User talk:Quadell/Archive 35

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion on TIME issues and covers

Hi there. As someone who contributed an external view to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2, I thought you might be interested in the discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#First copyright renewal of TIME issues are for 1934. I've also invited the other editors who contributed external views to that RfC. Would you be interested in contributing your views at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Inviting more opinion on this? Thanks. Carcharoth 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

I8 deletion

Do you use an authorised script for this? Melsaran (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I use Firefox. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About deletion of Image:sign-hydrochloricacid-png

Hi Quadell, during my vacation you speedy-deleted image:sign-hydrochloricacid.png, according to this. I can't find out what was wrong with it, and I don't see any notification on my talk page (I think I was the original uploader). Would you please be so kind as to provide me some info about this? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. I speedied the image because it had been tagged {{non-free replaceable}} for 7 days. The image itself could be used in some circumstances, but not in others. In article about that specific EU warning, the image would probably be acceptable, but in an article about HCL, it could be replaced by a free warning sign. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Quadell. I am having a slight problem, I tagged this Image:Octagon-barn.jpg for speedy, wasn't sure if that was appropriate but it was uploaded by a user who was basically angry because he was incorrect in a small dispute about grammar! Good lord, of all things. An historic or a historic, ugh. Anyway, I warned the user about being pointy and speedy tagged the image. I thought I would pass it by you in case I was in the wrong here. Thanks. IvoShandor 13:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Reps

Hi, Quadell. We've built up a little list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Representatives. Can your Polbot take care of them? Thanks.—Markles 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great. I'll get to it soonish. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Extremaduran (linguistics) article

Hi! I think you are an administrator (i hope so ^^). Well, i write you this message because i´ve seen the name of this article and i don´t understand why it´s not called "Extremaduran language", like Asturian language, Spanish language,... (I´m not waiting an answer for that question, i know you didn´t wrote that article... i would like to ask you for redirecting that page to the, in my opinion, correct name).

Thank you!

Better geta 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether Extremaduran language or Extremaduran dialect is better. I moved it, and I left a note on the talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template subst'ing

How are you on templates? I need to figure out a way to modify {{Bollywoodblog}} so that it can only be used via subst, and not in its raw form.

By the way, this is the funniest edit I've seen in a month. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figured out the template thing, sorry. I looked at {{prod}} and it had the code I needed. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek character screencaps

Hi, I have seen a template somewhere before that was on non-free images stating that they are only permitted to be used in such and such article(s). Do you know what template that is? The Trek screencaps are being used on actor pages, I remove them with explanation, but someone else comes along and replaces it again. The template would probably help deter this somewhat. The image in question of late is Image:JadziaDax.jpg - thanks. Ejfetters 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be looking for {{Non-free allowed in}}. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you happen to know if the bot that was supposed to patrol these tags was ever developed? Videmus Omnia Talk 12:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know. (Easy enough to test, though.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Betacommand/Commons

Warning Image now require commons categories Please add [[commons:category:NAME OF COMMONS CATEGORY]]
Images without categories will not be moved.

βcommand 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Is there a help page on what to look for before tagging an image to be moved to Commons? – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few simple things, That the image is in fact free and isnt mis-tagged, that it provides a source, its used in articles(this is just a personal add on so that we dont clutter commons with un-used images), and it is categorized on commons properly, see above for that. βcommand 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EdKoch.jpg

Corrected. Mhym 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you get involved ...

...in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research - where several editors are rewriting the policy (some in good faith). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your chiming in but I fear most people active on the page will just dismiss your comment. I don't know if you went through the whole talk page but I proposed a revision here that I thought would appease the critics without changing the fundamentals and it was mostly ignored .... I am feeling beleagured... Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it bad form...

