Vasco da Gama
An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 03:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
U.S.electoral map
I appreciate the work you did to create the 2004 electoral map, but there's an error in it. We need to add a "3" pointing to Delaware. Kerry/Edwards received 252 electoral votes, but if you add up the blue-state numbers on the map, you'll see they total only 249. Also, there are only 50 numbers, but there should be 51, for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The "3" that's pointing to the location of DC, on the Virginia-Maryland border, belongs there, but another "3" has to be crammed in for little Delaware. I have no idea how to edit images. Would you make the change? Thanks for any help you can give. JamesMLane 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Royalty-free London Underground diagram
The icon you used to represent national rail interchanges is copyrighted. ed g2s • talk 14:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hello Ed. You are correct about the Nation Rail symbol being copyrighted of course. It was something I spotted a while ago, but in the absence of an obvious alternative I left it in. I have yet to see a good, unambiguous symbol except perhaps the choo-choo train from the standard UK roadsigns. This though is representative of a bygone age of steam and increasingly meaningless to today's users. --DominicSayers 18:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think a free train icon is better than non-free BR logo as offering the image as it stands under the CC license is misleading. You should also consider removing the CC logo watermark, as there are limitations on its reproduction, such as it must link to the deed, and it cannot be altered (no-derivs is considered non-free on Wikipedia). ed g2s • talk 19:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ed, I was agreeing with you. I just haven't done it yet. --DominicSayers 19:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I know, my main reason for posting was to point out the issue with the CC watermark. ed g2s • talk 20:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm having some issues on John Vanbrugh. People keep removing the infobox! I think it's quite useful as it does take some hunting to find information about birth places, birth dates and death dates/places in many of the articles. Could you comment on the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Changes on Sept 14 to Template:Bridge3
Featured article status has attracted css editors to the template. Please do not change for a few days. I reverted to the last stable version.
Suggestion: Make a new template (e.g. Bridge3B) and copy the contents. Include the template on your user page, copying the calling info from the article. You may new view the effects of template changes in your own user page without effecting the article. When all is coorect you may elect to reference this in one live article for testing purposes. Only when all is satisfactory should the master template be changed. Please note: templates are potentially used widely and a change can affect many articles. I do have some technical questions regarding proper CSS use and your assistance will be welcome. Right now I have to keep vandals at bay. Best wishes, Leonard G. 02:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
old NPOV tag?
You tagged Lyn Walsh for NPOV consideration in September of 2004. There's nothing on the talk page of the article. If you still feel it needs NPOV could you leave a comment on what direction it needs to move. (It's one of the last cleanup pages from September 2004. I'm not expert in British politics, but I did wikilink it. I'm not sure the heavy use of abbreviations is appropriate. Not much work has been done on it in the last year.) RJFJR 00:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't remember editing that article at all, but I've removed the cleanup/NPOV tags now. ed g2s • talk 12:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Invitation
Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket? User:Nichalp/sg 12:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Pixelquelle.de
Hi. Pixelquelle images aren't PD and are under a pretty restrictive (and unusable) license. Hence:
Image:Olympic Stadium Berlin.jpg has been listed for deletion
An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Olympic Stadium Berlin.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 it not being deleted. Thank you. |
Featured picture nomination
Can I nominate Image:SnowflakeKenLibbrecht.jpg for a featured picture? --HappyCamper 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, that we have permission to use it has no bearing on the license under which we can redistribute it. From WP:FPC:
- fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery. - ed g2s • talk 09:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Template:Cambridge IP
I had to see what it was when I seen it posted to an anon's page. Way better looking than {{sharedip}} ;) You should add the IP range on the talk page, so other users don't have to look them up. Nice looking though, hope it lasts, granted it's been around for a year so far. ∞Who?¿? 14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
templates
Please stop unilaterally changing individual templates on the royal pages that (a) are part of a large series, (b) all designed to have the one design, and (c) have a design produced on the basis of a look agreed upon in a long discussion running in one case running to weeks involving multiple users. You have a history of doing this and it is grossly disrespectful to everyone else to decide that can unilaterally dump everyone else's communal work and replace it with a version that you alone prefer purely because you want to do it your way. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Arsenal F.C. FAC
Hi Ed, I've nominated Arsenal F.C. as a featured article candidate. I'd welcome any comments you might want to make on the nomination page, if you have the time to look it over. Thanks. Qwghlm 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user keeps adding unsubstantiated clams claims about Heldal-Lund, and restores when I revert. I don't want to break 3RR so as an interested editor I hope you'll keep an eye on this article - thanks! — ciphergoth 12:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Yellow Hard Hat
Although the nomination tanked anyway, I would like to note that the Image:YellowHardHat.jpg was appropriately licensed. The author allowed use for "personal or commercial works," and clarified via e-mail that Wikipedia's use of it was appropriate under the terms of his license. (This was not a permission of use, but a clarification that possible commercial use by Wikipedia was OK)
Would it help if I asked him to release it under the GFDL? --Anetode 13:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Birthday!
