User talk:Quadell/Archive 33

• 10
• 20
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• Archive 33
• 34
• 35
• 36
• 37
• 38
• 40
• 50

CorenSearchBot

Hey there. Polbot is now a CSBot trusted user. — Coren ^(talk) 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Josephine Bakhita.jpg

Hi Quadell, many thanks again for your help at WP:FUR#10Aug regarding this picture. Unfortunately it seems the image was first published in 1931, not with the memoires of 1910... not found out where yet, only that the 8th edition was printed with additional material in 2000 in Strasbourg. Alex has visited the religious house where she lived, but the sisters, despite being very willing to help, don't know whether or not they own the copyright, or who might. I've removed the picture for now while I write to the mother house of the Order to see if they can shed any light, or provide a picture where they do know they own the copyright. Thanks again for your help. ~ Veledan • | T | 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for doing the research. Both publishers of books that reused the image wrote me back to tell me that they don't really know the image's status. Good luck! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sun-Sentinel

I see you edited this article on July 24. I am curious as to why you let it stand as written, and didn't revert or tag it as blatant advertising. I have done so, and have written to the contributer (who I, as well as others, think is an employee of the newspaper). Did you not think it was biased as written? Jeffpw 08:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really read it -- I just took out a reference to a deleted image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Bunt people

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A {{prod}} template has been placed on List of Bunt people, by Kappa (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.

Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Grim Reaper Bot 07:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Saint Maurice's Coptic icon

Can you please explain to me why Saint Maurice's icon was deleted? It had a tag clearly stating that the creator of the image released it to the public domain! Thank you. --Lanternix 15:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What was the image name? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The image was named Image:StMaurice2.jpg ; --Lanternix 20:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha. That image was deleted because it did not have a proper copyright tag. I've restored the image and added the {{PD-release}} copyright tag. You shouldn't have any more trouble with this image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. --Lanternix 21:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the image to the Commons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent you one. Maxim 00:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beth Broderick.JPG

Hello, I was wondering why you have deleted the image Image:Beth Broderick.JPG without even putting a tag on it or a notice? I'm sure that if there was a tag, the problem could have been taken care of. Thank you very much. 53180 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)53180.

I'm afraid we can't use this image, no matter what tag it has. This is because it's a portrait of a living person and, as such, could be replaced by a free image. See WP:NFCC for more. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot

I'm not familiar with Polbot. Does Polbot create new articles automatically? Polbot created an article that I have just re-edited. Now the article, Samuel Caruthers, has two authors, both with similar names...Polbot and Polounit. Tell me more about Polbot. Polounit 09:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she does and that's why I like her a lot. Quadell has been letting her rest lately; a rather long rest by now in my opinion. But lets hope she has her Plants recoded soon enough so she can start auto-generating those articles and reach 2,000,000 before the month is over. (Right now there are 1,954,621 articles on Wikipedia.) --70.179.175.240 11:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Polounit, see User:Polbot for a description of all Polbot's functions. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you mentioned that the plant recoding will be done sometime this week, I suppose by Saturday evening then. --70.179.175.240 10:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for starting her up again! =-D --70.179.175.240 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bathory images

Quadell, it might be a matter of courtesy to provide a reasoning for deleting the images I uploaded. Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What were the names of these images? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Bathory Dragonslayer.png
• Image:Bathory Coats of Arms (1).png
• Image:Bathory seal.png

Str1977 ^(talk) 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the logs, these images were autotagged by the WikiMedia software as "replaceable" when you uploaded them, meaning that you were automatically notified by the software that these images would be deleted without further notice unless it could be shown that it would be impossible to freely recreate these images. But there is a separate problem with these images -- there is no information on who created the images, when they were created, or who (if anyone) holds the copyright. These sorts of images can (and should) be quickly deleted according to our policy.

In a perfect world, there would be a great deal of communication between editors and administrators regarding image deletion. But in reality, there are literally hundreds of images uploaded every day that violate our non-free image policy, and these all have to be manually deleted by concerned administrators like myself, which takes hours. If we had to notify each user individually, we could never keep up with the workload.

Looking through your upload history, I see that you have uploaded many other non-free images which could be replaced by a free image, therefore violating our first non-free content criterion. This will take some work to sort through and fix. I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but please do not upload non-free images until you fully understand our non-free content policy. Otherwise, you'll just end up frustrated that your images keep getting deleted, and we administrators will just be frustrated that we have to keep deleting them. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How am I too find out the original creator when the author of the book I took these from doesn't give them?

