User talk:Quadell/Archive 54

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 49
• 50
• 51
• 52
• 53
• Archive 54
• 55
• 56
• 57
• 58
• 59

Stanley Bruce FA Nomination

Hi Quadell!

I was hoping you might be able to do me a huge favour and have a look at my FA nomination for Australian PM Stanley Bruce. It hasn't attracted much attention for some reason, but I've worked very hard over a few months to get this one up to scratch. I'm relatively new to this kind of work, but I'm hoping to be able to contribute more FA quality articles once I've mastered my first. Anyway, its been through a few rounds of comments/reviews and just needs a couple more contributing (and hopefully supportive!) voices. You're obviously very experienced with FA nominations, and you'd be helping me out a lot to prevent this one from lapsing. Thanks in advance! Unus Multorum (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I would love to review. I hope I have time in the next few days. Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have finished my initial review, and I look forward to your comments. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For keeping the original spirit of those days of fun and innocence alive. David Shankbone 01:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I'm always glad to be a part of keeping fun alive. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your suggestions and participation in the FAC for Blackwater fire of 1937...it is now a Featured Article. MONGO 15:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm so glad! You did a ton of work, and it really is an excellent article. Dare I say... the best article ever (about a fire in 1937)? Probably! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Pie for lunch!

Thank you for your good wishes and the delicious pie. Since your comments at the Sea FAC, I asked Cnilep to look into the naming of the article and in particular, what title would generate the most redirects if adopted. He stated that "... a quick scan of a small, arbitrary set of pages linking to Sea suggests that most of those links do intend to refer to this super-body of water". This seems to differ from your viewpoint.

With regard to the Desert GAN, I will not be unhappy if nobody takes it up until the Sea FAC is concluded as the latter has become quite a gruelling experience. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand, and I'm sorry for the gruel. But encompassing the entire Sea is never easy for a mere mortal! Job 38:8-11 and all that. Best of luck! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pinniped FA

Hello, would you able to review pinniped? LittleJerry (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have three GAC reviews open at the moment, but I may be able to review soon, insha'Allah. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review for Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo

Hi Quadell, and thanks for doing the JJ Rabearivelo GA review! Noted that you'll be away for a bit. I'm also moving around for the next few weeks (I'm in the US Foreign Service and transitioning from a 2-year post in Africa to one in Asia). I do expect to have time to respond to your points by Sunday evening - at least, I'll do my best. If for some reason you don't see progress there, would you kindly hold off on closing the GA review until I've had a chance to get back to you with a new ETA? - Lemurbaby (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for letting me know! – Quadell ^(talk) 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Okay - I've tried to address everything you raised in the review. Let me know if anything still needs attention. Thank you again for the review! Lemurbaby (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for taking on this complex topic for a GA review and all your suggestions to improve the article. And enjoy your trip this weekend! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't eat real meat, but I do enjoy a digital cheeseburger now and again! Thanks, and I am about to start this weekend very shortly, and live it to the fullest. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disraeli and elsewhere

Thank you so much for your comments on the images. I mentioned in passing the FAC article on Elgin Cathedral, which I had the pleasure of looking in on at its current FAC, and commend to your notice, should you be interested. I thought the gallery was very fine. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished! May I ask you, as an image expert, to look in at Elizabeth David bibliography, where an editor with views on images is in conflict with other editors (self included). Grateful for your impartial judgment, if you have time and inclination to look in and comment. Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I hate to bring you bad news, but as obnoxious as Werieth is being, he's correct about policy. Sure, the article looks better with the covers, and yes, the article discusses the contents of the covers in at least a few cases. But it's still a "list" article (in that it would be eligible for "featured list" status), and is therefore more akin to S. E. Hinton bibliography or List of works of William Gibson. Now it's also true that the Elizabeth David bibliography goes into way more detail about each book than either of those examples, and in some ways is more like the Literary career section of William Gibson... but you'll notice that that section doesn't include non-free book covers either. There just isn't any possible article, no matter how it's organized or structured, that would allow for six non-free book covers in this way. (It might help to compare the featured List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, where each animal has a lengthy description, including the appearance... but a non-free image could not be supplied. Or the GA on Astrid Kirchherr, whose photographs are discussed, but cannot be shown since they are non-free.)

Werieth should certainly have handled the entire situation differently, but I'm afraid it would go against policy to include the images. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's helpful to have an informed view, even when it's not the view one was hoping for. Thank you, Quadell. Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Odd editing (revert) at the Iren. Theodicy page and the Augustinean Theodicy page

Hi Quadell: Just a short message that there seems to have been a drive-through edit last night reverting the consensus edit made between the 3 of us with ItsZippy on the LEDE in the Augustinian Theodicy page and the Iren. Theodicy page from a week or two ago. Did you know anything about it? When I looked up that editor's contrib list, he appears to have a long history of edit warring and section deletions. (Especially the Max Weber Page). Since this was a consensus edit between the 3 of us, could I ask that it be restored and the page protected maybe for a week or so. (disruptive editor ref name, b ink.) If you could possibly look at this.