User:Jenmoa/birthday --Jen Moakler 00:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Just curious, you said this is AP from Library of Congress? Is it a work of the Library of Cognress, meaning, are they the providers now making it public domain? They may have bought the copyright as it is now national heritage. If you know that'd be great. gren グレン 13:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
class="infobox"
The replacement you did of this code makes the placement color and padding of templates harder to edit and it actually moved the box, messing up the entire page layout of WP:FAC. I hope you don't mind, but I find it being editable by everyone more important than the code being short. Or is there another reason or discussion I don't know about? - Mgm|(talk) 21:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, fixing the code would also be helpful, I see you made the change in more than just the FAC boxes. - Mgm|(talk) 21:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- How can that css contain the different colors those template headers have and is it editable? They never appeared left aligned until your edit and I did clear my cache before I started Wikiing today, the Help desk was cached. - Mgm|(talk) 21:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Funny, the alignment is fine now even after your revert of my edits. Did you purge the pages used by the templates after changing them? Also, can that class be edited if it ever needs to be? - Mgm|(talk) 21:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's working now and it is still editable. I'm happy. (I did clear my browser cache Ctrl+F5) but apparently it didn't work. At least now it does. Thanks for staying patient with me. - Mgm|(talk) 22:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I usually ignore such notes unless I receive proof in diffs, or until I can get the same result in my interaction with a user. That's why I like discussion so much. It can clear up a lot of misunderstandings as our case shows. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy
Hi, doing speedy deletions is a great way of easing wikistress, but be careful! This Spaghetti house siege article was a resonable capitalisation redirect with an obvious spelling error, which should not have been speedied. Regards. Rich Farmbrough 18:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
An Editor's Barnstar for Ed g2s
Thank you for clearing out un-needed lines of code in all of the Common Law templates! I'd appreciate if you could also have a glance at Template:FamilyLaw and Template:BusinessLaw. Cheers! BDAbramson T 23:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Again, thanks! BDAbramson T 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Template:SuccessorSeries
You substituted | for | in Template:USpresidents. This actually solved a problem I've been working on in a template that Template:USpresidents uses, namely Template:SuccessorSeries. Thank you for your (possibly inadvertent) help! For more, see Template talk:SuccessorSeries. --Mark Adler (Markles - talk) 19:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
<includeonly> and <noinclude> tags
Your work on Template:S-start uses <includeonly> and <noinclude> tags. Can you direct me to a Wikipedia article explaining these and similar html tags as used in Wikipedia? Thanks! --Mark Adler (Markles) 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
DLR
Hi. Just thought I'd prod you if you weren't away, that Image:Docklands Light Railway.svg needs updating as from yesterday. Ta, Morwen - Talk 22:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
SI physics units for electricity, deleted?
Just curious about why Template:SI electricity units was deleted. The comments there give no reason. Last time I looked, this template was used in numerous WP physics entries. What gives?--Wjbeaty 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I'm still learning WP. Someone (perhaps a vandal) must have blanked it and requested an admin to delete it. Very odd. But the deletion stuff doesn't appear in its history, so I can't see the perpetrator.--Wjbeaty 23:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Was it protected?
