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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

True, but therefore your addition fails under the same logic. Also, Wikimedia own the servers, it's their right to delete it. Ian ¹³_ID:540053 18:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

May I very strongly suggest that you reply?-- TheDoctor10 ( talk| email) 08:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Trinity. I'll look around and see if I can find a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

-- TheDoctor10 ( talk| email) 17:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply

It would be vaguely polite to reply.-- TheDoctor10 ( talk| email) 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

Also, would you mind discussing the style changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. Mike Dillon 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Don't worry about it. It seems to be worked out now. Chick Bowen 01:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

All of them. Courier new 04:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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| | Talk-- 21:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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:

Template:Football in Cyprus table cells

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

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) reply

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

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) reply

Thanks for the quick restoration! Stephenb (Talk) 16:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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

whatever

shall i make a image of a driver carraige and a trailer carraige and also the front of the train ok - and i will remove the lu logo, although this is a nessessary item on the picture

ive done the images now

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unisouth ( talk •  contribs) .

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) .

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) reply

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) reply

Would you perhaps know what happened to the GIF images? — Ruud 18:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Why are you doing this? Isn't it fair use? ( Template:logo) FTota 13:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply