User talk:Quadell/Archive 28

• 10
• 20
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• Archive 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• 40
• 50

Image:Exploding-head.gif

Image:Exploding-head.gif is being used in the article exploding head to illustrate an exploding head, not the movie the image is from. Please tell me how a freely licensed image of an exploding head couldn't replace this image. -N 00:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me to be illustrating the scene from Scanners, since it's not used at the very top of the article and the caption mentions it, but I recognize that it's debatable. If the article talked about the infamous Scanners scene in the text, would you say that the image should stay? If you want to list this on WP:IFD to get more opinions, I certainly don't object. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the Scanners image - it's something else. It's been a while, but I remember that scene pretty clearly. Videmus Omnia 01:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not the best judge then. I can't even look at the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty bad. Videmus Omnia 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Authority in taxoboxes

Hi Quadell,

Thanks for all the rodent additions via Polbot. I've noticed that the bot seems to never include parentheses on species authorities. Whether or not the authority has parentheses actually has meaning. Would it be possible for the bot to include the parentheses in the authority for species where a parentheses is correct? --Aranae 02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh! What does it mean? I've seen them listed as "Stone, 1911", as "Stone (1911)", and as "(Stone, 1911)". What does the difference mean? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Say the species name is Animalus animalcule and it was discovered by Stone in 1911. If Stone originally described it as Animalus animalcule the authority would be written without parentheses, "Stone, 1911". If Stone placed it in a different genus, say Animalculus animalcule and later authorities switched it to its current genus (Animalus), the authority would be placed in parentheses, "(Stone, 1911)". The IUCN pages your bot seems to be working off of have the parentheses either present or not as appropriate (in most cases), so hopefully it wouldn't be too hard to include that information. --Aranae 03:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll definitely fix that. It'll be easy to keep the parentheses; I just didn't know it was meaningful information. Thanks, and I'll try to fix the articles Polbot previously made. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Southcote.jpg

Sorry for bothering you, but you marked an image I uploaded as a replacement for a GIF version as not containing source information. However, I included a link the image the JPG version was derived from. I was just wondering what more do I have to add? Should I explicitly state the user who uploaded the original work? I'm new at this, so please help, thanks a lot! Zchenyu 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I'd missed that. Yes, the source is fine. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:142.167.197.130 on Dance Dance Evolution

• 142.167.197.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It's probably the *.253 that you blocked, but it's back yanking the AfD notice as well as the actual AfD. Cheers. --slakr 03:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• 142.167.197.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  Another one. It looks like they're all anons from 142.167.0.0. --slakr 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  I already got him. Maybe he'll get bored. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  Sah-weet. Sorry for the redundancy, then. Btw, I noticed you semiprotected as well, I as in the process of requesting it for the remainder of the AfD and was like, "oh wow, the magic padlock appeared by my very thoughts of it alone! :P" Anyway cheers :) --slakr 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dance Dance Evolution

I'm the author of the Dance Dance Evolution article, why do you guys want to delete it, I think its pretty cool --Jefferson Airplane 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you think its funny, I think the people who think its lame don't know a damn thing about evolution and probably believe in creationism. It's easy to dismiss something you don't understand.--Jefferson Airplane 03:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Looks like it was already created hahahahaha --Jefferson Airplane 03:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well actually I'm not really the real author of this article. I just transwikied it from Uncyclopedia. I just thought it would be funny hahaha, looks like the jig is up.--Jefferson Airplane 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor Polbot bug when parsing the distribution

Sometimes the distribution given in IUCN has two fields with [], see e.g. this and this. I don't know what they are supposed to mean; I could not find any documentation for them. Polbot does remove the [int]-field, when it's the only modifier. If there are two modifiers, it leaves them both, which breaks the link - e.g. [[Virgin Islands, U.S. [RE] [int]]]. Cheers, – Sadalmelik 07:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• [RE] stands for "regionally extinct", meaning the organism used to be native to the area but is (probably) no longer there. [Int] stands for "introduced", if the species has been introduced into the area by humans. [RE] [int] (or sametimes [RE-int]) means first it became regionally extinct, and then it was re-introduced. All these symbols can have question-marks after them as well, to indicate doubt. It might even say "Mexico? [RE?]", meaning it might have been native to Mexico, but if so, it might now be regionally extinct, or "United States (Hawaii [int])", specifying a state or region. I've tried to look for every combination to take out, but I keep finding more! Now I've found a few with [vag], and I have no idea what that means. Anyway, thanks, I'll try to get all the modifiers out of there. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I think it stands for vagrant. I guess the logic is that when they do not nest in the country, it's marked as [vag] - at least that seems to be the case for few birds I checked. – Sadalmelik 11:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Someone should ask the birds and see what they say... Carcharoth 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, around here they say "squeal squeal", take aim and... sort of... let go. I don't think IUCN has a country modifier for that. They are bad at aiming, though. – Sadalmelik 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Magnet Lab images

More info is now on tags at Image:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab02.jpg and Image:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab00.png explaining that due to uniqueness of image or security issues, one cannot obtain a photo. Need further explanation? I can provide details. Thanks. Noles1984 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For the photograph, you may have a point. (It would be good if you could provide evidence that the subject is not available to the public, however.) But for the diagram, anyone could create a new diagram based on the information in the image, so I still believe that image is replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

Has created this page, and I assume will be creating other similar ones: Luneti�Re De Rotg�S