I was unaware of this, and I see no entry in the protection log, and I recall no message warning me that it was protected. — FREAK OF NURxTURE () 18:22, Jan. 4, 2006
- Ok. If you say you meant to protect it prior to the time I most recently moved it, I'll take your word for it and bow out for the time being. I only got involved in the first place because I witnessed a cut & paste move whilst patrolling recent changes. And things only got worse when I forgot what year it was... which was partly Splash's fault, btw (lol). — FREAK OF NURxTURE () 18:32, Jan. 4, 2006
Text indent with class=notice
One of my lesser known pet peeves is related to this revert you did. Specifically, that the ":" (colon symbol) at the start of the line translates into the HTML element <DD>, which makes it a "Definition description". It's supposed to be paired with <DT> (Definition term) and create a definition list. This is why use of it only to indent is not a good practice, and why I used the CSS class="notice" to perform that. Using the CSS class also allows readers to hide or modify how those lines work (turn it bright yellow, if they wanted). Of course, we do use : all the time as a shortcut on talk pages, but we should avoid it where we can on articles, and a template should avoid it completely since it's "hands-off". Editors don't need to type the text out, and readers won't notice any difference. A good example is Template:Disambig which uses a simple CSS class in a similar way, which then produces indent and the double-line effect. Please, use the CSS class, and adjust to your personal liking in your own style sheet. -- Netoholic @ 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am well aware of the benefits of using a CSS class, but the notice class has 1.2em of margin and padding. Disambig links have been marked up in this way for years, so I would like to know how you justify changing the default appearance of half the pages on Wikipedia without discussion? Also classes should not be used just because their current properties suit your needs. The notice class, not designed for top-line disambig notices, may need to be changed, and shouldn't be tied down by extra uses. The dablink class already exists for disambig links ("dablink"), and this class should be modified to add any padding which, until you've had a discussion about it, should be on the left only. ed g2s • talk 15:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- The notice, defined in MediaWiki:Common.css, really is intended for any simple inline text notices. The dablink class, which is only in MediaWiki:Monobook.css, is only defined as "display: none". I have no problem discussing a change to the notice class (perhaps to "margin: 0.5em 2em; padding: 0.2em;"), but I also think the current margin/padding is an appropriate amount. Using a mismatched HTML tag to perform indentation isn't a good solution, especially when it limits what an end user can do with their own style sheet. The alternative that you reverted was of such a subtle change that few would even notice a difference. We really should standardize on the notice class. -- Netoholic @ 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Notice is for inline notices which, when sandwiched between text, may require extra padding. Dab links do not have vertical margins, this is the status quo. If you want to change that you need to have a discussion first. The monobook.css file can be changed to include extra rules for dablinks. The current system of definition lists is not ideal, but nor is it invalid code,
<dt>
tags are not required in a definition list (from w3c:<!ELEMENT DL - - (DT|DD)+ -- definition list -->
). ed g2s • talk 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Notice is for inline notices which, when sandwiched between text, may require extra padding. Dab links do not have vertical margins, this is the status quo. If you want to change that you need to have a discussion first. The monobook.css file can be changed to include extra rules for dablinks. The current system of definition lists is not ideal, but nor is it invalid code,
- This is the orginal edit that added the notice class (although the borders were moved out later). From the change made, you can see it was intended to be used for disambigs and stubs... neither of which are inline notices sandwiched between other text. I am all for adjusting the margins of that class. If we do that, we can keep the original intent of the class and still address your concern. Whether the DD is invalid is not so important as the fact that it doesn't allow personal customization. -- Netoholic @ 17:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think it's any disturbance. Most times, people will manually insert extra line breaks, such as before {(disambig}}. We only need to define a reasonable minimum margin/padding. -- Netoholic @ 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What is up with that.... we're here discussing what to do, and instead you run thru and remove the notice class from all those templates? What the hell is with that? What is the point of having a class if we don't use it consistently? -- Netoholic @ 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for fixing up Template:otheruses and Template:dablink. Would you also be able to get rid on the padding on Template:Main and Template:See? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Football squad templates
Please do us the courtesy of discussing changes to the football squad templates, either at Template talk:Football squad player or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football before implementing them. A lot of discussion went into their creation and it's unfair to drastically and arbitrarily change it without doing so. I've reverted your edits, perhaps we can talk over your proposed changes there. Qwghlm 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- As well as Qwghlm noted above, you should propose first your modifies to the football squad templates before to implement them. I reverted your "version", and now I hope you first think and ask for a clear consensus before make these drastic changes to templates, as well as we did for making the current version. --Angelo 01:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- You may open a new one on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. --Angelo 01:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, okay :-). Well, the old one is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs. --Angelo 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Tramlink map
