User talk:Quadell/archive36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives
  1 (4/8/2004 – 9/14/2004) 1 - 50
  2 (9/16/2004 – 10/15/2004) 51 - 100
  3 (10/16/2004 – 11/18/2004) 101 - 150
  4 (11/18/2004 – 12/8/2004) 151 - 200
  5 (12/8/2004 – 12/30/2004) 201 - 250
  6 (12/31/2004 – 2/11/2005) 251 - 300
  7 (2/11/2005 – 3/5/2005) 301 - 350
  8 (3/5/2005 – 3/29/2005) 351 - 400
  9 (3/30/2005 – 5/21/2005) 401 - 450
  10 (5/22/2005 – 8/06/2005) 451 - 500
  11 (8/06/2005 – 10/14/2005) 501 - 550
  12 (10/16/2005 – 11/22/2005) 551 - 600
  13 (11/23/2005 – 1/12/2006) 601 - 650
  14 (1/12/2006 – 2/2/2006) 651 - 700
  15 (2/2/2006 – 2/21/2006) 701 - 750
  16 (2/22/2006 – 3/24/2006) 751 - 800
  17 (3/25/2006 – 8/28/2006) 801 - 850
  18 (8/29/2006 – 10/13/2006) 851 - 900
  19 (10/13/2006 – 11/4/2006) 901 - 950
  20 (11/4/2006 – 11/29/2006) 951 - 1000
  21 (11/29/2006 – Christmas) 1001 - 1050
  22 (12/27/2006 – 5/10/2007) 1051 - 1100
  23 (5/10/2007 – 6/17/2007) 1101 - 1150
  24 (6/17/2007 – 6/25/2007) 1151 - 1200
  25 (6/25/2007 – 7/4/2007) 1201 - 1250
  26 (7/4/2007 – 7/9/2007) 1251 - 1300
  27 (7/9/2007 – 7/12/2007) 1301 - 1350
  28 (7/13/2007 – 7/16/2007) 1351 - 1400
  29 (7/16/2007 – 7/21/2007) 1401 - 1450
  30 (7/21/2007 – 7/27/2007) 1451 - 1500
  31 (7/27/2007 – 8/2/2007) 1501 - 1550
  32 (8/3/2007 – 8/14/2007) 1551 - 1600
  33 (8/14/2007 – 8/25/2007) 1601 - 1650
  34 (8/25/2007 – 9/13/2007) 1651 - 1700
  35 (9/14/2007 – 10/5/2007) 1701 - 1750
  36 (10/5/2007 – 12/10/2007) 1751 - 1800
  37 (12/10/2007 – 12/21/2007) 1801 - 1850
  38 (12/21/2007 – ) 1851 -
Current talk
This archive contains messages from September 14, 2007, to December 10, 2007.

Contents

[edit] Gokturk Flag

Hi, Quadell. The image of the Gokturk flag was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2007 [1]. I realized that User:Barefact provided detailed source description on the talk page of the image |[2]. Is it ok to remove the deletion tag and close the nomination? Actually, the factual accuracy tag is also to be removed then, since it's sourced now on. Regards. E104421 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine to do. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jobing.com

Why do you keep deleting the files I am using to write an article about Jobing.com? I have an email from thier PR director giving me permission to use all of the logos/photos I am posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanavan (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough for you to have permission to use the images. We can only use images if they are released under a free license, such as the GFDL. These images are released under a non-comercial-only license, and we cannot use these images unless they are free for anyone to use, even commercially. If the copyright-holder is willing to release these under a license that allows commercial use, please forward an e-mail from him or her to permissions@wikimedia.com – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does PD-Self Apply?

SEX)

[edit] Images speedily deleted per WP:CSD#I6

The following images were speedily deleted under WP:CSD#I6: Image:YandtheT.PNG, Image:Three_Little_Words_VHS_cover.jpg, Image:The_Story_of_Vernon_and_Irene_Castle_movie_poster.jpg, Image:The_Sky's_the_Limit_VHS_cover.jpg, Image:The_Belle_of_New_York_movie_poster.jpg, Image:Broadway_Melody_of_1940_DVD_cover.jpg, Image:A_Damsel_in_Distress_VHS_cover.jpg

Had the image caption been tagged as per the template's advice I would have caught these and would have tried to provide a fair use rationale. Perhaps you would consider undeleting them so that I could do this. However, I'm unsure what the rules are regarding the use of Movie posters, DVD covers and VHS covers for identification purposes within film infoboxes. I suspect some, perhaps all, don't qualify.