Oh dear... 195.137.30.238 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm testing it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

She's still failing her tests, but I'm cleaning up after her. (It's like she's not house-trained yet.) My source is encoded in ISO-8859-1, but Wikipedia uses UTF-8. I never thought I'd have to dig this deep into character encoding to run a bot, but life's full of surprizes. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Area 51

Please don't tag the image for deletion, it is used to illustrate area 51, and is currently the highest resolution image available of the area, so it can't really be replaced with another free image.Rodrigue 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, a free replacement could be made, and the image is therefore replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:SingaporeStone-bwphoto.jpg

Hi, I just received a standard notice from you about Image:SingaporeStone-bwphoto.jpg. I did state the reason why I believe the image is not replaceable on the "image" page – did you read it before tagging the image with {{di-replaceable fair use}}? If so, what are your reasons for disagreeing with the explanation? It is rather dispiriting to receive a standard notice when I did take the time to explain why I believe the image to be non-replaceable. Cheers, Jacklee 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. You said that photographs probably aren't allowed in the museum, but without evidence of that, we have to assume that the image is replaceable (since the subject still exists). If you can provide evidence that the image is not replaceable (e.g. a link to the museum's policy of not allowing photography), then dispute it and I'm sure it won't be deleted. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The points that you made prompted me to look at the website of the National Museum of Singapore (go to http://www.nationalmuseum.sg, select "Facilities" and click on "Photography and filming"). It states: "Still photography for private, non-commercial use as a visitor to the Museum is allowed. The use of a flash and tripod is prohibited." Photography for the purpose of Wikipedia is probably not private and non-commercial, because Wikipedia is accessible to the public, and photographs uploaded under the GFDL may be used for commercial purposes. Is this sufficient justification for non-free fair use of the photograph? I look forward to your views. Cheers, Jacklee 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's complex. Deciding whether to allow or bar photography is an internal museum rule, not a part of copyright law, so I don't think the museum has any legal right to say what you can do with your photographs after you take them (though they can tell you whether you can take photographs or not). In order to use a photo on Wikipedia, it has to be licensed by the copyright-holder to allow non-commercial use, but I think that would be up to the photographer, not the museum. It looks to be like if you tell the museum "I'm taking this photo for personal use", then they'll let you photograph it, and then they can't legally stop you from licensing the image under the GFDL and uploading it to Wikipedia (or using it commercially, for that matter). But it sounds like you would have to lie, at least implicitly, to do so. I'm not sure where that puts us in terms of Wikipedia policy, so I asked for further input at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#13_July_2007. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be interesting to find out the answer. Of course it would be difficult for the museum to control what people do with photographs they have taken at the Museum, but then taking the line that images of artefacts at the Museum are replaceable implicitly encourages people to breach the contractual terms of their entry into the Museum. Cheers, Jacklee 05:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't smell very good

That wasn't very nice. There's no harm in studing. It's very important, it keeps your house from falling down. --Kbdank71 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, people dropping by my talk page are going to have no idea what you're talking about. :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Snap Server Photo

I have recieved a response from Adapetec regarding the snapserver photo granting permission and I have sent it to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org Do I need to do anything else regarding this photo? Image:SnapServer-NA.jpg

Cisco has replied, that the permission rquest is in progress for all the Cisco and Linksys images. Do you think you can hold off on deleting any of them for another week? It seems that have a maze that needs to go through to grant permission.

Also could you undelete image: Linksys48portswitch.jpg

I have asked for permission for all the photos and Cisco owns linksys.

Best Regards,

Al --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cisco has responded as well. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Keiko Nakazawa.jpg

Your comment would be appreciated at User_talk:Rettetast#Fair_use_rationale_on_Keiko_Nakazawa_picture. Rettetast 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and attention on this matter, Quadell. I'm going to pursue your suggestion and see if I can contact the publishing company that originally put out that Keiko Nakazawa photobook. I don't know how successful I'll be, however, because I suspect that that publisher has not been in business for some time. This is important enough to me, however, that I feel compelled ot try. User:Buried Alien 14:33, 14 July 2007, (PDT)

ogre image

hello, you asked for a reason why that image is unreplaceable... i am confident that a free use image could be found, but is it possible to keep the image until a fair use is found. perhaps put a note under the image in the article or something. please resond on my talk page. Naufana : talk 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey that's fine, I know a lot of users on Wikipedia are try to rid it of copyrighted images for fear of future lawsuits and i think thats great. go ahead and delete the image at your leisure. I'll do my best to find someone who has a photo of the artist in question and is willing to release it under GNU or copyleft.Naufana : talk 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Free Image for Area 51

According to the policy you used, only an "acceptable quality" image can be used to replace the non-free Area 51 image.But the one from Google Earth is in much greater detail than any other available imagery of the area, and judging from the one I was replacing it with, only that image can suffice for an encyclopedia. Rodrigue 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. But the point is, a photograph of similar quality could be created, even if one isn't available at the moment. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help tagging the photos

I have the emails from Cisco and Adaptec. Basically Cisco has a URL that outlines everything that can be done with any photo. So that solves the all the Cisco and Linksys photos issue. But I do not know how to tag the photo. The url lets you do anything you want with the photo so long as it is stated it is Copyrighted by them and it is not altered with the exception of resizing or cropping.

Adaptec states that the photo can be viewed. copied, resized, anything we want, but may not be altered other than resizing or cropping, and must state it is copyrighted by them. So could you tell me which tag to use and how to use it?

