User talk:Quadell/archive8

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 March 5, 2005 to March 29, 2005.

Contents

[edit] Image:Bushland.jpg

Hi. I can't tag the above image because I can't remember where I got it from on the net! I think it might have been from sxc.hu, with its licence at first glance resembling public domain (but on closer inspection actually imposing usage limitations in the wording of the terms of use). Maybe it's best to just delete it. What do you think? - Mark 06:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: unknown flowers page

I have posted talk on the unknown flowers page. More information to come, when i get it. thx! BTW: I am also a louisvillian who at least is a big fan and supporter of both buddhists and quakers, though i prefer to remain affiliatless. --65.60.216.79 18:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Copyright Status

Hi there, All images by the US government are released into the public domain and can be used in the Wikipedia. But are images lower government structures, such as individual states, counties, and cities/towns released into the public domain as well? It would seem to make sense, but I don't want to tag any images wrongly, and make a copyright problem here.

Actually, the image is question is Image:Allapattah Library.jpg. I marked as a imagevio, since I saw the website is was taken from was copyrighted by Miami-Dade County in Florida. Is that correct, or not? Thanks. Bratsche(talk) 22:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

I noticed you edited the CE pages pictures to reflect fair use only. For the sake of putting this long running issues to rest, would the fairuse clause also extend to ships in the different universes, or is this because all pictures originate from the same sorce? I ask because user 132.whatever-the-rest-of-it-was made mention that he hadn't gotten to the UC ships yet, and I definatly do not want a repeat of the CE ship fiasco. TomStar81 21:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The CE picture that you corrected are on their respective pages off the templete {Cosmic Era ship classes}. The UC pictures can be founded in thier related articles off the templete {Universal Century ship classes}. Note that some articles- like the salamis and musai pages- have more than one picture on them because of the different ship types due to refits and such. Thanks in Advance. TomStar81

[edit] Request for apology

Please consider finding a way, any way to restore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AColeo1(s).jpg

And seriously consider making public apologies for deleting images without asking their author first, even though you know perfectly their author since you come on their own personal pages to remove the links to the iamges as well.

Anthere

Just an update: The image has now been restored from a mirror. --iMb~Mw 05:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've replied at User talk:Anthere#Anthere. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

And yet, when I deleted two images that you had uploaded, I was chastised.

I do not deny your work. I just regret that you deny other people work. Your job should be to clean images, not to delete images people offered in good faith to Wikipedia. In particular, when images are so tough to recover. In particular when you do not succeed to feel sorry when you make a mistake.

Even though the images were not used on any articles in Wikipedia. Even though the only reason they existed on Wikipedia, apparently, was that you like them.

I work on several projects at the same time. But mostly on the french wikipedia. I did not do all my articles in double. Some of these images were initially in articles, some have been removed. Some are only in articles on the french wikipedia, but I apparently very stupidely thought I could upload them at the same time on the english wikipedia because that could be of use here as well. I am pleased that they are here, I would be even more pleased that they are used, believe me. The reason I uploaded them is not only that I like them, but because I have the weakness to think they can be useful to someone one day. A couple of these insect images, I hesitated selling them. Ie, making money with them. An agri journal was ready to buy them. For example the lady bird picture. I did not. I gave them to Wikipedia. Because I liked them and believed in the project. Believe in giving them for free, even if that mean the journal could use them for free afterward. I do not think an image being not in an article yet is a valid argument to delete them. If I am wrong, please show me the rules that state that an image should necessarily be linked.

Even though you had been asked multiple times by several different users to tag your images, but have so far declined, expecting someone else to "run a bot" and do your work for you.

yes, expecting... Actually, have you any idea of the time I spend daily doing work, sometimes a bit boring work, for *you*, so that to try that this project work ? Most of the time, I have pleasure to do it, but this does not hide the fact often the work I do is for you all, so, yes, somehow, I feel not ashamed to please ask that someone run a bot on them for me. This is something frequently done on the french wikipedia for users who uploaded a lot of images.

Even though the images themselves clearly indicated that you did not take the photos and presumably did not own the copyright, and there was no indication that the copyright holder approved of their use on Wikipedia.