P.s. The same disruptive editor has apparently also just announced a general agenda against all anon IP-Users by posting a picture of himself with caption and smirky smile on his User page and also on the Max Weber Talk page. 209.3.238.61 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Anything to do about it... it seems this path was already covered? 209.3.238.61 (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, you added some info without discussing it on the talk page, and a minor edit war ensued. Then Zippy said "how about this instead?", and even though I thought the info you added was not helpful, I agreed to Zippy's compromise, saying I said I had no problem with it. It looks like another editor had a problem with it. There's really no shortcut to working out consensus on the talk page. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted content question

Hi Quadell,

Sorry to bother you again. I have a super duper important question. I am updating and adding related images to Timeline of U2 and I hit on this section, on August 25, U2 played two important concerts concerts at Slane Castle, days after Bono's dad death, I was wondering if it is ok to upload under the right liscence a screenshot of the part of the concert where Bono dedicates a song to his father to depict the section. Thanks for your time. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question. There are lots of discussions about when it is and isn't okay to use non-free images, and they get pretty complex. There isn't a clear yes-or-no answer to your question. Some people would say that that's a valid use of a non-free image, and it complies with our non-free use policy. They would point out that it's the only non-free image used in the article, that the article text discusses the content of the image, and that the image shows something that words alone can't convey. Other people would say that's an invalid use of non-free content, and that the image should be deleted. They would point out that the article isn't primarily about that concert, that the text description explains it well enough, and that all the image shows is Bono on stage. If you upload the image and someone takes it to WP:FFD, I honestly don't know whether it would be deleted or not. You're welcome to try, if you want. What photo were you thinking of using? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I will upload it and let you know as soon as I've done. I just want to know if I am going to get into troubles if I upload the picture. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You won't get into any trouble. The worst that could happen would be that someone could nominate the image for deletion. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I need to decide which one I will choose. I have two: 1) Bono singing the line I'm a man/ I'm not a child/ A man who sees/ The shadow behind your eyes, which according to The Edge it was a memorable moment because, when U2 was recording that song (Bono had being having health problems) suddenly Bono's voice returned while singing that part. I could add that picture and add a quote from the official biography of the band with Edge's comment on it. or 2) A picture of the band performing the song, with Bono using a red acoustic guitar (which he only used for that song). What do you say? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's better when the image can show something unique, described specifically in the text, in a way that words alone cannot convey. I think the first image is a better choice, particular if you include a brief quote about why the image is important. This will make it more likely to be kept. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Take a look at it and tell me what you think about the summary and the image. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks good to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help :D Have a nice day! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Hi Quadell, I've uploaded a cropped version of File:Bono_and_Ali_Hewson_at_daughter's_graduation_2012.jpg, but I am having problems with adding the licence. Can you help me on that? Thank you very much! :D Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the license is correct now. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! :D You are great! Sorry for so many bothers! :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you.

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For all of your past and ongoing technically excellent achievements on Wikipedia. bd2412 T 16:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content issues on Stay Alive (album) and others

Hi there- apologies for the delay, I have been without regular Internet access for some time. Each use of non-free content requires a separate and specific rationale, explaining what that particular piece of non-free content adds to that particular article, why it is so important that this is added and why it could not be added without the use of non-free content. Currently, the music samples have useless generic rationales, and it's impossible to tell which article they refer to, as they are, in many cases, used in multiple articles. As such, you need to have a good think about whether every sample really adds to the article. (Note that you should aim for samples to be 30 seconds or 10% of the song length, whichever is shorter, and no more than 64kbps.) The radio station logo also lacks a rationale, and should really be removed. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have any particular interest in any of the three article, and I haven't edited them. I was just thinking of reviewing them for GA status, and I wasn't sure how to handle the situation. I'm still not sure whether it's better to (a) quickfail the nomination, (b) insist in the review that the non-free content be reduced, or (c) insist in the review that the rationales and information be expanded, though no reduction in content is needed. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That no one has done anything about the tags despite the fact the articles are in the queue is slightly worrying. As the issue is fixable, I wouldn't quickfail unless there are other major problems with the article(s). I'd insist that detailed rationales are added (unless they are removed) and ask the author to think seriously about whether that many samples are really needed. It's possible that they are, but it's worth looking closely. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: COngratulations

Thank you so so so much for the barnstar and the supportive comment. It is the first time someone give me a barnstar for the work on U2 related topics, so it means A LOT to me :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Run of the Mill

Just wanted to say another thanks for your review, Quadell – and seeing what else you've taken on, I'm full of admiration for what you bring to wikipedia. In the case of "Run of the Mill", you formalised my existing concerns and of course brought your own, and the article's all the better for it. That's everything I love about the GA process on wikipedia. I'd be delighted if you could take another nomination of mine sometime – but yes, it looks like you're not short of options already!

