Hi there. I was wondering if, as the latest uploader of one of these two files, you'd be able to help with corrections to:
The problem is that both (still) show the wrong location for the Edgware Road bombing. The train had just left Edgware Road on the Circle Line/District Line tracks and was heading towards Paddington - hence the marker needs to be on the green/yellow line, slightly to the left of Edgware Road.
I'm also confused as to why the 7 July 2005 London bombings article is linked to the PNG file, but that that file is "not there", but seems to redirect in some way to the SVG file. Has the PNG file been changed to SVG and the link from the article not changed? Carcharoth 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI - I have listed Category:Soccer-europe images at WP:PUI - SCEhard T 21:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. I've just been looking at those nice geographical tube maps again, at Commons:London Underground geographic maps. I particularly like the ones of the District line and the Metropolitan line - both very different from what you see on the tube maps. What I got to wondering, after looking at some of the Wikipedia pages about the tube stations, was whether these maps could be adapted and combined to complement the "sucession" boxes each London Underground station currently has. These succession boxes currently give the "before" and "after" stations for each line running through the station, but this doesn't graphically show the distance or direction of the "before" and "after" stations, and the succession boxes also fail to show that some lines are using the same tracks. This overview of the direction in which the lines are heading from each station would be particularly nice for busy interchange stations such as Paddington station and King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, where several lines meet. Maybe this could be done by cropping areas from the combined maps that have already been done for zones 1 and 2? Though I've just noticed that those have map scales, but the underground line ones don't...
The other idea, which probably won't work, was to somehow get maps showing the depths of the various underground lines (the map would be a sideways looking, cutaway view, rather than from above). But that would only work if the GPS data was centred on the actual platforms and included relative altitudes as well - it would also depend how flat London is, as otherwise you would have to have GPS co-ordinates for the surface of each station, as well as the platforms below.
An alternative might be to just add a small thumbnail of each line's map to each station's page. Maybe with the relevant station highlighted? Or just add the current image for each line to a template used for each line? Something like Template:LUL line that is currently used for the succession boxes? Do you see any way that might work? Carcharoth 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
E-Bod has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
-- E-Bod 04:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct licensing placed...thank you. Rowlan 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I see you reverted a change I made in the England squad list.
Phil Neville replaced Nigel Reo-Coker today in the squad: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/england/5006754.stm
Did I not follow a correct procedure when changing the list? I'm still new to wiki editing.
Graham
Copied From [Wikipedia:Copyrights
It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.
Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.
If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.
If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.
In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.
Please read and respond to the Bold text. This is referring to Text but I assume the same goes for images.-- E-Bod 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Text and images are very much different in how they are used and modified in a wiki, and as such are handled differently. What, exactly, is your point? ed g2s • talk 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you were around for the TSBY time magazine picture cover scandal. It is similar to your misguided, power hungry actions. TSBY took it upon himself to become the protector of wikipedia. Despite instructions from Jimbo to go through normal channels, he deleted hundreds of Time magazine covers unilaterally, without a common consesus. Causing a major firestorm. Your paternal protection of Wikipedia is disgusting. I will continue to restore the image on my user page until you can show me a clear consensus otherwise or a letter from Jimbo stating that what you are doing is approved. I have no respect for what you are doing, it is counterproductive and simply causes anger and ill feelings on wikipedia. Stop threatening me with the little power you have, it is pathetic. I will continue to restore the image on my user page until you can show me a clear consensus otherwise or a letter from Jimbo stating that what you are doing is approved. In my view, your deletions are no different than the vandalism I did to your page, changing your color. In otherwords, you have no authority to do what you are doing. You are a vigilante who is attempting to unilaterally impose his paternal view of wikipedia on fellow wikipedians. Quit vandalizing my talk page. Travb ( talk) 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". Don't get into a revert war. Yes, there is a free image, but it does not depict the various colors, and types that the other images do. That should have been obvious. Malamockq 15:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It's irrelevant as color samples belong on a page about color. This is the Nintendo DS page, what's being discussed is Nintendo DS, as such the colors of the Nintendo DS should depict the Nintendo DS in its various color schemes. Malamockq 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information ... if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken"
"The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."