The last picture you deleted was absolutely mine. Only the little bunch of images where I had the weakness to thank the original author were not mine. And the author gave them to me. For free use. All the other images are mine, and you have no reason to doubt this. A couple are my husband, but I do think I already labelled them. There is no where a requirement to *prove* we authored an image, but if I say so, please, believe that I am not lying. When I uploaded images 3 years ago, I, at the same time agree to put it under gfdl. There were no tags then. If I engage myself to do so, and claim to be the author of the picture, the least you can do is to accept willingly that indeed i am the author of this image and that indeed, if I agreed to put them under gfdl, they might by default be under gfdl. I think this is a minimum. Where I a totally unknown editor, I might understand your unwillingness to trust an editor by default, by in my case, I think it is ludicrous to consider that by default I cheated.

If you want your images kept, please tag them. If you're unwilling to tag them, then don't expect others to care for your images more than you do. I am available for mediation if you think it appropriate.

I do not expect other people to take care of them, I expect YOU to ask people before deleting them.

But it is this focus on the negative – this tendency to chastise rather than thank – that gets good, hard-working people to leave Wikipedia.

No comment. Do not expect me to thank you in any cases, sorry. Anthere

[edit] Anthere

There are a handful of users on Wikipedia where, should you find yourself in conflict with them, it is almost certain that you have done something wrong. Anthere is one of them. I say this because, from what I can tell, you have upset Anthere. Also, from what I can tell, this was avoidable. When deleting an image uploaded by a respected and longtime contributor, you don't delete without asking questions first. Had you asked Anthere, she could have explained. But you didn't. And you offended a good contributor with it.

I hope you'll take this as a lesson in the future. Snowspinner 20:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Just an outside view... I don't know Anthere, I don't know Quadell. I can see that Quadell apparently deleted an image in good faith, it being untagged and orphaned, and these both being reasons for which images can legitimately be deleted. If there had been requests for the image to be tagged, and the images remained untagged, then how could Quadell be expected to know that the images were properly GFDL? All users, respected and longtime more than anyone, should abide by policy, and I can't see how Quadell did anything wrong here - certainly nothing that deserves the harsh words which have been exchanged. Remember to have wikilove for all your fellow wikipedians, they're not here to cause offence. Worldtraveller 00:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another opinion from an outside observer (I do not belive I have ever interacted with Quadell or Anthere). I'm afraid I disagree with Snowspinner; while I greatly respect certain editors, I do not believe there is anyone so important that if she is upset, it is "almost certain" the other is wrong. And yes, this could have been avoided, if Anthere had responded to a request she tag her images. Forgive me if I am missing something, but a quick glance at the history of her talk page shows [1] (January 26, 2005), over a month before the images were deleted. Not until the image was actually deleted did she complain.
The last deleted image was never brought to my attention. This is the only current point I am complaining about. Not deleting it because it was unlabelled, but rather not taking the time to tell me "there is a deadline in 2 hours 58 minutes, 3 seconds, this image will be deleted... bip bip bip..."Anthere
An untagged, orphan image—and the uploader ignored a request for tagging or license clarification for over a month—I think Quadell's actions were perfectly justified. Now I can understand Anthere being upset over her image being deleted, especially since when she uploaded it this tagging process was apparently not in place. And she might be justified in complaining about Wikipedia policy, or (better) working to change it. However, I feel it is highly inappropriate to place the blame on Quadell, who is carrying out an important function (and one not many are willing to do) in trying to clean Wikipedia of image copyright violations.
Granted. Anthere

And it's certainly unfair to chastise Quadell for "offending a good contributor"; "good users" must follow policy like everyone else—image copyright violations are no more acceptable from longtime contributors than from new ones.

Absolutely true. But the issue is not that my picture is a copyright violation, but only that I did not WRITE AGAIN that I am the author and that it is under gfdl (though I already promised it was gfdl when I uploaded it). You are making a confusion here. The guilt is not that I am a bad bad bad copyright violator, but only that I am not following community expectations. If so, the "punishment" should be on me for not following rules, rather than on my images. Since I promised they were gfdl when I uploaded them, then again say it openly on my talk page, my images are under gfdl. So, deleting them is an indirect way of punishing me, but it is also punishing the community, by removing images which are perfectly free. Now, if these images are really copyright violations, I do not think it is really your business, as it will be I in front of tribunal, either as the "uploader" of it, or as a member of the group legally responsible for the website. Note that if you would choose to call me a copyright violator from now on, I would consider asking for legal advice, and the burden of proof would be yours to give to a judge. I am not sure I am entirely clear here, but really, I want to insist that it is not because I do not tag an image that I am legally liable of copyright violation. If the guilt of not tagging an image is so bad, then consider changing rules and banning editors. But from a real life perspective, there is no guilt.

