Image talk:Gulf.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Gulf Oil logo 2 Outside view 3 Keep in mind Wikipedia's purpose 4 For the Record

[edit] Gulf Oil logo

DISCUSSION TRANSPOSED FROM Betelgeuse incident DISCUSSION PAGE, 17/09/06

I have removed the Gulf Oil logo (Image:Gulf.png) twice from this article, and it has been restored both times. I have been asked on my talk page not to remove this image again without discussion on this talk page. So here is my reasoning for removing the logo.

I uploaded this logo to Wikipedia to replace an old ugly JPEG version which has since been deleted. By doing so, I had to make a claim that the use of this logo on Wikipedia qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. I am willing to make this claim for the use of the logo in the Gulf Oil article, but in this article it adds absolutely nothing and is being used purely for decoration. As such it fails point 8 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy, does not qualify as fair use in this article, and should be removed.

Those who want the logo to remain in this article need to make a good argument explaining why this logo actually adds anything significant to the article, rather than simply being a pretty picture to break up the flow of the text. —Bkell (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian

point 8 reads :

• The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

My contention is that the Betelgeuse incident was a significant event in the corporate history of Gulf Oil. The subject of the article is Gulf Oil. If the logo used were that of British Petroleum then I agree that such use, in this context, would be purely decorative. However, the Gulf logo and the content of the article contribute to one another.

If you are unconvinced by my argument, then you are welcome to initiate the relevant moderation procedure, and I will accept the outcome of that. But, please don't launch an edit war. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not Gulf Oil; the subject of this article is the Betelgeuse incident. Gulf Oil is the subject of the Gulf Oil article. Specifically, what information is conveyed by the Gulf Oil logo in this article that is not conveyed by the text? Why is it necessary that this article contain the Gulf Oil logo? —Bkell (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Gulf Oil as owner and operator of the facility, the corporation who decided that vessels of this size where be used for crude. Gulf oil was also the owner of the crude and their staff where responsible for the discharging of the vessel and some of the casualties where Gulf Oil employees. Gulf Oil was held partly responsible due to the lack of fire fighting facilities. By having the Logo in the section about the background it clearly identifies and associates the global corporation to the incident, which is disinctly necessary as the facilities where handed over to Irish governement who are readily recognised as the facilities owners. Gnangarra 05:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The article text clearly specifies the role of Gulf Oil in this incident. The Gulf Oil logo does not convey any information about the role of Gulf Oil. Therefore, the logo does not significantly contribute to the article. —Bkell (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. You seem to be adopting an extremely narrow interpretation of the manner in which an image can "convey information" about the subject of an article. Applied across Wikipedia, about 90% of Fair Use illustrations would fail the test that you have adopted. Please have a think about this point for a few days before taking the matter any further.

As an aside, thankyou for loading the improved version of the logo. I will take a look at the matter of .png image formats soon. Bob BScar23625 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that many images used on Wikipedia under a claim of "fair use" are basically copyright violations. But the issue at hand is this image in this article, so my views on other images are irrelevant.

Point 8 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy says this:

The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

Now, this image is not identifying the subject of this article, because the subject of this article is the Betelgeuse incident, not Gulf Oil. This image is not illustrating relevant points or sections within the text; it adds nothing that is not already conveyed by the text. (Note that "illustrate" here means "to clarify; to make clear by giving or by serving as an example or instance" and not simply "to decorate".) So what significant contribution is this image making? I see none. Therefore, I claim that the use of this image in this article violates point 8 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy, and hence should be removed.

Part of the reason I am so adamant about this particular instance is that, by uploading Image:Gulf.png and tagging it with the {{logo}} tag, I asserted my opinion that the use of the image in the Gulf Oil article met the criteria for fair use. I consider this to be a legal claim on my part, for which I accept legal responsibility, and I take it seriously. I was hesitant to make such a claim, because I am generally against the proliferation of "fair-use" images on Wikipedia, but I made it in this case partly to prove a point to another Wikipedian that a PNG version of the Gulf logo would be smaller and crisper than a JPEG version.