The Adaptec photo is: Image:SnapServer-NA.jpg and if you could tell me how to do it for Cisco for example: Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg that would be great. I tried to do it but I do not think I did it properly.

Please advise me since I want to do this properly. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you did it right to me. Good job! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please restore image Image:Linksys befsr8.jpg

Could you please undelete this image for me. I have this image covered as well.

Thanks!

Al --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's undeleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please restore image Image:Kira and Nrabuttons by Kira Blue eyes.jpg

Er, drawn by a friend of mine, not Disney by any means. Definitely a free-use image, cleared for use on my User Page. Please undelete, and I'll fix up the licensing statement so that it makes better sense. Thanks! NraButtons 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored Image:Kira and Nrabuttons by Kira Blue eyes.jpg, but it doesn't currently have a license. Please pick an image licensing tag for the image. Wikipedia:Image licensing tags has all the info you need. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Delay Mugshot.jpg

I guess you forgot to really deleted this one. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't want it deleted, but I can't defend it's use. I can't claim that it shouldn't be deleted, but I'm not really motivated to delete it myself either. Call it the non-participation vote. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I though that your comment was actually an closing-statement. And I completely misunderstood this diff where you added July 9 to the "old discussions": I though you were removing it. I forgot my pills today. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We got you covered. ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Licensing question

If someone sends me an image with a GFDL license, can I put it on my Flickr account with a CC-by or CC-by-SA license, or do I have to mark it as 'all rights reserved', since I didn't create the content myself? I'm still trying to learn about downstream use and license compatibility. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the CC licenses aren't compatible with the GFDL. This sucks. If it's GFDL, you can't mark it as being under a creative commons license. Just say "All rights reserved", and mention that it's released under the GFDL in the image's text.

For a while, there was some movement towards making these licenses compatible. See this archived Signpost article, along with related info here and here from the CC folks. Unfortunately, it seems to have gone nowhere. I haven't seen any mentions of this anywhere since late 2005. Sigh. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. I think I'll change my permission requests to CC as opposed to GFDL to simplify things. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Polbot creating animal pages

When User:Polbot creates pages on animals, can it please give them permenant categories (non-stub) based on their taxonomy? I see it has no trouble finding the right stub category. Od Mishehu 08:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to manually tell it what stub category to use. I'm not sure how to tell the right category for a given species. Any pointers you can give me would be appreciated. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A starting point would be the perm cat which the stub category belongs to. For example, any {{bat-stub}} belongs in Category:Bats or its sub-categories - and placing it in Category:Bats will help other users place it in a better category. In addition, you could give it the category for each family manually (by looking at the page of the family; if there isn't one - look at the page of the order) and it can place the page in a category that way. Od Mishehu 07:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Pech -- why was the image deleted?

I fully admit to being very ignorant on this topic, and all the terms "fair use" and "nearly replaceable" are a mystery to me.

You deleted the image of Lawrence Pech from his listing. That image is the property of the Lawrence Pech Dance Company, of which I am the administrator. I give full permission for this image to appear. Please tell me exactly what I need to do or say or attest in order to get the image restored.

Thanks,

Michael Temlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltemlin (talk • contribs)

Thanks for contacting me. I'm glad you want to improve Wikipedia by adding information and an image, Image:Lawrence Pech.jpg, to the Lawrence Pech page. We're an entirely free content encyclopedia, which means that anyone can copy all Wikipedia material and use it however they like, including modifying it or making money off of it, without asking anyone for permission first. For this reason we only use images that are "free content" as well. I see that you have given permission for Wikipedia to use the image, but that's not enough for it to be "free content". We need to have permission for anyone to use it, even for commercial gain. If you are willing to license the image in this way, then great! We can use the image. Just let me know and I'll restore the image and add the correct licensing information for you. But if you don't wish to license the image as "free content", then I'm afraid we can't use it. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image of

Hi the image found at Linda Bradford Raschke, Image:L bradraschke.jpg

I have emailed WP with the permission request and the response from the image owner. She said it was ok to use the image !

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trade2tradewell (talk • contribs)

Greetings. Did the image owner say that it was okay for just Wikipedia to use the image? Or did she say that it was okay for anyone to use it? This matters because we're an entirely free content encyclopedia. This means that anyone can copy all Wikipedia material and use it however they like, including modifying it or making money off of it, without asking anyone for permission first. For this reason we only use images that are "free content" as well. If only Wikipedia can use the image, that's not enough for it to be "free content". We need to have permission for anyone to use it, even for commercial gain. If the copyright-holder is willing to license the image in this way, then great! We certainly won't delete it, and I'll help add the correct licensing information for you. But if the image is not "free content", then I'm afraid we can't use it. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:SPL_trophy.jpg

I strongly disagree with your tagging of Image:SPL_trophy.jpg. You assert that a freely licensed image could reasonably be found. Having previously searched for such an image I beg to differ, unless you have performed a similar search and have a replacement image up your sleeve? I would also like to know why Image:SPL_trophy.jpg is being tagged for deletion while fundamentally identical images such as Image:DBU-trophy.jpg or Image:Lennartjohanssonspokal.jpg are apparently acceptable. The latter having been uploaded by an administrator! Thank you. Kanaye 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I assert that a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. There may not exist a freely licensed image of this trophy yet, but since the trophy still exists, someone could take a photograph of it and release that photograph under a free license. That's all that's required by our first non-free content criterion in order for it to be deemed "replaceable".