...to review my own Flickr uploads at Commons? Usually I let the bot do it, but I have some crops to upload that will need to be done manually. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I guess that would be a good question for the reviewer talk page on Commons? In my opinion it's not a conflict of interests or anything, so I'd say it's fine. (If you're trusted to review other uploads, I should think you're implicitly trusted to upload only valid stuff.) Also, I'll say in passing, I'm amazed at how frequently people upload cc-by-nc stuff as cc-by. I've had to delete many pictures here that I've found, while looking for images to copy to Commons. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've had e-mail conversations with some very experienced editors who have made the same mistake. (I usually try off-wiki contact first so as not to publicly accuse them of copyvio.) There is a mistaken impression out there that Creative Commons is essentially the same as the GFDL...i.e. people see "Creative Commons" and automatically assume that it must be a free image, without realizing there are different types of CC licenses, some of which are unacceptable. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like Omnia, I'll review them for you. CO2 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CO - I've been marking them myself, as I noticed other admins have been doing the same. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

A user named Freddddddd is vandalizing the site on Breezy Point, a community in Queens, New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnej (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to WP:UAA as a username vio (repeating character), and article watchlisted. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new legislator articles

Could you please refrain from deleting entries from Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Representatives unless they have been blue links for a few days? Trying to ensure that all the articles that are supposed to link to the new ones becomes difficult to find after you delete them. Thank you.--Appraiser 02:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the entries my bot created, so I know they're legit. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama stitchers, viewers and utilities

Hi, as an uninvolved admin and if you feel like some abuse :) could I ask you to process this (imo) copyright violation. Since I was the one who tagged it it probably is better if somone else deletes, purge the article. Only if you agree it is a copyvio of course. See the discussion on the talk page and User talk:Garion96#Panorama stitchers, viewers and utilities. Garion96 (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been a week yet, so I don't think it should be processed yet. But I agree that much of the text on the page is a copyright violation. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slicht miscalculation I guess, so tomorrow it will have been a week. If you could proces it tomorrow, it would be greatly appreciated. By me anyway, I am not so sure about others..... Garion96 (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello. Thanks for great job covering American congressmen. Can your bot please create also redirects with full name of a person? Often links lead also to such titles. For example Polbot created John M. Wolverton article but did not created John Marshall Wolverton redirect, however a link lead to that name. There are hundreds of such cases. I have no such capacities and time to create hundreds similar redirects, still they are needed. Thanks. - Darwinek 08:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake McGoon

You recently deleted this image, citing replaceable fair use (CSD I7). The image subject died in 1954 and I can find no free replacements, so I'm not sure what you mean. As the image creator, I was not notified of the impending deletion so I could respond, which I understand is customary. What should I do at this point - recreate the image, or ?? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks! Mmoyer 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the image is not replaceable. According to the logs, the Wikimedia software automatically tagged it as replaceable when you uploaded it. (Maybe you accidentally checked that the picture was a living person?) Anyway, I restored the image and replaced it in the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very much for your fast and very helpful response! Mmoyer 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted imag Image:Haymarket Monument by Mary Brogger 2.jpg

hi you deleted

Image:Haymarket Monument by Mary Brogger 2.jpg

i uploaded this as it was an image taken with my cellphone camera... it was mine and i released it into the public domain. please put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs) 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because the image is on Commons, so you can still see it. But I notice that it's now nominated for deletion, so I'll restore the local copy. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture recovery

Hallo, Quadell. As you might remember you deleted several images I uploaded. Of course this was right in order to enforece WP policies. However, I have the following request: I lost a couple of data on my PC recently, including these pictures. Can you help me through tempoarily restoring them or something else? The pictures in question are:

I do not wish to recreate the pictures on WP, just to recreate my scans on the computer. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I have temporarily restored these images. They will be re-deleted in two days. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Str1977 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Perumeteorcrater.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Perumeteorcrater.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. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the page there... Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_September_24#Image:Perumeteorcrater.jpg. Thanks... • Lawrence Cohen 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of White House West Wing image

Hi, looks like you deleted an image of the west wing because you believed it to be a duplicate. The image was in use, and you did not create a link to the duplicate. Curious what your thinking is here. Thanks. CApitol3 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name of the image? I don't see an image with the words "White House", "West", or "Wing" within the last 500 images I've deleted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need expertise

Could you look at Image:M-76.jpg and the other images by that uploader? They're claimed as Serb public domain, but the given source website has a copyright notice at the bottom. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm stumped. I've asked an international copyright expert -- one whose sandals I am not fit to untie. Hopefully he'll have a clear answer. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Noticed you recently deleting articles. Could you delete User:Kannie and User talk:Kannie? I've tagged for speedy delete and asked Animum but it isn't happening. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking help!

