User talk:Ed g2s/Archive16

Kate and Charlie

Please see Talk:Charlie_Pace#Does_not_fail_FUC.. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy.. Does clear: both act in the same way as clear=all? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh.. learn something new everyday, thanks :) Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Steal you archive table of contents idea

Hey there...

I really like what you have done with your archived talk pages and the table of contents you created. I have only got two archives currently, so if this needs to be done manually it would not be so bad, but I am hoping you have some great fangled automated way of doing it. If you have to do it manually, any tips or things to avoid would be appreiacted. Thanks in advance. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How-to question

How does one set up a transparent color for a football-kit body template? Or, how does one override a color that's apparently set? Bill Oaf 05:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the image, which solves a problem we had at the New England Revolution page: displaying a white body with red sides. the only available template seemed to dictate black sides, and I have no idea how to allow for a transparent color. Now, with the image up, I changed the input from the N.E.R. page so that the uniform displayed is now correct. If there's a better way to do this, I'm curious and happy to learn. Bill Oaf 06:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I might just be having some problem here, but it's still black for me. the body value is set to "FFFFFF", yet it appears as completely black. Granted, I have no idea what I'm doing. Bill Oaf 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a bunch. I'll read that PNG how-to so I know what to do next time. Bill Oaf 10:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in baseball uniforms

I noticed that you removed a team "emblem" from a baseball uniform at the template's documentation page. The comment you left on the revision was "fair use" but there was no other explanation. I assume you meant "this is not fair use;" i.e., "this is a copyright infringement." If so, I'd like to understand the rationale (I considered copyright and did not think I was violating it in this case). In your opinion, what was the problem? Was it this particular logo? This particular uniform/kit? The idea of putting the logo on a stylized uniform? In this case (reproduced from memory above) is a low resolution version of a logo, in this case copyrighted, superimposed on a stylized baseball uniform, which seems like fair use to me. It is analogous to this kind of image (Image:Al 2005 boston 01.gif) found on all articles in Category:Major League Baseball teams. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Rolando (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. You mentioned a few things:

1. "Fair Use isn't allowed outside the main namespace." Fair enough. I did not know that.
2. "The templates were designed to show the basic team colours." I agree with the basic colors rationale for {{Football kit}} but in many cases (including the one above), the script on the baseball shirt has been there for 50 years and is an integral part of the kit/uniform/outfit--hence my addition of the "emblem" element to {{baseball uniform}}.
3. "If you want to mention who the sponsor is..." Point of clarification: in most cases, the "emblem" on the front of the jersey has nothing to do with a sponsor. For example, for the Dominican team above, Tigres del Licey, this is the name of the club ("Licey," I believe, is a Spanish spelling of "lycée")^*. As far as I know, this is the case with all professional baseball teams outside Asia which feature text on the front of the jersey. Sponsors' names/logos may be on there somewhere but are not front and center as with football jerseys. In east Asia, it's different (in Korea, for example, each team in the Korean Baseball Organization is owned by a chaebol which has its name right in the team name).

Ah, right. Well isn't the team logo already shown on the page? ed g2s • talk 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I will add some text about fair use to the template documentation. And again, thanks for your thoughtful and prompt reply. Rolando (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

^* Not "lycée," but not a sponsor either: es:Tigres del Licey#Origen del nombre. Rolando (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

fair use Q?

Would an image used in a synopsis be better used outside the infobox within the prose (Like the guys do over at Doctor Who) as it seems to me to betetr comply with the FUC if there within the prose.. but im not sure? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave a message at the Stargate project :) Cheers Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good deal

No worries... didn't even think about that. м info 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use replacable and UK government ministers

