ha ha ho ho hee hee:
A note about Commons: Wikipedians should appreciate that Commons does not make editorial judgements about how, whether or where images are used on Wikipedia. Likewise, Wikipedia should not make curatorial judgements about what Commons hosts. By all means comment and vote on Commons, but do so as a Commoner, appreciating what that project is about and its different values, not with your outraged Wikipedian hat on. Commons is not just a repository for Wikipedia. I see people voting delete or recommending the images be blurred or cropped because some editors have misbehaved on Wikipedia. Commons has lots of photos donated by companies, organisations, agents, etc. Many will include a brand name or logo and we do not blur logos. Commons isn't censored for logos. If the files are believed to be copyvios then they'll be deleted by normal policy.
The suggested vandalism by Floquenbeam could lead to a block and could even result in a legal complaint by the rival firms they are suggesting to use -- trademark logos are not playthings for wiki wars. Commons policy on overwriting files disallows editors making controversial changes if overwriting. Blurring out a logo because you are pissed off about the ad agency is not acceptable. I'm sure you can find other images to use to illustrate articles. -- Colin°Talk 13:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't ping me just to make sure I see your fuckwitted accusations of vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that is an acceptable response, on any level, from an administrator. Next time you have a bright idea to vandalise images on Commons, or abuse a company's logo for revenge, please keep it to yourself. -- Colin°Talk 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Yikes, agreed, that is absolutely not an okay temperament from any Wikipedian, let alone an admin. I'll also note that the proposed swapping is a terrible idea not just because of the Common's rules, but also because of Wikipedia's. The goal here is to be neutral, not to retaliate against any entity that violates our ideals, and not to introduce inaccuracies of any sort. - Sdkb (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
there's plenty more
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... dvertisingAlso oopsie
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/busi ... rnett.html