Thanks for pointing out those other images, which are also in violation. I have tagged them as well. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

At least you're consistent.

The point is that a free image of "Acceptable quality" (WP:NFCC) can not reasonably be created. The trophy is kept under lock and key in a restricted area and is only brought out of that area on a limited number of occasions (including the actual presentation of the trophy) which severely limits any opportunities to create an image of equal effect. Kanaye 19:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally disagree. I think that if the trophy is on display (in a locked cabinet, behind glass), then a photo could be taken of it, and that photo could be freely licensed. It might not be as good of a photo, but, in my opinion, it would have the same encyclopedic content. If you disagree, though, you should place {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, and say on the image talk page why you think the image is not replaceable. Some time after Saturday, the 21st, an admin will examine the case and decide whether the image should be deleted or not. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot edit suggestion

In this edit to Bailey (surname), your bot applied MOS:DAB rules to a surname page. Quite a few surname pages are incorrectly tagged with {{hndis}} or {{disambig}}, although they should have used {{surname}} instead (for which MOS:DAB does not apply). Could you make your bot skip pages that are called "Xxy (surname)"? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure whether I'll ever run this disambiguation-fix function or not (I only ran a test run of 50 pages to see how it worked), but if I do, I'll make sure to avoid these. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough

Delete away then, comrade. NraButtons 17:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Permission is not enough?

I do not understand. I thought you told me if I received permission, no one would challange this photos. The image Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg has been tagged for deletion. The reason being the permission is revokable. Could you please explain exactly what permissions are needed by Wiki? Cisco will not put the picture in public domain or relinquish rights to it..

I have no idea why you need other rights. Could you explain to me why they need more rights and wich ones exactly, So I can draft a request.

Could you also not have this photo deleted. I thought this was all solved.

--akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was solved too. My mistake. As you know, we're a "free content" encyclopedia, licensed under the GFDL. This means that anyone could copy all of Wikipedia modify it, publish it, and even sell it for profit, without asking anyone's permission ahead of time. We need our images to have the same permissions on them. So anyone would need to be able to copy the image, republish it, sell copies of it, modify it, etc. Cisco would retain the copyright, but they would have to give pre-emptive permission for anyone to use it under a free license. User:Videmus Omnia has had a lot of luck getting such permissions from people, and he listed his tips and tricks on this page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I will call Cisco. The VP of marketing told me that had no problem with Wiki using the images. I just did not know what to ask for. Can you please keep the pictures from being deleted for one week. Till this comming Friday? It usually takes Cisco quite awhile to respond. Even though I talk to the VP. It has to get approved by the legal department. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

New Free Content that requires close examination

Quadell, I just received the following free images in response to a WP:ERP request - since you are my free content mentor, I think you should be the first to see them (besides me):

• Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg
• Image:Michele Merkin 2.jpg
• Image:Michele Merkin 3.jpg
• Image:Michele Merkin 4.jpg

Who says free content has to be crappy? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, Tim! You're amazing. Free content isn't supposed to be that sexy! If I'm your free content mentor, I hereby declare you to be fully graduated, and now pursuing an advanced degree. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bohermeen Church

Sorry for sounding so angry. What happened is simple (and it has driven hundreds of users away over the last 2 years). Wikipedia had one set of commands available when I and many others uploaded images, and we categorised them according to the commands at the time. Over time various changes occurred but those of us who had contributed vast numbers of images and articles could not physically trace back every image to recategorise them. Many users simply asked that if there was an image problem they get a polite enquiry, taking into account the fact that different rules and categories at existed when the images were put onto WP. They also pointed ouy that many people are not on every day or every week and asked that an adequate length of time be given to allow any recategorisation take place. Instead these points were ignored and instead users found there talk pages jammed with bot messages accusing them of improperly uploading images and warning them that the images were going to be removed as illegal unless an explanation was given. I was one of those heavily involved in rewriting all the Irish history and politics pages (5 of us between us wrote 90% of the major articles on Irish history and politics) and was one of a group of about 20 who turned what were notoriously embarrassing articles on royalty into a form that got written about in the British media, which described the quality of WP coverage of royalty as the best of any encyclopaedia. One guy sent months assembling images through contacting press offices worldwide and getting images released under the conditions required by WP at the time. He went away for a month and found his page jammed with bot notices telling him that all his images had been improperly loaded according to new rules. In that time all his images had been deleted, with articles left as tangled messes. He has not been back since (and if you think I am angry you should have seen his anger. His phone bill from calling press offices had been over €300, only to find himself then accused by new users and bots of having broken laws he had not broken by using categories that had not existed at the time).

Every one of the group I worked with on the Irish articles was driven away by how they were treated over images. All but two of the people I worked with on the royal articles have done the same. I left WP months ago because I spent my entire time being bombarded by bots. I am only back occasionally to check something. Every time I arrive back I find I am bombarded again. I have had images I myself licensed using GFDL removed simply because the form of GFDL licence in use at the time was different to the one used now. I am completely fed up with it and have washed my hands of WP. (I constantly get emails from others on WP who have decided that they have had enough too and are leaving.) In this case I was advised by WP when I asked to categorise that image as it was categorised, and not to use GFDL. A lot of us were told the same thing. Now we all find ourselves under seige from people accusing us of incorrectly categorising stuff. Thank you, BTW for coming back about this. Various longstanding users were complaining about this for ages, and were ignored. I have written for other encyclopaedias and can charge heavily for my work. I got fed up working for free here only then to find articles I wrote ripped to shreds by a bot screwing up images. Sorry for being so angry tonight but I am so fed up with it all. Various users I worked with have been removing images they posted, including full GFDL images, because of how they feel they have been treated. I don't even bother to correct entries any more. The last time I did that, explaining in detail why the image was fully legal, it was ignored anyway and the image removed even though it was fully legit.