I think my nominations hang around for months untaken because a) the song articles are so long(!), and b) I'm a bit reluctant to impose on reviewers by contacting them direct, after they've been generous with their time in the past. All good, either way. Oh, and I never thought it would be possible to pack so much meaning into three words: your "all the best"! Big thanks, JG66 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Niels Bohr

Thanks for your review of Enrico Fermi! It was much appreciated. I was wondering if you would do me a favour and give Niels Bohr a review? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I would love to. I'm a little backed up at the moment, but I'll review it as soon as I get a free slot of Wikipedia time. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Inline commentary

Hello. Just a heads up that you left some superscript commentary text in the Destruction of the Library of Alexandria article - not sure if it was an oversight in copying a work-in-progress article from offline, or a misreading of policy, but I thought I'd let you know that I've moved your concerns to Talk:Destruction of the Library of Alexandria and replaced the superscript text with {{disputed-inline}} tags. --McGeddon (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I moved the destruction information from the Library of Alexandria page into this new article, and just left a summary at "Library of Alexandria". So any errors that were already there are now duplicated at Destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Thanks for helping to clean that up! All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!

Quadell- just noticed your excellent help in figuring out the French Sudan work. While QSL and I were both traveling and without the ability to participate in the process, your shepherding of the article to get it to good status is greatly appreciated. I'm still traveling for a few days (just checking in and saw the amazing work), but wanted to make sure that your excellently helpful activity received some recognition. Thank you very much for the help. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I was delighted to help out. In all honesty, QSL had left the French Sudan article in such great shape that there was little I had to do. (I learned a lot about North African history as well, which was a plus.) I hope you and QSL will return to editing soon. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Desert GAN

Thank you for your third and fourth opinions. The article has now been promoted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Now that you have survived your ordeal in the desert, appropriately enough, it's time for a discourse on salt! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot from a game

Hello friendm,

Have you heard about The Sims 3, well, I recently got the Late Night expansion where you can form a band, and I created U2, I was thinking about uploading it and place it in the artcle to depict the new option, so I was wondering if it is possible... is it some rule against it? I mean, I will upload the screenshot under the right licence but don't know if the part of U2 will apply? (Adam Clayton it is not playing the bass but the double bass and they don't have the names so one could not say if they are actually the band). Can you help me on that? Thank you very much and sorry for tyhe bothers. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have to worry about U2's copyright, but EA's copyright on the look of The Sims is the main issue. All Sims screenshots are "non-free". The The Sims 3 article already has three screenshots, so you definitely shouldn't add another screenshot to The Sims 3. But The Sims 3: Late Night doesn't have any screenshots yet, so I think that would be okay. So far as I'm concerned, a new screenshot of Sims characters made to look like U2 would be acceptable in that article. You could have a caption like "Players are able to model their sims after real celebrities, if they wish. Here, a band is made to look like the rock band U2." All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much one more time for your excellent help and patience. Best! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please, take a look at it and tell me what do you think. Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks great! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, hope EA or U2 don't sue me. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

CE request

Hi Quadell. I'm in the process of preparing McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II for FAC, but as the primary contributor of the article, I need a fresh pair of eyes to spot any discrepancies or mistakes. Do you mind giving it a copy-edit? Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm... I might, but I can't commit right now. We'll see how next week looks. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Law school of Beirut FAC

Hello, Law school of Beirut is back on FAC; I hope you have the time to check it out . -Elias Z 16:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's now on my todo list. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

...aaaand done. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the GAR ... and the album reviews issue?

Hi Quadell. Hope we haven't got our wires crossed: your recent message. Are you thinking I'd ignore a review for an album or song if it's a negative one – is that right?

I mentioned Christgau, because there's so little to pull out of those Consumer Guides of his when it comes to Harrison. Whatever can be used and applied in a song article, I will most definitely use. As far as those reports of negative reviews go – where authors say that Living in the Material World received some unfavourable reviews on release – the point I was trying to make was, Harrison/Beatles biographies state that it did attract a degree of critical scorn (mostly in Britain, I gather from Woffinden and Clayson), but they never really provide more than that statement. Typically, the statement tends to mention one or more of the following issues that critics had with the release: "preachy tones", "sanctimonious", "all the songs were 'about' something", "struggles with the material world", "lugubrious ballads" – things along those lines. But none of these authors mentions a publication or a critic by name when they're talking about this criticism of the album, or quote directly, and they only rarely single out particular tracks when discussing reception in 1973.

As I said before, I always look to add these album-centric comments about critical reception, to ensure the balance is there beside, say, an overwhelmingly positive review from Rolling Stone in 1973 – so I think we're saying the same thing, no? When I said I wasn't "too happy", it was because the additional text I added was slightly off-topic, in that it's obviously (to me) too album-centric, on top of the album-centric comment I'd already included. I'm fine with it, because the balance is needed – it's just the source material is wrong, because it's not about the song. (In other words, I need to find those reviews from NME and the others.)