Please come back to the smoking article--if you haven't been watching it, you can catch-up on the talk page. Read from there down--that's where the fight has been. It's a fight between those trying to maintain the pretty good article of a couple weeks ago and a user trying to push a hardcore anti-scientific agenda, and he's about as good at doing so as the xtian right. I can't hold this user off permanently. He's proposing to dissolve the article, posting merge sections on other articles, claiming the entire article is biased and terribly written--even following all the procedures for persuading admins to step in... help. Smoking is one of the least biased and best ref'd, best written articles on Wikipedia, and I don't want to see it picked apart and destroyed. TeamZissou 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can you do me a favor and delete images: Image:Cryme-Tyme.jpg, Image:Cena-Houseshow-07.jpg, Image:John old-shirt.jpg, Image:HBK-SurvivorSeries.jpg. Since there no use here. Speed CG 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Image:JohnTory.jpg

Hi. Your deletion of this image confirms, I think, the problem I tried to raise (without a good deal of success) in this thread. I think this image probably suffers from the same problem -- and so, in all likelihood, do most of the images of living people in the category Category:Official photographs of Canadian politicians.

I feel fairly sketchy on image policy and replaceable fair use as it applies to cases like this: if it isn't too much trouble, could I ask you to point me to the portion of the relevant policy document I might cite in response to the hue and cry likely to follow if I nominated any of these images for deletion? Cheers. --Rrburke(talk) 22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure WP:NFCC#1 βcommand 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give a more detailed answer to your question. Very few Wikimedia projects allow non-free images at all. (The German Wikipedia, the French Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, etc., only allow free images.) The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and controls all these projects, sets rules that all projects have to follow. Like, all projects have to follow NPOV, etc.
On 23 March 2007, the Foundation passed a resolution about image use, and you can read the full text of that resolution here. The relevant points are that a given Wikipedia (like the English one) can only use non-free images if they follow an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). Our EDP is the page Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. And the Resolution says "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."
That is why non-free images have to be deleted, even if they're useful and encyclopedic, if they're portraits of living persons that someone could eventually replace with a free image. I hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; thanks for answering. The confusion I've been experiencing came from trying to understand what "available" means under WP:NFCC#1. I -- wrongly, it appears -- took it to mean either currently available on a Wikimedia project or else easily located elsewhere. I gather from the passage of the resolution you cited that free alternatives to non-free "portraits of living notable individuals" are presumed to be "available" simply by virtue of the person's notoriety, so that the current absence of a free replacement image doesn't bear on the question of availability and is not a defence against the image being IfD-ed. Am I following? --Rrburke(talk) 14:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. So long as the person is still alive, it is presumed that a free alternative could be created. (Exceptions are made when this presumption can be shown to be incorrect, such as when people are documented as hermits who refuse photographs, etc.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK old copyrights

Quadell, you were very helpful to me on some old US magazine cover copyrights I was researching. I wonder if you happen to know about UK copyrights; I am writing an article on a 1950s UK magazine, and I have no clue whether there are websites that permit researching copyright renewals as there are for the US. Can you point me at any useful resources? Thanks for any help you have time for. Mike Christie (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know much about copyright in the UK. I know it's a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which currently protects copyright for 70 years after the death of the author, but I don't know what the details were in the past. It's possible that they never required registration for copyright at all, I just don't know. User:Lupo knows a lot more about international copyright law than I do -- you might try asking him. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Species red links

Hi Quadell -remember me and my Polbot support? . Hey I've just come across Delphinium and hundreds of red links of its species. Could you set up the bot and add these missing articles. I look forward to hearing from you. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I remember you, kind Sir. :-) Unfortunately, Polbot gets all her species information from the IUCN Redlist, and that list doesn't include and Delphinium species. In fact, Polbot has completely finished creating articles from the IUCN Redlist, since all are done. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Copyright specified on image description page

