User talk:Quadell/Archive 23

• 10
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• Archive 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 30
• 40
• 50

Thanks

For a very helpful peer review. Λυδαcιτγ 02:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Winonaladuke.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Winonaladuke.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I uploaded this back in 2004, before I understood Wikipedia's policy on non-free images. It should really go. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I though. I noticed the upload dated back to 2004. Go ahead and do it, as you're the uploader. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Backlog at WP:CP if you have time to clear a day or two. Thanks! --Spike Wilbury 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FA help

In reviewing the article on William Goebel that I have nominated for FA, user Tony1 informed me that there were problems with the prose that require "fresh eyes." He suggested I contact users who had participated in the FA process for similar articles. It seems you played a central role in the promotion of Louisville, Kentucky, and have a strong record of participating in FA and peer reviews. Would you consider looking over the article and its related review and see if you can point out / correct problem areas? Thank you. Acdixon 13:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It certainly looks like a well-referenced and interesting article. I'll try to look over it next week. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the awesome comments. I think these will put the article "over the hump." If you have time, please review the work I've done to address your concerns to make sure I haven't introduced any additional problems. If not, I'd appreciate the addition of a "support" vote to your comments. Thanks again! Acdixon 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali arbitration

I only just realised that noone has alerted you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. You might also be interested in what's going on at Image talk:ChelsiMissUSA.jpg. It appears he's at it again. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 10:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Namarie tengwar ar.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Namarie tengwar ar.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Food

I'd like to see it get to GA status so it can be used as an example article for the Wikiproject Food and Drink. I didn't notice you were working on it until I saw that the flow chart disappeared. I took it off of another wikipage. I think I will add a picture of Louis Pasteur instead.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 21:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good article overall, just needed a lot of fine-tuning, and of course a picture of me on it haha. I am going to work on the commercial section now, add more on export/imports as well as restaurants and other items.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested, you should stop by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and consider joining as you obviously have a love for food and the help for associating articles to the project and editing those associated with it would be a great. I apologize if any of our edits crossed over today by-the-way. I should of considered giving you some time to work on it there. You got a massive amount of those edits done from that list, good job.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Culinary Arts awhile ago and ran in terror, I prefer to be called a chef just as a side-note. I suppose there are a few ways of looking at it, culinary arts is just the term used for professional cooking, however it does require the details of entering apprenticeships, culinary school, descriptions of different careers in the fields, so I think that answers the question that it should stay separate. That will probably be my next goal, thanks for the inspiration.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville brainstorming about enhancing communication and coordination

See this project talk topic. Your views are very much welcome! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"bozo"

Hey Abu,

I read that Pageant, in frustration, referred to you as a "bozo" in an edit summary, and I read your response. I just wanted to let you know that in the U.S., "bozo" is considered a very mild insult, usually used in a joking way. It's like calling someone "silly". (I wouldn't call my boss a bozo to his face, but I'd rather call him a bozo than an idiot, for instance.)

Wikipedians still shouldn't call each other names, including "bozo" -- but I just wanted to let you know that it's not as rude as calling someone an "incompetent fool", as a dictionary definition might suggest.

By the way, what's your native language? Arabic, maybe? (I know "abu" means "father" in Arabic; are you the father of someone named "badali"?) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Indeed, I had to search that word in a dictionary, and what I got was "a big, strong, stupid fellow" and "a rude, obnoxious, or annoying perso". But I'm happier to know that this expression is usually used in a joke context.

My native language, as my userpage states, is Portuguese. :) Don't take my username seriously. At least no more than you take my photo on my userpage. Indeed, the language userboxes are the only info on my userpage that can be taken seriously. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A "dangerous precendent..."