You could say that I, and the others who put so much time and effort into this encyclopaedia, have just given up in frustation, and regret having done so much work for so little thanks. If others had showed the concern you had, rather than just ignored the concerns of longstanding contributors, we would not all have left. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:RAF Kenley,jpg

Hi

I uploaded this image from my PC, and, although it is Crown Copyright, have used the same rationale for fair use as I have seen on several other similar images uploaded by other.

I do not recall the source at present, although I will be able to track it down (It was an RAF site), and I will add it to the summary data, but I do know that it recognised the Crown Copyright aspect on the site. Station and Squadron crests such as that used here were available from RAF Marham], which is an active RAF Base, but they are no longer available for download from that source.

I believe the rationale given does give suitable grounds for fair use, especially for a relatively small image, although I have not done much with images before, so your comments and explanation would be welcome. Many thanks, Lynbarn 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Good job! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbit bio trial (100)

Aha. Polbot has shunned the nasty little animals and plants and returned to mere humans? :-) See Category:Musicians work group articles for an idea of how polluted the WPBiography list is with music groups as well as musicians. See User:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run#The trial 100 for the latest list. Just a straight 100 from the list. No careful selection. Carcharoth 01:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And I see the results are up. Thanks for those! Carcharoth 16:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've add some comments on the results. One more trial run? :-) Carcharoth 10:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A list of 150 is at User:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run. My initial list included two pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Does Polbot automatically ignore titles not in the article or article talk namespace? I also see that the new list includes two blatantly non-bio articles, but let's hope Polbot manages to list them - finding these non-bio articles could be an important side-effect! Carcharoth 14:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It ignores Wikipedia and User namespaces. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Michele Merkin pics

I'm totally digging your edits - thanks for using the pics! Makes me feel like my work is accomplishing something. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Puff, puff

Thanks for starting up smoking. I've been planning on making a proper article of it even since I first laid my eyes on Smoke: A Global History of Smoking, that wonderful anthology of essays on virtually every aspect of smoking. I kept getting distracted by all kinds of other topics (the historical cuisines, Vasa (ship), horse artillery, etc.) but now I'm going to concentrate on topping off the article with all the lovely information I've been reading so much about for the past few months.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You've done a great job on the article. You should nominate it at "Did You Know"! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin American Idol 2 Pic

Can you pls tell me how to tag the pictures Ive uploaded. It seems that you almost deleted all the pictures from group 1. Those are tv captures and not a picture posted from any website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idol fanatic (talk • contribs)

Greetings. I'm afraid we cannot use non-free portraits of living people, no matter how they are tagged. Someone could photograph these people and release the photos under a free license. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for details. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your latest "sanctioned vanadalism" (Image that was on Tomoko Kawase)

I have a better idea.. why don't YOU try contacting her to see if she has a freely-licensed image? Get out of your little dreamland already! You are falsely presuming that she (and countless other personalities everywhere) is easy to contact or photograph. Once again, the bad legal advice that Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation received (which is all that I can logically chalk up the policy too - was that legal advice "free". too?) causes damage to another Wikipedia article as well as more disruption to Wikipeida and the people who truly contribute to it. Unless people start pulling their heads out of their asses, Wikipedia is going to go the way of Pets.com. --CJ Marsicano 14:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• We don't want unfree images if they are replaceable. This has nothing to do with legal advice. If the person is still alive people can and will take amateur photos. Sorry but that's policy. -N 14:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but with all due respect your claim "This has nothing to do with legal advice" sounds like bullshit to me. A lawyer friend I talked to when WP:H!P was first having trouble with "admins" (I use that in quotes because some of these weren't really admins, just editors acting under a fascistic interpretation of the current flawed image policy) feels that, so called "private server" or not, the Wikimedia Foundation cannot supersede the laws of the country its server resides in. --CJ Marsicano 15:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • We aren't superseding the law. WE DON'T WANT THE PICTURE. We can and do say we don't want to use pictures even if the law allows it. Can't you get that through your brain? And you can't force us to use somebody else's copyrighted picture. We are dedicated to free content (free as in speech, not free as in beer). We have a line in the sand. It is a fundamental principle of this site. You can either respect it or not. -N 15:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • First of all, there is no "we" here. There is just you and I. You do not speak for all of Wikipedia and neither do I. You can stop trying to bullshit me now. Wikipedia is superseding the law whether people realize it or not (it seems like you don't actually realize or want to admit it - I don'tknow or care what the case is) and that will be one of the things that will lead to its downfall. Someday the Wikimedia Foundation will get sued, and it won't be for a copyright law violation over images that are reproduced time and time again elsewhere without the ridiculous nitpicking that this site practices, it'll be for constitutional violations.