IThey may deserve a little more leeway, but a month without a response is plenty of time I feel. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True. Very true. But in the case of this latter image, I was not told. So, cant really say there was enough time really.

Anyway, how to say... I do not deny Quadell all his good work and I totally recognise it is a difficult work to do. My only wish is that editors are warned before deletion. It could be a simple quick tag to add to their user talk page one week before doing it before. It just happen to be Quadell having the problem, because only Quadell happens to delete my images :-) I suppose it could be anyone else. So, I apologies to Quadell for my harshness really. And ask him to forgive me about this and not talk about it anymore.

This said, sorry, but should someone go on doubting that I am the author of my pictures, and should someone go on claiming that I am uploading copyright violations, I think I would have to call that defaming. There is absolutely no argument to say I stole my pictures anywhere. I am deeply serious about that. And feel very upset to see such comments. It is bad enough that my images are deleted for not being fit to stay here, that on top, there is no public accusation of doing illegal things at all. That might be a slip of word, but that does not make it less problematic to my eyes. It is not because an image is not tag that we are not the author, and it is not because an image is not tag that it is mandatorily a copyright violation. It is a a fallacious argument to say they are. Ant

[edit] Image deletion

Your welcome. I'm hoping some others will help too.

Oh, I have a question; I mistakenly deleted a few image pages instead of the image itself. Is there anything I need to to fix this? thanks- Duk 19:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for cleaning up

Image:IndiaBowlingCricket.jpg: the german wiki had no soure either. Support deletion. Thanks for cleaning up -- Chris 73 Talk 22:56, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BeetrootTuna.JPG

Surely you're joking, Mr. Quadell? GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, then I shall have to do my best. I am not known for my cooking, though. This is about as far as I go. However, I am a keen photographer who owns a good digital camera, and who is shortly to embark for a 6-month tour of Europe, so I will surely find more dishes (and other items) to photograph. Rest assured that these images will be uploaded to the Commons. GeorgeStepanek\talk

[edit] Re: Adminship

I suppose it is perhaps a foolhardy thing to do. But then again, I wouldn't want people to vote for my adminship based on a few weeks of "model" behavior and then find that I was really nothing like that. I'll just keep contributing the way I have been contributing, and I hope that people will approve of my style.

Besides, I couldn't just let people deride you on your talk page, especially when I didn't feel all the facts were being presented. As is often the case, the real issue is more complicated than a simple right/wrong matter. There were many things that could have been done differently, although not all should necessarily be expected. I don't consider this a "you vs. Anthere" issue, espeically as she seems to indicate that her dissatisfaction is with the current policy more than with your specific actions. In any case, I wanted to stick up for someone whom I thought was being portrayed unfairly. I didn't like the way the blame was being placed on you (especially when you're doing a vital but rather unpopular task), and wanted to help people see that this issue was not as clear-cut as they might have thought. But I also think it's a relatively minor issue, one that has been resolved as far as I can see. And as always, we've all learned a little; hopefully something good will come out of it. Thanks for all your hard work on this, and please don't leave. I would hate to see you or Anthere leave over this or anything else; I hope her Wikibreak is a short one. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to send you an email today, but there is no mail in your preferences. Could you write to me at anthere at wikimedia.org ? Anthere

[edit] Orphans

Thanks! Yep, already sent in a comment (the license tracking mess affects my work too). If you mention this to anyone who isn't comfortable with the intermediate site, there is a direct (but slightly more complicated) way of commenting directly to the LoC. http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/index.html --iMb~Mw 15:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

So, you're taking a break. I hope it isn't permanent! You're a wonderful contributor here; WP:IRR won't be the same without you. So, have a good break, but come back eventually! dbenbenn | talk 16:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words to me Quadell. I just wanted to say I was feeling bad to see how I jumped on you. I felt picked on, really at a moment where I was not emotionally able to handle it. I really did not intend to be rude on purpose, and I would hope you forgive me and go on doing good job. I am really glad you say you will be careful in the future. Also meant to say that while I was already thinking this yesterday morning and wondering how to say it, brian and I talked a bit on irc yesterday evening... So... you might consider that helpful as well in the future. Sorry again. Anthere

[edit] Image:West Virginia Prisons.gif

No, it comes from [2], so {{fairuse}}. Perhaps some kind soul at WP:IRR will redraw it and GFDL it; it doesn't look too difficult. I uploaded that in my early days here, when I didn't fully understand copyright law (or, apparently, the proper file format). Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 05:31, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sleuthing picture

Sure! I'm playing with some ideas, should have something in a few days. --iMb~Mw 10:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Palestine Public Affairs Forum

Hi. Thanks for asking. I've responded on the relevant talk page. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I need to know some information regarding image tags.