If you don't know the source, I'm not asking you to find the source. I'm asking you to not upload the images to Wikipedia unless you know the source. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, when I uploaded them I gave the reason why I thought them not-replaceable.

Finally, I did NOT upload "many other non-free images" - in fact, I did not upload many images at all and I don't plan to upload many in the future. However, honestly I think what you are expecting is impossible: the policy is way too complicated for anyone to understand. If anyone followed your suggestion, no images would be uploaded anymore. That's not your fault but that's my view. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The images Image:MuhammadNameInHagiaSophia.jpg, Image:Scholder 1286-87 (text).PNG, Image:Scholder review 1285 (head).PNG, Image:Coats of Arms Unterfranken.png, and Image:Coats of arms Alzenau.jpg, are all non-free images that you uploaded, although most are incorrectly tagged as being free images. I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect users to understand our non-free image policy before uploading non-free images. The upload page helpfully recommends "If in doubt, ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... before uploading the image!" – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction:

• The Hagia Sophia image was not originally uploaded by my. If I remember correctly there was an issue with the image title and I uploaded it with a new title back then. I cannot be held responsible for the failings of someone else.
• The scholder image was never intended to stay but a way of communicating the text of a review needed at the time.
• The CoA images I copied over from the German WP were they existed. Thus I had reason to believe that they were okay, especially since the German WP know no fair use terms.

Notwithstanding, five images do not equal many images

I don't think I did anything wrong in this. The upload page is anything but helpfulas the presentation of complicated rules is a total messaze. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't criticize you. You're obviously doing a lot of good for Wikipedia. I apologize if I came across as accusatory. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you are only doing "your job" and that you couldn't know about the circumstances of my uploading the images. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Request endorsement

For use of Betacommand/Commons here - thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Quadell, since I got involved with image work, I've been regularly getting messages asking why I deleted a particular image. I've usually managed to sort it out fairly amicably. I have a very nasty vomiting bug at the moment, and will be either completely absent or just making a very small number of edits a day for a while. If you look at my user page and my talk page, you'll see that I've asked people to take their queries to you or Howcheng or ^demon. I probably should have asked your permission first, but I'm feeling a bit wobbly and just want to go straight back to bed. If you're busy, or have any reason to feel that this request is unwelcome, please feel absolutely free to remove your name from my two pages. I won't be offended at all. I do make mistakes, though I think they're more in image tagging than in image deletion, especially when I'm working too fast. So if you are asked about it, please feel free to undo any action of mine if you think you should. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll be delighted to help you out while you're under the weather. Good luck getting over your ebola! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD I8

Just a small point: according to WP:CSD#I8, images tagged with {{ncd}} shouldn't be deleted until a week has passed, unless uploaded to commons by the creator. No big deal really, but someone will make a drama out of it sooner or later. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, I'd missed that. Thanks. 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image in Wikipedia space

There is a non-free image at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 15, 2006, which would seem to be a violation of WP:NFCC#9. I can't remove it because the page is fully protected. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it's a bigger problem than one image. Posted at AN. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm afraid of saying you that the user Goddess deleted all the messages of apologize I made to her.

Thank you for your attention,

Yours,

LeAngeGardien 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Wim.JPG and Image:Amomvid.JPG

Yes I'd like to know why these two images were deleted without reason. They both clearly had rationale for fair use, and were used to help the discussion of the music video. I looked at a featured article, Hollaback Girl, and saw that it had five images about that video/performance. And these two articles can't have one? There wasn't even a consensus for deletion either... --Thankyoubaby 03:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

These images did not pass WP:NFCC #8, in that they did not show an important aspect of the music video that was discussed in the article. If you feel that my deletion was incorrect, you're free to contest it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 09:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:43017893 henry allingham10pa.jpg

You've given a reason as CSDI7 but not left any form of template on my talk page, which WP:CSD#I7 summary table says you should. I didn't necessarily expect the image to be retained, but I must say it is the first time I uploaded an image and the whole process is wayyyy to complicated and involved, with far to many petty-fogging rules and minutea to make uploading useful to anyone but the most dedicated and sure of the themselves. If it is just a bad tag if you could tell me where I went wrong I'll try it again, the whole process was fraught with error for me. Many thanks RichyBoy 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The process is certainly complicated, and I sympathize. In short, we generally can't use portraits of living people. In less there's some exceptional reason why the person can't be photographed again (like he's serving multiple life sentences in a Turkish prison), it's always assumed that the photo is replaceable. Hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image 6230i.jpg