I am unwilling to make such a fair-use claim for the use of this logo in this article, but currently, as the logo is used in this article and as I am the one who made the fair-use claim on the image description page for Image:Gulf.png, it appears that I am making such a claim. I do not want to bear the responsibility for this claim. So if you or other editors feel that the use of this logo in this article qualifies as fair use, then please add a fair-use rationale to the image description page yourself, so that it is clear that I am not the one making the claim. —Bkell (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. Thanks for your comment, and I now understand your concerns. I will add a relevant Fair Use rationale to the image page, thus "taking the matter on my head". I will do this in the next few hours. best wishes Bob BScar23625 06:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the usage of this image in Betelgeuse incident completely fails WP:FUC #8. The use of the logo really should be limited to the Gulf Oil article itself. BScar23625, you might be correct that many images included under "fair use" fail the test that Bkell applies, but just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right. Remember that the goal of Wikipedia is to create free use content that can be used by anyone for any purpose and fair use images keep us from that. Jimbo has made it perfectly clear a number of times that we need to reduce the amount. The narrow application of fair use images is exactly the point of WP:FUC. howcheng {chat} 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Howard. I am near certain that both you and Brian are mistaken. The use of company logos is widespread in newspaper discussion of company affairs. I am pretty sure that newspapers made extensive use of the Gulf logo in reporting the Betelgeuse incident at the time it happened. There is at least a very strong claim for Fair Use here. As indicated above, if you or Brian wish to initiate the standard moderation procedure, then I will engage you in that and will accept the outcome. regards. Bob BScar23625 06:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bob, the article is about the company, I am also happy to partake in a moderation procedure to decide the issue of usage if that whats required. Gnangarra 07:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I have in front of me the 20/09 copy of the Guardian (a UK quality paper). On its front page is an article titled "Royal Society tells Exxon : stop funding climate change denial". It is about Exxon funding research which appears to establish that global warming is not happening. The article is headed by a large, colour, Exxon logo. Is the Guardian breaching copyright?. Bob BScar23625 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be remembered that the purpose of the Wikipedia fair-use policy is not simply to comply with the law, although that is important. The fair-use policy is in place because the goal of Wikipedia is to be a free encyclopedia that anyone can use for any purpose. By definition images used under claims of fair use cannot be used freely by anyone for any purpose, so fair-use images are directly contradictory to this goal. Therefore the fair-use policy has been established to limit the extent of fair-use images on Wikipedia. The use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article may be acceptable under the fair-use clause of United States copyright law, but it is not acceptable under the Wikipedia fair-use policy. —Bkell (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. I am almost certain that our current uses of the Gulf logo are acceptable under both UK and US copyright law. Your interpretation of Wikipedia Fair Use policy is an extreme one. You now seem happy that we are within the law - so can we leave the matter there?. Bob BScar23625 05:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Being within the law is good, but the Wikipedia fair-use policy is intentionally stricter than the law. Fair-use images must not only comply with the law, they must satisfy all ten points of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. This is not an extreme interpretation. —Bkell (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. If you feel sufficiently strongly about it, then go into the moderation procedure. But, perhaps your issue is more with Fair Use images generally than with this particular case?. If you are looking for a "test case" then perhaps there is a better one than the Gulf logo?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at my contributions you will find that I am not singling out this particular fair-use image. I have dealt with thousands of images on Wikipedia, and I am certain that the use of this image in the Betelgeuse incident article fails point 8 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. I can ask some other editors to give their opinions on this issue if you wish, to show that I am not alone in my belief. Howcheng has already agreed with my assessment. —Bkell (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. Well, Gnangarra (Gideon) agrees with me, so we are tied 2-2 at the moment. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 04:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. section 8 fair use criteria

Its not a decoration. Does identify the subject of the article - Yes, does it illustrate relevant points or sections within the text - Yes. The question is does it contribute significantly, I beleive yes. Conversely is the article devalued or open to misinterpretation without the image, again I believe so.