Hi, Quadell. Do you remember when, back in December 2006, I warned you about the "dangerous precedent" you were setting by accepting a unfree image of a Miss, under the rationale that it was not being used to depict a living person, but instead, to illustrate the "historical, non-repeating event" of her receiving the a historical, non-repeating event? I had a look at the current situation, now 5 months later, and it's disheartening. The precedent has been set, all Miss crowing moment is considered a "historical, non-repeating event", and we're back to the situation of having less incentive for someone to produce free images for these models. But if I point this out, I'm a stalker. I can't wait for the arb-case to reach a conclusion. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do remember, but I don't see the outcome as disheartening at all. I am happy to include these images on Wikipedia, and I think the desire to have an "infobox picture" will motivate people to produce free images of the people in question. I respect your views in the matter, however. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Very funny lol--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Polbot

Looks like there are some kinks yet to work out... are you going to clean up the articles? I will fix the titles that got cut off. NawlinWiki 18:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll clean it up, don't worry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to overwrite all these with correct data, so don't change the info; your edits will just be overwritten. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Very cool bot! Do you have any provision for finding duplicates? I already found that it created Douglas H. Bosco and Frank H. Buck, both of which already had stubby articles at slightly different titles (I added merge tags). Also, "Mc" is off a bit as you can see in the opening of Duncan E. McKinlay (has Mckinlay instead of McKinlay). WRK (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks for the feedback. It can't really find dups, since there are frequently valid articles about different people with slightly different names. Polbot got its list of politicians from Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Representatives, and about a year ago I manually went through that list and looked for existing articles under different names, creating redirects when I found one. But I'm sure I missed some, and there have been some created since then. I don't think the bot can determine whether two similarly-named articles are about the same person or not.

About the spelling, yeah, that's a bug. Unfortunately, the source I use for bios lists the last names in all caps, so I assume standard capitalization. See, I have two sources for names: the Wikipedia list of missing reps, and the names as spelled in the bioguide. Frequently the bioguide names will be more complete ("George Calvin Jones" instead of "George C. Jones"), so I prefer to use that for the name in the lead, but these have last names in all caps. I suppose I could look for each word in the bioguide name individually ("Duncan", then "E.", and then "Mckinlay") to see if the same word is included in the missing-rep-list name with a different spelling. Intriguing thought.

By the way, my next polbot project will be to list alternate names for each politician, looking for bolded names in the lead and dropping the middle name, etc. With these names, if no article exists under that name, polbot will make a redirect. If an article already exists, polbot will check to see if it's an existing redirect, a disambiguation page, or an article. If it doesn't lead back to the original article, polbot will make a list so that someone (like you or me) can go through manually to see if it needs disambiguation, or if it's perhaps a different article on the same subject needing merging. So, what I'm saying is, don't spend too much time looking for merge-needs just yet; polbot's next function will make that significantly easier, whenever it gets completed and approved.

Thanks again for looking over polbot's work! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, good idea. I won't bother looking for merge candidates then. Thanks and keep up the great bot work. WRK (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. --ST47Talk 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:KarlBjarniGuðmundsson.jpg

I notified ZlatkoT about Image:KarlBjarniGuðmundsson.jpg. – Ilse@ 20:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC opened on my conduct in Weiss dispute

Hi Quadell! I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with concerning the Gary Weiss article. You removed the link to the outside site that I had included in the AfD nomination. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Polbot

I love the work you're doing with User:Polbot. Lots of missing U.S. Reps are getting filled in. Hooray! —Markles 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm stuck atm, but I hope to have her up and finishing the job soon. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:CSIS logo.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CSIS logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Karmichael Hunt

Will you peer review Karmichael Hunt. That would be much appreciated.

Article:Karmichael Hunt
Peer Review:Wikipedia:Peer review/Karmichael Hunt

Thanks

SpecialWindler 07:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

PolBot DAB/redirecting other versions of names?

I just created an article only to find that this bot had already created another version. Please be sure to have the bot create a redirect for every variation of a name (i.e. for John Tolley Hood Worthington, redirects/DAB notices would be necessary at John Worthington and John T. H. Worthington as well). This would help a lot. Thanks for the great bot! --Tom (talk - email) 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it might be best to create articles with the full name of the individual, instead of initials. That would create the fullest possible disambiguation, and possibly derail any problems that may arise from DABing in the future (however minor they may be, but still helpful). Besides, most of these Congressmen that don't have articles by now probably aren't terribly notable, and many had very bland names, so as much DABing as possible is best. Thanks again. --Tom (talk - email) 16:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. In fact, creating dab pages for alternate names is polbot's very next task. (I'm still working on that code -- more details are at User:Polbot/ideas. My list of rep names comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Representatives; the reason I decided to use these names (rather than full names) for article names was that in some cases the politician normally went by the shorter name, but I have no way of knowing which times. It was a toss-up, though, and perhaps the longer names would have been better. Thanks again for your interest, and I welcome comments and suggestions about how to improve things. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My arguments of using their full names involve 1) we'd have to do an unreasonable amount of research to find out what they went by and 2) for dabbing as I said above. Regarding the former argument, Joshua Frederick Cockey Talbott seemed to have gone by "Fred Talbott" for example (judging by some photos I found of him on the LOC website, and the ship that was named after him USS J. Fred Talbott (DD-156)). Joshua F. C. Talbott would therefore not have been accurate since he didn't go by Joshua. Thus, using middle initials doesn't seem too accurate to me. IMO. --Tom (talk - email) 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cannon diagram.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cannon diagram.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Joelholdsworth 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing commas in dates