This better? David Arthur 19:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
LU station lists
I rather liked the LU station lists with the coloured blocks - they looked substantially neater that way than just a bare list of links. While they needed a bit of tidying up to handle branches more neatly, your rather heavy-handed reversion of the whole lot without so much as a note on, say, the LU talk page seems rather discourteous to me. --Mpk 20:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:SilentRedirect
Template:SilentRedirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:SilentRedirect. Thank you. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Watermarks
I shall remove the obvious ones, the less obvious ones stay. I am allowed to watermark images with anything whatsoever I wish to, even if it's a contradiction, and if you wish me to use up further WP bandwidth by re-uploading them, that has no effect on me. I can't do anything until this evening, and if any get deleted, I shall reupload them. Yours without respect--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- You could have the grace to reply. I said that I'd deal with them this evening, but only the ones where the watermark is visible from the page. So *** off--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I am planning to re-upload them with less obtrusive watermarks, such as that on Image:Bliss parody.jpg.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't vandalism; I used an external link as per your instructions, which incidentally I'm not bound to follow. I am certainly on the verge of requesting mediation, as you are disrupting my life, never mind WP, to make a point. I will tell you one more time: any images are better than none. If you wish to get your own pix of all the concerned images, you're damn welcome to try, but they are GFDL therefore there's no grounds for removal.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- PS - I shall add the external link again, not as an image, and if you remove it I shall make a formal complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Information Commissioner in London.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- TheDoctor10, your conduct is a little off in this matter. While I'm all for discussing the issues with users, let's keep it civil please? Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, Rob - it is far more than "a little" off. Images watermarked as such are not in any way appropriate for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopædia, not a pet image project. If "TheDoctor10" isn't happy to play ball, he can go elsewhere.
- James F. (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I am proposing a change to the image use policy to forbid watermarked images. Please voice an opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#User-created_images -Thanks -Nv8200p talk 19:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I edit from the United Kingdom, and under the 1990 Computer Misuse Act, the editing of information online is illegal, without permission. The button at the top of every page that says "Edit this page", among other things, constitutes that permission, while the policies and guidelines form conditions. Since there is no condition against my image, it has a legal right to be there. Q.E.D.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- True, but therefore your addition fails under the same logic. Also, Wikimedia own the servers, it's their right to delete it. Ian13ID:540053 18:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies to Ed for invading his talk page, but what a load of rubbish! Wikipedia are under no legal obligation whatsoever to host your images, regardless of whether they meet any policy. I have no idea under what flawed logic you presume that the fact you can edit Wikipedia means that your edits must legally be accepted. If the Computer Misuse Act states that the editing of information online is illegal without permission, that implies that editing with permission is legal, and nothing more. Furthermore, by your logic, I have the legal right to edit Wikipedia, and remove your images... I fail to see what on earth you intend to tell your lawyer, but I don't imagine the Wikimedia board are too concerned... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring the gibberish immediately above this, I must compliment you on your sense of humour - in fact the reason I didn't reply immediately was that I was at my local hospital's emergency room having my sides stitched back together.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Osama
hey there... I see you have recently replaced Image:Laden.gif with Image:Osama-med.jpg on a number of people's user pages. This image is tagged as "fair use" copyright, and thus as per WP:FU cannot be (legally) used outside of the article namespace. It may be an idea to change your edits... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
TfL Line Colours
I've been scratching my head as to why you've (twice) reverted edits on Template:Piccadilly Line colour et al to their RGB colours, rather than their web-safe colours. I can't see anything which might make this a copyright violation, nor can I think of any reason why the RGB one (not guaranteed to reproduce as intended) is better than TfL's recommendation for the web. Am I perhaps missing something simple? :) Teflon 16:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
class="infobox"