I would never ignore a review unless swamped for choice, which is far from the case with Material World. Besides, the Reception section is the most straightforward one in a song article: did they like it? what did they say about it? I hunt down scans of the reviews by the way – Rock's Back Pages have a library full of print magazines (only a fraction of which are available on RBP online), and for an absolute fortune, they'll provide the service. They've got nothing for this album last time I checked ... Yes, I'm a fan of George Harrison. But a big part of that is the highs and lows of his career, as well as the way it connects with so many fields outside the scope of most rock musicians from that era. So you're getting rock music, but also Indian music, Hare Krishnas, films, comedy, Formula 1, gardening, travel ... It makes him perfect for wikipedia really, and all those things end up being the focus of at least one song article.

Sorry to go on ... I really appreciate and enjoy your GARs – and may there be many more. I just thought it was important to be clear on this, you know. Best, JG66 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. (I'll respond to a few of your comments here in one place.)

"Are you thinking I'd ignore a review for an album or song if it's a negative one – is that right?" That is the concern I had when I first looked through the article and found quotes and detailed info for positive reviews, but only vague information for negative reviews. That's not to say I suspected you of dishonesty! It's just natural for people to emphasize reviews they agree with, and I wanted to make sure that wasn't an inadvertent source of bias. Your explanation about the sources was really sufficient, but your rewording of the section might have gone even beyond what was really necessary to deal with the issue.

Well, quite right: "I wanted to make sure that wasn't an inadvertent source of bias." I wouldn't want to see an article I was nominating receive a pass at GAN if there was a suspicion of that. (I remember the question of balance/bias came up in a recent GAR, where it was just impossible to find anything to counter the repeated references to Rolling Stone being the "bad guy" in the discussion. User:Dr. Blofeld was right to query it, and I'd figured the article would have to fail. The answer was to cut a fair bit of the anti-RS text, of course.) With the current wording under Reception, I did worry we might've taken it a little too far towards the negative; looking at it now, I think it's okay actually.

"But none of these authors mentions a publication or a critic by name" One could make a good case that it's not significant, reliable information if no critic or publication is named. But a better balance would be to make a brief and non-specific mention of negative reviews (since that's all the sources give), but to make detailed and specific information about positive reviews (since those are specific in the sources). And that's kind of what you did both in the previous version, and in the current version, of the article.

"... a good case that it's not significant, reliable information if no critic or publication is named" – I agree, and I've become quite aware of this issue in Beatles-related sources. The hand-me-down research, and with it, repetition of errors and snowballing of myths. The subject of that other GAR, "This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying)", is a perfect example, or rather the tour that inspired it is the perfect example. Simon Leng makes the point that Rolling Stone's negative coverage of that tour has become the "given view" in subsequent decades, and that critical reaction tour-wide was far from the unfavourable picture most commentators give us now. (Leng is the only author I know of who's made a point of tracking down the actual 1974 tour reviews, by the way. Hopefully not through Rock's Back Pages ...) From all the other Harrison biographies that I have, I can see that Leng's absolutely right on the first point. Authors use two RS articles, covering the start and finish of the tour – or in some cases, just the first – as their basis to support a claim that the tour was a disaster. If these authors don't acknowledge that they do, in their citations, I can see it's obvious from the incidents and particulars they discuss. It's a tricky issue, because the majority of verifiable sources go with this picture. But to me, it's like writing in the Beatles' "Taxman" song article that George Harrison played the raga-like guitar solos on the track, or saying that Pattie Boyd and Eric Clapton appear on Harrison's version of "Bye Bye, Love". ie, it's absolute rubbish in both those cases – but hey, I've got verifiable sources that say it's true!

"I think we're saying the same thing, no?" I think so. The issue I brought up was not meant to insist that you add fully quote negative review snippets, even at the expense of respecting the sources and staying on topic. I would feel bad if my GA review made the article worse in any way. I just meant that it's important to not minimize negative reviews that exist. And I can tell you're not.

There's absolutely no chance your review "made the article worse in any way" – believe me!

"I would never ignore a review unless swamped for choice" I have no doubt of it.

I checked the online resources available through my local library, and it doesn't look like I have access to old NME or other contemporary magazines. Ah well. Good luck with the topic, and I hope these articles continue to get better and better. The sort of eagerness you show when trying to make these articles the best they can be is really what make Wikipedia work. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for thinking of that, NME c/o the local library. And I do welcome a discussion of whether or not I might be introducing some bias into these articles – I hope I haven't laboured the issue here (I cringe when looking at past GARs and talk page discussions, where my catch phrase seems to be "Sorry to go on"!). I think one has to be open to it if we're asking for our work to be reviewed.