Do you know in what image copyright tags Category:Copyright specified on image description page was formerly or is currently used in? I ask because if it is currently used in none it ought be deleted. --Iamunknown 18:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was used in any templates. User:Dbenbenn created the category, as detailed here. You could ask him, but he's only around infrequently nowadays. I don't think the category ever saw much use. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the info. Btw, seeing as how you are an expert Perl programmer (:-P), would it be possible to write a Toolserver script which would randomly select an image from a problem category (i.e. Category:Author died more than 50 years ago public domain images, Category:Free screenshots, etc.), and prompt the editor to check it out? That is how I regularly check images, but going to one of the categories and pseudo-randomly checking an image out is somewhat cumbersome. Also, I would like to filter out images I've already checked.
Anyways, if you feel up to programming Perl, and are feeling very generous, such a tool would be appreciated. --Iamunknown 19:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking. . . One way to do this would be to add a category to the talk page when you checked one, so that the perl script could know which one you checked without keeping a list somewhere else (which would be messy). Of course others might nominate that tag for deletion, I'm not sure. Alternately, I could use a minimal template included on the talk pages, and the bot could look through "what links here" on the template's page to figure out which images have been looked at. Any thoughts? – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can forsee problems (i.e. complaints, TfD, etc.) if we use the template idea. I didn't realize a list would be messy. I can think of other things, but at this point my request might be a bit much! What little I remember from computer science, a hash table might work nicely. That is, it would hash the file name (or file ... but the name would probably be a faster hash), and then put a '0' or '1' in the bucket depening upon blah (I can't think of any specifics right now ;-).
If you don't think that would work out (and you probably know better than I, considering that my knowledge of computer science is quite limited...) then I would rather not go the template route (because of potential problems). --Iamunknown 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cale

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Cale, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Hut 8.5 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

Hi, Quadell. I hope I'm not imposing by asking another image question. I'm looking for confirmation that users are not entitled to license self-created versions of copyrighted logos as their own work. I presume a user cannot draw from scratch, for example, a Nike swoosh in Photoshop and then claim the image is free and that he is the copyright holder? Surely the logo itself is copyrighted, irrespective of who drew this particular instance of it?

I've seen the question raised here, but have not seen a definitive response to it. --Rrburke(talk) 15:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is frequently confusing. Logos are almost never copyrighted. (The Nike Swoosh, for instance, doesn't contain enough creative content to be eligible for copyright.) But they are always trademarked, which is what the (TM) and (R) symbols indicate. Trademarks fall under a different set of laws, although both trademarks and copyrights are considered "intellectual property".
For both copyrights and trademarks, it doesn't matter whether you redraw the image yourself -- it's protected the exact same way whether you download an image from the web or create a facsimile in MS-Paint. So there's absolutely no point in recreating them.
The basic law for trademarks is you can't associate a trademark with anything other than the original product or company. If you used a beanie-baby trademark on a non-beanie-baby toy, they would sue you for "diluting the trademark". Further, if you used the beanie-baby log on a web page for the "Beanie-Baby collectors club of Kentucky", they could still sue your club for diluting the trademark, since you're associating the trademark with a separate club. (Hypothetically, your club could get in trouble with the law for tax evasion or something, and that could reflect badly on the Beanie-Baby brand.)
How does this relate to Wikipedia? Well, if we use the Beanie-Baby logo on a page about Beanie-Babies (or the company), that doesn't "dilute the trademark", so we're safe. But if we use the logo in a userbox for "users who collect Beanie-Babies", then they could sue. And that's just as true whether someone downloads the logo from a website or recreates it by hand.
I hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. My concern was about this image, which the creator has licensed as his own work. Shouldn't it still be tagged {{Non-free logo}} for use in the infobox for Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick -- rather than {{self}}, even though the uploader created the actual image in question himself? Or am I missing your point? --Rrburke(talk) 16:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Kasten

You deleted the images on this page. Karl is my grandfather. I realize he a relative but he is also a notable Californian painter, printmaker and inventor. I was given the photos with explicit permission to use them on the page. The permission also allowed for unlimited public use of the images thereafter. I tried to say as much in the upload notes. I could have used a warning about the improper tagging rather than their straight deletion. At this point I'd like a suggestion on how to properly tag the photos. Mrshaba 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Those three images had been incorrectly tagged as "non-free", even thought they were also tagged as being free. I restored the images, and cleaned up the image descriptions. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mrshaba 03:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

polbot

I was looking at recentchanges-new pages and saw a creation by polbot with the edit summary (auto-generating stub). Is this normal? Thought bots were usually screened out of manual review, since they've been tested and approved. Mbisanz 19:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt not to see bots in recentchanges, but some of the subpages don't allow you that option, unfortunately. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Minor White