You have removed this image stating that the same file is on wikipedia commons, but in the nokia 6230 article the image is now broken. Wikipedia commons has no image with the exact same name, but nokia_6230i.jpg exist, is this the same file? I'm going to fix the image in the article (I found a better image on commons so will use that), but can you check that everything else is as it should and that the image isn't broken anywhere else, as i dont know if this should have been fixed automaticly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.48.89.77 (talk) 19:37, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, thanks for letting me know. I'll look into it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick admin help needed on page move

You were the most recent admin in the deletion log, so I thought I'd ask you for a bit of help on moving User talk:LeddyLover1 (which is a non-existent username) to User talk:LeddyLover where it belongs. I already moved the main userpage, but SineBot screwed up the redirect so I can't move over it because it now has history. Would you mind deleting the redirect and moving the user talk page in place? --Pekaje 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I'll inform the user why it happened. --Pekaje 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FutureQuake images

Yes I was going to get around to going through those and you are right that most should go. I would argue that Image:Cover mq03.jpeg and Image:Cover sw01.jpeg should be kept as they illustrate the other two comic series that FutureQuake Publishing publish (in addition to FutureQuake itself) - MangaQuake and Something Wicked. I can add a FUR to both of those which would legitimise their use (I think all the relevant images need shrinking too so I can do that at the same time). (Emperor 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

I think that would be great, and would satisfy all our requirements. Thank for being understanding. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I had it on my mental to-do list when the FURG clampdown started but got sidetracked trying to keep up with the need for FURs across the Comics Project but that was my general plan - take it down to the 3 covers and the group photo (which is mine but probably also needs updating too - I'll check them all in one go, hopefully tomorrow). Thanks again. (Emperor 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Help!

Please, could you patiently and diplomatically explain this user that uploading every image one founds on google is not a good thing? Thanks in advance! --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I left him a message. I'll have to watch this case. Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Light from Death Note image - it should not have been deleted

Quadell, it is true that the Light from Death Note image was deleted after a session on deletion discussion. However, look at the reason WHY it was deleted.

"Image:Light from Death Note.jpg

   Image:Light from Death Note.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ruka (notify | contribs) and Jesus of Suburbia (notify | contribs).

   * Claims to fall under fair use but has no fair use rationale. Greg Jones II 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"

I restored it and GAVE it an FU, so the whole reasoning for the re-deletion is not there. I will restore it again because the REASON it was deleted was actually a "speedy" criteria. Now that I have FU rationale, it should not be deleted. WhisperToMe 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the FU is: "There is no free alternative to portraying Light, as he is a fictional character." - It's easy to add FU rationale to pics about fictional characters. WhisperToMe 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Etam-youth-thong.jpg

This image is already described and its irreplacability explained. If it were an available item, it could be done. Unfortunately, as with many (most?) products pulled from the market, it is difficult or impossible to find one in order to create a new, free image. It is perfectly clear on the image's page. I appreciate your intent in keeping WikiImages clean and clear, but this image is not one even on the cusp of acceptability. It has been challenged before and is very clearly acceptable under WikiPolicy. Thank you for your time and attention, though. Have a great day! VigilancePrime 15:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I added more information that I hope will additionally clarify the irreplacability of the image. If even that isn't sufficient, I don't know what would be. Quite simply, it is effectively impossible to locate and produce a photo of this product. I hope and trust this will allay existing concerns. VigilancePrime 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be effectively impossible for you to replace it. But it would be very easy for someone who owns this product to replace the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Noted the tag issue, my mistake.

It is unreasonable to expect that someone, somewhere could recreate the image. It is a question of reasonably recreate. There is no way to demonstrate the absence of an item. That's like proving that something doesn't exist... how do you do that? This has been researched before and again and has been unfindable. How many different ways need it be said that it has not and cannot be found for a replacement? It's really splitting a super-fine hair to argue that someone could possibly replace it. There's a limit to this, and thus the qualifier of "reasonably" replace. VigilancePrime 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, responding to your comment, HOW would you replace it? It cannot be done. You are pushing (and others also by your assertion) reasonability to fringe possibility. If that's the case, and you want to push policies far beyond their stated scope by reading them with extreme bias instead of literally ("reasonable" means "reasonable" in a literal read), a great deal of Wikipedia should just be deleted without thought. VigilancePrime 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on now

Now this is just bordering on abusive. Every image I have uploaded, just about, you have tagged. Most of them have ALREADY been through this discussion and been deemed sufficient. Why is this being rehashed again other than to cause me angst as the uploader? It just seems ... weird ... that since I am in the process of defending one that all of a sudden you decide to go after all the others, again, which have been through this before (and emerged as keeps). The reasonability of WP:AGF is difficult with the "coincidences" of "finding" all these other images.