As always, your forensic analysis and advice would be welcome.D7240 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I have restored these images. Since these movie posters were first published without a copyright notice before 1978, they are in the public domain. Hurrah! – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude.. but not all are movie posters, some are VHS and DVD covers. While a statement of copyright / copyright symbol is not visible on the front, I imagine it is on the back, which I assume applies to the front. Also, I am fairly certain that the VHS and DVD ones were certainly not published prior to 1976, as VHS was invented in 1976 (and thereafter subject to the videotape wars with Betamax). --Iamunknown 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've corrected the licensing on the video and DVD covers and provided a rationale for them - even though I suspect some of these covers are reusing public domain movie posters. I'm assuming it's ok to use such material in film infoboxes. D7240 10:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just realized that if movie posters of such films are public domain, then the VHS and DVD covers are replaceable since such posters are extant and could be uploaded. Oops. Looks like they'll have to go, right? D7240 10:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to lead you wrong about the VHS covers -- those aren't PD afterall, and, as you figured, they're replaceable (with the original posters). Or trailers -- it turns out that the original trailers, shown in theaters, were separate "works" and were never, in actual practice, copyrighted. So if you can get a still from the original trailer, you can use it.

By the way, a good essay on how to write the perfect fair-use-rationale is at User:Ilse@/fairuse. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request copyright check

...on Image:Flight sergeant.gif. More uniforminsignia.net stuff. Is this replaceable if, for instance, the Sri Lankan government copyrights its military rank insignia (the uploader believes it does). In that case, it would not only be copyrighted by that government, but also by the commercial website that created this version of it. I'm not sure what to do with these. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

These issues get thorny and confusing. I find it impossible to keep track of what governments claim copyright on what official symbols. (Many governments don't say, and some contradict themselves.) In general, in situations where an underlying design is copyrighted by party A, and a particular representation of that design is copyrighted by party B, then it's better for us to create our own representation and only claim "fair use" on party A's copyright. That way we don't unnecessarily involve party B. But this can get thorny when either of those parties have shaky claims. Sorry I can't be more specific. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lille Comics Festival pics...

Hello Quadell,

Just one or two questions, please: - Why were the pics of the Lille Comics Festival deleted? ..and If I have to do something...what? Thanks for the answers.

Dorajor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorajor (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm afraid these images were deleted because they are non-free. Wikipedia prefers to use "free" images whenever possible, meaning images that are either legally in the public domain, or images where the copyright holder (the photographer) has explicitly released them under a free license, such as the GFDL. Did you take these photos yourself? – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA Warning

I actually overreacted, but when the person you talked about and I were debating over a barnstar for convicted wikistalker Abu Badali, he told me to "grow up" and AGF. AGF has limits, and in this case, my belief that AGF can't apply to Badali made me immature? That person, at that time, deserved the NPA warning. Arbiteroftruth 04:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack to say "grow up". It might be somewhat incivil, but it's also incivil to accuse someone of stalking, or to complain that one person gave another person a barnstar. In these cases, it's much better not to template people you're having a conflict with. Instead, bring the matter to a neutral third party (perhaps WP:ANI, if you think administrator action may be warranted), and they may be able to deal with it in a more level-headed way. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Dollar Value Chart Image

The Measuring Worth site says "OK for educational use" but apparently my last upload was deleted when I put that as the license - there is a table with data from that source already on the United_States_dollar page; if the table is OK, my chart should be too (right?). I re-uploaded it once already saying I made it myself and that was deleted too. Please contact me at dluber1 at berkeley dot edu if I'm being a complete idiot here. Thanks ---DLuber1 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe you can also help me figure out why it looks like sh8 and the thumb doesn't show up - yes I'll read the help some more, but frankly it's been of little help so far. First time posting an image, sorry. --DLuber1 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. There are several issues here. First off, "data" (like the changing value of the dollar) cannot be copyrighted. Only "creative content" can be copyrighted. So in an individual chart or graph, things like the colors and thickness of the lines could be copyrighted, but the actual numbers themselves are always free. That's why it's okay for us to use the same numbers, formatted our own way, whether as a chart as a graph. But it would not be okay to copy-and-paste their chart or graph if that included graphics or other creative stuff. So did you create the graph yourself, in Excel or something?
The graphic doesn't show up because the lines are too thin. It looks fine when the image is large, but when it's shrunk the lines are too thin to be visible. I'll try recreating it, and uploading a new version. That should solve both problems. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and helpful reply. Yes, I did make the graph in Excel, and thanks for re-formatting it already, although I preferred my original graph starting at $1.00, I think it shows visually and viscerally how the value of the dollar held relatively steady for the first 150 years then has gone dramatically DOWN from its 1776 value in the last thirty years. Not sure what you meant by "corrected inaccuracy"? It looks like you've simply taken the data from the existing table; what I said was "data from the same source as the table" i.e. the Measuring Worth calculator. But I used it to generate dollar values holding 1776 dollars constant, not 1980, and plotted the inverse to show how today's dollar compares to 1776; it's now worth four cents. Here's my data table: Year Value of 1776 dollar in current dollars Current dollar value in 1776 dollars 1776 1 1.00 1786 1.09 0.92 1796 1.51 0.66 1806 1.4 0.71 1816 1.61 0.62 1826 1.13 0.88 1836 1.07 0.93 1846 0.88 1.14 1856 0.97 1.03 1866 1.82 0.55 1876 1.23 0.81 1886 1.08 0.93 1896 0.96 1.04 1906 1.03 0.97 1916 1.26 0.79 1926 2.09 0.48 1936 1.64 0.61 1946 2.31 0.43 1956 3.21 0.31 1966 3.84 0.26 1976 6.73 0.15 1986 12.96 0.08 1996 18.55 0.05 2006 23.83 0.04

