliminate all fair use images, a banishment of AWB could start with something as small as a difference of opinion. Be careful what battles you choose with this tool. The order of categories in an article seems like a good battle to step away from IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in an edit war. I dunno what you're seeing, but virtually all of my edits today have been one-pass deals. Took a couple stabs at one article and reverted a punctuation error that for whatever reason actually seems to be promoted by the MoS. No war here. *shrug* ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 01:51 (UTC)
- While I don't quite understand what the big deal is re: category sorting, it does seem like you're using WP:AWB as an advantage in an edit war. I'd ask that you cease and desist in case someone uses this type of argument as a reason to turn off WP:AWB for everyone. This is a good example of the type of thing that can ruin it for the rest of us. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Reverting my edits would be juvenile and pointless. I'm not sure at this point if that would stop you or not. Your edits subsequent to my edits have done NOTHING but revert back to your personal preference, and how ironic it is when you point out ad nauseam that personal preferences shouldn't be imposed yet you are doing precisely that. My changes are being done in the context of larger, actually significant edits. Reverting those wholesale would amount to vandalism. Now, seriously, I'm done with this. Good night. ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 01:00 (UTC)
- Yes, you've said what you've wanted to say, but it appears you have not read my last couple of comments. You think it is going in circles because you have not read my comments. It is a difference of opinion. So each opinion should be respected, not trampled upon. By turning off auto-alphabetization you are respecting those with different opinions from your own. By leaving it on you are saying that your opinion is the only one that matters.
Time for my Wiki Vacation
[edit]Just checking in - its time for my Wiki Vacation. I've been spending way to much time with with this and I'm burned out. Will be back in a couple weeks Stude62 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Enjoy! I am trying to do the same, but it's been three days or more of solid rain and I've been able to get NOTHING done outside. :-( --BRossow 01:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
NHL season pages
[edit]Sorry about not telling you which pages. Here they are:
2003-04 NHL season - The part that was messed up
2002-03 NHL season - The part that was messed up
Please be careful in the future when you make mass edits to pages. Thanks. JHMM13 (T | C) 
02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I actually found those on my own, but thanks. I was being careful, but at a glance I didn't visually see a problem with the tables — just that the logos were gone as desired. Someone needs to go through those articles ASAP and replace the logos with team names. ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 02:55 (UTC)
- As much as I'd love for that person to be me, I've got a life :-D. I hope this works out. Maybe you should go talk to the guys at the hockey project. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C)
02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- As much as I'd love for that person to be me, I've got a life :-D. I hope this works out. Maybe you should go talk to the guys at the hockey project. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C)