A secondary issue is that the original image was in jpg format and that by choosing to recreate the image you have then created this issue. When it was first suggested being made png we had argued the image size was small and that a change to png wasnt necessary. Gnangarra 07:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the Betelgeuse incident. Does it identify the Betelgeuse incident? No. It may identify Gulf Oil, but that's a justification for its inclusion in the Gulf Oil article, not the Betelgeuse incident article. Does it illustrate relevant points or sections within the text? No; the Gulf Oil logo is never mentioned in the text. (Remember that "illustrate" here means "to clarify; to make clear by giving or by serving as an example or instance" and not simply "to decorate". The logo does not serve as an example, instance, or clarification of anything discussed in the text.) Does it contribute significantly to the article? No. What would be lost if the logo were deleted? The role of Gulf Oil in the Betelgeuse incident would still be covered in exactly the same amount of detail. How could the article possibly be misinterpreted if the image is removed? Is there some other Gulf Oil so that the logo is necessary to distinguish between the two companies?

I have not created this issue by converting the image to PNG format. The problem still existed when the logo was a JPEG, because the file format of an image has absolutely nothing to do with whether its inclusion in an article constitutes fair use.

I suppose I will ask a few other Wikipedia editors to give their opinions on this issue, but I have not heard any reasons so far that explain why the Gulf Oil logo is an indispensable part of the Betelgeuse incident article. —Bkell (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. The idea that use of the Gulf Oil logo avoids confusion with other companies is entirely realistic. Gulf Oil is commonly referred to as "Gulf" (as it is in the Gulf and Betelgeuse articles) - and so are a number of other companies. Gulf Air being the obvious example. In the real world, this often causes confusion and prominent display of company logos in all business matters is intended to limit this confusion.

A casual reader coming to the Betelgeuse article might think that the "Gulf" referred to therein is actually Gulf Air. Use of the Gulf Oil logo helps avoid any possibility of such confusion. Bob BScar23625 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You could identify it as "Gulf Oil" in the article. Problem solved, and the logo is unnecessary. Or the reader could infer from context in sentences like "In 1968 the tanker Universe Ireland went into service for Gulf" that "Gulf" does not mean "Gulf Air", since airlines don't have tankers. Or the reader might be intelligent enough to realize that after the first mention of a company or person in an article, it is common writing practice to refer to a shortened name, and so the reader may look back to see that the first two times Gulf is mentioned, it is called "Gulf Oil" and "Gulf Oil Corporation". I think saying that the logo is necessary to distinguish Gulf Oil from Gulf Air is a pretty weak claim. —Bkell (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. When I worked for Gulf Oil (in London, in the 1980s) there often was confusion with Gulf Air. I remember once picking up the 'phone and having some guy trying to buy airline tickets from me. His English wasn't all that good and it took nearly 10 minutes to convince him that he had called the wrong "Gulf". The Gulf Oil and Gulf Air offices in the west end were close to one another, and we had to exchange misdirected letters every day. The whole point of companies having logos is to avoid this sort of confusion. Bob BScar23625 05:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ps : You write "... the reader might be intelligent enough to realize that ...". Point proved, I am afraid. The Gulf logo is needed in order to avoid confusing the reader. BScar23625 12:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is substantially about the companies involved. We could title is Gulf Oil/Total Incident if we wanted to. The fact that the article name does not contain the company names is not relevant. The logos are used alongside discussion of the companies represented by the logos, which is what matters. Johntex\^talk 17:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But they don't add anything. We cannot just use the Gulf Oil logo in Wikipedia wherever Gulf Oil is mentioned. We can only use fair-use images if they actually add something significant to the article. The Betelgeuse incident, or the Gulf Oil/Total incident, or whatever you want to call it, has nothing to do with the logos of the two companies. —Bkell (talk)

The logos here serve the same purpose logos always serve - they help to identify the subject being discussed. Some people are verbal learners, some people visual. The inclusion of an image helps some people to make the association and to learn. That is why companies have those logos, to better get people to associate with the company. It is also why the logo is used on websites, in print articles, and in encyclopedias. That is what they add to the article, and why they are allowed under fair use and policy. Johntex\^talk 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page:

I would agree with you that the two logos are purely decorative and do not add significantly to the article. The Wikilinks in the article will take the reader to the proper "Gulf" or "Total", so there is no confusion. Copyrighted images Image:Whiddy.JPG and Image:Betelguese.jpg fail WP:FUC #1 as the map and the image of the memorial could both be created as GFDL (I am assuming the memorial still exists). Those images are also poorly sourced (what does "tourist board leaflet" mean and who is the copyright holder?) and do not have a fair use rationale for use in the article. The only legitimate fair use image is Image:Betelgeuse1.JPG, but it has no fair use rationale for use in the article either, so there is a problem with that image also. -Regards Nv8200p talk 18:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That rational is fine for the maps, but by definition no free alternative exists for a corporate logo. Johntex\^talk 19:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not "by definition," but you're basically right. So the two logos satisfy point 1 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. I don't think anyone is challenging that. The problem is that the logos don't satisfy point 8. —Bkell (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Point 8 says the image must contribute significantly to the article and I believe it does. That is why reputable organizations (Wall Street Journal, ESPN, and Wikipedia included) use logos to illustrate articles pertaining to the organization represented by the logo. The article or section does not need to be about the logo, it only needs to be about the entity represented by the logo. If that were not the case, then we would not use the IBM logo on the IBM] article. The article is about IBM not IBM logo. The same applies for these oil companies. If the article or section is about the company, then the logo is usable under fair use. Johntex\^talk 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. Checking your recent contributions, I note that you have invited 8 Wikipedians to comment on this issue. On what basis did you choose those 8 invitees?. Was it wholly random?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 19:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not random. I asked several contributors who I feel are knowledgeable about the various policies relating to images on Wikipedia and who have done a lot of work to fix image problems. Many of them are administrators. —Bkell (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. Wikipedia does have a formal moderation/arbitration procedure for dealing with discussions of this kind. That would settle the matter one way or the other, and all concerned will accept the outcome. Why have you not invoked this procedure?. Bob BScar23625 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Because arbitration should be a last resort. It would be better if we could agree on something here. —Bkell (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. Well, I guess if those 8 invitees had been chosen wholly at random, then .... . That said, I will hear what anyone has to say. The subject - Fair Use of Gulf and Total logos - is a yes/no issue and therefore amenable to arbitration. Have a think about it. Bob BScar23625 19:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If we can't settle this here, my next step will be to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. —Bkell (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. Perhaps we should have an off-list chat about this?. My e-mail address is on my user page. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 20:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern. A few minutes ago, an anonymous editor tried to remove the logos from the article. Please don't turn this discussion into an edit war. regards Bob BScar23625 20:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Brian, does your defintion of people you "feel are knowledgeable about the various policies relating to images on Wikipedia and who have done a lot of work to fix image problems." include people you expect to agree with you on this issue? I ask this question because sometimes people use the phrase "fix image problems" as a euphimism for "delete images from Wikipedia". You might want to be aware that the Wikipedia community tends to frown upon selectively inviting people whom you expect to agree with you to come into a discussion. Johntex\^talk 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do expect many of them to agree with me, but that's because I believe I am correct in my interpretation of the applicable policy, and I feel that these people are knowledgeable about the policy and have considered many similar cases before. And by "fix image problems" I mean that they have done a lot of work to uphold the Wikipedia image policies, which usually consists of deleting images that violate policy. People who do other kinds of image work, like redrawing images as SVGs or taking nice photographs, are certainly welcome to comment here, but I didn't invite them because the issue at hand is not whether this image should be redrawn as an SVG or whether a nice photograph could be taken. The issue is whether this image violates policy, so I invited people who spend a lot of time working with the image policy.