It seems that your edit to this class in MediaWiki:Common.css really messed up Template:Language. The bottom padding of TH and TD is now too big. Can you fix this as soon as possible? --Gareth Hughes 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, it's not the CSS at all, but a line break put into template:if defined that did the mess. I picked on CSS because I had problems with it recently. Thanks for the help. --Gareth Hughes 22:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this subtle change got lost in one of your edits. Please set the infobox to use " padding: 0.2em 0.4em; ". This will help avoid a lot of custom workarounds, such as cellpadding. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't in there before, but it was part of the actual discussed change request on the talk page. It is a minor fix to add a little bit of padding so that cell contents don't touch the cell borders. -- Netoholic @ 17:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The conversation was at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Vertical alignment bug in MediaWiki:Common.css?. The spacing problem is only true in "bordered" due to "border-collapse: collapse" . My suggestion, as done on simple:MediaWiki:Common.css is to collapse borders in the main .infobox class, and then add this padding also to the main .infobox . -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Commonthen.jpg
I deleted the image tagging stuff but just want to leave this so you know my mistake. You only did the blending... not the original upload so your contributions are fine. Good job on the blend by the way. gren グレン ? 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Fat Controller
Wikipedia policy isn't there for me to find loopholes in... actually, it is. If loopholes can be found, I've every right to find them.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- May I very strongly suggest that you reply?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is your last oppurtunity to reply to the following statement: Wikipedia policy isn't there for me to find loopholes in... actually, it is. If loopholes can be found, I've every right to find them.
This was posted on your talkpage nearly 48hrs ago, you have edited since then, and thus know that a reply is expected. If I do not receive a reply within 2hrs of your next edit, I shall request arbitration or similar. (Removed vandalism [1]) (talk|email) 16:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Breakfast in Paris
Trinity. I'll look around and see if I can find a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
TheDoctor10
Sorry to butt in; I've been keeping a passing eye on TheDoctor10. While it's bad form for TheDoctor10 to remove messages from his talk page, his removal does signify that he's seen the note. It's not necessary to get into an edit war over it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You have violated the policy at WP:LfC
--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It would be vaguely polite to reply.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It would still be vaguely polite to at least acknowledge receipt of the message, despite the absence of a question. I've read WP:CIV, you are still turning Wikipedia into a militaristic, ranked society.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- The word "you" is spelt with a Y, and is not Oou. I am not happy about you automatically being given credence over me, and you seem to be enjoying it. That is my problem; your continued refusal to accept this does little favour for you, except amongst your "club" which includes [removed personal attack] who automatically agree with you.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Uou can't just control everyone. Saying that they're [removed personal attack] is not a PA, just a statement of an objective fact. If you can call my contributions crap, I can call [removed personal attack]. Fair's fair.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for blocking TheDoctor10, I think it was a good call seeing as he has done it before. He doesn't give you a chance to reply - just recently with me, it was three minutes since he left his first message that he said "it would be vaguely polite to reply". Some people just don't get it that we have other stuff to do, rather than stop what we are doing immediately and reply to them. — FireFox • T • 18:37, 10 February 2006
Categories on Brewbox components
Hi Ed. The categories you removed from the brewbox components were not redundant. Because of the use of <noinclude></noinclude>, the categories are not included in articles that use the template. They are only there to put the templates themselves into the administrative category Category:WikiProject Beer. All you did is remove the components except for Template:Brewbox begin from that category. How about we put the categories back? Mike Dillon 02:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, would you mind discussing the style changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. Mike Dillon 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I only mean the changes to visible appearance, not the CSS fixes to Template:Brewbox begin. Mike Dillon 02:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Removal of personal attack
Not a problem. I was considering redacting the text myself, but then figured that it was probably a better idea to let the public record remain visible for TheDoctor10's conduct. But you're quite within your rights, of course. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The image in this template has had its copyright status disputed; see Image talk:Kingcrown.jpg. It's acceptable as fair use, but fair use images cannot appear in templates. I've replaced it with Image:Edward's crown PD.jpg as a temporary measure until a proper free image can be found. If you can find such an image, then please replace it. Otherwise, please do not revert to the old version. Thanks. I will post this message to the template talk page as well. Chick Bowen 23:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. It seems to be worked out now. Chick Bowen 01:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
png
i thought that since it would not let me upload bmp images, since most of the images on here was png i thought id convert them to png so i could upload them. was that wrong? the southerner 19:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Formatting problem
Hi Ed. Glad to see you're at the best University in the country for maths. :-).