  1. Is there a licence that I can release my images such that it works like the GFDL, ie. anyone is free to edit it, improve it and use it like the licence for all free purposes BUT the image must be credited to me as the photographer?
  2. I want to move all images on the Sikkim page to commons. How do I do this? (I would prefer not to upload all over again)
  3. How do I upload to commons?
  4. I have touched up an image [Bombay-market.jpg] which is in commons, but when I uploaded the image, it did not upload to the commons but to the english wikipedia. How do I rectify this for future purposes?

Thanks, Nichalp 20:39, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful information on the image tags. No, I'm not from Sikkim but I went there on a recent trip in December. It was a beautiful and I had a lot of images with me which I uploaded here. After returning I elevated the Sikkim article to a FA. I have also deleted the image:Bombay-market.jpg. Nichalp 19:28, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of Latin proverbs

Hi, I noticed you removed the list of Latin proverbs (and replaced with a link to the wikiquote page). Might I ask why? I know that usually duplication of content serves no purpose, but did you consider that a lot of the Latin proverbs have their own fully fledged wikipedia articles and that while all the "written content" was kept, the "linking content", as it were, has now been lost. I will link the quotes back to wikipedia is possible, or produce a limited list of the ones we have articles on.

I'm not convinced, however, that the list wouldn't serve a purpose on Wikipedia too. It's plausable that many of the quotes on that page only became articles because they were listed there and/or red-linked. I'd like to hear your opinion before I bring back the list though. nsh 21:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

-update- Ok, I've left all the quotes where I've judged there to be information above the purely literal meaning of the quote and added a short brief at the top of the article. Feedback appreciated. nsh 22:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar award

I hereby award you the Tireless Contributer Barnstar as an Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence. :) --Neutralitytalk 04:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I hereby award you the Tireless Contributer Barnstar as an Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence. :) --Neutralitytalk 04:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I hereby award you the Tireless Contributer Barnstar as an Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence. :) --Neutralitytalk 04:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balsamic Vinegar

I'd like it to stay, personally, and was going to create a stub tonight and expand on it throughout the week. Perhaps if it is removed from the Deletion list, I could do this? Many thanks --PopUpPirate 23:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship

Thank you for voting for me for adminship. I appreciate the confidence you showed in me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jaguar C-type.jpg

(William M. Connolley 22:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)) For what its worth, JG has probably left wiki, ever since it became clear that the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne would go against him.

[edit] Wertq1's images

Why exactly did you mark some of those Jasenovac images as fair use [3] [4] [5] and one unused one for deletion [6]? I don't see any difference between their origin (let alone license information) so they should either all be kept or all removed. --Joy [shallot] 21:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't disagree with your rationale, but that's really a minor semantic issue... I think that the far more important issue here is where those images actually come from and are they really fair use, or are they just scanned off of the pages of a copyrighted encyclopedia? The photographs themselves must be copyrighted because they were made no more than 64 years ago. The amount of these pictures and the lack of source acknowledgement does little to indicate fairness with regard to citing the original author's work, which is the whole point of the fair use doctrine. --Joy [shallot] 01:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contract

Hi Quadell, if you have any time, I'd appreciate your advice regarding a map that I'd like to use in an article. I e-mailed the copyright owners for permission, and they've sent me an agreement they want me to return. I'm unsure as to whether I'd be allowed to agree to this, or what the implications would be. As you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, would you mind casting an eye over it, and let me know what you think? I've posted it at User:SlimVirgin/map. Best, SlimVirgin 00:12, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, Quadell; it's very helpful. I think I'll upload it and tag it "permission", even if I can only use it for a year, because it's a much better map than the one I've currently got. The other thing that put me off it is that the agreement says I have to leave their logo in place, but it's an article related to the Holocaust, and I'm not sure that will look appropriate, as it's a pretty dominant logo. Anyway, I'll upload it and take a look. Many thanks again, SlimVirgin 02:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Java languages

Hey I've just added the {{gfdl}} template. Thanks for you attention. Cheers! Meursault2004 07:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance

Thanks for stopping by my talk page, I've never actually conducted a conversation via talk before, so I'm hoping this is the correct method of response. I was happy to be able to clean up the Recon page, and I hope I'll be able to continue some work on the page... you hit the nail on the head as far as the glut of acronyms and jargon are concerned, and that's one of the main things I tried to address, and hope to improve. The previous contributors, especially to the equipment section, were almost too knowledgable, I think. I'd like to turn the focus back to a more entry-level description, and lose some of the really technophilic stuff.