If you can incorporate those easily into the format you have already, please do so; otherwise I'll be happy to re-format my Excel chart to look better. Thanks! --DLuber1 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

By "corrected inaccuracy", I didn't mean I had corrected your inaccuracy. I uploaded one version that had an error, and then uploaded another version that corrected my own inaccuracy.
I'm analyzing your data now. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Does it now look like what you would expect? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's beautiful, thanks for doing that! The only minor nit I could pick was that my plot had a log scale on the y-axis, which kind of shows the relative stability better to my engineer's eye; the value stays in the same order of magnitude until about 1950. Try it and see what you think (in Excel, right click the dollar axis, Format Axis>Scale tick Logarithmic; note the minimum cannot be zero). However, the log scale may be less familiar and thus harder to understand for the average reader, you're doing the work, so you pick - either way is fine w/me.

Thanks! Over & out--DLuber1 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HM The Queen

A tag has been placed on HM The Queen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bsherr 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return of blocked user

Sorry to bother you, but I'm wondering If I can get your help again with a blocked user (User:Fox53) who has returned under a new identity (User:Kay Körner 20.12.1983). He's been back about a month and had been generally behaving himself until recently. He's resumed his POV practises, is placing inproperly sourced images and incorrect translations against advice and warnings, has started spamming peripherally related articles once more, and is refusing new entreaties to behave (in English and his native German). He was blocked again just five hours after re-appearing at de:Wikipedia in early September. I basically ignored his sock for a few weeks, but I've spent more time than I want to cleaning up after him over the past few days and I would appreciate it if you could block his most recent incarnation before he gets way out of hand (again). He's showing no signs of having mended his ways in any meaningful way. Thanks. Wiggy! 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I got him. Thanks for keeping on top of this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thx! Wiggy! 00:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
And now as a follow up is there any chance of getting semi-protects on Eduard Geyer,‎ FC Bayern Munich, Berliner FC Dynamo, and Sportvereinigung Dynamo to prevent IP edits (which Kay is at right now)? Most of these are low profile articles and if there is any concern at all in terms of access it would be with the Bayern Munich article. Thanks and sorry for the hassle. Wiggy! 15:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
...and Dynamo Dresden, pls. Wiggy! 15:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Got 'em. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

Oh, well, thanks for nothing..... Jim, K7JEB 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, you're welcome? Have we met? – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted for lack of proper tag issue

Two files I recently uploaded Image:HOT_Subs.jpg and Image:HOT_title.jpg were both deleted for not having a proper tag. HOWEVER; no proper tag exists. These were screen shots of NON copyrighted material. Either the proper tag needs to be added to wikipedia or how else does one place a proper, non-existent tag to such images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinlodos (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid all material produced after 1989 is considered copyrighted in the U.S., and lots of material published before that is copyrighted as well. There is no such thing as "abandonment of copyright". (Trademarks can be abandoned, but not copyrights.) This film is considered copyrighted in the U.S., regardless of its status in its home country. The correct tag would be {{Non-free film screenshot}}. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Um; that was produced well before 1989. Infact; it was filmed in 1980/1981 and released in 1982 in China and Hong Kong, and was never released in the USA, if that makes any difference. If not I should re-upload and use the US "claimed" copyright tag even though the legally no person or entity in the US could legally (in world view) claim the copyright on the film? I just wanted to be sure what to tag it as before re-uploading so I didn't get myself into trouble since the servers are in the US but the tag would be incorrect (and imply falsities) for everyone else. BTW, the US and England are the only countries that do not have regulations for copyright abandonment; all other WCC represented nations follow the collection of International Copyright Treaties that do stipulate abandonment procedures. Copyrights must be renewed else they become abandoned. The US and UK use the convoluted public domain regulations and I'm not sure where a film that was never legally brought onto US soil would fall. I'm well versed in international copyright laws but have not studied US regulations to any degree because they are illegal outside of the US and UK. Hence my confusion on this issue. I'm not picking on you, just the incessant need for US to violate international laws. :) Lostinlodos 04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...but

Yeah, sure, you deleted the image I tagged, but I realized after I tagged it that I used the wrong tag, I meant to find that one you use if they claim it's in public domain but it cannot be public domain (as it is a fair-use image and it contains copyrighted software, so it cannot be made public domain).