Out of curiosity, how many times must these images be challenged and affirmed? Each time additional rationale or information has been requested, it has been added. It's tiring for every "admin" (or non-admin even) with some personal or policy beef to re-tag or re-ask the same questions over and over again... VigilancePrime 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Maggie Grace

Hello. Please could you delete this non-free picture of Maggie Grace, as discussed on WP:AN/I here. Thanks in advance. --Mathsci 19:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Mathsci 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry missed the sources section. You might want to consider adding a little space before the stub. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll second that: double spacing before the stub template tends to make things look a little less "smooshed up". Ideally someone would tweak the CSS in the metadata tag to make that less necessary, but... Alai 04:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

video deletes

Damn! I can't believe you deleted those fair use video grabs tagged by Videmus Omnia on August 7th! Argh! I guess I'll go back to my own nook in WP, but let me just throw out my argument one more time:

Even a headshot can convey the "look" of the musician at that time in their career, hairstyle and appearance, as well as the style and art direction of a video. Most of what is being called "headshots" also include costume as well. You have to concede that the headshot of one video looks substantially different from that of another, aiding in both description and comparison. I checked every image's use and only defended those videos that were being critically discussed as allowed by fair use.

--Knulclunk 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I hear you -- vidcaps are a really tricky issue right now. If you check out the backlog at IFD, most of it is vidcaps that no one wants to make the final decision on. Note that I didn't delete all the vidcaps though -- just those where the video didn't seem to convey what was described in the text. In most cases, I wouldn't have deleted a different vidcap in the same video, if the vidcap clearly showed what was discussed.

But be careful: the video has to show something that is discussed and that is noteworthy. If a video shows a different "look" or "phase" for an artist, but that look isn't even mentioned in the text, then it's not important enough to use a non-free vidcap to illustrate. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Personally, I would choose to keep more liberally. In the long term WP view, important vidcaps with appropriate supporting text will eventually filter through. Those couple of IFD days seemed a tad overboard to for my taste. Thank you for replying. --Knulclunk 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Great award!

Thanks for the award. I love it! I think you need a thick skin on Wikipedia sometimes, and thick leaves are a start! I guess the thick brain is unavoidable. :) -- Cecropia 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

James Kim images under review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:James-kim-techtv.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rugz 06:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Jameskim-people.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rugz 06:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Quadell, I made an addition to {{Ifd log}} (the subst'd header for IfD discussion pages) so that comments on IfD pages will automatically be signed by SineBot. Can you verify that I did this correctly (I don't want to screw up such a high-visibility template.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any experience with that category or Sinebot, but you correctly put in the category so that it will apply to whatever pages it's transcluded or substed into, so far as I can tell. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just wanted to make sure I was using the "includeonly" statement correctly. I am abysmally HTML-deficient. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ffvii worldmap new.png

You recently closed Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_8#Image:Ffvii_worldmap_new.png as delete but the original nominator failed to notify the relevant parties. He only posted a message at the now-inactive uploader's talk page but did not add the {{ifdc}} template to the articles where the images are used. Since both relevant articles are on my watchlist (and those of several other concerned editors), I think the consensus would have been different if the template was added. I checked WP:DRV but it said to talk to the closing admin first before opening a DRV. Axem Titanium 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. Taking a look at some google images ([1], [2], [3], etc.), they all seem kinda busy. Granted, I can't remember what the deleted image looked like exactly, I recall that the terrain, at least, was just solid colors, cutting down on the busy-ness. Axem Titanium 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, the image was improperly named the first time. It is actually a map of Final Fantasy VIII, not VII. Axem Titanium 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm relisting it at IFD. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A photo

Hey, I know you are big in image clean up and deletion, I am not, seems arduous to me, but you may want to delete this image, I don't think it qualifies as fair use considering the band is still alive. Image:Nationalpicbest.jpg. I don't know if a gallery of album covers is appropriate fair use either but there is one on The National (band). IvoShandor 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it. Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT sillyness

Normally I link to m:The Wrong Version. See Wikipedia:Protection policy (emphasis mine): "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version." I don't friggin' care what the page says. COntent should never be revert warred over, much less featured content. Ths should really be discussed/argued over at Talk:Christina Aguilera anyway as it is an obvious WP:BLP issue. Circeus 19:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't be pinning it on anybody. It takes 2 to tango edit war no matter what. Just try to solve this ASAP. I'm moving the discussion to CA's talk page right now. No need to hide it away like that. Circeus 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Frontier Airlines Route Map