The picture is used with permission. DO NOT DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixstring1965 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know which picture you mean. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You mean you delete haphazardly? I surely hope not. Sixstring1965 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just delete hundreds of images each day. Could you tell me which image you mean? – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's not important. The pic was restored and tagged with the proper copyright info. Sixstring1965 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Peace, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image deletion of Alberto Rivera's Jesuit ID

I don't know why you deleted the image. I had the info there. The source and copyright information. Yet in the page you said I needed to list those things as a basis of your deletion. I didnt just find that image on the internet. I am a established researcher into Alberto Rivera and am in contact with his family and members of Jack Chick's ministry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlthe5th (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Looks like you're possibly more wiki experienced than I; however, removing a piece of information (even if uncited), is not a minor edit.--Vidkun 13:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to mark that as minor. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiotani Teiko. And dozens and dozens more just like it.

Hi. You created an article saying, in full: Shiotani Teiko (塩谷定好? しおたに ていこう, 1899 - 1988) was a renowned Japanese photographer.

Actually it's Teikō, not Teiko, and according to WP's silly rules we have to ignore his real name of Shiotani Teikō and instead call him Teikō Shiotani. But that's not the main problem, which is that he's described in just about the same way as Kuribayashi Satoshi (栗林慧? くりばやし さとし, born 1939) is a renowned Japanese photographer. Or indeed Watanabe Kanendo (渡辺兼人? わたなべ かねんど, born 1947) is a renowned Japanese photographer. Or Orihara Kei (折原恵? おりはら けい, born 1948) is a renowned Japanese photographer. And so on and so on and so on. Which all means that somebody looking among Category:Japanese photographers is highly likely to land on a mere substub.

I can count on my fingers the people likely to turn a half dozen or so of these substubs into articles. No, on my thumbs: User:Pinkville and myself. But he's busy and I am too. I'd rate the probability that more than half will be converted within a year to more than stubs at well under 1%. It's an interesting "proof of bot concept" exercise, but is it good for anything else?

Tell you what: I'll match you one for one. You turn two of these into articles; I'll turn two into articles. You turn ten into articles; I'll turn ten into articles. How does that sound? -- Hoary 05:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great challenge! You're on. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Do tell me when you've done one, as I can't keep the whole damn lot on my watchlist. Well actually I can, but I lack the time and effort to put them onto my watchlist. Also, I'll be intercoursingly busy during the next month, so in the short/medium term I may only be able to match you up to ten.
I'm sure I've got entire books by at least twenty of these substubbed people, so I ought to be able to do more.
What's odd about the list are some conspicuous absences. (Not just people I think are good, but people who, rightly or wrongly, are celebrated and successful.) Asai Shinpei is one, and there are more though I can't think of them right now.
Not that it's any of my business, really, but did you scarf the list from User:20th Century Art (Zenhan)'s page, or do something else? -- Hoary 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I scraped from Zenhan. I'll let you know here, or on your talk page, when I have one ready. I don't think I can make any of them featured, but legitimately "non-stub" is the goal. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my first. Ichiki Shiro. It's not much beyond a stub, but it's something. (It took an hour of research, and I think I found all the info that's anywhere on the web regarding Mr. Ichiki.) By the way, was I right in listing him as a Hatamoto? My sources say he was a retainer of the Daimyo (in the Edo period, of course), and I know that he spoke with his Daimyo, so he couldn't have been a Gokenin. But I don't think he was a warrior, so I don't know. So far as I can tell, all Togugawa retainers were either Gokenin or Hatamoto. Am I correct in my inference? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you're fast.
Unfortunately I don't know squat about Tokugawa retainers and the like. On several occasions I've tried to interest myself in feudal history but have always fallen flat. I suppose I can't separate it from the hammily acted, cheesily lit TV period dramas I sometimes have to tolerate when at the in-laws'. LordAmeth might know. (And this photographer's right up Pinkville's street.) -- Hoary 13:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for a progress indicator? -- Hoary 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, except for a number of factors, one of which is that it's problematical copyrightwise (or so I infer from a comment elsewhere by one User:Quadell). I've already chucked in one extra list, and I'll certainly add one more, and I may add one after that; perhaps it can then be described as an original creation. All this is delaying my editing of any article. Still, I'll get around to that too in time. -- Hoary 06:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I've now proofed the list against copyright complaints. Meanwhile, both Domon Ken and Ei-Q were prodded, so I unprodded them and turned them into fourth-rate articles. There could be hundreds more prods where those came from, but I don't think that any have arrived yet. -- Hoary 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fukuhara Shinzō and Fukuhara Rosō changed from substubs into crappy articles. -- Hoary 09:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those look fine! Don't sell yourself short. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're crap. I was very slowly starting to work on articles on these two, and, in Tristram Shandy style, had got up to their infancy. But then I thought I'd better rush and pushed them prematurely into lousy articles. ¶ Satō Akira is another dubious article, hardly any more informative than those on the brothers Fukuhara, but at least not hopelessly lopsided. ¶ Sorry, I have to say that today I've slipped into a rather dark mood over this, though of course I realize that our esteemed friend User:Polbot meant well. Please see this, and feel free to respond tartly! -- Hoary 14:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. No one is posting an endorse/overturn opinion probably because there are questions that need to be answered. Also, Spanneraol is making some good arguments, but not citing policy so it is hard to tell whether the arguments meet policy. Would you please post a detailed explaination of the deletion, providing links to the relevant policies. Thanks. Jreferee t/c 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons problem