I noticed there was a display problem (at least in IE and Firefox on a PC) in Limit of a function which turned out to be due to apparently unnecessary semicolons (now removed). I was wondering if this happened because the page displayed correctly on some other browser so you hadn't noticed, or there was some other reason. Elroch 00:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
football player infobox
Hi Ed,
Could you at least put a note on the talk page about your changes? The edit summary is far too terse to explain certain of your alterations. ⁂veila# 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've now reverted your changes with a detailed explanation of why on the article's talk page. ⁂veila# 09:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Which ones?
All of them. Courier new 04:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
TheDoctor10
Just to let you know... I blocked User:TheDoctor10 for a week. See the reason on his talk page. I have made it clear that if he does any of that again, he will be blocked for longer. I've had enough of his stalking and harrassment, not replying or responding to my request that he removed the personal attack in his signature, which according to his "It would be vaguely polite to reply" policy is being a bit hypocritical. Cheers, — FireFox • T • 13:26, 18 February 2006
Arirang
RE: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Arirang. I am willing to try to contact Astley via email, is there certain wikipedia legal process for doing that? Thanks, --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 21:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Football in Cyprus
I want to put the template Football in Cyprus table cells in table cells in the Cyprus Cup but unfortunatelly is very bad. see what I mean:
Can you help me please???? To explain you better i want to make it like template premier league (as i saw u r the editor) User:KRBN
- Thank you very much for the help! Regards! User:KRBN
Interwiki links
Some of your recent edits have been screwing up interwiki links in foreign alphabets such as Chinese - see these for example: [2] [3] [4] [5]. It doesn't seem to happen every time, so it might just be a particular computer or browser you're using some of the time. — sjorford (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Stop uploading" message from yesterday
I've since provided the copywrite information along with the links (stuff that I've always done), so stop acting like you dictation my editing style! I don't need somebody way back in England harrassing me!!!User:TMC1982
You claim that I'm not being civil when you're first message contained exclaimation points (especially at the very end of your message) and straight to the point demands. Why are you looking at my talk page in the very first place!? The images that you removed are those that I created (they're screencaps). They're hardly copywritten material since I in essense, own them. Since when did wikipedia have a rule that you can only upload one image per article/page?User:TMC1982
Tottenham Hotspur crest
Hello - I see from the deletion log you deleted an image: 18:27, 22 February 2006 Ed g2s deleted "Image:Tottenham Hotspur crest.png" (see Tottenham Hotspur FC.png) This image was the old crest (technically, still the current crest actually!), and was used in the club article to illustrate the history of the club. Is there any way of getting the image back? Why was it deleted? Stephenb (Talk) 16:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick restoration! Stephenb (Talk) 16:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
7 car jubilee line train
- it should show all the carraiges so it is easier to understand the layout
- the roundel is what i made as well
- it is a capital O in century gothic font
- the cross bar is two _ one on top of the other also in century gothic
- the word underground is also in century gothic
- so as far as im concerned its not illegal
Why have you tagged this as public domain? It is clearly a copyrighted work. If you claim fair use, please make sure it is only used to illustrate its article, and not outside the main namespace (such as userboxes). ed g2s • talk 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I e-mailed Soccer AM and they said that the image is not copyrighted and "feel free to use it wherever you want". If it is not copyrighted then it is surely in the public domain - right? DJR (Talk) 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Could you put a copy of the email on the image talk page?