Hopefully I reserve any repetitiousness for talk pages: I really value what you bring to these reviews and look forward to the next one. Way more articles on wikipedia should be GAs – that is, the work needs doing to get them there, of course – so it's fantastic that someone like you, Dr. B also, have had a hand in getting such an extraordinary number of articles up to that level. Having only been contributing to wikipedia for about a year and a half, I'm always surprised at the value that nominators attach to FAs. From the point of view that thousands, millions, of readers would never come across the article through it being featured on a given day, and they most likely don't even notice a gold star (or the green GA symbol) in the top right of an article – I never did in either instance. Most readers probably come to wikipedia after googling a term and then they travel from article to article. So what they do notice is the quality of an article and whether it gives them what (and perhaps more than) they came here for. Maybe I'm missing something about the purpose of FAs, I don't know – I'm sure it must be immensely satisfying to have a successful nomination. I just rue the fact that it concentrates so many editors on the one article (at least in the FACs I've seen), when countless other articles could be expanded and reviewed – lifting the quality of the encyclopaedia as a whole ... Okay – signing off now! JG66 (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

William Bunting (eco-warrior)

Hi - long time no talk - hope his finds you well. Sorry the following is a niggling little question. I've come back to writing articles after nearly two years off regular editing, so I'm a bit rusty. Hence I've forgetten which should come first - refs+bib or external links? I thought that Wiki's house style was refs then ext links, but in this article it doesn't work. If the subheadings are in that order, then the ext links subheading loses its bold attribute. I've tried to correct it by adding double quote-marks to force the bold attribute, but then it appears bold in the auto-index at the beginning, so that's wrong. I could put the ext links before the refs/bib, but wouldn't that be against house style? I'm trying to keep all correct as the article is up for DYK nomination. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Aagh, I've just discovered another markup glitch, and cannot put it right whatever I do. It's this url, used in reference number 10:

http://www.walkingforhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/NE274_Humberhead_Leaflet_Tagged[1].pdf

If you try to link it in the normal style with two single square brackets, then the single square brackets within the url foul it up, and the link goes to "page not found" (though if you copy and paste the above link into your browser, it works). But if you don't try to link it with square brackets, the Wiki system finds the two square brackets in the middle of the url and tries to link them - and the url still links to a "page not found" thingy. Is there a solution? --Storye book (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. Regarding the first issue you mention, the problem was that there was a {{Refbegin}} tag at the beginning of the Bibliography (which makes the text smaller), but no {{Refend}} at the end. This made all the text that came after it smaller, including the "External links" section. I fixed it with this edit. As for the order of the sections, it's not really all that important. Just do what other similar articles do, and you should be fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As for the link, personally I would use one of the Citation templates such as {{cite web}}, and that should fix the problem (as well as making it look better). I'll try to fix it up later today – I have to run now. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 11:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. --Storye book (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong. Using a Citation template didn't help. After reading Help:URL, I discovered I had to replace the [ with [, and replace ] with ]. It's all very confusing, but instead of...

http://www.walkingforhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/NE274_Humberhead_Leaflet_Tagged[1].pdf

...I changed the URL to...

http://www.walkingforhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/NE274_Humberhead_Leaflet_Tagged[1].pdf

That made it work correctly like this: [1]. I went ahead and used a citation template anyway, just to improve the look of it. You probably won't run into this situation again, but now you know how to handle it if you do. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		Wow! - thank you - you've saved the world again. Storye book (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Just doin' my job. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you!

Wow, 2004. Hard to believe it's been that long that I've been on WP. Jeez, it'll be 10 years in just a couple of months. WP sure has changed a LOT since then. For several years, I've just done random edits--often when I come to look something up and see that the page needs work. :-) Thanks for checking in, great to hear from some of the folks I used to see regularly during my frenzied editing years. Elf | Talk 23:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And I'm looking at your WP achievements on your user page--awesome work, and thanks for carrying on and helping to make this my favorite online resource. I still visit just about every day to look up *something*. Elf | Talk 23:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to! And if you ever want to jump back in and polish some dog breed articles, they're still not perfect yet. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review

There's a deletion review for the Nathaniel Raymond article. Your comments from the AfD are discussed. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_October_17 DavidinNJ (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent work to reduce the GA backlog! It's much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I find it fun. I learn a lot that way, about a wide array of topics. Plus, it's easier than content creation! – Quadell ^(talk) 23:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

And thanks from me too. Its very useful to have such dedicated reviewers as you, willing to put in time and effort to help get large, important articles such as "Salt" into shape. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WTCF GA

Sorry for the slow reply, I just got up (I'm a night owl), would you might giving me 7 days to get the article up to GA standards? It took almost 3 1/2 months last time to get a review. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh man, this is tough. The trouble is, it's so far right now! It needs a lot more info, a new lead, a rewrite to the history... it would be kinda like creating a GA from scratch in a week (which can in itself be a stability problem – criteria 5).

I'll tell you what I can do. Take whatever time you need, improve the article as you see fit. When you're ready, nominate it again and let me know. I (or someone else – I do have a few favors I can call in) will start a new GAN review within a week or two. Will that work?