I don't understand why [Image:Frontier Airlines Route Map.jpg] is considered replacable? Frontier Airlines released it on their website for use and it is properly noted and licensed. What's the problem? Sox23 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, anyone could recreate this map and license the new map under a free license. That's why it's replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But nobody has recreated it, and it is a valuable asset to the Frontier Airlines article. I will gladly delete it if somebody recreates it, but I don't see why it has to be deleted when it is not currently found online, and Frontier Airlines has released it to the public. Sox23 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't do that. If the image could be replaced, then it's "replaceable", and we can't use it now -- not even just until a replacement is found. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no replacable image on the web. No other Frontier Airlines route map is actually produced so why can't it be used? Sox23 02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Because you could draw one. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

With what--if it was released by the airline, why does it have to be recreated? Sox23 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it wasn't released under a free license. If you recreated it, your version could be released under a free license (such as the GFDL). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What if I copy it to paint add a change or two, then release it as a free image? would that work? Sox23 02:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would be a derivative image, and still subject to the original copyright. You'd have to create it from scratch. But there are lots of blank maps on Wikipedia to start with, if you're interested. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the [Non-free promotional] template -

To the uploader: This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. Please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the image and copyright information. Additionally, if the copyright holder has granted permission, please provide further details as to the terms.

Seeing as this fits into the description, and there is a license for these sorts of pictures, why is it an issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sox23 (talk • contribs) 22:51, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Because the tag also says "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it". You have to follow all our non-free content policy, not just one part, to use non-free content on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ducati_mach1_800.jpg

Hello

Already went through this about a year ago. Already went through arbitration on it.

The bike no longer exists. The photo is the only one available. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 22:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC) User:Mistress Selina Kyle/User Copyright

Please don't cite "copyright paranoia". The issue is not about whether Wikipedia will be sued, it's about building a free encyclopedia. It would help if you cited the arbitration you mention above, but you should know that the Foundation recently issued a resolution on the topic of non-free images. Is there a reason that a free image can't be made of the object in question? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This image already went to WP:IFD about a year ago and the concensus was to keep it as is. I do not have the link. And yes, it is copyright paranoia.

The object in question no longer exists in that form. There are no factory-condition examples of the Mach 1 in existence. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the last go-around on WP:IFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_11#Image:Ducati_mach1_800.jpg_.28talk_.7C_delete.29 Submitted by RogueGeek, Dec 11, 2006. Consensus was to keep it. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 01:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the non-free content criteria have changed since then. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. But you could also write this guy [4]. Isn't that the same bike? --Knulclunk 03:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep. There is a restored close sister to the illustrated bike at the Ducati shop in Bellevue, WA, USA. It isn't relevant that the engine displacements are not the same. What is relevant is the history that riders have with the TYPE. There was a 200cc varient that was competetive in road race circuits before the metrics arrived on scene. Further, to state that there is no identical bike in existence suggests an omniscience that is unbecoming to any encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.96.182 (talk) 17:41, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

A question of hiding bot edits

I know that we can hide bot edits from recent changes using the +bot, but can Polbot's contributions be hidden from new pages? I don't know if it's a technical issue, so I figured I'd ask you. I love Polbot, but it's cluttering up new pages at times :) Keegan^talk 04:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish. Unfortunately, that's not possible. Sorry! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw it, but on Polbot's talk page I linked to a bugzilla thread that indicates that there is at least a little bit of desire from the developers to implement a fix for this - someone wrote a patch, but it hasn't been implemented yet. Carcharoth 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:MargaretWilson.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. gadfium 05:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot hiccuped

Hope you haven't been letting her drink and edit ;-) Found a couple of articles that had talk pages but no article. Database must have been locked. Just wanted to let you know so you can throw them back in the queue.

• Aegiphila lopez-palacii (talk)
• Amesiella monticola (talk)
• Anisophyllea cabole (talk)
• Anthurium orientale (talk)
• Ardisia colonensis (talk)
• Calceolaria ferruginea (talk)
• Canthium impressinervium (talk)
• Canthium rondoense (talk)
• Celtis jamaicensis (talk)
• Ceratocentron fesselii (talk)
• Eucryphia glutinosa (talk)
• Eugenia excisa (talk)
• Eugenia inasensis (talk)
• Euphorbia annamarieae (talk)
• Euphorbia hajhirensis (talk)
• Euphorbia pervilleana (talk)
• Freziera friedrichsthailana (talk)
• Froelichia juncea (talk)
• Gardenia vitiensis (talk)
• Goniothalamus tenuifolius (talk)

And that's all I can retrieve from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality log - the log was too large for it to continue past G! Amazing how many articles you've created. Our assessment logs note there are now over 21,000 plant articles on Wikipedia (at least those tagged with the WP:PLANTS banner, which is nearly most of them). Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll definitely throw those back in. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: Quercus hinckleyi

Another one:

• Rapanea gilliana talk) --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Roland Garros' Cups Pictures

Hi I just happened to realize that you deleted the images again, eventhough I properly cited the sources and that I had identified the liscence.