I told you not to get into a revert war. You violated the 3RR. Malamockq 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been reported. [2] Malamockq 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This claimed fair use image is being used as the main image for the Michael Jackson article, but I've read somewhere that fair use images shouldn't be used if there is a free one available. Does this mean that this mugshot image should be used instead given that its the only free image available at the moment? Just wondering because I see a lot of debate about fair use images going on in wikipedia-- 58.169.11.224 09:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-- E-Bod 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why Haven't you Gotten rid of all the fair use images from your own userspace. You have no right to remove Fair use images from other userspaces and mainspace until you finish removing it from your own userspace. you're actions are uncivil and Disgrace full.
[3] Your user space is listed as one of the Top Fair use Violations and i am not Joking. This is Unexceptable coming from an admin and a Fair use Policeman. I have already removed some fair use violations from your userspace before and was blocked by one of your friends for braking WP:Point. How can Justify removing Fair use logos that are used with permission (based on a Listserv post that addresses permission not allowed when an free alternative is easy to obtain). For instance you uploaded Image:Westminster school crest.png without a copyright tag so it was latter tagged fair use. I think it is a greater evil to not even put a copyright tag than to use it as fair use. You are an Admin so you Definitely know better. I am outraged because you never gave me a warning and i was actually using an image for identification while you are using it as decoration. I am asking you Never Again use the Word Fair use If you find you need to efficiently remove fair use from other people's userspace without even a notice on their talk page but are one of the larges Fair use Violators on wikipedia
[4] When approaching users about removing the fair use images on their userpages, please be careful to be polite, and check to make sure that no one else has already brought it to their attention.
You have done nether. I am asking you to Resign as an admin and to apologize. One of your friends who happens to be an arbitrator has ruined my reputation by Blocking me for Violating WP:Point on your page when i had done no such Disruption. I seek a Formal Apology from you as a Trophy on my User space.
I believe you have No right to Police a policy that you will not even bother to enforce on yourself
The Biggest Fair use Violators should not be the least Civil Fair use Enforcers. You should be Ashamed of Yourself. Please Review Every Image on your Userspace and apply the appropriate Copyright tags and remove all Fair use and Issue an Apology to Every last User that you have removed fair use image from their user space. You are a Disgrace. You have lost your right to Speak on the Issue of Fair Use.
You have Disrupted Enough Wikipedia articles that use Fair use Thumbnails for identification purposes. You have offended enough users and have been warned repeatedly on this talk page. Fair use may not be allowed on those pages but your violations are far worse and coming from you it is unacceptable.-- E-Bod 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
II Am sorry I should have Checked the dates. I will double check and count how many Fair use Violations are currently on that page. For you information i did not create the template but i did want it to look official. I am sorry for threat. I will double check my points-- E-Bod 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute 17:59, 27 March 2006 [6] . You had 24 fair use images on your user space this year. This was not that long ago and Most the Fair use images were removed by Durin this month. This issue is not as old as I though. Yet When i made this accusation their were only one Fair use image on the page so I wasn't justified. I had false assumed the other images were still up. I'm still sorry for what I did but I am tad bit less sorry than i was a few edits ago.-- E-Bod 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I know that you get a lot of questioning over your fair use material removals, but I don't agree on taking down the images on Football World Cup mascot. While making articles for each individual mascot and including the relevant image in each is possible, it is unnecessary and counter-productive.
Apart from Goleo and Pille, none of the others have articles, and for good reason, since there is not much information on each: this would only lead to one-paragraph stubs all over the place (I would even merge Pille into Goleo). The same information is presented much more effectively and in a much more user-friendly way in one single page.
Plus, there is nothing in the fair use policy that says that images can only be used in individual articles, it is OK to use them to illustrate sections within one page, like here. You had previously removed the images from the article when they were in a "gallery", which I agree with, but the table now gives each mascot its own individual section which can be illustrated by the relevant image.