- The original e-mail was deleted... I can email them again if you want. DJR (Talk) 16:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- That would be best. It seems unlikely that such an image would be created free of copyright, but if it is confirmed, it should be tagged as
{{CopyrightedFreeUse}}
. ed g2s • talk 16:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- That would be best. It seems unlikely that such an image would be created free of copyright, but if it is confirmed, it should be tagged as
- The original e-mail was deleted... I can email them again if you want. DJR (Talk) 16:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Could you put a copy of the email on the image talk page?
talk page
im confused as to why it is important not to blank my talk page? i do it so i can remind myself what i have read and what i havent. im not doing anything wrong, it is only there for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James brew (talk • contribs) .
Olympic Rings
Hi, I just have a question about the removal of the Olympic Rings from the MedalTop template. I was under the impression that this was a free image. Per the Olympic Charter, anyone is allowed to use the pictures of the rings as long as they promote the Olympic Movement, which I've no doubt this does. If you don't mind, I need to know which license I can apply to this picture so that we can use it to refer to the the Olympic committees, the Olympic Games, and Olympic athletes. Thanks for your help! tiZom(2¢) 20:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you convert the images to 1-bit transparency? Now it has ugly edges and we're currently using the gif versions until most people have switched to IE7. Cheers, —Ruud 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Would you perhaps know what happened to the GIF images? —Ruud 18:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see... Did you convert the PNG-24 to a PNG-8 or the GIF to PNG-8? The GIF had a subtly different backround color to compensate for the missing alpha channel. —Ruud 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've uploaded versions which should have a white background in IE6. They look perfect in Firefox/Opera/IE7 now and should look accaptable in IE6. —Ruud 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Jordanhill railway station
Would you please visit Talk:Jordanhill railway station and explain why you think the logo of a railway company is not fair-use on an article about a railway station they manage? The station can be considered part of the company, and the logo is fair use to represent the company. By extension, the logo is fair use to represent a portion of the company, or a portion of the company's operations. Thank you, Johntex\talk 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- You have violated Wikipedia:Three-revert rule by thrice removing a fair use image from the article Jordanhill railway station. Whether this image is to be used or not is an editorial decision. You have no right to keep unilaterally removing the image. If others feel as you do, they are free to remove the image, subject to the same policy preventing 3 reverts within 24 hours. Thank you, Johntex\talk 04:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Club logos deletion
Why are you doing this? Isn't it fair use? (Template:logo) FTota 13:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- See WP:FUC. It's not allowed when used as decoration. They should only be used to illustrate the club article. ed g2s • talk 15:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Jordanhill
Hi, I used information mostly from [6]. I was under the impression that the main data in a map like main roads and suburbs, which is the same as that used by other companies such as [7] could be used to make a map with a different design -- Astrokey44|talk 20:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I dont think you can copyright data which is in common use - many different companies have made maps of the same thing, plus aerial photography etc. A company cant hold copyright over the basic data of a city where millions of people live. For instance I could probably draw from memory a map of my suburb and all those around me, and so could anyone else in whatever city it was. The thing thats copyright is the design of the map. What led to the court case as mentioned here was tiny details which were copied, so as long as youre using the main information with a new design surely its ok -- Astrokey44|talk 22:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
Re your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Requested move of Football World Cup articles: I agree that sometimes we need more discussion to foster consensus and less vote; I would just like to point out that that text was copied from the guideline on WP:RM so, if you have any problem with it, perhaps you'd better do somethere there as well. Reply here if you see fit.
And, btw, what's your opinion on our requested move then? Please reply over there at the discussion page. --Pkchan 16:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
MedalTop Template
Regarding your revert to the MedalTop template:
- First of all, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that alignment was that difficult, and I'd appreciate your help in trying to resolve this problem (if it's possible).
- Second, in the talk page, we have discussed at length, the way we want this to look. Namely, with the colors that we've got, we think it looks better when the colored boxes have some white between them. Also, we've all agreed that it looks better with the darker greys on top, guiding the eyes down the chart.
- Also, due to space issues, we're trying to keep all the medals from wrapping to a second line, and we've found that the 35% length is very important.
I've gone ahead and reverted to two revisions ago, with the way that we've agreed the chart should look, but without the alignment formatting. If you've got any other input, then please let us know on the talk page, thanks! tiZom(2¢) 04:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)