User talk:Quadell/Archive 21

So-called "non-free" images
Since when did a movement start to kick all otherwise properly attributed and credited, so-called "non-free" images - especially promotional photos circulated for the primary purpose of press/publicity use (including Wikipedia, since technically it's an online publication)? I'm starting to see this B.S. crop up and things are really starting to get asanine, especially for those editors like myself who endeavor to properly attribute sources and copyright info? --CJ Marsicano 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this won't convince you that this is a good policy, but at least you'll be able to see the reasoning and history here. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that has been our policy for over a year. It has been explicitly endorsed by the Wikimedia board. Please read Chowbok's link for an excellent summary that should answer all your questions. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali again... now RFC
Hi Quadell... Image:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg has been deleted and I am at the end of my tether. I have opened an RFC... Requests for comment/Abu badali. Feel free to comment or feel free not to...

-- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate very much your note of support. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:HRH-Prince-Carl-Philip-of-Sweden.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HRH-Prince-Carl-Philip-of-Sweden.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: It is also missing a detailed fair use rationale. See Fair use criteria. Sincerely, --Oden 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I didn't upload this image. I took the existing image and shrank it, in order to better conform to our fair use policy. The original uploader, User:Timtonruben359, hasn't edited in about a year though. In my opinion, the image should be deleted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg


This was tagged as RFU disputed, with a fair-use rationale, and it was a promo picture. Why did you delete it? I'm sorry if I sound a little pissed but this just got deleted in User:Betacommand's reckless deletion of 1500 images, disregarding any tagging, and I got him to restore it, and here you go and delete it seemingly without any consideration either. --Dgies 05:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I did not delete Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg "without any consideration", and resent the accusation. I deleted it because it was tagged replaceable fair use since Nov 17, and I deemed the image was replaceable. You had argued that the product is rare, and that's true -- but it isn't unavailable. One could argue that the Parthenon is extremely rare -- only one of them is in existence -- but a non-free image of the Parthenon would not be acceptable. You can find Vectrix 3D imagers for sale here and here. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding Tav Falco images Panther Burns
See my chat with Robth for info about how I finally deleted the tagged images on Tav Falco and reuploaded them with a more appropriate file name after discovering other problems besides the "fair use" issue, such as the photographer name clarification. I was looking up the image to make sure it was deleted and found a note from you on one of them in a discussion apge, so I just wanted to make sure you knew the current status on the photographs which I worked on after Chowbok notified me of the problem regarding the license. Thankfully I had time to fix up everything before anything was completely deleted. I'll try to look in more frequently now and also i am going to work on maintaining my previous work soon, especially regarding images.