Thanks anyway... ViperSnake151 19:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polbot 3

Hi Quadell. Sorry it's been so long. I wanted to let you know that I haven't completely forgotten the DEFAULTSORT and similar data-gathering functions of Polbot. I recently and not-so-recently dropped off notes to two people to get advice on it. Both were running bots to add DEFAULTSORTs. See User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2007Aug#Defaultsort and User talk:Emijrp#Another DEFAULTSORT bot! for the discussions, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XIII and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BOTijo 5 for the bot requests. I've also raised the magic word tracking issue at the village pumps a few times. The latest thread is here.

See also Category talk:Biography articles with listas parameter and Category talk:Biography articles without listas parameter for further discussions. I rather like the description on the later page ("A new level of arcana has been added so that a undefined but small group of editors can track the usage of DEFAULTSORT")! Some of the other bits make depressing reading though - I still don't understand the "Those who can make the changes do not see a need to track the usage of DEFAULTSORT" bit - I'd appreciate a sanity check here - surely asking for a list of articles that don't include DEFAULTSORT is a useful request?

Anyway, any advice would be great. Would you be happy to find time to work on this again if I started working on it again? Carcharoth 04:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I put in three bot requests. These may be similar to what Polbot can do - if so, please say so over there. If not, let's hope someone can do them! Her are the links:
Have fun! Carcharoth 14:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phototheque

Hello. I am wondering whether the following phototheque has any copyright attached to it. I do not see anything on the page and note that the University of Aix-Marseille III (Paul Cezanne), apart from appropriating a previous (imperfect) version of the Aix-en-Provence english WP page, has also incorporated some of these photos on one of its web pages. The phototheque is produced by the town council (Mairie) of Aix and is linked to the tourist office, both of which are adminstratively completely separate from the university and its websites. I will ask at the tourist office whether these images are indeed freely available. In the meantime, what do you think? Cheers, Mathsci 10:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page seems to be fairly explicit about copyright issues. Even if travel agencies and other sites use these images freely, I suppose it must be against copyright rules which are rigidly enforced on WP. Is this correct? Mathsci 12:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free screenshots

I notice that you deleted a whole bunch of free screenshots that had been (incorrectly) tagged by OrphanBot as having no license, despite the fact that most of them did have valid license tags. (See this discussion for background.) I've been going through the list, and I think I've undeleted and fixed most of the ones that had actually been used in articles, but I thought I ought to bring the matter to your attention, and, incidentally, also ask if you might have the time to help review and, where applicable, undelete the remaining ones. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Algerian hedgehog

Hello! Your Polbot generated a page on the Algerian hedgehog, and now I am working on the page in efforts of removing it from the stub category. I am by no means finished with it, but I am new to Wikipedia and was wondering if you could offer feedback on the article as I work on it if you can find the time. I would be very thankful. Thank you very much! Twilight19 11:08, 14 October 2007

[edit] Image:Wikipedia book.jpg

This image you deleted is used on the Wikipedia Service Award page. You probably qualify for one of these awards. I believe it is in everyone's best interest to restore this image. Clerks. 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ThomasKinkadeOct2005.jpg

The Thomas Kincade image you deleted (Image:ThomasKinkadeOct2005.jpg) on 7 October 2007 was adapted from http://www.defenselink.mil/news/articles.html and if contributed today, would be marked as {{PD-USGov-Military}} and not fair use. If I've misunderstood the issue, please clarify, otherwise please restore the image. Thanks. Kayaker 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC). (A similar comment was posted at User talk:Rettetast because that user posted a message here in advance of the deletion...)