As far as where I was stationed... I worked in a somewhat rarefied technical field within the US military, so I ended up in some atypical places. Spent a lot of time in California, was discharged in Texas.... with some stops in between. Fox1 07:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fleshing out Agricultural Adjustment Act

In response to your message, no problem. Thanks for the kind comments!

[edit] Legal FAQ of Wikimedia Germany

The FAQ can be found here meta:Rechtsfragen März 2005 (in German. But the text is GFDL, so everybody is welcome to translate it). -- akl 22:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your query of the New Zealand Air Training Corps rank insignia

I drew these illustrations myself, based on my memories of my former service in the ATC.
Expatkiwi 20:52, 22 Mar 2005 (PST)

[edit] Where should that image be?

I think it could be in Yugi Mutou, but there is a better image showing the same character. Should I withdraw this claim? WhisperToMe 00:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Idw*

When you add new templates please add them to the appropriate subpage of Wikipedia:Template messages. Template:Idw, etc. must be added to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I'll add a few that I know of. -- Paddu 15:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW these should probably be used with subst: since many of the recipients of these messages would be newbies who might get confused with the "mismatch" between the text of the user talk and the wiki-source due to templates. -- Paddu 15:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Docking Compartment

Your removal of the copyvio notice was accompanied by no explanation, and was marked as a minor edit. It certainly isn't minor; moreover, although there was a comment posted to the Copyvio page, it offered as evidence a dead link. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply — but your cut-and-paste of the reason simply included the dead link, with no other evidence for there being no copyvio. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The correct link is [7]. -- Paddu 15:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; I've added to the article an acknowledgement to NASA (as requested on their page). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote regarding autofellatio.jpg

Greetings, Sam. I was counting up the votes to see where we currently stand on the vote. I'm having trouble interpreting your vote. You said: "Delete if it's a copyvio. Otherwise, keep until a better illustration can be found." The trouble is, that's a highly contested question. Some claim that the image is absolutely a copyvio; others claim it's not. Images of the same actor performing the same act have been found on pay-sites. But that exact image has not been found. How should I count your vote? As keep or delete? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The results of the vote will undoubtedly be used as an argument against the future addition of any other autofellation picture. I do not want my vote to be interpreted that way, because I support the existence of such a picture on Wikipedia (but I definitely agree the current one is amongst the worst possible). Therefore I would be glad if you counted my vote as keep, because if the question is solely about copyright, it should not be discussed on I&MfD in the first place; we have Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for that. Thanks for asking! Sam Hocevar 19:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mine should likewise be counted as a "keep" vote. --Carnildo 20:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ENTERPRISE.JPG

You changed this image from unverified to fairuse, do you know it's source? AlistairMcMillan 04:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging, citing source, etc.