Can you offer a neutral opinion on this gallery on Commons? There's a user there who keeps deleting photos from the gallery - have tried to talk to the user, but I can't understand what they're doing. His point seems to be that the photo subject might not like the photos he's removing from the gallery. I don't get it. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he doesn't like the photos because in his mind they're not as flattering. It's weird. I'll keep an eye on it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

Nice to keep bumping into you! ElinorD (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was you I was racing against! Aha! :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had twenty open in separate tabs, and when I tried to delete, I got error message — several times. ElinorD (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Angry look.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Angry look.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. OsamaK 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frightened eyes.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Frightened eyes.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. OsamaK 09:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sorrowful expression.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sorrowful expression.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. OsamaK 10:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big copyvio problem

Looks like we have at least a couple hundred images of military insignia from http://www.uniforminsignia.net, which explicitly claims copyright of all images on its site. Most are tagged with the deprecated {{Military-Insignia}} license template and the uploaders are gone in many cases as well. I've started tagging some as copyvio but would appreciate some admin help in doing some deletions if you get some free time. (Would also appreciate assistance from any other admins watching this page.) Videmus Omnia Talk 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the tagging has already started an ANI thread; copyright expertise there would be welcome. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wee bit of help?

If I could ask an admin-ly favor of you (I handed in my own bit at least for the duration of my current relative inactivity), could you move Great Transformation to The Great Transformation? Many thanks, --RobthTalk 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Always a pleasure to run into you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IPhone Cover Flow.jpg

Hi Quadell. You deleted Image:IPhone Cover Flow.jpg because it's on Commons right now. However, i forgot to transfer the copyright tag too, so maybe you could look that up and add it to the page on Commmons? There's a deletion request on Commons on the image right now... Thanks, Husky (talk page) 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took care of it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! Husky (talk page) 15:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery removed from Polar Bear

Hello, I'm curious as to why you removed the gallery from the Polar Bear article? I thought it was helpful to the article, and I don't see any violation of WP:NOT. Would you mind explaining?--Yannick 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's not a violation, but all those images are already on the Commons, which is prominently linked. As I said in the edit summary, "that's what the Commons is for". There's nothing wrong with having a gallery, but I think it looks cleaner and more professional without it. (If someone wants to see a gallery, they can click on the link to Commons.) It's not like the article is short on images as it is. Just my opinion though. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but I don't think the link would be clear to a general audience. Most people don't know what the commons are, won't know that "media" means picture gallery, and won't recognize the "Ursus maritimus" link as meaning polar bear. Do you know if there's a better template we can use to indicate that readers can find more pictures there, maybe something with a camera icon instead of the Commons logo? Also, some of the captions that were on the Wikipedia gallery are not on the Commons gallery, although we can move these as well.--Yannick 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It turned out this has been discussed on Template talk:Commons#"media". I created a new template addressing this and placed it in the See Also section.--Yannick 06:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged replaceables

De-templated. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the problem is, but I noticed a couple on the hijackers, glad to see you caught them as well. Just a "thanks for keeping alert" Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be too careful with those dead hijackers. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUR expedited request

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Quadell/Archive_35"