Got talk? Irving Furbish (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you readded current UUA logo to the Flaming chalice article. This is a copyrighted image, and as suce requires a fair use rationale for every article in which it is used. I can't really think of a good rationale for using it in that article, esp. with the other image there. Can you? If so, you must add it to the image file page. Otherwise, the image will be removed from the article again. BTW, you should consider adding yourself to the UU workgroup of the religion wikiproject, if you haven't already! LadyofShalott 03:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Done that. Irving Furbish (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just now added it back and I'm working on it right now. It takes a few minutes to get this stuff done, you know. There is a different logo and it is useful in illustrating the explanation to see more than one, as they are very different representations of the same idea. Do you suppose I could have enough time to get the work done before somebody jumps on me? Irving Furbish (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be defensive: I was just asking you to do it. Your edit summary did not say anything, and I could not tell if you knew it was needed! LadyofShalott 03:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crimony, how many minutes has it been? I'm trying to get it done right now. Irving Furbish (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Like I said, I was just asking you about it. Flaming chalice is an article I happen to watch, and I'm online right now, so I saw the change to it, and commented. It was not an attack. If you haven't noticed I invited you to join a wikiproject - something I would not be doing if I was attacking you at the same time. LadyofShalott 03:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One is SOOO fast! Please take a look now and see if I did it right. Takes a while just to read all the instructions for these things and move between pages, something I am not particularly expert at. Irving Furbish (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks reasonable to me. The main concern I have/ place where I think the rationale is weakest is its replaceability. We do have the other logo image on the article already, and someone could challenge the FUR based upon that criterion. That being said, I'm not an expert on fair use rationales, and I am not challenging it. I just know that it has been in the past, and that looks like the weak spot to me. LadyofShalott 04:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Too much is never enough on Wikipedia. Irving Furbish (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. No one is suggesting you give anything up. You asked for an opinion; I gave it. LadyofShalott 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]