[edit] Missing films

Hi Quadell is it possible the bot can create stubs on films? All it would need is an info box and the title and perhaps the director with the date and country category - I'm sure this can be done using imdb like you could the IUCN site for the wildlife stubs. There are thousands missing and it would take forever to complete. Could you check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Indian Films:A-D and see how much it is needed!! Please let me know what you can do thanks , it would be awesome if we rid of those red links ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be of great benefit to the encyclopedia if films could be stubbed by the bot. This way we have the pages set up and ready to work on and expand. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New user, looking for feedback

Quadell,

I am a new user to Wikipedia and looking for some feedback on an article I have been working on for free machining. I saw that you contributed to the article on machining. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Blapcewi 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transformers images redux

I took a break from chasing down seemingly non-fair-use non-free content (i.e. boxart images) a few weeks ago, and have stumbled upon the return of several of them (eg here, [3], etc.). They are from the same user who uploaded them (some of them identical earlier). Their sourcing information and boilerplate template again are hazy (e.g. claiming to be "promotional"), but since I've stopped delving into FUR related material, I'm wondering whether you can give me a heads up as to whether there's been an IFD or talk-page discussion about the general use of such images. Is User:mathewignash up to old tricks or abiding by a new consensus that I just missed out on? --EEMeltonIV 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:ABlockedUser

Kindly refrain from adding false block messages to user talk pages ([4]). Such messages are deliberately misleading and false. If a user has vandalised after a final warning, report the account to WP:AIV - do not place false templates on their page. Anthøny 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not false, maybe just out of synch, or some sort of slip. The tagged user in question is the sock of an uncivil, persistent POV editor and Q has been helpful in managing the guy. There's no ill intent here and the block is now properly in place. If you want to lend a hand User:Captain Future is the same guy ... Wiggy! 20:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gag-tapegag-lorelei-15610.jpg

This was posted at Gag (BDSM) until 2007-06-09. I do not blame you for deleting it per Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_2#Image:Gag-tapegag-lorelei-15610.jpg because it was KK24's fault orphaning an image without a good reason, then replacing it with Image:Kim_kidnapped_on_day_one.jpg that would not even be "fair" while we already have so many free-use images showing gags. This is a notice sent per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review to let you know why I undo your deletion. I would like to take the image to Commons, but only after Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_October_21#Lorelei7_images is closed and all relevant images can be kept. Please come to discuss if you can. Thanks.--Jusjih 01:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use...

Fair use (and WP:NFCC) are still puzzling to me. What do you think of this? I don't see any "critical commentary" in the article it's used at, and anyway, it seems to be a logo, not a flag... Same problem at [5] and several others. Lupo 09:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View of Paris

Hi,
A picture you uploaded has been nominated for delisting from Featured Pictures at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/View_of_Paris.
Hopefully you can join in the discussion there.
Thanks,
Pstuart84 Talk 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Koran_desecration_protests_2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Koran_desecration_protests_2.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. -- RG2 13:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there! How can I?

Hey there, there is one deleted media that I'd like to see it is from the page Image:Belletoya.jpg


contact me if it is possible


--Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freshwater Crocodile

Hello, I left a message regarding the Freshwater Crocodile on User talk:Polbot. XLerate 06:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyright violations lynching photos

Hi, Please take a look at the comments on the lynching page and lynching in the US page, along with the originals at Wiki Commons that were copied directly from a book and web site copyrighted in 2000. If you have any reason to think they do not violate the authors' copyright, we'd like to hear what you have to say. Thank you. Skywriter 19:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Philipberrigan.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Philipberrigan.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, 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, 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}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:madur.jpg

Image:Madur.jpgmadur picture is belong to me . could you give it back.

[edit] Illustrations for Marseille

I am currently being harrassed somwhat irrationally by User:angr who has first of all objected without reason to a legal image (not of my own creation) being used to illustrate the section of films made in Marseille. He seems to have no valid objection; it might offend his aesthetics. People like me, or my colleagus, who live and work in Marseille take no offense and even enjoy the poster of the French Connection. This user has now started wiki-stalking me. He has listed the signed photo of Regine Crespin from a blog as a copyvio. As you know, I usually check with you in case of doubt; I find this editor's attitude hard to fathom - he does not seem to be contributing positively to WP and seems to have little or no knowledge of French culture or WP rules. But principally I find his wikistalking odd and slightly offensive.

As you can read, various French people thanked me for my improvements to this page. I tried very hard to find a woman from Marseille of world renown. Regine Crespin died just this summer (her death was on the day I heard the BPO's Valkyrie in Aix, a performance which was dedicated to her memory as one of the rare Wagnerians from Provence). angr is not aiding the writing of WP articles on France, most of which involve careful and informed translations of parts of the french WP as well as detailed local knowledge. His comments do not indicate any of these qualities: they seem agressive and uncultured. Mathsci 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing?

