User talk:Ed g2s/Archive15

Image:Mouse in mousetrap.jpg

Hi, we have a somehow controversial User:KPbIC whose nickname looks like the Russian word for Rat (КРЫСА) written in Cyrillic. The image is constantly used as an attack against him. Do you plan to use the image for an article? Maybe it is possible to delete it? Currently I put it into the BadImage list [1], but this is a sort of a kludge. abakharev 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in portals

As you might know, I've created an amendment for fair use in portals after the discussion located at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It would be great if you could express your opinion, in support or against. ddcc 01:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Dickinson Pic

I agree with you in that the picture is not ideal, but we haven't got any others, and I don't think it can cause confusion or be PoV or anything like that. Thoughts? yandman 08:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that for a "no". yandman 13:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity stills

Thanks for your contributions to celebrity articles. However using plain publicity stills of living celebrities discourages other users from acquiring free images and so is prohibited by our policy ("An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like ... would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use"). Fair use is a last resort for unrepeatable images that are of particular relevance to the article, such as those of historical significance. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 08:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I am not the first person to say this, but I am mega confused! Firstly, I don't want to break the law/rules - but as with most areas of the law, there are grey areas, which Wiki has tried hard to define clear lines for all to keep inside - I want to do that. You will note from my edit record that I upload relativly few images for that reason - I want to be clearly inside the rules on licensing. However, perhaps you can educate me here. I have tagged all of the images in question as "Promotion" (as advised by another "knowledgable" editor on this subject), but having read through the various Wiki notes, perhaps I should be tagging them as Promophoto? I have been careful to load images where used in Bio's uploaded from mainly their agents websites - which having read the rules on Wiki again, would fall inside the Promophoto tagging. So my conclusion at present, is that I am tagging these images incorrectly as Promotion as opposed to Promophoto. However, your first point is my greatest confusion at present - agree that free use would be prefered over fair use (and that if that is the case, then all these images could be tagged with "Fair use/replace with free" tags). However, the "discourage/remove/therefore to encourage" piece seems a bit too righteous? I realise this whole license tagging area is fraught with difficulty, and I am just trying to get it right - but having had previous discussions with experts on this subject, another different view is most confusing. Best Regards, - Trident13 10:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it has been clarified what was meant by WP:FUC #1. That is images need not necessarily be existant on Wikipedia for them to be considered "available". See Wikipedia talk:Fair use#.22Repeatability.22_criterion. Obviously for dead or exceptionally reclusive celebrities this may not be the case but "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like ... would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use" (note that "fair use" means "acceptable to use on Wikipedia under Fair Use". Actual Fair Use can only ever be validated by a legal ruling). ed g2s • talk 11:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. ed g2s • talk 11:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ed_g2s... I see that you have removed the images from the Product Red timeline... i can understand that as some of them are not allowed. But, I think it would be more thorough if they were included, so I have left the column in my sandbox, but i'll be looking for legal images, and encourage anyone to help and contribute them perhaps here and when we have enough they can be posted to the article page, as also noted in Talk:Product_Red. Knowsitallnot 06:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bose images

Just wanted to let you know that UKPhoenix79 has reincluded all the images into Bose Headphone Family (and removed the replace requests), as well as removed the no rational tag and replacement requests on several of the image description pages. Not sure what step should be taken now about this matter... --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in Previous Bose Headphones, which has the same problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairuse logo galleries in television station articles

Are you up to dealing with yet another egregious abuse of fair-use images? Often-massive galleries of the bug logos are showing up in articles for local TV stations. For example, see this old version of KRIV-TV. Plus, most of these images are extremely poorly sourced, when they're sourced at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sony α

Hi, I added a rationale for fair use on the camera image. Does that suffice? -- Lycaon 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. I am the owner of such a camera myself and will make a picture of it one of these days (very soon). At that time I will replace the 'fair use' image. Ok? Lycaon 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook.css

What do you mean "line heights were working before and broke afterwards"? There was a change to the global monobook css that changed the line heights. With that I was just reverting the global change locally. It should have looked like it did three days ago or so after I made the change. —Mets501 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting it back. —Mets501 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your fixups to Template:Replaceable fair use. Your wiki-fu is more powerful than mine. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that you know

I find your handling of the issues regarding images in the pages I created and did my best to make better, at least according to my judgement, exceptionally inappropriate. I do not have time or patience to discuss that, this just serves as a definitive proof to me that my contributions to WP are not welcome. Therefore, I have decided to quit WP.