If it's really a "private server", then close editing access down to the public and hire/select trusted people to edit it. But as long as the server is always under constant public access, then only the laws of the country that the server is in should determine the content. --CJ Marsicano 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Just because it's a Wiki, that doesn't mean the Wiki owners can't make rules about what's acceptable and what's not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am growing very weary of the flawed logic behind these increasingly fascistic policies. Wikipedia is slowly becoming a banana republic. And we all know that banana republics are prone to revolutions and coups. --CJ Marsicano 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Jane Child

Hello. I have just noticed that an image i've placed on the Jane Child page here @ Wiki has been removed, the note stated that it was due to an "Outdated Image". Please be aware that there are NO RECENT IMAGES available of this person and the image placed there was the best representation. Was it deleted? Can it be replaced? Thank you!

Greetings. The image was deleted (and will be deleted again) because it is "replaceable". What that means is, someone could take a photograph of the person and release that photo under a free license. Because of that, we can't use a non-free image of the person. ("outdated image" has nothing to do with it.) For more information, see our non-free content policy. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bugger. Ok, the image comes directly from Jane's own website. I have my own archive of Jane images (I ran the JaneChild.org fansite) including video caps. Will an album cover suffice? Again, thanks for your help.

I'm sorry, but no. In order to have an image that shows what she looks like, it will have to be a free image. You might try e-mailing her or her publicist to see if they would provide a freely-licensed image. User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images gives some useful tips on how to do this. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link and suggestion. Again, thank you!

Re: Supermodel images

Do you really think that Image:Adriana Lima by David Shankbone.jpg illustrates the concept of a supermodel better than Image:Michele Merkin 4.jpg? I don't. In your edit summary, you speculated that I'm on a promotional campaign. I assure you, I have no connection with Ms. Merkin, and had never even heard of her before a week ago. I'm simply delighted that another editor was able to secure high-quality photos under the GFDL. Many articles on models and model-related topics do not have suitable images, because professional-quality images of models are rarely released under a free license. I was just trying to correct this. See [1] and [2]. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop posting Michele Merkin images on Wikipedia. You have inserted these images gratuitously in several highly inappropriate articles, and in the instance of the Supermodel article where an existing image was adequate or better. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Furthermore you are edit warring to retain them where they are not wanted. Regardless of your motivation, your campaign is not adding value to Wikipedia.

Are you aware that one of your links is to me reverting obvious vandalism? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please remove the "straw polls" you have placed in several Talk pages. These are time wasters which you probably already know are not recommended and do not help achieve consensus. They have no purpose in this discussion except to rally support from WP:ILIKEIT's. / edg ☺ ★ 16:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls are a great way to determine consensus. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please consider WP:POLLS. Quote:

Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care.

Your polls pose a distraction from already-existing discussions. You should really remove them. / edg ☺ ★ 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the polls facilitate discussion. Where, for instance, was the "already-existing discussion" on the use of contemporary free images in Talk:Pornography and Talk:Erotica? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps you are right. / edg ☺ ★ 17:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that there is a real person here, with real feelings. I'm sincerely trying to improve Wikipedia, and some of your comments hurt. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. I've treated you unfairly. Obviously you have great intentions.

In answer to your question:

Do you really think that Image:Adriana Lima by David Shankbone.jpg illustrates the concept of a supermodel better than Image:Michele Merkin 4.jpg?

No. Is is necessary that I think this image is actually better? My impression was — and perhaps it was very wrong of me to go on this feeling — was that you — and I'm very sorry to point you out in particular, all I mean is to identify the editor who made these edits, but this is nothing personal, and if anyone else made these same edits I would make the same suggestions, I promise — were posting these images gratuitously, in inappropriate articles. The article Model (person) didn't need this improvement, and on the subject of "supermodels", I don't see much evidence that Ms. Merkin is one.

Then again, you must know more about this subject than I do. I have reverted my reversion on Model (person).

I heartily regret making an issue of this. / edg ☺ ★ 17:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. It shows your character. Also, I apologize for being snitty with you. (Just having a bad week -- nothing to do with you, or even Wikipedia.) Thanks again, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that Miss Merkin (or her agent) would only have wanted her images to be used in articles about her, and not to illustrate general points? I'm all for writing to people and asking for free images, but I fear that in cases where the person 'releasing' the photos misunderstands what GFDL means, this may cause more problems than it solves. I may have misunderstood this case, but I am convinced that some people will end feeling 'duped' into releasing free pictures without understanding the consequences of their actions. Carcharoth 10:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The requesting letter made it very clear that the release would allow anyone to use the image for any purpose, including modification, or commercial reuse. Why in the world would you think the copyright holder wouldn't have understood what she was agreeing to? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I still worry about other cases though. I've seen people on Wikipedia try and cling on to free pics when the person releasing them has second thoughts. As a courtesy to living people, I think we should allow removal of such pictures if they change their minds, as they are still replaceable. Of course, we can't do anything if someone else has taken a copy and modified it, etc. Carcharoth 12:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Once a person has licensed an image under the GFDL (or other free license), that grant is legally irrevocable, but that doesn't mean we have to be jerks about it. I usually delete images when someone asks me to, due to second thoughts, even if I'd rather we kept the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, Quadell. I will review the policy and examine the image more carefully.