Without meaning to sound confrontational, can I ask why you're adding Replacable tags to Crown-copyrighted images of British government ministers? I could perhaps understand nomination for deletion on the grounds of their being decorative, but I don't see how such images are "easily replacable". All images created by the British Government fall under Crown Copyright, which has a 50-year term. In most cases, there are no published public-domain photographs of some of these ministers, since not all have had photographed meetings with US officials. I'd just like a clarification on what definition of "easily replacable" you're using when adding the tags. Lacking any response, I'll start clearing them out of the speedy-delete categories they're now populating later today. I'd also like to remind you that it's generally considered polite to notify a user when you add a tag that requires action to avoid deletion of their contributions. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. As I mentioned earlier I'd understand the images being deleted on the grounds of being merely decorative, it just threw me to see the "Replacable" tag being added to them as it wasn't immediately obvious why it would apply. Is there really no "decorative" tag available? Seems it'd be a sensible one to create. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nude model

OK. Understood.--Gruk 16:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason either for you to delete all pictures without any discussion in article talk page. --Gruk 16:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)--Gruk 16:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick question

A user created Image:Wii.PNG, based on Image:Wii at E3 1.jpg. The problem (I think) is that he released his image under public domain, while the original one is licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 2.0, which requires author attribution. Am I right considering the derivative work is a copyright violation because it is not fulfilling the original license of attribution? Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal.svg

From which discussion have you made this assertion? This seems to be the only template still using the gif. ed g2s • talk 14:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with eyes can see that the gif works better than the svg and therefore all tube templates and the portal will use the gif. So thats final. Unisouth 12:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What a ridiculous thing to say. It may be your opinion that the GIF looks better, but that by no means makes it "final". It seems quite the opposite, in that 99% of the other portal links are using the SVG. Decisions are made by the community. ed g2s • talk 12:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Decisions about any part of our project will be finaled by the project founder - me. There is no way I will let ugly take over perfect. Unisouth 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you just said that. Just because you founded a project does not mean you own it. You do not own anything on Wikipedia. All decisions are community based. ed g2s • talk 12:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Decisions will be finaled by me, which means the whole group of members vote. But in this case I will not let it happen. If you created portal.svg then you should be ashamed of yourself. Unisouth 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you simply can't give yourself authority just because you "founded" a WikiProject. Wikipedia does not work like that. ed g2s • talk 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what it looks like on your screen, but the change from portal.gif to portal.svg here has expanded the size of the icon from approx 1/2" to 2" on my screen. That appears ugly to me and will be reverted. If there has been a community decision somewhere to change out these images, please point me (and Unisouth) to it so that we can voice our opinions. ~ BigrTex 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious?

I'm curious -- and not trying to be combative or confrontational -- when I ask you: How do you reconcile your Decisions are made by the community ethos in the above petty GIF/SVG dispute with your Indeed, all the images listed are replaceable and he's made no attempt to demonstrate otherwise. Really no point opening an RfC on the matter. Deleting. attitude toward a separate request for comment? Aren't the other editors involved in that RfC entitled to the same community standing and hearing you usually support and defend? I guess I just thought the "Deleting" part of your attitude toward the other editors was a little un-Wikipedia-like. I know you're an admin, and someone has to make the calls, but, geez... Jenolen 10:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking back, I guess what confused me was the short period between where I read that annoucement of the RfC, and your indication that you had deleted the images in question. (Which looked to be about a day...) Of course, that didn't mean the images hadn't been tagged for more than 7 days, and so I understand your actions. Thanks for the reply. Jenolen 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox sports league}}

Your edits(?) caused the champions field to disappear. Can you repair it? Thanks. --Howard the Duck 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Assistance with fair use in lists

Sorry to bother you with this but Games from The Legend of Zelda series is quickly spiraling into an edit war and I thought it best to opt out get a second opinion on this. Basically, it's a list with little or no commentary with a variety of game covers used for decoration. Thanks Combination 15:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The game covers are not for decoration. The images represent a well known and significant video game, and the images are being used in an informative way and should not detract from the game. THe images were deleted due to them not having a Fair Use Rationale, I re-uploaded the images by adding the Fair Use Rationale which they perviously didn't have. MrBungle79 (15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

fair use images of Lost characters

I tried to reason with the editors of the Lost character articles that we could still use images of the characters if they were at least something more than a clean and pretty portrait photo. I thought they would go with that since it was a better option than no image at all. The articles, in all reality, don't need images, or can use a free actor image and say "he plays this dude" and have the exact same effect. I'm shocked at how stubborn and seemingly lazy the other editors have been about this, as they are now even reverting attempts to use better images. I'm really starting to see your point of view now, having to deal with this kind of insanity.