If it is because its only exploitable for non-commercial purposes only, then why does Wikipedia even offer this option, I mean, if it will only accept GPL material than why give any of the other options.

For whatever reason it was done I think you should at least inform the author, it took me a long time to redo those grand slam articles (I still have to do the US Open one), and I was even planning on doing it on some other languages like French and Spanish, so just out of respect for someone's work I think you should at least send a message informing people about deleting their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O wingless o (talk • contribs) 08:54, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Hey, I just wanted to say that the amount of new species pages you have created through your bot (how does that work btw?) is amazing. I am in awe, haha. Cheers! Viperphantom 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot is blushing! Thanks so much for the positive feedback. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who appointed you judge, jury and prosecution?

This Deleted, evidently not a free image at [5] is admin abuse, pathetic wiki-lawyering and preposterous. Precisely what gives you the right to override concensus and draw your own conclusions based on an extremely limited (almost to the point of non-existence) knowledge of copyright law? It is obvious that you are becoming quite tendentious in your crusade to rid Wikipedia of all images. The nonsense needs to stop, and it will, one way or the other. You can choose to slow down and think, or we can leave it up to the community, and if necessary arbcom, to resolve the issue. The choice is yours. •Jim62sch• 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I welcome any examination of my actions. Feel free to report this issue, or any other issue that concerns you, to WP:ANI, WP:DRV, WP:RFAR, or anywhere else you think would be useful. I am confident I acted appropriately and in line with our policies. But please, try to be civil and refrain form personal attacks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A DRV is in the process of being addressed. The real problem here is that you made an assumption that is not supported by facts. As for civility, as I told one of your friends, civility is not limited to words, it includes actions. In my eyes, an unwarranted assumption, such as that which you made re trhe image in question is uncivil. •Jim62sch• 22:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Every administrator can and should override consensus in order to comply with our image policy. Quadell is one of the most respected of the administrators involved with image work, and is very knowledgeable, patient, and fair. By the way, Quadell, I don't want to make you blush, but I recently emailed a wiki-friend saying that I often complain to myself that some of the people who are most active in upholding image policy are a little weak on respect and courtesy and the will not to annoy others unnecessarily, and I added, "In getting more involved with this work, I've run into Quadell several times, and think he's one of the exceptions." This person wrote back, "Yeah Quadell's a good egg." So, if you don't find this a bit patronising coming from someone with much less experience than yourself: keep it up! ElinorD (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• To be fair, in that case you could have explained your decision a bit better, at least saying into your closing note "referring to what I said above". I also don't buy the "we should believe the Nobel Foundation, that they hold the copyright". If there is any doubt about a copyright, the default is for people to claim they hold it. And the copyright notice probably was meant to apply to the text, not the photo. As a side note, I'm having trouble working out what the image was of. Presumably someone called oneill who won a Nobel (Eugene O'Neill), but I think it might be an idea to remind people nominating IfDs to state what the picture is of, and to link to at least one of the articles it is used in. After a debate has closed delete, it is hard to trace back to the articles if those mentions are not there. Anyway, I often wonder why people don't simply try and find an alternative, instead of defending an image to the death either way. Surely this sort of website would give some pointers towards PD pics? Carcharoth 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• For example. This says at the bottom "© Copyright 1999-2007 eOneill.com", but that is the standard copyright tag at the bottom of all the pages on that website. Obviously the copyright for picture is something else, most likely from the Hammerman archive. While looking through that, I found this, which seems to be a portrait based on the Nobel photo. Anyway, I think I mentioned in some of the other IfDs that it would be nice if people started searching more, instead of shouting at each other. Carcharoth 02:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot using generic citation

During newpages patrol I noticed a few plant species articles posted by Polbot. I was wondering why the bot is not using the standard for citations we use for all good articles, i.e., inline citations? Not only would it lay a foundation for future editors, but would solve the repetitive task of placing the markup for them. I don't know your familiarity with citation formats (or whether you've considered this but there is a technical limitation) but I would suggest the following format (if this is at all possible), using Syzygium guehoi as an example:

(article text)<ref name="IUCN">{{IUCN2006 | assessors=Florens, D. | year=2000 | id=39449 | title=Syzygium guehoi | downloaded=22 August 2007}}</ref>