Sorry for the bad news. I'm glad to see you're still on Wikipedia, and I hope you're doing well. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That works! :) I have asked for a PR from Wehwalt and Drmies. I will ask Dravecky to give it a once-over. He is great with finding information I haven't thought of (not sure how he does it). Then once I get the go-ahead from them, I will renominate. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Issue with publishing houses

Hello, sorry the bother Quadell, yes, I know, I am always bothering woth copyrighted issues... Sorry.

The thing is that I uploaded the cover for U2 by U2 a new article I had been working on and finally moved to the main space, well... the original publishing house was HarperCollins but the picture of the cover I had on my hard drive has the logo of another publishing house. What should I do? Remove that logo? Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the words "Spectrum Iannoo" at the bottom? (I hope I'm reading that correctly.) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, those words. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that should be fine. The copyright issues should be the same either way, so don't worry about it. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks so much again  :). Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Just passing

I lurve your talk page design. I'll try not to steal be inspired by it until a decent interval has passed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh man, I shamelessly stole everything good on my page anyway, so knock yourself out! :) – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha

I'm not being "driven from Wikipedia". I'm simply drained from having worked on the article you've graciously undertaken to review (and thank you so much, by the way!). I can't do like other Wikipedians can do, work on 10 GA nominations at the same time, get a bunch of DYKs, do some featured work, all in under six months. I don't know what it is about me but I just can't work that way. But once this is done, I'll just take a small breather. I have plenty of things to work on when I return, so fear not! LazyBastardGuy 16:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a relief. I've read the article and checked through the sources, and I should have a review done before too long. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Salt GAN

Quadell, I have to say that I'm greatly impressed with the work that you and the nominator did on this GAN. The article as nominated was not particularly good, although it might have been passed by a less well-informed reviewer. But, prompted by your comments, and with your assistance, the nominator basically rewrote and expanded the whole article into something that that is practically FAC ready. Thank you for your efforts in turning a probable mediocre GA-class article into something extraordinary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Coming from such a prolific content-creator as yourself, that means a lot to me. I hope I can assist in bringing similarly broad and general topics to a high level of quality. I also have to give full credit to Cwmhiraeth: I don't believe there are more than a half-dozen editors on Wikipedia who could do what he did there. Thanks for noticing, and I'm sure I'll run into you again. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I came to think as the review proceeded that the original article was pretty poor. That's the problem with moving into a well developed article and not liking to change things around too much. You should have seen what a storm I created when I rewrote Tree from scratch last year! Anyway, thanks, and I am a "she" actually. Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Subtle sexism strikes again! I'm so sorry. Thanks again, Cwmhiraeth. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I was a little surprised that you'd made only two edits before nominating it, Cwhiraeth, but Quadell went above and beyond. He didn't just evaluate what the article was as many reviewers probably would have done, but rather what it should be and found help to assist you in making that happen. I'm sure that you're planning to put this up at FAC, ping me whenever that happens and I'll take a more detailed look at it.

Deciding how much of the original text to keep is always a problem. I have a tendency to try and work around the existing text myself when it would probably be easier just to throw out what was already there and start over from scratch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Just saw that you gave a Quarter Million Award to Wehwalt. I'm glad to see other people giving these out--thanks for passing on the love! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help! I'm not doing it systematically or anything, but only when I notice one. Thanks for setting up the initiative in the first place! I really think it could do more to meaningfully improve Wikipedia at this point than even some of the more august initiatives like DYK or AFC. Is there anything more I can to help it along? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I was coming here to compliment you on something else and realized I never got around to answering this. I don't know that there's much more than can be done right now, save to watch for deserving new content coming down the pipeline. I'm sure there's still a number of editors out there that we've missed awarding--GA didn't keep very good records in its early years--but I'm getting diminishing returns looking for them, so am leaving it be for now. Thanks again for the help with it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Would this be something a bot could do? Should I recommend a bot task to look at recent GA and FA promotions, and compare them against a list? Or would this be better handled personally, do you think? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A bottle of Tokaji for you...

Have a nice weekend!

Thank you for reviewing Stephen I of Hungary and all your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I always learn a lot when I review articles you have worked on. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Bounty board

Since you created the bounty board, you may wish to participate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination). Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I have commented there. It's probably time to put it to rest. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I Am... World Tour

Ти благодарам што ја зеде статијата I Am... World Tour за рецензија. Ќе почнам да ги правам поправките од наредна недела затоа што сум многу зафатен. Секако дека ќе можам да ја земам твојата статија Countdown to Extinction за рецензија од наредна недела. Поздрав. My love is love (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't read Macedonian, but Google Translate tells me you said you will start next Sunday. That's fine, I understand. You can start whenever you like. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 16:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries mate, the second part of the message was meant for me. BTW, „недела” can mean „Sunday” or „week” on Macedonian, but I think MLIL was referring to next week. All best.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