See Image:Khalidbinmahfouz.jpg uploaded by you (your first image) on 7 April 2004. You uploaded without tags/sources (as did most others during that time). Later on 30 September 2004 you tagged it fairuse (it still doesn't cite the source). When someone so involved in image-tagging had an image untagged until Sep. 2004, I would guess there would be a lot of other well-intentioned images from the early half of 2004 that are untagged (probably some already deleted :( ), with the uploader having left wikipedia since. Some of these wouldn't be orphans, but some (those that are more appropriate for commons than for an encyclopaedia) would be. -- Paddu 05:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just found your {{idw}} tag at User talk:Perl. As that talk page says, Perl has since moved to wikibooks and you could only contact him/her at b:User talk:Perl. Leaving messages here when there's little chance of the user reading it here is pointless. Also note that his/her talk page is protected, probably with the intention that nobody leaves messages here & instead leaves them at wikibooks. I've intimated Perl at his/her wikibooks talk page, but beware of these issues in future. Thanks! -- Paddu 05:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether you noticed Perl's request to contact him only though his wikibooks accounts, that's all. The point of working at finding things to criticise you is this: I happened to see a wrongly tagged image and was talking about it at Wikipedia talk:Untagged images and saw your request for comments on what to do with UOs. So I offered my comments. You countered saying the image upload page always said you've cite source/tag and that you could probably only excuse uploaders earlier than 2003. So I desperately tried to prove that people didn't know about tagging even in 2004 and gave some links there. I didn't want to advertise anything about your image on Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion. I wanted to mail you but then I wasn't sure I would remember to check my inbox (the one I specified in my prefs) for your reply if any. So I added those comments here. If you dislike my criticisms, don't respond & I would stop. I found the idw thingy in Perl's page because those templates were referenced in Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion & I thought these should be linked to from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and searching through Whatlinkshere I found Perl's talk page. Knowing that he has left long ago, I wanted to make sure the person who added the comment must be intimated that Perl has left to wikibooks (Whether he's an aspy or not, if the user requests that you leave messages in wikibooks, I'd leave messages there and expected the same, that's all). It so happened that that person was you. What could I do? In other words if I kept hovering around related pages where the most important contributor was you, I keep criticising you. I'm sorry for that. Probably I got too carried away by the thought of losing nice pictures. -- Paddu 17:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to make something clear. Since I'm not opposing you this time, I suppose it is OK. I'm really sorry to be troubling you again, but just wanted to make things clear...
I support deleting images like Image:IndiaBowlingCricket.jpg since these would never be part of commons. I'm only worried about good-quality pictures wwith room for suspecting that they could have been taken by a Wikipedian (i.e. exactly the same kind of pictures one would like in the commons). -- Paddu 18:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please use subst: with Idw*. I'd wrongly thought that talk pages are protected until I realised on clicking the section edit link I get to the Idw* templates, which are what are protected. -- Paddu 06:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

If it's questionable, then delete. -- BRIAN0918  16:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Chennai, tsunami, Tamil

Out of the millions that live in Chennai only a few thousands living along the coast were affected. I live > 2 km away from the coast and personally don't know anyone who has been affected. Fisherfolk were supposedly given (a lot of aid|no aid) to resume their business (depending on which political party makes the claim). But I don't know any fisherfolks, nor any of the people playing/exercising/etc. in the beach, so I really have no idea about the "ground reality" but I don't hear much about the tsunami (that could be because I'm introverted) so probably we could guess the general shock of the public has gone. In the rest of Tamil Nadu though, still there are some complaints about inadequate/incomplete relief measures (at least I heard a few in news channels about a week ago).

BTW I am a Tamil (though a lot less proficient in Tamil than in English). -- Paddu 18:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for deletion

I have very mixed views on this. A rough count of the votes gives about 75%. If you discount voters with less than 1000 edits (not that I'd recommend anyone do that), the total is still under 80%. I know some people, including myself, have deleted on 66% support, but, in this case, a lot of people voting delete are giving reasons such as "vandalism target", which is not a valid reason for deletion under current policy. This has been brought up on the voting page, mainly by Oldak, but not really refuted. It's this which would make me more inclined to want a higher percentage of delete votes before deleting. The image isn't currently inline in the article anyway, which seems to make a decision about this less urgent. Then again, if it's not decided now, people will just try relisting it, and the issue will never be solved. Personally, I wouldn't delete it, but I wouldn't object if it was deleted. Sorry I can't be of more help. Angela. 01:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Collierville

This article isn't copyvio. Notice the public domain source under the heading "Sources". The majority of Civil War battle articles are from this one source. -- BRIAN0918  03:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy idea

Are you ready to talk about your crazy idea to make Wikiquote more useful? I'm curious. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 03:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was a bit confused about your references to Wiktionary, as I was asking about your "Crazy idea" as shown on Wikiquote. (I can't help wondering if it's related to your cool but disconcerting cross-linking of your Talk page(s) between Wikis.) On Wikiquote, I had wondered if you were thinking along the lines that I have — that it would be useful to be able to treat each individual quote as a data unit. I was thinking more in terms of providing a quote-serving capability (as has been asked about, and which issue has also come up in the context of handling Wikipedia song-list elements), but like you, I've also fretted about the excessive effort needed to maintain quotes that appear in multiple articles.
Thanks for the pointers to the Commons discussions. I found the vote rather confusing, as it assumes a considerable amount of previous experience on this issue, but your introduction in your proposal made it much clearer. I'm a bit concerned about the tail wagging the dog there. Commons pages do seem more logically suited as Categories, but that's only true because of the nature of the Commons, and isn't true for every other Wiki I've worked on. Changing the software to accomodate a single project seems outrageous to this relatively inexperienced Wikian. (E.g., wouldn't it be more reasonable to provide a capability for Commons' Search to automatically prefix "Category:" for Commons?) But intuitively, it also seems to me that making Category pages just like article pages might be akin to object-oriented languages treating their own innards as objects, which conceptually strikes me as a Good Thing. I must resign myself to being too ignorant for now to join the discussion.
Anyway, thanks for the info. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vote