If you could maybe comment on Talk:Ana Lucia Cortez or on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Anamich.jpg, that would really be great. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please quit being mean to me

I am not being uncivil, but the way you reverted/removed any edit(s) makes me concerned that you have a vendetta against me. I am asking nicely: It needs to STOP. I don't care if it was a couple months ago, but please, stop. I want you to know that you are an administrator, but I wasn't sure if an image violated fair use, and you didn't leave a message on my talk page.

You yanked it off without warning. Then when I created a new sports logo (though I used paint), you reverted it and not be nice about it. Please consider being respectful and civil. Thank you for your time. VelairWight 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no "vendetta" against you at all. ed g2s • talk 11:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Year nav

Hello! Great year nav box you have created there. I've been waiting for this. However, there's a slight problem with years before 101 AD. It won't say 1st century BC on those years, but rather 0th century and on the years just after the beginning of the common era, it doesn't say 0s BC or 10s BC, but rather -10s and -20s. Could you please check it out and fix it? However, keep up the good work. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Response (02-Feb-2007, also in Ludde23-Talk): I have developed a new nav-box for 1st century (only): it is fairly complex and called "Template:Year nav 1st century CE" which can handle years 1-100 (and show years BC), such as for year "2":

{{Year nav 1st century CE|2}}

The calculations are so complex that the template is dangerous to maintain, and is being purposely limited to years 1-100. An even more complex template could be created to handle any year, but perhaps, only 1 person in 1000 could understand the multiple nested calculations, making such an any-year template very dangerous to maintain. Wikitables do not yet use typical computer-language syntax, so an any-year template might use "#ifeq" nesting calculations to handle any specified year; however, even experienced computer programmers would see such a template as too arcane and obtuse to easily modify. Rule of programming: "If no one else could modify it, avoid writing it" (rule of thumb). I plan to create some less complex templates to handle only years BC. Later. -Wikid77 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Your version of the Vernier caliper nomination, Image:Vernier caliper.svg, has just become a Featured Picture. Congratulations! Raven4x4x 07:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

oh fair use guru!

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Fair_Use.21 ? You've mentioned as the guy-who-can-handle-it ;) -- Drini 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of logos in MLS article

Is there a specific reason (as in it broke a rule) why you removed the team logos or did you just believe them to be excess? I quite liked them, but I'm not going to replace them if it bugs other people. Cheers. м info 18:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough, no pun intended. Actually, I didn't realize that a logo was licensed under fair use. Thanks. м info 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Page design

By the way, I really really like your talk page design. Nice piece of work! --Durin 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Identification...

Indeed, cover art is not even a particularly good way of identifying an album (unless you've seen it before).

This is so fringe, so wild... I can't tell if you're pulling people's legs on this. Most album covers have the name of the artist and the title of the album. Yellow Submarine, Everyday, Close to the Edge, etc. So how can you possibly view this as not a particularly good way to identify an album?

I mean, it's obvious you're smart, you're an admin, you have so much to contribute -- but statements like this make it difficult to take you seriously. Is this really what you meant?

They say a nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, but we're assuming the vast majority of Wikipedia users are NOT blind. And an album cover... which, and I don't know quite how to say this... "is" what it is ... is the BEST way to visually identify an album. Put another way - looking at the groove of a 12" vinyl record, they all pretty much look alike. The vast majority of CD's are 5" silver discs. But the cover is what makes them look different, and we're talking about the visual identification of albums. It's just odd to me how wildly off course this whole image debate has gotten.