Some sections of the fair use policy you have invoked before:
Please let me know if you still disagree, so that we can settle this. Thanks a lot, -- Gabbec 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. -- Gabbec 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are you singling out Billy Williams (baseball player)? Or are you just getting started? I would also like to know how the Cubs are harmed financially by having that logo in the ballplayers' pages. The harm / no harm question seems to be the primary issue of "fair use". Wahkeenah 13:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Just because a mugshot is the only free photo available does not mean it's appropriate to use. It's implied derision of the subject. Wahkeenah 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the appropriate tag for an image of unknown origin that was circulating on the Internet? Wahkeenah 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you're the new sheriff in town, do you also plan on removing the pictures from every Television Episodes List or what? Lumaga 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the many images you removed from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania article page - Image:PhiladelphiaEagles_100.png (3KB, MIME type: image/png) Philadelphia Eagles logo - has the following text on the image page: "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Most of the images have similar tags. Why did you remove them? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EdK (
talk •
contribs)
I would like to inform you that your thoughts about the fair use poicy are ill-founded. The articles
List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and
List of South Park episodes have both been
Featured Lists. This means that they are among the best lists on the Wikipedia. They also include screenshots for every episode, just as the
Lost Page had before you removed them. The fact that two exemplary lists feature so many images should indicate to you that the pictures on the Lost page should be restored.
Alkane-man 14:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to chagne the Policy for Navigon lists with Fair use images you need to make a policy and find Consensouols for it.
You should Channel your controbutons the obvous Fair use Violatons first.-- E-Bod 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to reason removing images by saying it has not been discused, please participate in the discussion. There are plenty of things in the discussion you can reply to. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping that you would be willing to answer some of the concerns I raised regarding your recent removal of HP images on the Harry Potter talk page. TonyJoe 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from editing user pages in the future, as your edits can have unintended consequences. I understand your concerns about copyright violation, but the appropriate course of action is to leave a comment on the user's talk page. Thank you. — Chris ( t c ) — 01:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This [7] particular montage of fair use images has me puzzled, could you take a look at it and see if it qualifies as fair use? Thanks ~ Vic Vipr 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hiya Ed, I undertand why you had to edit my page, but it just seemed to be code you removed. How is that a problem?( Halbared 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC))
Pages that use Template:LUL_line, for example St Katharine Docks, appear to be broken. I see it was you who originally set this up. Please could you have a look at it? I can't figure out how it's supposed to work! Thanks, JRawle ( Talk) 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw a lot of fair use questions here. Hope you don't mind one more. :) Could you have a look at Pinocchio (1940 film). There is a gallery of movie posters there. Do they qualify as fair use? I would think not, but I am not 100 percent sure. Thanks. Garion96 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Your deletion of Template:Inconclusive was out of process and completely inappropriate. That template was created by me explicitly for use to clearly indicate results on Requests for Checkuser. The use of the same image on a template does not constitute recreation, and deleting it without even so much as a word to me was totally beyond the scope of approprite action. I suggest that in the future, before you delete something as a recreation, you consult with the creator and determine what the real background is. Essjay ( Talk • Connect) 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Where can i see COPYRIGHT VANDALISM defined ? Thanks alot .tg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseeker ( talk • contribs)
Firstly I would like to apologize for my actions towards you in the past. For instance with your conflict with Trab I did realize the extent of his copyright Violations
Secondly you requesting more opinions on a far use case that you had gotten ino a revert war over so I had to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ed_g2s.
You are Definitely Justified in removed fair use in some situations. You probably are justified in other cases. Blatant Copy Vios should be removed while other cases need some consideration.
Regardless of whether an image or text or whatever belongs on Wikipedia you cannot continue to offend other users while enforcing Fair use issues. And you can’t clam you can’t encounter Fair use without offending people. Hear are my suggestions
At least try to pretend you understand why the images were used and express some gratitude for their good intentions.
Suggest alternatives or other helpful ways the user can contribute.