Liastnir 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Michele Merkin images

Sorry for the hassle you've been getting over the images - I, anyway, appreciate what you're doing to promote the acquisition of free content. Keep it up! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot (USDA Plants Database)

I suggest that you can use Polbot to autogenerate some articles based on Download a US State PLANTS Checklist and US Complete PLANTS Checklist --Ricardo 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough information at those sources to make even a stub article. Too bad. Thanks for looking for ways to improve Wikipedia though! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Sorry, I just was looking for a user that was actively on Wikipedia right now, and I saw you on recent changes. I need you help with an article I am fixing up. On Dookie, I made two different sections, Writing and composition, and an Accolade section. However, for some reason, the Accolade section is getting mixed into the Writing and composition section! Can you please help me fix this? Xihix 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. The problem was, you had lots of ref tags that said <ref name="vh1 interview">. All ref tags either have to have a closing tag (</ref>), or else have a slash at the end. I changed all but the first to say <ref name="vh1 interview" />, and that fixed the problem. See, without the slash, the wikicode kept looking for the next </ref>, and ate up large parts of the article.

By the way, you can ask these sorts of questions at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), and someone there will help you (if I'm not around). All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot man, I owe you (well, I don't know how I'd be any help to an admin!). Again, thanks a lot, and thanks for assistance place link. Xihix 00:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help Desk can be helpful as well. Carcharoth 10:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Portamenti.png

Hi, I notice this illustration in the portamento article was deleted July 9 for missing tags. I've had some trouble with tags (and did supply a prose explanation), and am now in doubt as to whether it was in fact untagged or whether DP-US is considered problematic. Even if European copyright of the Bartók example is an issue, all 10 fair use criteria are met and I'd be willing to try again with that template if you take exception to the tags I thought I was adding. Sparafucil 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. European copyright isn't an issue; PD-US is just fine. But what is the source of the image? Where does it come from? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it the the PD tags were attached- I vagueley remember trying twice... I engraved it myself from the Ricordi & Universal ed.'s of the works described in the caption; in the absence of a music markup program such screen shots seem to be the only way to go. Is there a template that should cover such cases? Sparafucil 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! I have restored the images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Londo06

You seem to have deleted a number of images uploaded by myself. I was going to fix these images with proper licences following the wiki changes. I don't recall your name being attached to the images. Could they be made available so I could implement these updates and fair game for wikipedia. Londo06 11:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. What images were they? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:LoteTuqiri.JPG , Image:JamiePeacock.JPG , Image:WayneBennett.JPG , Image:WillieManu.JPG , Image:TeamGB.JPG - was unclear, thought it was just an editor being mischevious. Londo06 12:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry, I can't restore those. Now that I look at them, I see that they are "replaceable fair use" images. That means that they're non-free (copyrighted), but the subjects shown are still alive and could still be photographed, and those photos could be released under a free license. According to our non-free content policy (specifically criterion #1), we can't use these images on Wikipedia. Sorry! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot

Quadell, for bio pulls from the Congressional bioguide, would it be possible for Polbot to add {{Project Congress}} to the talk page? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that for future ones. (It would be harder to change existing ones though.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through Polbot's contributions, trying to work out where it had got to, and I was slightly swamped by the animals and plants. Is there a way to easily separate out the different Polbot functions? Maybe you could list the start and end dates of the various runs? I wanted to check whether the idea to link to the actual articles on the numbered US congresses came to anything. Carcharoth 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any way to separate out previous runs. (In a few cases, I ran multiple functions simultaneously.) I can list start/end times in the future though. To your specific query, no, I never implemented that function. I played around with it a little, but it turned out to be too difficult. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

B...b...but, it's so easy! :-) (Well, I should probably write and run a bot before saying that). You don't have to link all the congresses, just the ones mentioned in the text (usually the start and end ones). Is that not possible? Carcharoth 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What would you do with "elected to the twenty-fifth and two succeeding congresses"? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rail curses on the people that wrote such a phrase that cunningly uses the imprecision of the English language to separate the ordinal number from its object! :-) And then I would go and learn perl so that I could tell the bot to "look" for ordinal numbers next to or 'close' to congress or congresses. But that does increase the possibilities for error. Seriously, though, someone should get a list of all the US representatives (and senators) and use AWB to link them to their congresses. Semi-automation is a powerful tool when linked to a human checking that the edit 'looks right' and making minor adjustments when needed. So now comes the difficult question... Which do I do first? Do I learn to use AWB, or do I learn perl? :-) Carcharoth 23:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Only as good as the data

Sigh! I suppose Polbot is only as good as the data it gets. This feels like a silly mistake by the IUCN website. Carcharoth 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Hawai'i is in the U.S. The IUCN site actually says "United States (Hawaii)", but I truncate out the parentheses. Otherwise you get "United States (Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois. . . 14 other states. . .)" – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That explains it. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

HANG ON! Surely Polbot is intelligent enough to realise when there is only one state listed, and to use that instead? :-) Carcharoth 16:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, she's not. I could make her smarter though. . . – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:CallasVioletta1956.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More bio stuff