Added to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians - hope to see you back someday. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm back! Hooray! :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Awesome - let me be the first to welcome you home. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back. I need a calculator to count the number of times I could have used your opinion in your absence. :) --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me be the third to welcome you back. I had noticed your absence, and clicked on your contribs from time to time, hoping you'd be back. I would have emailed you, except that I've been really busy. (I still have a whole pile of unanswered posts on my own talk page, hoping to get round to answering them some time.) But anyway, good to see you back. ElinorD (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all! – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early

Hi. Looks like you are emptying the image categories for Nov 27? I think you are a day early. --After Midnight 0001 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

November 27th was a Tuesday. December 4, the day I emptied the category (and the day you left me this message) was also a Tuesday. 7 days, right? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. If an image is tagged at Nov-27@2359(UTC) and it is deleted at Dec-4@0001(UTC), that is just 6 days and 2 minutes. {{CSD/Subcategories}} is a good guide to use to see when a day is ready. --After Midnight 0001 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dexter Morgan.jpg

You deleted this image, citing that it was a replaceable fair use. As it was of a fictional character, it wasn't. It may have been placed on the actor's page (my guess as to why you deleted it) but it wasn't of the actor itself but a character he was portraying called Dexter Morgan.--CyberGhostface 12:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I've restored the image (though only in the article on the character). On the other hand, it's still missing source info, licensing info, and an image rationale. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Map

Hi, you deleted a map uploaded yesterday by User:Gantuya eng, citing non-commercial use? She had uploaded that map to help me make corrections to an existing map, Image:East-Hem_1025ad.jpg. You deleted the map too quickly for me to see it; can you please restore it? Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I restored Image:East-Hem 1025ad Khitan Empire.jpg and Image:East-Hem 1025ad Khitan Empire Local.JPG. They will be deleted in one week. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Quadell. I was able to save them and will be performing the necessary corrections to the East-Hem map shortly. I appreciate it! Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Connie Talbot X Factor crop.JPG

Hi, sorry, I realise I am probably just being irritating here, so if you don't want to discuss it, I am happy to go straight to DRV, and, failing that, just drop it. However, I personally believe that the image would fall under our fair use rules due to her change in appearance- although minor, the fact Connie has now not got a "gap-toothed smile" is significant- many sources pick up on her 'cute factor', specifically mentioning her teeth, and as the more recent shot in the source article shows, she no longer has the gap. The source page is here, the pictures can be seen, along with comments about her smile, and it is even mentioned in the page title. Other places it is mentioned include here and here. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm happy to discuss it. Are you sure that she no longer has this noted feature? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah- the picture I cropped for the image can be seen here, and a comparison to more recent pictures, such as this or this show her without a gap. As I say, reliable sources have mentioned it- The only change is her famous gap-toothed smile which has been replaced by two almost fully-grown teeth. and The youngster, whose front teeth have grown back since Britain’s Got Talent, signed a six figure recording deal for her album earlier this month. for instance. I would argue that the picture adds a lot to the article as so many sources consider her image during that time as significant, and it is irreplaceable as her image has now changed, because of the teeth. J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand, this is a very thin justification. On the other hand, your arguments are well sourced and can't be dismissed out of hand. I'm restoring the image, but please include all this information in a detailed rationale. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I'll go and expand the rationale now. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SEFCUArena1.JPG

Hi. I wanted to express my annoyance about Image:SEFCUArena1.JPG, which was transfered to Commons and deleted on en:Wikipedia. The version of Commons lacked information explaining what the image depicted. Being an admin, I was able to look at the deleted image here on en, which had a nice specific description. I copied that on to the image on Commons. I am about to gripe to the user who copied it to Commons without that info, but first this note to you to please remember to double check that the information has actually been copied to Commons before deleting the version here. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Infrogmation. Yeah, sorry the info went missing. It had been verified by a bot as containing all valid info, but I guess the bot isn't as thorough as I'd assumed. Thanks for letting me know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Liz_Cosson_(MAJGEN).jpg

Where is the new pic to replace the one you deleted? You claim that you have one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't claim that. I deem that it should be possible for someone to create a replacement. See here, as noted at the top of my talk page. See also WP:NFCC#1 (or could be created), and the Wikimedia licensing resolution (. . .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.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It s not enough that it may be theoretically possible for someone to create a replacement (ie assuming the subject travels to the United States on business, which she has no intention of doing) we cannot reasonably expect that a 'freely licenced' file will ever be created. In the Army's opinion, what they have provided is sufficient. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
We have many Wikipedians in Japan. The Army doesn't run Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Army has a photo. The many Wikipedians in Japan do not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
After carefully reviewing all the debate, I deem the photo to be replaceable. If you believe I have acted against policy, you are free to list the image at Wikipedia:Deletion review. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If you deem it to be replaceable, then where is your replacement photograph? Or at the very least, can you explain how one could possibly be obtained? It has already been established that we cannot simply snap a photograph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
People have photographed her before. People will photograph her again. She's not a hermit. If you like, you can write Ms. Cosson to request a free photograph -- in fact, here is a great step-by-step tutorial on how to do just that, if you're interested. Barring that, unless you can show a reason why she can't be photographed by anyone, the photo is replaceable. Arguing further with me isn't likely to be effective; take it to WP:DRV if you're not satisfied, but I doubt it will be overturned. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
General Cosson. I already made my case that she cannot be photographed. A polite request for a photograph will merely be met with the one we already have (we tried this in another case). You were the one who insisted that a photograph could be obtained. I accept that there is no point in appealing the decision. All I could offer is a well-reason argument based upon our local knowledge, and that is apparently unacceptable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fear Her.jpg

