User talk:Ed g2s/Archive21

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi

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

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

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

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)[reply]

DLR map

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Football kit

Hi Ed g2s/Archive21,
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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[ Talk:Image:London eye christmas night.jpg|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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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 [[ Talk:Image:Eye and parliament small.jpg|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! 15:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]