I have answered you in the request for bot section (Note # 98, 2007 May 25). Korky Day 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Polbot

I have been looking at Polbot's work and it is very ood. There are a few glitches occasionalyl, but most of the articles are added exactly the right way. One long-running problem with articles about American politicians, however, is that redirects need to be added to the different names that some of them are known by, whether they have their middle name, middle initial or no middle name. For example, William Henry Denson is also known as William H. Denson and I had to manually redirect one to the other. Is there any way that the bot could take care of these redirects? Some of them are there, but many are not. Academic Challenger 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. That will be polbot's next task. I've already written much of the code for this. As soon as she's done creating missing articles, she'll create redirects, not just for the politicians she created but for all U.S. Senators and Representatives. Thanks for your feedback! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend you put {{Cleanup Congress Bio}} at the top of all these articles you are creating.—Markles 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Good idea. I wish I'd known about that tag earlier. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Polbot glitch

• Glitch on Edward P. Little. I don't know if there are others.—Markles 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Boy, you ain't lyin'. That's ugly. I'll see what's up. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Polbot overwriting existing articles

• Check out John McConnell Rice, Joshua Jewett, King Swope,Landaff Andrews, Lawrence Trimble, Lucien Anderson, andMartin Beaty. Polbot overwrote all of them as new articles wiping out my rewriting, wikilinking, and category additions. I reverted all of these to my last edit. Anyway to keep Polbot from generating new articles on top of ones recently created? LarryQ 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That is absolutely not supposed to happen! I'm very sorry. Polbot isn't ever supposed to overwrite existing articles. I won't run polbot until this is fixed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. Please revert any other examples of this that you find. I'll look through myself, but in case I miss some, feel free. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I figured out what happened. I made my list of missing articles on May 26. You created these articles between May 28 and June 2. Then I have polbot create the articles afterwards. (The delay was because I was waiting to get the code to work.) I didn't even consider that some may have been created in the in-between. My mistake. Anyway, since then, all my lists are generated just before I run the bot, so this shouldn't happen anymore. Again, sorry for the trouble, and I'm glad you caught it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for checking into this and fixing it. I have created several hundred articles using the Congressional Bioguide in the last year. Polbot has replaced me it seems. I guess my focus will shift from article creation to cleaning up the Polbot created articles. Thanks again for your quick response. LarryQ 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Mohand al-shehri pic2.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mohand al-shehri pic2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Omaralbayoumi.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Omaralbayoumi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dish from 9th century Iraq.jpg

Hey, do you know the source of Image:Dish from 9th century Iraq.jpg? Or are you the photogapher? Thanks, Iamunknown 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the photographer. I saw the dish in the Freer Gallery in the Smithsonian, Washington, D.C. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I changed the text {{GFDL}}{{cc-by-sa-2.0}} to {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.0}} to make that more clear? --Iamunknown 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Article from Polbot

• Polbot created William Smith (1797) which already exists as a very solid article at William "Extra Billy" Smith. There is probably no way to stop Polbot from doing this. Should I propose the dup for deletion or a merge? The Polbot stub has nothing to merge into the existing article I might add. Thanks. LarryQ 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I made it a redirect. Thanks for finding this! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, a redirect is a better solution. Duh! Sorry for not thinking of this. LarryQ 14:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen C. Phillips