I was thinking about the bio stuff again, and I was wondering how long it would take to do, and whether (after the testing has finished and it has been approved, obviously!) you would wait until you'd cleared the animal and plant lists, and politician lists? Do you have a timescale for those? On the basis of 380,000 WPBiography articles and 6 edits per minute (or rather, views per minute) I calculate that running over that list would take 1056 hours, or about 44 days. Do you have any thoughts on how best to scale this sort of thing? Seeing as it won't edit every article (and will usually only edit either the page or the talk page, not both), will that speed things up a bit? Will the animals and plants (let alone the politicians) get jealous? :-) Carcharoth 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's six edits per minute, not six reads. In that trial 100, there were 37 records edited, but two of those were adding the Living category, which it won't do in the future, so that's about 6 minutes for 100 edits, or 380 hours. Still a long time. If I left out the writes entirely, only reading the information for humans to fix, I could run it straight through. (Well, not really straight through, since it crashes whenever Wikipedia servers get too slow, so I'd have to run it in manageable chunks.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the BAG would approve a merely data-gathering exercise? I think just gathering the data would be great, but I also think Polbot is robust enough now to do the DEFAULTSORT and listas standardizing at the same time, so whichever you think is best. Carcharoth 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you only need BAG approval if the bot will make changes to pages. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your message on my talk page. As for BAG stuff, I think you are right. As long as you have one of those chokes operating (which will shut Polbot down if the servers are too slow), reading data is fine. Some people might think you are scraping data, and might say use a database dump instead of hassling the servers to download pages, but if you are happy, I am happy, though I'm not BAG, of course. Carcharoth 01:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also found Category:Old Testament saints, which is a perfect example of people on the borderline between history and legend, nearly all of which don't have things like Category:Year of birth unknown or Category:Year of death unknown. They don't even have "X century births/deaths", which is probably due to uncertainty over whether they ever existed. I wonder what should be done in these cases? I also remembered Template:Hndis, which seems to use some nifty template code to recognise the template parameter as the category sortkey. This is, of course, different from DEFAULTSORT, which applies to all the categories, not just one of them. Anyway, some more things to consider. Carcharoth 11:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Humble beginnings

I got bored and went all the way back to Polbot's first contribution! Looks like it was born in good working order! BTW, I linked that one to his Congresses, and noticed that 40th United States Congress still had some redlinks. Many of these are probably because of a lack of redirects. I managed to fix Henry H. Van Aernam, B. Frank Whittemore, John Trimble (congressman), George C. Gorham and John V. L. Pruyn, using redirects, but just thought you should be aware of this need to create redirects from alternate names. A better list to find red-links might be List of former members of the United States House of Representatives. Also, someone might want to check George C. Gorham - what does Polbot do if an article already exists? Does it attempt to add biographical information or not? The 40th Congress William Moore was rather discouraging as well, as we have 2 William Moore articles about congressmen already, but not this one. Also "(congressman)" seems to be a common disambiguating paranthetical bit, as well as "(politician)". Hope this isn't too much to take in! :-) Carcharoth 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's fine. You really need to learn Perl. :-)

Yeah, Perlbot tries to make redirects to other names, but she misses some. When the name already exists, but it's not about the Congress member, she creates the article with a more specific name (that I manually choose). She gets her list of names from here, and the names are added to there manually by various volunteers. (There are still more to add.) The people who fill that list are typically careful to avoid existing names. There's no standard, though. I rep from Kansas could be Name (Kansas politician), Name (politician), Name (Representative), Name (Congressmember/man), or even sometimes Name (1844) in those rare cases where two people are both reps for the same state and have identical names. It happens.

Also. . . when Polbot makes rds, it saves its list of article names that should be rds but are already taken as articles about other people. I store them here, and every so often I populate Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation with human-readable descriptions of these. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Look at all the redlinks I fixed by creating those redirects! <sticks tongue out at Polbot> Humans rulez! (sorry, in a 'humourous' mood at the moment!) Carcharoth 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In a more serious vein, it looks like the "what links here" lists for each politician could be a good guide to the congress articles. Reverse linking. Can Polbot do that? I guess not, as that really does require a human to discern the reason for the linking before deciding whether and how to link back. Carcharoth 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, I really need to improve the rd-making task. (Polbot's Function #2). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I see the problem. These people weren't categorized as politicians. I had previously gone through and make rds for every article in a politician-related category, but I'd skipped the stubs. :-( – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the redirects might also be in a funny format. Missing middle initials. Can Polbot cope with that? I guess "yes", but you never know. Thanks for reminding me about the name dab suggestions page. I had seen that before, but it can be quite time-consuming, and very annoying when you get borderline cases that might be OK, might be the same, or might be different people. I'm sure I showed you this index and demonstrated how it can help with disambiguation of people with the same name. For example: Neer gets three people, but Neer gets, well, a Dutch village, and there is no dab page for Neer (as far as I can tell). A search for Neer turns up many dead ones as well. Once they are correctly DEFAULTSORTed (now, why does that sound familiar), a dab page can be generated from the index. Well, that's the theory, anyway. Ideally, if Persondata was fully filled in, that could generate a short description and put them in chronological order. Then a human could add a finishing polish by grouping family members, similar people, together, that sort of thing. Only trouble is that many dab pages mix people and other things. Not quite sure how to get round that. Carcharoth 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Trail

Please speedy the image Image:Universityparkstrailmap.jpg, whereas, after review, I think that I might be able to create a free-image in this case. Thanks, --wpktsfs 17:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --wpktsfs

Magnet Lab images again

More info is now on tags at Image:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab02.jpg and Image:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab00.png explaining that due to uniqueness of image or security issues, one cannot obtain a photo. Need further explanation? I can provide details. Thanks. Noles1984 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For the photograph, you may have a point. (It would be good if you could provide evidence that the subject is not available to the public, however.)

Try getting into Los Alamos National Lab for a photo... it's like Oakridge National Lab... especially during these terrorist times and after the latest arrest for espionage.

But for the diagram, anyone could create a new diagram based on the information in the image, so I still believe that image is replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if that diagram can be obtained. Noles1984 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)