If you think I have dishonestly tried to skew this discussion in my favor, perhaps we should bring this issue up at Wikipedia talk:Fair use now for consideration by a wider group of contributors. —Bkell (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not guessing as to your motives, I'm merely pointing out that notifying people based upon whether you think they will take your side has been considered to be a blockable offense. I'm not going to block you, however, unless you continue in that sort of behavior. As for dispute resoltuion, the first step is always to try to resolve the issue on the relevant talk page. This question has been open for only a few days, which is not a very long time in the scheme of things. I see no reason to go shopping for a change of venue at this time. Johntex\^talk 20:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. One question, though: In the future, if I would like the opinions of some other editors on an issue such as this, how should I go about asking them, and how should I choose whom to ask? —Bkell (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The most commonly accepted practice would be to post to a neutral forum populated with editors that may care about improving the article at hand. For this case, I might suggest posting back to the article in question, Talk:Betelgeuse incident or to Talk:Gulf Oil. This would be expected to attact people interested in improving these articles, without trying to be selective about whether or not they might agree with you on the question at hand. Johntex\^talk 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative to draw opinions from a wider audience is to post on WP:RfC Gnangarra 06:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with what Nv8200p said before. The image do not add to the article, it would/does still convey the same information without the logo. Also, I don't really think the logo helps readers not confuse Gulf Oil with Gulf Air. If the reader is so unfamiliar with the brands that he would confuse them (despite the fact that the company is refered to as "Gulf Oil" in the article), I doubt he would recognize the logo... If people feel the company should still be represented visually in the article, maybe a free image (of their head quarters for example) might be a better way. On a different note, I think a picture of the tanker (or a different tanker of the same class) would add much more to the article.--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fritz. The general point about logos is that they give instant recognition without any need to read anything or concentrate. My experience of working with Gulf Oil was that the name "Gulf" was a source of frequent confusion. Several businesses were known as Gulf, including Gulf Air, Gulf Engineering and Gulf Consulting. The logo gives instant recognition in the article and informs the reader which Gulf is being referred to. Bob BScar23625 13:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. Have a think about this. Howard, Larry (Nv8200p) and Fritz are valued Wikipedians - but they are all people you have invited to this discussion. I could easily invite three chums to come to this discussion to support me. Do you see my point?. I think that all that can be said on this topic has been said. Perhaps you should back off for a few days to get the matter in perspective?. This is meant as a friendly suggestion. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 13:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

While I believe that the logos are of no particular value to the Betelguese article, I also think that using the logos in the article presents a very, very minute risk to the Wikipedia project. We have much bigger copyright infringements to deal with then this. To Bkell: Since you are concerned that the terms under which you uploaded the image are being violated (and that is a very valid concern), why not nominate the image for deletion? -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And kudos to everyone for cleaning up the problems with the other images in the article-Nv8200p talk 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Larry. You say to Brian "Since you are concerned that the terms under which you uploaded the image are being violated ...". I think you are misunderstanding Brian's concern. But, if it would help close this matter, I am willing to re-upload the logo in JPG format and use that in the Betelgeuse article. That would take Brian out of the issue. Is that acceptable?. Bob BScar23625 16:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

I don't think either logo should be in the article. Not only do they provide no information that isn't provided in the text -- and any confusion about which "Gulf" is referred to can be solved by appropriate wikilinking -- they disrupt the flow of text and make the article harder to read. --Carnildo 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo. Your input is appreciated. However, perhaps your description of it as an "outside view" is misleading, given that you are yet another one of Brian's invitees?. The Betelgeuse article was created and written by Wikipedians with an interest in Irish maritime history. Perhaps their views should be considered in this?. Bob BScar23625 07:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ps As an aside. The original objection to the images was a claim that they were were in breach of copyright - quickly demonstrated to be a false assertion. The objection then switched to a claim that they were in breach of "Wikipedia policy" - also demonstrated to be a false assertion. Now the objection is that the images are not aesthetically pleasing. What is this actually all about?. I sense something Jesuitical in this. Bob BScar23625 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying the objections are false assertions is a matter of interpretation and opinion. However, there is a lot of "low hanging fruit" on Wikipedia that is a greater violation of copyright and/or policy, that could be more easily dealt with, have a larger benefit to the project and could sure use the energy being expended here. :-) -Nv8200p talk 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Larry. Your comment is most welcome and I agree with what you say. Perhaps a line can now be drawn under the matter?. Bob BScar23625 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep in mind Wikipedia's purpose

Keep in mind that Wikipedia's purpose is to be a free content encyclopedia. Fair use images are used where absolutely necessary. Before using a non-free image, ask, "can this article be complete without this image?"