I Don’t mind if you use a Template or other boilerplate messages to talk to users, Please go out of your way to point out more constructive ways to contribute. If they copy Test from a webpage tell then that
We appreciate your efforts to add new content to Wikipedia, however we cannot accept coping and pasting copyrighted content. Wikipedia can use more content so please continue to find new sources for out articles, however in order to incorporate these sources you need to read the source, put the source down and summarize it in your own words. Do not try to copy and past and retroactively change it into your own words.
Or for images you can suggest they take their own picture as a replacement or write a fair use rationally to defend their edits.
As in the case of the Lost series I guess you can’t find a free alternative, however one could argue that the images are used for identification (web navigation) purposes and so are fair uses of the images. However Fair use did not warrant a revert war. Especially because in the mists of your reverts Unrelated legitimate edits were included and both of you reverted back and for the ignoring all the edits made in-between yours. If you need to you should by hand only fix the part that violates WP:FUC and if the person reverts back you should discuss it on the talk page first, wait a while and by hand revert again. But do not bring by standing edits into it. If you were going to remove the images you could at lest make the Boxes less odd shaped -- E-Bod 23:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The report has been Archived-- E-Bod 00:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you have listed Image:Kitchen knife anatomy.jpg on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I have made a new version of this image using a free knife image. Would it be agreeable to you if I uploaded this and removed the image from Wikipedia:Copyright problems? I ask primarily because the template you added says "do not edit this page" and I want to make sure I'm following the correct procedure. Thanks! — Chris ( t c ) — 05:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies. This page, Although it's name appears uncivil if we tell people to see it seems to explain the Copyright issue very nicely and could be a quick way to explain your removal of fair use images. I think the reason so Manny people object to your removal of fair use images is that you never address why you are removing them. you simply state it is policy. this explains why the policy is the way it is and it can prove an invaluable tool if it is touched up a bit to not seem remotely offensive.-- E-Bod 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of bozos on this Wikipedia. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg -- serbiana - talk 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering if, as the latest uploader of one of these two files, you'd be able to help with corrections to:
The problem is that both (still) show the wrong location for the Edgware Road bombing. The train had just left Edgware Road on the Circle Line/District Line tracks and was heading towards Paddington - hence the marker needs to be on the green/yellow line, slightly to the left of Edgware Road.
I'm also confused as to why the 7 July 2005 London bombings article is linked to the PNG file, but that that file is "not there", but seems to redirect in some way to the SVG file. Has the PNG file been changed to SVG and the link from the article not changed? Carcharoth 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI - I have listed Category:Soccer-europe images at WP:PUI - SCEhard T 21:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. I've just been looking at those nice geographical tube maps again, at Commons:London Underground geographic maps. I particularly like the ones of the District line and the Metropolitan line - both very different from what you see on the tube maps. What I got to wondering, after looking at some of the Wikipedia pages about the tube stations, was whether these maps could be adapted and combined to complement the "sucession" boxes each London Underground station currently has. These succession boxes currently give the "before" and "after" stations for each line running through the station, but this doesn't graphically show the distance or direction of the "before" and "after" stations, and the succession boxes also fail to show that some lines are using the same tracks. This overview of the direction in which the lines are heading from each station would be particularly nice for busy interchange stations such as Paddington station and King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, where several lines meet. Maybe this could be done by cropping areas from the combined maps that have already been done for zones 1 and 2? Though I've just noticed that those have map scales, but the underground line ones don't...
The other idea, which probably won't work, was to somehow get maps showing the depths of the various underground lines (the map would be a sideways looking, cutaway view, rather than from above). But that would only work if the GPS data was centred on the actual platforms and included relative altitudes as well - it would also depend how flat London is, as otherwise you would have to have GPS co-ordinates for the surface of each station, as well as the platforms below.