I don't think this is of any importance to you, and that WP would lose anything, but I just wanted you to know that as one day you might do this to a really valuable contributor. I also know you won't understand. Have a good night. Bravada, talk - 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have had deleted two of your messages from my talk page, so I guess I owe you a bit of explanation. The pictures of cars and logos have been uploaded to WP for quite some time, and WP has been one of the busiest and most recognized sites in the Internet for quite some time now. I have not heard of a single auto company complaining about either. I have also done my share of replacing FU images with free images wherever I could, and it sometimes required going more than a few extra miles, to say so.

I don't think it is the most urgent to go accross articles and delete any image that is quite unlikely to pose a copyright infringement while so many articles contain what might amount to libel, expletives or simply false information, not to mention the heaps of articles which are not written in a way an encyclopedic article should be (style, MoS, NPOV etc.) I am not expecting an answer. I would rather like you to take some time and think about it. You might also want to take a photo of Towa Carson at that time - that should be very easy. Bravada, talk - 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I promised myself I won't get involved into that... Now, please create a Citroen logo, a Towa Carson photo and a Lancia Phedra photo. Moreover, I somehow wasn't discouraged to create free photos for articles where there were fair use ones, but I certainly am now that they get deleted with such a poor rationale. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get the feeling that you would be willing to accept any other point of view than yours as valid. Therefore, I believe debating with you could only inflict more stress on me, so I will not pursue that further. Actually, I even envy you, as believing in one's own infallability is a great way to feel good all the time. Bravada, talk - 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, I don't understand your Flickr tag cloud image removal from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud article. You suggested "you can illustrate a tag cloud with a free pic, not fair use" and removed the pic but has not added a better one. I think it would be good to provide the article with a pic you think is better, or to keep an old one. Please suggest.

Thanks!

Denis Krukovsky, author, Blogoforum.

Fair image tags

You should take people's time into consideration. There are viable reasons why most of those motorcycle images you tag are fair use and they will go up. I suppose it's unfortunate for the editors who can't be on Wikipedia every second of the day like myself. Roguegeek (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that any image of a motorcycle could pass our Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Please check any images you have uploaded that are not appropriately licensed and make sure that they 1) could not be replaced by a photograph taken by a Wikipedian and placed under a free license and 2) have verifiable authorship and copyright holder information. Random images found on a manufacturer's website of available products or without attribution are entirely unusable for us. Jkelly 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of TFA image.

May I suggest inputting the high court coat of arms from the article in its place? It directly relates to the ontext on the TFD monologue as well as being a free use image. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the request at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 18, 2006 per your suggestion. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Prix motorcycle racing

Can you please explain you edits to the template {{Grand Prix motorcycle racing}}? I do see some redundant code but why change the style? Cheers ww2censor 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit in the Gizmondo article

Regarding this edit, considering how poorly Gizmondo sold, I would believe the image qualifies as "unrepeatable" by our Fair Use criteria. Yes, this is a joke. Hopefully you will get a good laugh. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 207.200.116.199

Hello, I've reduced the block you imposed on this ip, to 3 hours. It is on AOL's web proxy server and could be shared by hundreds of innocent users. I also set the block up to only bar anonymous users from editing. Cheers. KOS | talk 10:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box art is NOT replaceable

See Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#FUC.231_and_box_art. It might be that you don't think Image:Xbox360Core.JPG and Image:Xbox360PremiumBox.JPG are necessary in order to illustrate their differences on the Xbox 360 article, but tagging it with orphan is the right option. Telling users they can just take a photo of the box is absolutely incorrect, that too would be fair use. - Hahnch e n 15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to work in the image space a lot, and I'm surprised you took such a view as expressed on my talk page. Yes, whereas photos of 3d artworks and public displays may be free-use, taking a photograph of box art and then claiming it to be free use is absolutely wrong. For example, do you think that Image:COHgamebox.jpg is a valid Fair use replace image? - Hahnch e n 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Double image stack

Nifty! — Matt Crypto 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed g2s. I too noticed your template:Double image stack since you added it to KL-7. I took a look at the code of that one and of course also of template:Double image. They look very nice and it seems to be nice template coding. I just started doing some semi-advanced template coding myself. (The navigation boxes for the WikiProject Cryptography that inserts themselfs into each other.) Those templates also made me think of even more nifty extensions to them, I might try my hand at that on my own testpages some day. Anyway, I took the liberty of modifying your usage explanation on those template's pages. What triggered me was that one of the explanations was not very readable in my 800x600 screen resolution since the images floated over the code text. And once I got started editing that... Anyway, just wanted to say I really liked those templates and say hi since I stepped into "your" territory. Oh, and no need to respond on my talk page, I of course now have this page on watch. --David Göthberg 07:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:American football tackle.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:American football tackle.jpg, 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. - Sherool (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto templates

Hi Ed g2s.