Greetings, Christiaan. I was counting up the votes to see where we currently stand on the autofellatio vote. I'm having trouble interpreting your vote. You said: "Keep if it isn't a copyvio." The trouble is, that's a highly contested question. Some claim that the image is absolutely a copyvio; others claim it's not. Images of the same actor performing the same act have been found on pay-sites. But that exact image has not been found. How should I count your vote? As keep or delete? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:59, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep thanks Quadell, sorry for the confusion. —Christiaan 18:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To address the copyvio issue, I dare you to list the image on WP:IRR. We've got to have someone around who can do the act in question and has a camera. By the way, thank you very much for the glowy star. dbenbenn | talk 01:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright queries

Hi once again. I have some additional queries on image copyrights that I need to know.

  1. I'm unsure what the creative commons licence versions does. Could you brief me in on what exactly v1 and so on does?
  2. [8] is licenced under a CC licence. Does this mean that I am free to upload the images to wikipedia without contacting the owner? I will credit him ofcourse and keep the licence.
  3. Assuming I'm uploading under the CC, can I upload CC tagged images to wikipedia commons, or only GFDL and PD are allowed?

Thanks Nichalp 21:07, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my doubts. :) Nichalp 19:00, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Quadell, I see you're inundated with queries here, so address mine only if you have some spare time, and if not, don't worry about it. I'm trying to find a working definition/description of "fair use," so that I can make an educated judgment as to when I may use a two-dimensional image in Wikipedia under the fair-use provision. Any information or pointer in the right direction would be most helpful. Best, SlimVirgin 01:04, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autofellatio.jpg

I'd said it shouldn't be kept if the copyright was questionable, which it always was. BTW, in the future, please don't forget to put the : before Image:, so I don't get greeted with that image on my talk page. Thanks.  :)  BRIAN0918  02:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to Lima miraflores.JPG ?

Hello, I have something to ask for. It is about a picture that was located in the article about Lima, Perú. Where did you obtain that this image was copyrighted? Did you try to inform the person who uploaded to state the image's source before you got rid of the image? feel free to respond at my talk page. Thanks ! Messhermit 08:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will disscuss with the owner of the picture to clarify this misuderstandment. However, now that we are talking about copyright issues, I want to ask you something else:
I have scanned several pictures from old encyclopedias and magazines, and I completely don't known about its copyright. I put them under the GDU License (I think).
Please help me to categorise this pictures. Thanks ! Messhermit 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the image

Regarding the image you left me a note on on my user page, has any progress been made at contacting the site owner? If we can confirm that it is indeed a copyvio, then the vote on IfD is irrelevant -- regardless of votes, copyvios need to be removed. --Improv 14:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autofelletio copyright

Hi Quadell, I noticed you came up with a copyrighted site that this image is on. Is there any reason why you haven't tagged it copyvio? I will myself, after the current round of revert warring on the image page is done. Unless there is a reason not to. Duk 20:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I hadn't noticed :) Its now listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, the link is good enough for me. Duk 21:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User ban, please

Hi, you were the first admin I came to on S:RC. Could you block user Fuck off netoholic (talk · contribs) please. Autofellatio & clear from the name. Ta Smoddy (tgeck) 23:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ignore that. Neutrality did it. Smoddy (tgeck) 23:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Quadell, thank you, that's extremely helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. Best, SlimVirgin 06:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I thought you'd want to know. . . it appears someone has vandalised your user page. ;)

Good one, Quadell, but a bit too subtle. I bet that would have stood a long time if you hadn't mentioned it. :) dbenbenn | talk 22:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Recent additions

While I appreciate your efforts in updating this page, I'd like to ask you to to take the items you add from the bottom of The archive section at Template talk:Did you know to avoid a number of items being skipped (which your edit did). Happy editing! 131.211.210.16 11:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)