"== TfD nomination of Template:SilentRedirect ==

Template:SilentRedirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:SilentRedirect. Thank you.   | (talk) 

 Watermarks 

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 (talk|email) 
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 (talk|email) 
I am planning to re-upload them with less obtrusive watermarks, such as that on Image:Bliss parody.jpg. (talk|email) 
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. (talk|email) 
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. (talk|email) 

, 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.  (talk) 

 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.
  (talk) 

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 - talk 

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. (talk|email) 
True, but therefore your addition fails under the same logic. Also, Wikimedia own the servers, it's their right to delete it. 13ID:540053 
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... └''''''/talk┐ 

Ignoring the gibberish i