==References==

{{Reflist}}

I am actually betting that there is a technical limitation and I'm just spinning my wheels but what the hell, thought I'd inquire.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond. Polbot has finished now, so I guess it's moot. There's no technical reason why I couldn't have done references that way, and it might have been better to. I really just did it the easiest way (being lazy). Thanks for the feedback! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Index2007_EconFreedomMAP.jpg

I have no idea if I did something contrary to policy when I uploaded the image. Most probably as it got more restrict afterwards I had uploaded it. But I am not so in sync of what is considered good standards by wikipedia. There was a previous map from the heritage foundation that I replaced with this newer one. I don't know what kind of license the heritage foundation has on the image. Maybe you could find that out. Do whatever you feel like with the image. Lord Metroid 01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion procedures

Hi Quadell. I just noticed your delete of the image Bjlata1.jpg

As you can see by my submission made only minutes before closure, I agree with the delete decision. I think you made the right call here, and I support it.

On the other hand, given that debates on these subjects are sometimes heated and have plenty of disagreement, I feel very strongly that you should try to be exceptionally careful in following the procedure fairly and without any scope for complaint. The normal procedure is for discussion to be allowed for five days. This image was nominated on 18:15, 19 August 2007. You have closed the discussion just a bit over four days later, and proceeded with the actual delete at the same time, despite the fact that the discussion was still active.

There are so many deletions being nominated at present that you should be especially careful not to give the impression that this is being railroaded through unreasonably. I cordially request you to keep carefully to the five day discussion period. Thank you —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought the delay was whenever they fall off the main project page, which is (let's see. . .) five days from the beginning of the day when they were nominated (effectively 4 days and change). Hm. That seems odd. Maybe we should bring this up on the project's talk page -- it seems it should list six days, in order to make sure all images are kept at least five full 24-hour days. I'd never really thought about it before.

Thanks for AGF-ing and all that. Some of the discussions on that page, as you know, are rather hairy, and I don't mind keeping them around until discussion dies down, or until it becomes obvious that no further discussion will be productive. Maybe I should have done so with Bjlata1, I'm not sure. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with giving a special significance to the instant of time when one day becomes another is that we are an international encyclopedia. For example, I am now fully acclimatized to it being Friday August 24. I'll be having lunch soon. But some folks in more backward parts of the world (USA :-) still have not finished dealing with Thursday. Hence, I normally read five days as meaning 120 hours. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the day switch-over time indicates that Wikipedia follows UTC-1, which is the time zone used by a tiny part of Greenland, some islands off Africa, and nowhere else. I've never understood that. Anyway, see Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#5_days._._._rounded_up.3F for more centralized discussion on this IFD issue. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrongful Deletion

You deleted only this Image:BrownUniversity-JohnHayLibrary.jpg, even though I have take about 50 other photos for List of Brown University buildings. Wouldn't it have been better to contact me first? Now I have to go back and take another photo. Thank you for wasting my time Apavlo 00:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you created this photo yourself, then I can restore it for you. Are you willing to license it under the GFDL? "

Yes, I created it. I thought I selected the "Public Domain" option like I did with all my other photos. I don't have a copy of it anymore, so if you can restore it, that would be great. Thanks Apavlo 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain image

I know you might not have had time, yet, but did you get a chance to look at the Neville Chamberlain image debate again? In particular the bit here? I really do think that arguing over the subjective criteria (NFCC#8) is distracting from the cases where people should be hunting down sources and copyright information. What do you think? I was pleased to actually be able to answer your NFCC#10 query after only a brief search. I was less pleased, of course, to find that it was in the Getty Archives, but then that's life. I do wonder as well, if that image gets deleted, whether it would be possible to bring a resolution to the NFCC#8 debate that took place there? A kind of, yes, those arguing that it passed NFCC#8 were right. It also passed NFCC#10 after sources and copyright information were found. But it failed NFCC#2. Without a clear explanation, if it is deleted, people arguing for the image to be kept might look back and think that their NFCC#8 arguments were considered wrong, which would be misleading, in my opinion, and would cause confusion. Carcharoth 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know whether the image would pass NFCC #8 or not. Luckily, it's moot, since the image fails other criteria. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Casa del puebla image

I'm wondering why the casa del puebla (actually I believe it should be pueblo) image was deleted. You indicated that it is replaceable with a free image. Now it might be true that a free image of the church building, if it still exists, could be obtained, but it would no longer have the sign "Casa del Pueblo" which gives it its historical significance. It would seem to me the historically significant photo could not be replaced with a free image. I think the image is a valid fair use. Please explain to me why you disagree. Also, doesn't the procedure for deletion of such images require that you notify the uploading party and wait a period of time? I received no notice. I would appreciate your thoughts. Mamalujo 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is requested that the person who tags an image for deletion notify the uploader, but not the admin who deletes the image. In many cases, the Wikipedia software tags an image as replaceable automatically, and the uploader is told on the upload screen that unless there is a valid reason why the image is not replaceable, it will be deleted without notice.