Hehehe, here I am again bothering the great Quadell, sorry :)... I have a new project in mind and I need a favour form someone who is an expert in copyright and pictures and those tricky stuffs. Can you check if there are free pictures or non-free pictures to use under fair use, of Bono wearing his character's suits on the ZooTV tour:

• Mr. MacPhisto
• The Mirror Ball Man

We don't need a picture of The Fly because we already have one File:Bono_as_The_Fly_Cleveland_1992.jpg

They're for this section

Thanks very mucb in advance. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I did find this picture of the sequined car from the Zoo TV tour, now hanging in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. But none of the Creative Commons search options turned up any of those alter-egos. Sorry! – Quadell ^(talk) 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. Thanks for trying :D Have a good day! Oh, I was about to ask you the other day; do you like U2? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was really into Achtung Baby in the 90s, like everyone was, and I still enjoy some of their War-era songs now and again. But I haven't really followed them since Zooropa. (I respect Bono's charitable work, of course.) Nobody has to ask if you like them! You're doing a lot for their legacy by keeping their articles in great condition. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I knew it! :D... after asking the Larry picture question the other day and the barnstar you gave me lol. My favourite album is Achtung Baby but their best album is TJT.

Oh yeah, I breath U2 hahah. Why thank you... I don't know if I am doing a lot, I am just having fun and helping Wikipedia. Thank you very much! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reviewing Aleister Crowley Quadell! Much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Now there are just two more reviews to finish up, and I'll be out of your hair. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

	Hello Quadell, Miss Bono has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lovely bat! Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Even the Sims are dressing up in costume this Halloween! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sweet lol Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Jazz photos

Thank you for responding, there were several responses but you seemed to ask the right question. The photos I am looking at and trying to deal with:

UNT Stan Kenton Collection (a couple from the early 60s pics)- http://digital.library.unt.edu/search/?fq=str_title_serial:Capitol%20Records%20Recording%20Sessions%20%281940%27s%29

How would you proceed?

Thanks!

Jcooper1 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

These are some great photos. Unfortunately, they might be copyrighted. UNT Library hosts the images, but doesn't hold the copyright, and their disclaimer warns: "Responsibility for any use of these materials rests exclusively with the user". U.S. copyright law can be awfully confusing, and Wikipedia image policy can be even more confusing, but here are some points.

(1) If we can't show that these photos are in the public domain, i.e. not copyrighted, then we probably can't use them on Wikipedia. (2) Whether the photos are copyrighted or not depends on when they were published, and how they were published. (3) For photos like this, "published" means "made available to the general public". (4) It looks like the photos were owned by Noel Wedder, Kenton's publicist, and were donated to UNT sometime after Kenton's death in 1979. Wedder probably didn't publish them before that, but they were legally "published" whenever UNT made the photos available to the public. (5) There is a narrow opportunity to show that these photos are in the public domain: if someone can confirm that the photos were published (made available to the general public) before 1989, and if someone can confirm that there are no © symbols on either the front or the back of the photos, then we can show that the images are in the public domain. (6) Your best chance is probably to contact Head Music Librarian Morris Martin morris.martin@unt.edu, 940-565-2860. He might be able to confirm those things. (7) Even if these things are confirmed, I'll still have to do one more step of looking through the copyright records to make sure the copyright wasn't subsequently registered. But it's almost certain that I won't find anything, assuming the issues at point #5 check out.

I know, it seems ridiculous. But if we can't prove these things, then it's possible Wedder or someone else might still hold the copyright to these photos, and they could sue Wikipedia for publishing them without their permission. Good luck, and let me know if you get good news. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hallo-rry picture

Can I upload it now? I want to make sure there is no problem at all with that. I've never seen any other user making a joke with the picture of a celebrity. I am hesitating too much. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you should upload it. It's fine. I'll help out if you like. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like that. Please help me. I am a little bit coward, I guess. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want, you can e-mail it to me. Just use the "email this user" link in the toolbox. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to attach files via Wikipedia?? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, but if you e-mail me, you can attach in a reply. Just e-mail me, and I'll show you. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I knew about that but the problem is that I am at work and I cannot check my email inbox form here, I will have to go to the place where I check it and it will take a while. That's the problem. Is too complicated Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just upload it, and I'll keep an eye on it and delete it when Halloween is over. Whatever you're most comfortable with is fine by me. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I will upload it, please keep an eye on it and delete it, please, please... My only concern is if someone would download it and spread it over the Internet... (O_o)?

Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What is a sure thing?? My pict spread all over the Internet? Oh my! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I just mean, sure, I'll keep an eye on it. I can't guarantee no one will download it and pass it on. But I can assure you that you won't get in any legal trouble. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Now I wish we could upload things and remain anonymous... Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am overreacting. The picture is not a masterpiece or something big... it's just a joke to say happy birthday to Larry. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure which license I should use. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You can use whatever license the original picture had. Just upload it, and I'll help. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done It's horrible but... it's halloween. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! That looks excellent! I have added source and licensing information, and I will delete it after Halloween if you ask me to. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nah! Do you really think that or you are saying it just to make me feel beter? Oh thanks for taking care of that. Hope it doesn't get to Larry's ears eyes. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I really do thing it's great. If Larry were to see it, I think he'd get a chuckle out of it. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hhaaha ok, I believe you. Thank you so much again for all your help. Remember to delete it after Halloween. Thank you so much again! Best! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you delete the image already, please? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I can. But Halloween has just begun! Are you sure you want me to delete it already? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok, just a while. I'm just a little bit anxious. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It was you who deleted the picture, right? Why was it copied to Commons? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it just now. It's not on Commons. (Someone tagged it with a "Move this to Commons" tag, but no one did so.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Quadell, you rock! My day kind of sucked yesterday... Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Crucifixion darkness

Sure. I have started a talk page discussion. I'm very reluctant to use the "most prolific content-creator" argument (it sounds too much like WP:OWN) but in any case User:Tcisco (who has not edited since June 2012) has more edits on the article. StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

MacPhisto

I've finished MacPhisto, can I upload? Can you keep an eye on it to see if everything is ok. If it is horrible feel free to delete, I don't have much of a steady hand. I used the freeform pen tool to draw paths freehand, because I still haven't learnt how to use the anchor of the pen tool. So, warning, MacPhisto might be awful. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, upload it and I'll check it out. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. What do you think? I tried to make the suit shiny and gold, but I think I failed. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's really good! Did you use an underlying base image for the human form? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

At first but then I added the details by myself, like the eyes and the suit's folds. I used an underlying base image for Bono's silhouette. Is that illegal (O_o)? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That depends. If the underlying image was non-free, and some of the creative content in the underlying image is still present in your image, then it could be a derivative work. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmmmm! I don't even know where did I get that image. It could be from anyone who has attended to a ZooTV show. What should I do? Feel free to delete it. I will try and draw another one without using any underlying image, just my imagination. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it would be better to replace it with one that is either based on a free image, or else is made completely from scratch. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a free image for me and email it? I don't think I have any free image, well I don't know if the images I have are free or not. Just in case, I will start to draw using my imagination. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

When I had Devianart I used to search for U2 fan-art. Can you try to search for some MacPhisto pict released under a free license? Thank you so so so so much! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we had a free pic of Bono as MacPhisto, we would just use that. I've looked, but I don't think one exists. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh... that sucks. It is time to free my imagination and see Bonos and MacPhistos everywhere. I will let you know when I have finished the new pict. Thanks for all your help again and sorry for the bothers. P.S. You should delete that picture, someone has already added a copy to commons template. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :D Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Divine

Just to say thank you for reviewing Divine (performer)! Glad that you enjoyed it! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it was fun. And I can't wait to see what fascinating historical figure you work on next! – Quadell ^(talk) 12:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board#As_we_are_going_to_keep_this.2C_do_we_need_to_tighten_the_criteria_a_bit.3F

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you for your GA review of Miguel Treviño Morales! I appreciate your in-depth insight and copyedits. Happy editing, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You're too kind. I enjoyed the article very much. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Dates

Per your question on Eric Corbett's talk page, see MOS:YEAR. NE Ent 20:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck thanks

Thank you for your helpful suggestion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

I've gone ahead and removed many images from the article.

Hopefully this is now satisfactory to you.

Perhaps you could revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quick response. I added one back, Fairman. Here's hoping this is now satisfactory, — Cirt (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! One minor last query, were you going to comment on whether you thought the article deserves the star? No worries if not! Also, would it be alright to strikeout your addressed comments, and/or move them to the FAC talk page? Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Since my concern was fully resolved, it's fine to strike and/or move it. I haven't fully reviewed the article, so I can't comment at this time on whether it deserves Featured status or not; I suspect it's going to pass without me having to dig too deeply into it. But if the nomination seems to be getting too few reviews to pass, or if it has both support and oppose votes, I'll be willing to take a second look later on. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

Hi Quadell,

Thank you very much for your source review of Nefarious: Merchant of Souls; it was key to the subsequent promotion. I greatly appreciate your help and encouragement.

Neelix (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wish I could have done more. Thanks for contributing such quality work to Wikipedia! – Quadell ^(talk) 20:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Crucifixion darkness

Just to say thanks for all your help with this article. It's my first Good Article - it might inspire me to try some more!

--Rbreen (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see articles on biblical studies attract such attention. Your hard work has really paid off, and it's been great to work with you. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Some advice about GA reassessment

Hello Quadell. I recently nominated two albums for de-listing (here and here) but I haven't received feedback from the editors who were involved in the first GA discussion. Am I allowed to de-list them myself if there is no response in near future?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not very familiar with the GA reassessment procedure. I looked through Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, but I hadn't really noticed it at all until your question.

Your reasons for delisting seem sound to me. But it appears you did not notify the nominator, SilverBullitt. It looks like you'll need to notify the nominator and any relevant Wikiprojects before moving forward. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 11:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)