Thanks for giving me todays big laugh. I just saw that you edited the crypto navigation boxes in WikiProject Cryptography. You actually broke those templates in a whole bunch of ways. Too many for me to list right now since I am just about to go to bed. So for now I will just revert those templates so the 400 pages or so that use them will look alright again.

Tomorrow I will go over your suggested changes in detail and see which changes are nice to use and test them properly on my own sandbox pages before deploying them. Since I will revert them now, here are two screendumps so you can see how they looked in some articles: broke01.png broke02.png

Note that those templates are more complex than one might first think and they are used in several different ways on many different pages. Every single character in those templates are there for a reason. I really did spend a lot of time on testing them and reducing the code to the bare minimum and still making them look exactly as we wanted them AND making them function in all the usage cases we have for them.

I am off-course partly to blame since I have not yet documented them fully. And I should have added a warning on those pages "These templates use complex tricks and are used on about 400 pages. If you edit the code in these templates do tread lightly and test them on your own sandbox pages first." But I guess my excuse is that I made those templates three weeks ago and have had other matters to attend to since then.

For instance, you removed my workaround for the "pre-tag + nbsp" bug. (It's an old Mozilla bug that MS copied to be compatible so now both Firefox and IE has that bug.) I really have to write a comment about that workaround in those templates or people will remove that strange code again and again.

I noticed you changed some of the table "html-code" to CSS-code instead and some of those changes seemed nice, since that made the part of the templates where regular editors will add links look cleaner. I have actually spent the last few days reading up on CSS.

But why is every one so afraid of tables in tables that they/you prefer using DIV-tags in DIV-tags instead?

I'll come back to you later since I probably will have more questions.

--David Göthberg 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing actual response: No, I didn't break them. ed g2s • talk 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football template headers

You have been changing the colour of the header boxes on lots of football templates. While I have no axe to grind with your colour choices (each to his own) I would refer you to WikiProject Football/Templates, and particularly the following:

!style="background:#BFD7FF This produces the header of the navbox, with the standard colour, which may be changed when making for example club navboxes, but otherwise this colour (light blue) should be used for most templates.

Your edits are removing the unified effect where several infoboxes are stacked one above another. Kevin McE 00:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experimenting on {{Tnavbar-header}}

Greetings, sorry to disturb you but you appear to be tinkering with this template. Tinkering is really not a good idea as that template is represented on nearly 8,000 pages. Please try to limit your edits to that to one or two a day. Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that this is in a table is to center perfectly text in correspondance with the edit links off to the right. When you remove the table you ruin this aspect of the template across a number of browsers (OS X's Safari being a prime example). If you're looking for a simpler version with out the table I'd suggest just employing {{Tnavbar}}. Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the <table> code tends to reduce the work load on the wikimedia servers per template call. With the { code the servers are obliged to convert the code back into straight html table. (→Netscott) 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of film posters

I notice that you removed all the film posters that were used in Films considered the greatest ever. I am trying to find discussion or policy that precludes the use of the posters with the article. The articles discuss the films, and there was only one per section. There is no way to illustrate a film other than to use a fair use image. Film posters, by their nature, were designed to publicize films. Using low res versions of them seems, if anything, only a benefit to the copyright holders. If this has been discussed, and consensus has been reached, could you point me to the relevant discussion? -- Samuel Wantman 20:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page - Samuel Wantman 20:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in Grand Theft Auto IV

I ask you take a look at Grand Theft Auto IV article in special this fair use image. Thanks.

Background color on Template:Football kit/pattern

What do you think of the idea of adding a light background color to this template so that you can tell where the transparency is? I use Firefox on Mac OSX and Windows and on both, it's very hard to see the "checkerboard" pattern that indicates transparency. I've done something similar here: Template talk:Baseball uniform#Caps (which uses yellow, but I think any other non-white color would work well too). What do you think? Rolando (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for responding. You are absolutely right, of course: I have an LCD screen. Several of them, in fact. However, I'd imagine that a lot of other folks do, too. I agree with you about the color--that confusion is there, but perhaps it would be less confusing than what you effectively see now on LCD--the same thing for transparency and white. Do you have any other ideas how to make the transparency more apparent? I think the difficulty in seeing it is the reason people submit patterns that are not reusable--or maybe people just don't get the idea of the transparency! Is the check(er)board part of the WP stylesheet? Best. Rolando (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-07 in Portuguese football

Why this?

It was much more simple to edit that before. Is there any reason for that?--Serte * Talk * Contribs 12:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates pic

It's fair use. WhisperToMe 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Table

Please Do Not Change My Table Design. This design looks more efficient.--Golich17 20:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost photos

Please use the talk page to discuss the changes you wish to make instead of engaging in an edit war. Thank you. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]