Not only is the article full of irrelevant non-wiki formatting (including an image map and other assorted paraphernalia), the category sort key is spoilt, the article is in both Category:1801 births and Category:Living people, etc. etc. etc. I think the bot probably needs some work. Same story with William B. Rochester. --Stemonitis 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is an awful bug. It pops up irregularly in about one out of every couple hundred articles Polbot creates. I have no idea why; I'm still looking into it. I added these to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Representatives#Polbot can't parse these. If you find any more, let me know. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found those two quite easily, because of the bad sort key, filed under "," in Category:Living people. There are no others there, but if there are other categories that are certain to contain these articles, then I would look there. --Stemonitis 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Eliakim H. Moore

I apolagize for my tagging of these pages. I called Heather Moore for information on the Copy Rights of the [Bioguide]. I was informaed that the website was public domain. Again, I apolagize for this mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInfinityZero (talk • contribs)

Hey, no problem. Thanks for tagging copyright violations! It's important work, and the occasional mistake can be undone -- that's what makes Wikipedia great. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

USDA

Hey there, just as a note, please take no offense if I change something like the fast food information. It is good that you brought it up though as it forced me to go on the USDA site and find the accurate facts. As you see with the update, the use of "close to half" is inaccurate as it is about 40% and I just like to be very accurate. Call it being a grad student and academic writer, but I am just a bit anal retentive when it comes to biased secondary sources. Just a question, do you want to work on nutrition, or shall I? I was trying to give you a chance to work on items on the article if you wanted to.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting a better source! Yeah "close to" is relative, depending (perhaps) on the point you're trying to make, and 40% is a much better stat to give, especially if it's backed by the USDA. No offense taken at all. I've been busy lately working on my bot, so I think I'll be taking a break from food for the foreseeable future. Thanks for thinking of me! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't always get to update things right away either, as I am a grad student and taking summer classes plus I just started a teaching job as well as I have been horribly trying to keep up with assessing the articles on the WikiProject Food and Drink (I'm way behind, there are 300+ to do tonight) so the pace of edits for myself has been a little slow. I feel that the Food article is coming along well though.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re your ruling on Image:Ashawconcerto.jpg

In your ruling here you say:"When this image is used to illustrate the album, it passes our non-free image use criteria."

Does this hold even if no specific reference to this particular album is made in the text of the article, as is currently the case? What is mentioned is the composition "Concerto for Clarinet" which is already illustrated in the article by a public domain image showing him playing that very piece. Can I take it that this ruling means that a fair use image of a commercial album featuring an artist's recording of a piece can coexist in an article alongside a public domain image of the same artist playing that very piece? Thank you for taking the time to look into this. Dermot 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is complicated. My ruling only says that an image of an album cover is not replaceable as a depiction of an album, so it doesn't fail criterion #1 of our non-free content policy if it is used for that purpose. But if the album is not important enough in the article to merit an image (as seems to be the case, since the album is not mentioned in the article), then the use of the image fails criterion #8, which says that "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article." Looking at it another way, you could say that the image is not being used in the article to illustrate the album, but to illustrate the song, and as a depiction of the song it is replaceable. I think it would be best to remove the image from the article. If there were an article on the album itself, however, the image should be used there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists of United States politicians

Please see my request at Category talk:Lists of United States politicians. I think we can use some of the data from User talk:Valadius's work at List of former United States Representatives.—Markles 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice Needed

Hi Quadell ! You seem to have a good knowledge of the copyright laws and also being a admin you would have a better idea than most of us. If your got time could you help us by giving some advice to our discussion on Novelists photos and Bookcovers. Its over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum at the bottom. Regards Boylo 01:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your time and assistance, its appreciated. Boylo 02:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop Deleting Images Without First Consulting

Quadell, you need to stop deleting images without first consulting with the person who posted them. That is bad behavior on your part. Cease and desist. If you think there's a problem, first discuss it with the person involved. Don't take matters into your own hands and just take action. Doing that is disrespectful to others, and makes people angry. --LedAstray 00:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but our deletion policy is very clear. If an image is being used against policy and has been so marked for seven days, it may be deleted by any administrator without further discussion. If you don't want this to happen, please follow our non-free content policy. Deleting improper images is an important task on Wikipedia, and has the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. --ST47Talk 15:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yippie! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Politicians from Georgia

Please note that Georgia is not an article about a state in the U.S.; for that, you should link to Georgia (U.S. state). Thanks. --Russ (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I went to fix these, but I see you already did. Thanks again. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Craig