Just a heads up; I've undeleted the image as it's nomination completely slipped through my radar, and frankly, the reason given at the nomination was not in any way valid (which is an issue to concider even if there are no initial objections). However, I have not deleted the tag or closed the nomination. — Edokter • Talk • 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting uncomfortably close to a wheel war. First off, WP:CSD#G4 says that images may be speedily deleted if they are reuploads material that was previously deleted according to process. The image was previously deleted according to process here (an anon alleged that it violated NFCC#8 and no one objected in 7 days, so Howcheng deleted it according to process). Therefore G4 applies, and anyone may speedily delete the image without listing it. Secondly, if you disagree with an admin's deletion, the appropriate response is to list it at Wikipedia:Deletion Review, not unilaterally undelete it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It was in no way ment to be a wheel war. However G4 does not apply when the current image does not suffer the problem causing it's earlier deletion, hence the reason was invalid. But if you want, I'll list it at DRV. — Edokter • Talk • 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
G4 says "A copy, by any title. . .", and it's definitely the same image. Look, you're being very polite and communicative, and I don't mean to be combative. I can certainly see arguments for keeping the image, and I'm really not sure what the best route is from here. So besides the comment I left here, I'm going to stay out of it and let another admin close the issue. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, we'll let another admin decide. Thanks. — Edokter • Talk • 21:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation Status in Taxobox

I'm writing about the use of the IUCN Conservation Status in "Taxoboxes" on many species pages. I work at IUCN for the programme that produces the Red List and we have a few suggestions that we think may enhance the inclusion of IUCN Red List category information.

One issue is that for some species, the taxobox has the conservation status, but no status_ref that refers to IUCN, which results in a taxobox showing the species' status in the IUCN Red List system, but it isn't clear that the classification is actually the IUCN Red List system. We would very much like to see the status_ref: iucn3.1 or status_ref: iucn2.3 added to any taxobox usage where it is missing. We feel this is quite important considering there are different conservation status systems out there being used on species pages. Could the polbot be used to go through and add the mising status_ref?

Another suggestion: currently when the status_ref is used to indicate that the system is the IUCN Red List (either 2.3 or 3.1), this places "(IUCN)" after the descriptive status term, as in "Least Concern (IUCN)". We would prefer this to be displayed as "Least Concern (IUCN Red List)". We feel that this latter method is more accurate and informative, as many people are actually more familiar with "The Red List" than they are with "IUCN", though both should be used for integrity.

Lastly, we notice than many of the taxoboxes are using out of date Red List categories from the 2006 Red List. The 2007 Red List was launched last September with many updated assessments. I'm not sure how your bot trolls the Red List website (or even if it does), but if there is anything we can do to make it easier for the IUCN Red List Conservation Status to be updated on Wikipedia articles, we're more than willing to help. We do have the ability to make some simple XML feeds available on our server containing the most up-to-date conservation status. Would this make things easier? Ichobar (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, and thanks for contacting me. I would be glad to run Polbot to add the correct status_ref to species, and to update the assessments to reflect the 2007 data. I'm sure I could use some help in getting the data in a format that's easy to work with. I'm going to investigate further to see the best way to do this, and I'll get back with you soon. As for the "Least Concern (IUCN)", I've asked the Wikipedia community about that at Template talk:Taxobox#IUCN Red List status. If no one has any objections, I'll make that change. I look forward to working with you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The displayed "Critically endangered (IUCN)" has the "(IUCN)" linking to the IUCN Red List article if anyone doesn't know what the IUCN is. "Critically endangered (IUCN Red List)" is a little large for the typical taxobox format, but perhaps changing the display to just (Red List) as in "Critically endangered (Red List)" would suffice? The link would still go to IUCN Red List. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this post is duplicating what is posted over at the taxobox talk page, but I think if you all feel having "Critically endangered (IUCN Red List)" is too long for taxobox usage, then IUCN would prefer leaving it as it is. "(IUCN)" usage is preferrable to "(Red List)" usage, since there are many countries who have their own "Red Lists" that were not done using the same system of categories and criteria.
Just let me know when you want to discuss how to best troll the Red List info to update the status and ref. to reflect the 2007 IUCN Red List. In my first post here I was mistaken. The status_ref isn't the only thing missing from some of the pages. It's also the status_system tag that is missing, which I think you understood despite my mistake. So, if the polbot could troll and ass missing status_ref and missing status_system tags, that would be ideal. Ichobar (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'd like to run Polbot to update all species, not just those that Polbot created. To do that, I'll need a list of the following for each species:

  1. The binomial species name (e.g. "Lemur catta")
  2. The correct status (e.g. "VU")
  3. The status system (e.g. "iucn2.3")

This can be in XML, a text file, or whatever works for you. This way I can look up the Lemur catta article (which redirects to Ring-tailed Lemur), and update the status and status system. Once this is done, all articles for those species will look like the one at Ring-tailed Lemur, showing clearly that the data comes from IUCN. Would that be sufficient? If so, how can I get access to such a list? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do the update with Beastie Bot, which is already set up to do these updates and a few other things (like updating references, and double checking that it's the right species being updated, and checking synonyms). I've written a longer reply on Ichobar's talk page. —Pengo 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Beastie Bot, Polbot...I'm getting a bit confused, but hopefully can follow along! Quadell mentioned the Ring-tailed Lemur page, which looks fine except for one thing. The Status (Vulnerable) should contain the footnote to direct to the citation at the bottom of the page. I think that is the Status_ref bit in the taxobox. And of course, as Pengo suggested, possibly changing "Conservation Status" to "IUCN Red List Status" would be nice. And I would add in to the XML feed whatever is necessary for adding missing references.

But what about taxonomy issues (dare I bring this up?). A species binomial may not be enough to ensure that the species concept on Wikipedia corresponds to the same species concept on the IUCN Red List. For example, if species X (Jones, 1878) is split into two species, X (Stephens 1995) and Y (Stephens 1995), we may have the Red List assessment for the earlier species X and Wikipedia may have an article on the later species X. These are not the same species. Is the author field then required in the XML feed to make sure you are placing the IUCN Red List status on the correct species? I am guessing that many of the species articles on Wikipedia are created not by pulling from the Red List, but coming from Wikispecies, yes?Ichobar (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John McLoughlin picture

OK, I understand your reason for deleting this picture, but I am a bit taken aback by the rigidity of Wikipedia policy on this. As I read it, it essentially means that publicity photos cannot be used for living people. That being so so, then there are many hundreds if not thousands of images that need to be deleted. Whew.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. We've got our work cut out for us! :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, you've been slacking long enough

We need help at WP:CP. :) --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. For a few minutes, anyway. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landel MailBug

Have you deleted the image yet? (I love entei (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

No. It will be deleted after a few days. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid this, and the images of sweepers and vacuums, are non-free images. We can't use those. If you could create your own photos with a camera and upload them, we'd love to have them! But we can only use non-free images in a few specific situations, and this isn't one of them. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks for working in duplicated images project. Your effort is appreciated. Emijrp (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for working in duplicated images project. Your effort is appreciated. Emijrp (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bianca and Maggie (Main).jpg

Hello, Quadell, I'm afraid that you misunderstood when you deleted the Image:Bianca and Maggie (Main).jpg.

You stated, "I'm afraid that the two people shown are still alive, and are, in fact, still together. Further, the use in Supercouple could be fulfilled by a photo of any gay or lesbian supercouple. Therefore this image is replaceable."

But I must state that these two are fictional characters. This promotional image was of fictional characters, therefore they were never alive. And there are only two gay supercouples in soap opera television, at least in America. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really chagrined. I thought I'd looked through that one more carefully. I'll restore it, but I'll still let another admin decide whether it should be kept or not. Thanks for noticing, and for being polite. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I've talked with you before, and you seem like you are great at your job. It was an honest mistake. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

Hi, what was not according to process when I deleted this image? It is only PD for sure on 1 January 2008. See the discussions I linked to. And a totally unrelated note, glad you are back. Garion96 (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded there. Basically I think we disagree on the purpose/policy of PUI. I think an image could and should be deleted per WP:PUI. It doesn't have to fall under a speedy or has to go to IFD. That's the way I. and I think many others, always used PUI. Perhaps that should be changed, or my prefered option, made more clear. Garion96 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, thank you for working on the backlog of WP:CP. Garion96 (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maldini & Vegas image.

I don't object to the deletion at all, especially if you have a replacement. Happy hunting. Themindset (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Market Basket Analysis

Hi Quadrell, I am trying to figure out where this page went: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_basket_analysis

If it is a duplicate of another page, can I get the other page just to be able to research the concept for my work? Wikipedia pointed me to you, but I do not see it in your deletion history.

Please help. User: buzzaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzaz (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This article was deleted for being a copyright violation. You can find the original article here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)