In1984

Hello, the last couple articles you edited replaced all the ' with \'. Just letting you know. Gimmetrow 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too but got interrupted before I could correct. Thanks for the note.--In1984 07:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeep logo caption

Please note the WIKI caption policy: "where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product - no caption needed." (Your revision as of 20:56, 10 April 2007) Thanks, CZmarlin 02:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy. Suggestion, not requirement. Avoiding advertising, marketing, spam and various other promotional conflicts of interest take priority.--In1984 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it advertising? It's just the logo of the company. There is no "conflict of interest" and there is also not a requirement that there be a caption either. You have no grounds to ignore another guideline and put it there. --Sable232 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, Not having a caption for logos is a Wiki guideline - or a suggestion - and the "Jeep" logo is an obvious logo -- it is not placed in this article as advertising, marketing, spam. or because of various other promotional conflicts of interest. Therefore, it does not need a caption stating that a logo is a logo.The "Jeep" name used by the company is not an obscure design that needs an explanation. Furthermore, this caption has been removed by a number of editors, yet a minority (like you) seems to bringing it back for unsupported reasons. CZmarlin 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious is a point of view. Encyclopedia explain and describe, making captions helpful, even if they do conflict with sellers' wishes for ad copy. WP:NPOV is a policy, not a formatting suggestion.--In1984 14:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So now you're accusing us of trying to advertise for those companies? Pull your head out of your ass. --Sable232 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not identify the Jeep logo as the Jeep logo. We have been through this issue over one month ago. Please see Wikipedia:Captions#Special situations for the recommendations. Thank you -- CZmarlin 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we have been through it. It's not policy. It never will be. It never has been. It is an attempt to integrate ad copy, i.e., conflict of interest, into articles. That is policy violation.--In1984 02:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Showing the logo of a company is not an attempt at advertising. The notion of putting a caption stating that the logo is a logo will somehow reduce the effect of what you describe as "advertising" is utterly false. First of all, please read the definition of advertising --

"Advertising is paid and/or sometimes free communication through a medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled. ..."

Therefore, simply showing the logo that is associated with a Wikipedia article about the organization identified with that particular logo does NOT make it advertising. If you wish to eliminate the concept of promotion (of which advertising is just one element), then any mention of a brand, logo, and any other copyrighted or trademarked name or symbol would have to be eliminated from all Wikipedia articles. That is why Wikipedia clearly states that no caption needed for company or product logos, where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product. Please do not attempt to redefine Wikipedia policy. Thank you -- CZmarlin 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jeep logo is clearly identified as a registered trademark. It has the symbol in the lower corner. This is an indication of its role as an official logo. There is no "guessing" what this image represents. Therefore, there is no need to identify this symbol with a caption that it is a logo. The Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that no caption is needed with current images of logos. Please also stop adding captions to logos in other articles. They are all following Wikipedia guidelines. If you do not think that Wikipedia should to serve any promotional role for products, ideas, or organizations; then you will have to blank out thousands of articles pertaining to all the products, ideas, and organizations. The placement of images of logos within the articles only helps explain and describe the subject of the article. This function is NOT advertising. It does serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Thank you -- CZmarlin 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

WARNING regarding your edits of the Jeep logo caption --

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."

CZmarlin 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits at Nineteen Eighty-Four

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nineteen Eighty-Four. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Please take this matter to the article talk page as advised by User:Prosfilaes rather than simply hitting Undo. Stannered 17:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting without explantion, please

You repeatedly reverted the reinstation of the spoiler template on Forever War, even after I asked you to provide at least reasons and communicate about it. Please stop doing so - this is not your playground, this is a community effort. MadMaxDog 09:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

WARNING regarding your addition of the caption to several automobile logos --

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." CZmarlin 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning before block

Please do not make edits that are not useful. Also, note that you are close to violation the Three revert rule ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

company logo

hi, these edits that you are making are totally unnecessary and add nothing to wikipedia. i'm also basing this by reading your talk page. other editors seem to agree with me. toodles!--XMBRIAN 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

also, can you please tell me how it has anything to do with a bias? please reply on my talk page. i'm going to bed now.--XMBRIAN 07:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, can you also explain this to me. In all respects, if a logo is inside an infobox, it plainly means it's the company current logo and that's understood by any person out there Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to understand too. You could have simply made the changes without accusations of POV and Bias in your edit summaries. What about assuming good faith? Please try not to flaunt your understanding (or lack of it) of Wikipedia policy like that in the future. It does nothing but provoke. Wikidan829 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors and in particular in edit summaries. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Please be aware of the guidelines "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" and "Disruptive editing". Orderinchaos 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why Logo Captions

With regard to logos in or out of infoboxes, there's no way for someone to understand what the image is or what it represents. Yes, well-informed people will know. An encyclopedia is not just for the well-informed. In fact, the point is to help inform. Being civil and non-disruptive to those needing help in gaining knowledge is a far more important part of that help. Helping can not be done by assuming or thumbing one's nose to those one views as ignorant of what one believes to be obvious.--In1984 19:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While I understand your concerns, I think it's clear that at the moment, there is no consensus that a logo needs a caption. In fact, based on the wide range of editors reverting your edits, I would suggest the consensus might be that they don't need captions. I'd suggest you work this through and get clarification in a policy or guideline, before you continue to make mass edits? --Bill.matthews 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that you made all those changes is the problem, as you can read above. It's the accusative tone of the edit summary that went along with the changes. To suggest that whoever initially put those images up were violating NPOV is a pretty harsh thing. Make the changes, but don't be a dick about it. Wikidan829 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, my problem was the edits themselves. But I've got tons of problems with Wikipedia.--XMBRIAN 23:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my earlier comment came over a little rough sounding, I didn't mean any harm but just didn't understand the use of NPOV for a product label if it's already placed in an infobox. I understand the concern, but I would believe people would understand the conceptual ideal that an image included under the title of the product (example, Fox News Channel) is the logo that the product uses just as well as if the image was not included in an infobox and properly labeled. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, consider it a service to readers that provides a link to logo and allows them to better understand something and expand their knowledge. In addition, the so-called guideline about captions above was added without any discussion about it last year and has been removed, so there is no guideline insisting that the logos be captionless and excluded from the rest of the captions guidelines, which clearly support captions: Wikipedia:Captions.--In1984 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that I don't understand the concept that this works in locations where the use of the logo is already understand by the larger point entailed in a certain circumstance. In my own response, my main issue is that the understanding of the use of a logo in an infobox already impresses an idea of how and why it's used in that location, to give a representation of the logo of that product. If we must add captions to all infoboxes, which doesn't make sense in my perspective for the use of logos in plain formats, the use should be implemented in the infoboxes, such as in this page where the text is included in the infobox to label the image Title card for Fox News Live. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, please stop making changes with the same general purpose until a new consensus can be made throughout Wikipedia, not a select group Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was policy. The so called consensus was never discussed and slipped into a guideline article apparently to fork and subvert existing logo guidline. I agree a more elegant solution is to have the infobox support a caption so that the double boxing is not necessary. I will happily fill in the captions if someone will adjust the template to support them like infobox television does.--In1984 02:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to stop as well. Adding a "thumb" parameter to images in an infobox is not correct and is becoming disruptive. This entire situation is a bit pointy, so I'm asking you to stop now. Discuss before continuing along these lines. - auburnpilot talk 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is already being discussed at various guideline and policy discussion pages. Previous consensus was clear: add captions. Please discuss there if you are truly interested.--In1984 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No this isn't the policy forum, this is the forum where we discuss your personal actions, and it's completely appropriate to post here. Wikidan829 04:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)