The image is highly significant as it was the day when he was officially announced as the new Bond - if I was there and I had a free image I would upload it but I haven't -the image contributes significantly. Surely you don't beleive it is replacable? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied at Image talk:007CraigbecomingBond.jpg. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kempe Gowda pic

May I know why the fairusereview failed? What are your reasons? Can you elaborate please? Kempe Gowda is a historical figure of high importance and his pic is fair use for Bangalore and Kempe Gowda. Sarvagnya 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Yes, he is a historical figure of high importance. However the statue of him (presumably) still exists; therefore someone could still photograph his statue and release that photograph under a free license. Our non-free content policy requires that all non-free images be "non-replaceable" in order to be usable on Wikipedia. Hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Max Kenworthy

Regarding your question about Max - he is a friend of mine and explicitly gave permission for the photograph to be used on Wikipedia. Why was this image removed by demon without waiting for a reply from me? I even added the copyright tag, as well as the existing license and text that permission has been granted. - this is starting to get frustrating. NullPainter 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Politicians' names

Thanks for the update. Keep up the good work. --Tom (talk - email) 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viridian disambig

Hi. I'm confused about your edit. The edit summary said "Reducing to mere disambiguation (other info moved to Viridian)" -- but you omitted to include some of the entries there such as Viridian Group. I have reverted in the interim. Thanks for your time. Mark83 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd inadvertently left that one out. I fixed it. Next time, it might be better to simply add in the missing information, rather than reverting. Either way, though, thank you for letting me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. But to be honest I was confused by your edits - so I could counter it might be better to get it right first time. Either way, thanks for replying. Mark83 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Metadata consolidation proposal

Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Persondata on a subpage is relevant to the proposed bot, but wanted to point it out to you here rather than confuse the separate discussions. Carcharoth 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:LsBark1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LsBark1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Message moved from my user page

Hi Quadell, can you please tell me how to upload my image..Jordan Galland without getting it deleted.please! :O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

Greetings. Thank you for trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, we can only use images that are released under a "free license", or images that pass our non-free content policy. This is rather complicated, and I don't recommend newcomers try to tackle it. The short answer is: we probably can not use an image you upload unless you created it yourself (i.e. you were the photographer). Otherwise, the image probably isn't free. Sorry!

By the way, questions and comments should go on talk pages, not user pages. And you can sign your comments by using four tildes, like ~~~~. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

LOL, no problem. You're learning. I hope you like it here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

what if I have an email from the owner say ing I can use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

This is one of the least-understood things about Wikipedia. Wikipedia wants to be a free encyclopedia, meaning that anyone can copy the whole thing (including pictures) without asking anyone's permission. So if the copyright-holder says that Wikipedia can use it, but no one else can, then that's not good enough -- we still can't use it. The only way we can use it is if the copyright-holder (usually the photographer) says that anyone can use it -- copy it, print it, even modify it -- without asking for permission first. If the copyright-holder agrees to that, then we can use it. But if not, we can't. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Test pages

Hello. Please don't create test pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Instead, consider creating them as subpages of your userpage or something of the sort. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The one after that was Metadata:Alexander Grothendieck. :-) I think the idea is clear, though. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Persondata on a subpage if you are interested, Pascal. Carcharoth 23:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a nice demonstration of the Metadata namespace idea, thank you, but I think the point is now well made, and the content is out of date, so I marked it as {{db-test}} and it has now been deleted. Geometry guy 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your ruling on Image:GordonJackson.jpg

I note that you have tagged this image {rk} even though a perfectly acceptable free image is available at commons, as already explained on the image discussion page. Dermot 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. The non-free image can be used to illustrate the character (mentioned in the article on the actor), but may not be used in the infobox to illustrate the actor. I fixed this in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting this out. One comment, the text of the {rk} template states "no adequate free-licensed image exists or can be created". Won't this lead to confusion when free-licensed images of the same person are available? It isn't obvious that the template is only referring to images of the person in very a specific context e.g. illustrating a notable role discussed in an article. Dermot 13:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. What the {{rk}} template means is something like "no free-licensed image exists or can be created that would adequately perform the same functions in the articles the image is used in, when used in the limited context called for by our non-free content policy." I'm not sure how to best say this in the template without sounding like complex legalese. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this "The image was proposed for deletion as a replaceable fair use image. The result was to Keep the image as no adequate free-licensed image exists or can be created to fulfill the limited role performed by this image at the time deletion was considered. However this image may be replaceable by free images in contexts outside the specific one for which this image is approved, and in such cases the free image must take precedence"? Dermot 11:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I proposed a (slightly modified) version of this at Template talk:Rk. If no one objects, I'll change it in a few days. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the following

The licensing has now changed to the copyright holder has given permission for use (Which I received from the WTPS district on June 13th).