An alternative might be to just add a small thumbnail of each line's map to each station's page. Maybe with the relevant station highlighted? Or just add the current image for each line to a template used for each line? Something like Template:LUL line that is currently used for the succession boxes? Do you see any way that might work? Carcharoth 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
E-Bod has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
-- E-Bod 04:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct licensing placed...thank you. Rowlan 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I see you reverted a change I made in the England squad list.
Phil Neville replaced Nigel Reo-Coker today in the squad: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/england/5006754.stm
Did I not follow a correct procedure when changing the list? I'm still new to wiki editing.
Graham
Copied From [Wikipedia:Copyrights
It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.
Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.
If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.
If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.
In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.
Please read and respond to the Bold text. This is referring to Text but I assume the same goes for images.-- E-Bod 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Text and images are very much different in how they are used and modified in a wiki, and as such are handled differently. What, exactly, is your point? ed g2s • talk 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you were around for the TSBY time magazine picture cover scandal. It is similar to your misguided, power hungry actions. TSBY took it upon himself to become the protector of wikipedia. Despite instructions from Jimbo to go through normal channels, he deleted hundreds of Time magazine covers unilaterally, without a common consesus. Causing a major firestorm. Your paternal protection of Wikipedia is disgusting. I will continue to restore the image on my user page until you can show me a clear consensus otherwise or a letter from Jimbo stating that what you are doing is approved. I have no respect for what you are doing, it is counterproductive and simply causes anger and ill feelings on wikipedia. Stop threatening me with the little power you have, it is pathetic. I will continue to restore the image on my user page until you can show me a clear consensus otherwise or a letter from Jimbo stating that what you are doing is approved. In my view, your deletions are no different than the vandalism I did to your page, changing your color. In otherwords, you have no authority to do what you are doing. You are a vigilante who is attempting to unilaterally impose his paternal view of wikipedia on fellow wikipedians. Quit vandalizing my talk page. Travb ( talk) 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". Don't get into a revert war. Yes, there is a free image, but it does not depict the various colors, and types that the other images do. That should have been obvious. Malamockq 15:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It's irrelevant as color samples belong on a page about color. This is the Nintendo DS page, what's being discussed is Nintendo DS, as such the colors of the Nintendo DS should depict the Nintendo DS in its various color schemes. Malamockq 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information ... if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken"
"The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."
I told you not to get into a revert war. You violated the 3RR. Malamockq 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been reported. [2] Malamockq 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This claimed fair use image is being used as the main image for the Michael Jackson article, but I've read somewhere that fair use images shouldn't be used if there is a free one available. Does this mean that this mugshot image should be used instead given that its the only free image available at the moment? Just wondering because I see a lot of debate about fair use images going on in wikipedia-- 58.169.11.224 09:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-- E-Bod 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why Haven't you Gotten rid of all the fair use images from your own userspace. You have no right to remove Fair use images from other userspaces and mainspace until you finish removing it from your own userspace. you're actions are uncivil and Disgrace full.
[3] Your user space is listed as one of the Top Fair use Violations and i am not Joking. This is Unexceptable coming from an admin and a Fair use Policeman. I have already removed some fair use violations from your userspace before and was blocked by one of your friends for braking WP:Point. How can Justify removing Fair use logos that are used with permission (based on a Listserv post that addresses permission not allowed when an free alternative is easy to obtain). For instance you uploaded Image:Westminster school crest.png without a copyright tag so it was latter tagged fair use. I think it is a greater evil to not even put a copyright tag than to use it as fair use. You are an Admin so you Definitely know better. I am outraged because you never gave me a warning and i was actually using an image for identification while you are using it as decoration. I am asking you Never Again use the Word Fair use If you find you need to efficiently remove fair use from other people's userspace without even a notice on their talk page but are one of the larges Fair use Violators on wikipedia
[4] When approaching users about removing the fair use images on their userpages, please be careful to be polite, and check to make sure that no one else has already brought it to their attention.
You have done nether. I am asking you to Resign as an admin and to apologize. One of your friends who happens to be an arbitrator has ruined my reputation by Blocking me for Violating WP:Point on your page when i had done no such Disruption. I seek a Formal Apology from you as a Trophy on my User space.
I believe you have No right to Police a policy that you will not even bother to enforce on yourself
The Biggest Fair use Violators should not be the least Civil Fair use Enforcers. You should be Ashamed of Yourself. Please Review Every Image on your Userspace and apply the appropriate Copyright tags and remove all Fair use and Issue an Apology to Every last User that you have removed fair use image from their user space. You are a Disgrace. You have lost your right to Speak on the Issue of Fair Use.
You have Disrupted Enough Wikipedia articles that use Fair use Thumbnails for identification purposes. You have offended enough users and have been warned repeatedly on this talk page. Fair use may not be allowed on those pages but your violations are far worse and coming from you it is unacceptable.-- E-Bod 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
II Am sorry I should have Checked the dates. I will double check and count how many Fair use Violations are currently on that page. For you information i did not create the template but i did want it to look official. I am sorry for threat. I will double check my points-- E-Bod 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute 17:59, 27 March 2006 [6] . You had 24 fair use images on your user space this year. This was not that long ago and Most the Fair use images were removed by Durin this month. This issue is not as old as I though. Yet When i made this accusation their were only one Fair use image on the page so I wasn't justified. I had false assumed the other images were still up. I'm still sorry for what I did but I am tad bit less sorry than i was a few edits ago.-- E-Bod 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I know that you get a lot of questioning over your fair use material removals, but I don't agree on taking down the images on Football World Cup mascot. While making articles for each individual mascot and including the relevant image in each is possible, it is unnecessary and counter-productive.
Apart from Goleo and Pille, none of the others have articles, and for good reason, since there is not much information on each: this would only lead to one-paragraph stubs all over the place (I would even merge Pille into Goleo). The same information is presented much more effectively and in a much more user-friendly way in one single page.
Plus, there is nothing in the fair use policy that says that images can only be used in individual articles, it is OK to use them to illustrate sections within one page, like here. You had previously removed the images from the article when they were in a "gallery", which I agree with, but the table now gives each mascot its own individual section which can be illustrated by the relevant image.
Some sections of the fair use policy you have invoked before:
Please let me know if you still disagree, so that we can settle this. Thanks a lot, -- Gabbec 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. -- Gabbec 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are you singling out Billy Williams (baseball player)? Or are you just getting started? I would also like to know how the Cubs are harmed financially by having that logo in the ballplayers' pages. The harm / no harm question seems to be the primary issue of "fair use". Wahkeenah 13:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Just because a mugshot is the only free photo available does not mean it's appropriate to use. It's implied derision of the subject. Wahkeenah 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the appropriate tag for an image of unknown origin that was circulating on the Internet? Wahkeenah 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you're the new sheriff in town, do you also plan on removing the pictures from every Television Episodes List or what? Lumaga 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the many images you removed from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania article page - Image:PhiladelphiaEagles_100.png (3KB, MIME type: image/png) Philadelphia Eagles logo - has the following text on the image page: "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Most of the images have similar tags. Why did you remove them? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EdK (
talk •
contribs)
I would like to inform you that your thoughts about the fair use poicy are ill-founded. The articles
List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and
List of South Park episodes have both been
Featured Lists. This means that they are among the best lists on the Wikipedia. They also include screenshots for every episode, just as the
Lost Page had before you removed them. The fact that two exemplary lists feature so many images should indicate to you that the pictures on the Lost page should be restored.
Alkane-man 14:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to chagne the Policy for Navigon lists with Fair use images you need to make a policy and find Consensouols for it.