In the case of an article having a fair use image of the subject of the article, the image tells us that we are talking about this MSN, rather than this MSN. It shows you who this Larry Coker is that the article is about.

Any use of a non-free image detracts from Wikipedia's purpose, but we use them for identification purposes when there is no other option. But in this case, though, the use of the image doesn't really seem necessary as a Wikilink to the company article is sufficient to identify it.

One of the arguments in favor of using the image concerns me - that is the "there are worst examples of fair use elsewhere". Yes, there are. Yes, there are a ton of images that someone uploaded in ignorance or otherwise where they selected {{NoRightsReserved}}, even though that license is obviously false. There are a number of us who have tried to rid Wikipedia of images that don't belong. You can help. Go through orphaned images. Go through uncategorized images. Click on images when you are reading an article and make sure that the licensing and sourcing information is reasonable. But the fact that there are other problems does not excuse the use of this image.

IMO, though this dispute probably belongs at WP:LAME, the use of the images is not appropriate. BigDT 02:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

BigDT. Thankyou for your contribution. But, once again, I have to point out that you are one of Brian's invitees. The consensus that seems to have emerged here (which incorporates at least one of Brian's invitees) is that we should draw a line under this topic. Bob BScar23625 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How is two people a consensus? And I find it insulting how you dismiss any opinion of the "invitees" (well, unless the are somewhat in your favor). You should really grant all of us enough integrity to have a own opinion on the matter (especially since most of the "invitees" were invited because they do a lot of work on Wikipedia regarding images/fair use policies). Just because Brian invited us to this discussion does not mean any of us will immmediately adopt his position. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't claimed a consensus it was highlighted as deadlocked, we suggested a while ago to take this to mediation for a decision but that offer wasnt acknowledged nor acted upon by the opposing parties. After continued dispute Brian started inviting editors to comment, he salted their comments by providing his opinion in the invitation. Its only reasonible to expect that under those circumstances the comments are to viewed as tainted, irreguardless of the editors credentials. Gnangarra 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The question now is how do we take this discussion forward to a resolution, I suggest that maybe we go to mediation for a decison this time before this discussion degenerates any further. Gnangarra 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you could respond to specific points rather than to dismiss everything I said just because a message was posted on my talk page asking me to examine the issue. The fact is that copyright issues are a non-negotiable thing on Wikipedia, not something that is really up for debate anyway. BigDT 10:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

BigDT. We seem to go over the same point, again and again, with a succession of people - of whom you are the latest. Are you familiar with the British saying "Put up, or shut up"?. If you feel sufficiently strongly about the matter, then please initiate an arbitration. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the Record

Brian has made hundreds of contributions throughout Wikipedia over the last few weeks, almost all connected with the Fair Use of images. Last Saturday, Brian invited the following Wikipedians to participate in the discussion of the Gulf logo :

Durin, Carnildo, Meegs, BigDT, Larry, Fritz, Abu badali, Jkelly

Contributions from these individuals to the discussion have been made as follows :

Larry – Saturday, Fritz – Sunday, Carnildo – Tuesday, BigDT – Wednesday,

I would not be surprised if Durin, Meegs, Abu badali and Jkelly contribute on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday respectively.

An earlier contribution from Howard was also prompted by an invitation from Brian.

Hitherto, the Betelgeuse has been a quiet corner of Wikipedia populated by those interested in Irish history. Suddenly, we are descended upon by a noisy special interest group demanding radical changes required to meet “Wikipedia policy”. What is this all about?. regards. Bob BScar23625 12:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. No, that isn't hyperbole or anything. A noisy special interest group? Radical changes? We're talking about the removal of two unnecessary images from one article. Conformance to copyright policy is not a negotiable point. We're wasting time here. BigDT 12:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

BigDT. There is no breach of copyright. Even Brian has conceded that point - as you will see if you wade through the discussion above. If you wish to pursue the matter, then please initiate an arbitration. Bob BScar23625 12:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

the invitation as given/left on User:Durin talk page

• Hello, Durin. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. —Bkell (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)