Also, Image:Core 01.jpg should've never been deleted in the first place. It was tagged "AutoReplaceable fair use buildings", and you listed your reason for deleting it as rfu, however if you had bothered reading my dispute, you would've known it was an image taken during construction of the building, which falls under WP: "particular point in the building's history" exemption, which is listed right on the auto-RFU tag itself.

I will make the proper licensing edits, once restored. Rawboard 06:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Core 01, I actually did "bother reading" the dispute. I also bothered looking at the article it was in, and I saw that the image was not being used in the article to illustrate the construction of the building, but simply to illustrate the building at all. I judged that any contemporary photo of the building would perform the same function in the article.

Regarding the others, I'm afraid that having permission to use the images on Wikipedia is not good enough. Wikipedia is a "free content" encyclopedia, and as such anyone can (and is invited to) copy all Wikipedia content and repost it on their own website. If we used images that can only be used on Wikipedia, but can't be freely used by others, then we wouldn't really be a "free content" encyclopedia. If the copyright-holder is willing to license the images under the GFDL, so that anyone (not just Wikipedia) can use the images without asking for permission, then great! We can use the images. But if not, I'm afraid we can't.

If you still feel the images were deleted in error, you can bring the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review. But without evidence that the images have been released under a truly free license, I won't restore the images myself. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping to assumptions, but i've had encounters inwhich a administrator deleted without reading the dispute, (and wouldn't even talk about it), and all you wrote as the reason was "rfu", which it isn't, since the building doesn't excist in that form (altough above you say you thinks a current pic would do the job, a simple rfu under deltion log doesn't tell me that). As for the images, I did get permission to use it on the web, not Wikipedia specifically. I didn't even mention this site when asking, but forget it, i'll just take a picture the next time I drive by. I doubt they would wanna be bothered signing the proper documents to prove such a release to the public.

As for core 01, I disagree. I specifically used that image, instead of this one because the building was just recently built. The construction of the core building was a very important event in the town/school's history, as it connected the high school, and made it one building for the first time since 1989. Previously, students had to walk across a parking lot to get between buildings. The majority of the article on the core building was about its construction, and the article was under the history section of the WP artcle on WTHS. I would've prefered construction photos of all 3 sections, as it was in the history section, and about the rise of those 3 buildings, but the 11-12 and 9-10 wings have no known online / free images.

Oh, as for deletion review, i'm not gonna bother with the first 2 images. You were right. At the time I put them they clearly were rfu, and a change in licensing, would probably result in them telling me to reupload them under the new licence. Core 1 I may, but as WP suggests, I must first invite you to take a second look, before I goto that step. Rawboard 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for understanding. Image:Core_01.jpg is a tricky case. I restored the image, but on the condition that it only be used to show the event of the building's construction, and not used to show how the building looks. In order to make that clear, I separated out a "history" section at Robbinsville High School and included the image there. I hope this works for you, and I look forward to seeing your photos of the building currently. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Senator Denton

Senator Denton is my cousin. I wish you had put a message on my user talk even if you were going to speed delete without giving 48 hours notice. I am not putting back up the image right now. Instead I am going to talk to Bobby to see about getting a letter something I can scan to say I can have his image. My only complaint is lack of discussion. Please remember that while we make mistakes, many of us have good intentions. And I am sure you are helping protect Wiki. Let's work together to keep people with good intentions interested. While you hold the copyright true (which is good) please don't forget: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks! Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 12:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• PS The image will be made with a personal camera so you won't have to worry about it.

Thanks for your polite note. (Often, issues with image deletion bring out the worst in people.) I'll try to discuss these things ahead of time as much as possible, to prevent misunderstanding. Please note that we will need permission for anyone to be able to use it (not just Wikipedia) in order for us to be able to use the image. For more info, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)