In this case, the building still exists, and could be photographed. I believe that a new photograph, even without the sign, would illustrate the article just as well. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

But a picture of the Church without the sign indicating it had been turned into a "house of the people" would not serve the encyclopedic purpose. In light of this, I think the image's use here constitutes fair use.Mamalujo 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Three deleted images

Hi,

No, I'm not writing to complain about my block--though it did occur at a point when it served more as punishment than prevention. At any rate, the break did me good and I've apologized to Videmus Omnia for my inappropriate language.

I'm writing because I believe you improperly deleted three images that were nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 19. They are: File:Cher in hell on wheels.JPG, File:MHWGOphoto10.jpg, and Image:Bjlata1.jpg. In each case, the image was deleted in contravention of the following primary instruction in Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In each case, two or more objections to the image's deletion were raised and there was--I believe it's more than safe to say--no consensus to delete. In the first two cases, no rationale at all was provided for overriding instruction. In the third case, only a personal opinion about the content of the debate was offered as rationale--"Many people offered spirited defenses of this image, but no one was able to explain what encyclopedic information this image conveys that could not be conveyed by text alone." Deleting on that basis obviously values an administrator's personal opinion about a subjective matter over the clear language of the instruction (and, obviously, over the opinion of most of those involved in the debate). To be clear, in none of these cases was it claimed either at the point of nomination or deletion that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction. Are you willing to reverse yourself on these three deletions? Best, Dan.—DCGeist 22:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Sorry for the delay in responding -- I've been away. Thanks for you note, and for being civil. I wish everyone were so understanding about blocks.

In each of the 3 cases you mentioned above, the image was nominated for deletion for failing NFCC #8. Yes, as you indicate, the application of NFCC #8 is frequently subjective. In the first two cases, there were "keep" comments that referenced various aspects of the images, but no comments that gave any clear reasoning of why anything shown in the image was (a) important in the article, and (b) depicting information that could not be portrayed by words alone. Several comments defended the use of screenshots in general, and I think a video screenshot could pass NFCC #8 in these articles, but the screenshots chosen do not. (Nothing in those screenshots was mentioned in the article.) Of the comments on the first two images that adequately considered NFCC #8, none argued in favor of keeping the image.

The third image was more complex. Several people urged keeping the image, and addressed NFCC #8 directly. That case was more borderline, but I still feel I made the right decision. So I respectfully decline to reverse myself.

As you probably know, you're free to take any of these cases to WP:DRV, and I won't take it personally. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll take the first and third images to WP:DRV--both to clarify the procedural issue and because I do think they are (er...were) valuable to their respective articles. (I took a look again at the article where the second image was and couldn't figure out where it had been--a pretty good indicator it wasn't so helpful after all.) Best, D—DCGeist 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(sorry to butt in) Dan, from what I recall, the second image was replaced in Celine Dion with a different and better one. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, VO. Here are the DRV links: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG, Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:Bjlata1.jpg.—DCGeist 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons question

Quadell, what's the equivalent of WP:PUI on Commons? I'm concerned about Image:Amal-hijazi.jpg, which was repeatedly uploaded and deleted (under other names that I forget) as a WP:NFCC#1 violation on en Wikipedia. I'm dubious about the GFDL claim. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out. Like my mother always says, "look with your eyes, not with your mouth." Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, she has reached the end.

It appears that Polbot was autogenerating plants in alphabetical order. (Any idea why she skipped the "Y"s?) Therefore, it looks like she has reached the end of the plant list. Oh well, she appears to have done her tasks so I'll concede that she has ended her duty already, even if it was earlier than I had hoped. (If you have future plans for Polbot to auto-generate more, hopefully you may let us know.) Thanks for providing the programming & efforts of the kind & progressive bot. --70.179.175.240 08:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the accolades! I'm deeply satisfied with her work. And now she rests. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perlwikipedia fix

After ~three months of sitting on it of of sheer procrastination, Perlwikipedia will now recognize images in categories retrieved via get_pages_in_category. This affects get_all_pages_in_category as well, because the latter uses the former function. Shadow1 (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoo-rah! Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)