You should Channel your controbutons the obvous Fair use Violatons first.-- E-Bod 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to reason removing images by saying it has not been discused, please participate in the discussion. There are plenty of things in the discussion you can reply to. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping that you would be willing to answer some of the concerns I raised regarding your recent removal of HP images on the Harry Potter talk page. TonyJoe 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from editing user pages in the future, as your edits can have unintended consequences. I understand your concerns about copyright violation, but the appropriate course of action is to leave a comment on the user's talk page. Thank you. — Chris ( t c ) — 01:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This [7] particular montage of fair use images has me puzzled, could you take a look at it and see if it qualifies as fair use? Thanks ~ Vic Vipr 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hiya Ed, I undertand why you had to edit my page, but it just seemed to be code you removed. How is that a problem?( Halbared 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC))
Pages that use Template:LUL_line, for example St Katharine Docks, appear to be broken. I see it was you who originally set this up. Please could you have a look at it? I can't figure out how it's supposed to work! Thanks, JRawle ( Talk) 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw a lot of fair use questions here. Hope you don't mind one more. :) Could you have a look at Pinocchio (1940 film). There is a gallery of movie posters there. Do they qualify as fair use? I would think not, but I am not 100 percent sure. Thanks. Garion96 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Your deletion of Template:Inconclusive was out of process and completely inappropriate. That template was created by me explicitly for use to clearly indicate results on Requests for Checkuser. The use of the same image on a template does not constitute recreation, and deleting it without even so much as a word to me was totally beyond the scope of approprite action. I suggest that in the future, before you delete something as a recreation, you consult with the creator and determine what the real background is. Essjay ( Talk • Connect) 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Where can i see COPYRIGHT VANDALISM defined ? Thanks alot .tg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseeker ( talk • contribs)
Firstly I would like to apologize for my actions towards you in the past. For instance with your conflict with Trab I did realize the extent of his copyright Violations
Secondly you requesting more opinions on a far use case that you had gotten ino a revert war over so I had to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ed_g2s.
You are Definitely Justified in removed fair use in some situations. You probably are justified in other cases. Blatant Copy Vios should be removed while other cases need some consideration.
Regardless of whether an image or text or whatever belongs on Wikipedia you cannot continue to offend other users while enforcing Fair use issues. And you can’t clam you can’t encounter Fair use without offending people. Hear are my suggestions
At least try to pretend you understand why the images were used and express some gratitude for their good intentions.
Suggest alternatives or other helpful ways the user can contribute.
I Don’t mind if you use a Template or other boilerplate messages to talk to users, Please go out of your way to point out more constructive ways to contribute. If they copy Test from a webpage tell then that
We appreciate your efforts to add new content to Wikipedia, however we cannot accept coping and pasting copyrighted content. Wikipedia can use more content so please continue to find new sources for out articles, however in order to incorporate these sources you need to read the source, put the source down and summarize it in your own words. Do not try to copy and past and retroactively change it into your own words.
Or for images you can suggest they take their own picture as a replacement or write a fair use rationally to defend their edits.
As in the case of the Lost series I guess you can’t find a free alternative, however one could argue that the images are used for identification (web navigation) purposes and so are fair uses of the images. However Fair use did not warrant a revert war. Especially because in the mists of your reverts Unrelated legitimate edits were included and both of you reverted back and for the ignoring all the edits made in-between yours. If you need to you should by hand only fix the part that violates WP:FUC and if the person reverts back you should discuss it on the talk page first, wait a while and by hand revert again. But do not bring by standing edits into it. If you were going to remove the images you could at lest make the Boxes less odd shaped -- E-Bod 23:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The report has been Archived-- E-Bod 00:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you have listed Image:Kitchen knife anatomy.jpg on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I have made a new version of this image using a free knife image. Would it be agreeable to you if I uploaded this and removed the image from Wikipedia:Copyright problems? I ask primarily because the template you added says "do not edit this page" and I want to make sure I'm following the correct procedure. Thanks! — Chris ( t c ) — 05:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies. This page, Although it's name appears uncivil if we tell people to see it seems to explain the Copyright issue very nicely and could be a quick way to explain your removal of fair use images. I think the reason so Manny people object to your removal of fair use images is that you never address why you are removing them. you simply state it is policy. this explains why the policy is the way it is and it can prove an invaluable tool if it is touched up a bit to not seem remotely offensive.-- E-Bod 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of bozos on this Wikipedia. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg -- serbiana - talk 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)