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Road

Please leave Template:Infobox road alone, this template is heavily used and its structure and style were perfectly fine. I understand your wishing to clean up the style, but please present your proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads before just going ahead with your changes. Thank you --• master_son^{Lets talk} 20:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You remember an old saying? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Template:Infobox road wasn't broken - so don't fix it. • master_son^{Lets talk} 21:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So we shouldn't try to improve anything on Wikipedia? Just fix mistakes? ed g2s • talk 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

Hey -- I just blocked you under the 3RR for your continued reverts on Template:Infobox road but then realized I had miscounted (4 removals of the colors, but only 3 were reverts) and unblocked you. Still, it's important that you stop revert-warring there. Seek consensus instead of acting unilaterally, since others disagree with your edits. Mangojuice^talk 21:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are four (partial) reverts, stemming from the repeated insertion of class="infobox": [1], [2], [3], [4]. I won't block you, at this point; but please try to discuss the issue with other editors rather than just blindly reverting (in particular, reverting via admin rollback). Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've only used rollback on the sub-templates, and I am discussing on the talk page. ed g2s • talk 21:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I see no such discussion - only complaints by myself and other editors regarding the changes. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There are three comments on the template talk page. Where are you looking? ed g2s • talk 21:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

None of your comments were intended as discussion; rather, they were comments trying to justify your changes. Nowhere have you discussed and attempted to work with other editors on what the layout should look like. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change the layout of the infobox. All the text and images were in the same place after. ed g2s • talk 21:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, changing the appearance is changing the layout. But my usage of the word "layout" is not the issue at stake. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

re: "geography" class

You wrote - I have removed this from the stylesheet. There is no reason why a couple of infoboxes need their own separate styling. The infobox class is to give infoboxes a consistent look. We should also not be overriding skin colours. Feel free to create more semantic classes such as the "mergedrows" subclasses to create the layout you need, but don't use subject-specific names. All colours should be put in monobook.css (these will be grey, grey and grey...). ed g2s • talk 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see user:Ligulem has reverted this change. All changes to mediawiki:common.css should be discussed first. In this particular case, the geography class has widespread, very visible usage (template:infobox country and template:infobox city), so it is particularly important to discuss changes before making them. Please feel free to bring this up at mediawiki talk:common.css. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of your changes have caused it, but country infoboxes are now not bordered (at least with Safari on a Mac, I haven't checked other browsers). I respectfully request that you fix it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As a temporary expediency, I've reverted to a version without any of your recent changes. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason for moving from Common to Monobook?

Regarding [5]? —Centrx→talk • 10:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

File:FLPC21112242212.jpg

I assume I put the tag in regards to that photo in the wrong place and you didn't see it when you deleted it, so i'd just like to let you know that i'm going to re-upload that image along with the other ones in a few days if I cannot find a free use image. Neither of us had ill intent, I just wanted to give you a heads up. Just H 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I found promotional photos from the team's website, or at least they seem to be promotional. But thank you for the advice. Just H 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Maging Sino Ka Man and List of Maging Sino Ka Man episodes

OK, I apologize if I went here but WT:FU is taking forever to load. My question is, currently these articles have tons of FU images, making me wonder if they're fairly used at all. What should be done about this? What templates/tags (?) should be added? Thanks. --Howard the Duck 16:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

List of The X-Files episodes

I was wondering if you could help me out here because I don't know how to proceed. Without getting back into the "can we put unfree images in lists?" debate, this list doesn't use any fair-use rationales on the images. I can't add them myself because I am not familiar enough with the series, so I requested them on the talk page. I made the request on December 14 and not only has no action been taken but no one has responded. What should I do now? Jay32183 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tres5.jpg

I have to admit that I didn't read the fair-use policy, and you are quite right. I'm not an OW yet! I've still got a few more years... -Wser 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)