– Bebop 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hallicrafters SX-28A Super Skyrider.jpg
IMHO, you are diminishing Wikipedia by being fussy about copyrights of sixty-year-old advertising pictures from companies that have been out of business since 1975. Then when someone follows the instructions on your tag, (which doesn't mention posting something on the talk page), and includes a dispute tag, you remove the dispute tag because he didn't post to the talk page. This is pretty sad. It not only diminishes the encyclopedia, but it drives away editors who act in good faith and use good judgment. Please consider doing something more worthwhile with your time. Lou Sander 09:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't create the policy that says replaceable, non-free images should be deleted. If you disagree with the policy, you might want to take it up with it's author, User:Jimbo Wales. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with the policy. I disagree with its foolish application to the detriment of the encyclopedia. And I take it up with those who are engaging in the foolishness. Lou Sander 13:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So you like the policy, but you don't want to see it enforced? The policy doesn't say "We can keep a replaceable, non-free image if we really like it and can't find a replacement in 5 minutes with a Google image search". It says "We can't use replaceable, non-free images at all." – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User states that the policy is applied foolishly which is the same as misaplied. This is not the same as to state that user does not want the policy enforced. Please no strawman arguments. This is a very serious issue. --Irpen 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Yanagupta.jpg
I am willing to delete this image at your call. I find credibility in your arguments. Looks like the rules have been tightened since long, and I did not notice. Best wishes. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 12:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed they have. Thanks for your note. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion of Image:Something Corporate Promo.jpg and Image:Something Corporate.jpg
Hi, please undelete these two images I uploaded where deleted. They had been undeleted two hours before you deleted them again, and I had made my case why they shouldn't be on their respective talk pages here and here, which nobody contested. It is certain that fair use criterion #1 does not apply here as a free alternative "that would adequately give the same information" cannot be created as the images are used to identify the band's members within the Andrew McMahon and Something Corporate article during a notable phase of their career (members have left the band after the picture was taken). Hence, getting these five individuals together in one place to take a picture is impossible. The band (in its current formation) hasn't toured in two years and is on somewhat of a hiatus, thus a free live picture can currently also not be created. Besides that, a live picture would certainly not contain "the same information" as a promotional one (see e.g. R.E.M. (band)), as far as identifying the band's members goes. While WP policies aren't always a black and white matter, in this instance it is evident that no fair use criterion was violated and that the images are by no means replacable (RFU tags should also be removed, once the images are restored). Have a great day, HarryCane 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. One of the images was only used to identify Andrew McMahon within the band, and any photo of McMahon would have served the purpose just as well. The other photo was not used to identify a specific line-up, but only to identify the band in general. If the band is on hiatus, that's something else -- do you have a source that says they are not together at this time? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be right about that... :) Anyway, I didn't find any sources citing the hiatus of the band per se, it is more of an unspoken thing, that was never officially announced. Here is an interview where McMahon speaks about the band's intention to take some time off, their PureVolume page lists the 2004 DVD Live at the Ventura Theater as "their most recent endeavor", and both singer/pianist McMahon and guitarist Partington have recording contracts with other bands now (Jack's Mannequin and Firescape, respectively). I don't know... maybe one of the images should stay, maybe they should be deleted, maybe it would be best to wait for the whole fair use promo picture thing to settle down a bit. Your call. Take it easy, HarryCane 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your help with Image:Wisitbear.jpg and the shifting of the image on the page, Wisit Sasanatieng. – WiseKwai  |  Talk  |  Contribs  21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record
You do seem like a reasonable person and it's very heartening that you seem willing to review each deletion case indiviudally based on its merits, at least to the best of your ability. Apologies that I was insulting to you on the Abu badali RfC talk page. We will probably continue to disagree on some policy-related things but I respect you and your honesty and fairness. TheQuandry 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thank you so much! The Abu thing is so contentious that it's easy to get heated; I found myself being more abrasive than I usually am when discussing it. This "rfu" issue is legitimately difficult, and calls for sensitivity on all parts. I'll try to do my part. Thanks again. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please delete an image for me?
Hehe this time I WANT one to be deleted! Problem is, I can't figure out which tag to use... thought I'd ask you to do the honours :) Image is Image:ChristyFichtner.jpg... I just uploaded a free image of her from Commons and didn't realise the WP image had the same name... --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As one of Quadell's stalkers someone with this page on his watchlist, I have deleted the image. --RobthTalk 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merci beaucoup! -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The mysteries of usernames
(*laugh*) Actually I do know what a real bearcat is; I had neither the sports mascot (which I didn't even know about) nor the David Wilcox song in mind. But for what it's worth, I was actually aiming, with my eternally warped excuse for a sense of humour, for this: Bear community, cat. Bearcat 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow. I'd missed that reference. So my school's mascot is a David Wilcox song (which I didn't know about) and a new slang term for a guy who's into hairy guys. Makes me chuckle, thinking about all the shirtless fratboys on the backs of pickup-trucks yelling "Go bearcats!" – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Image:WesStudi.jpg was tagged for deletion as replaceable. I put a disputed tag on it, as I haven't found any photos of him that are more fair use than a promotional head shot (which that image was) and it seemed imprudent to fly to Oklahoma and stalk him with a camera. But today the image was deleted without any further discussion. So what was the point of the disputed tag? Kafziel Talk 20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The disputation tag does not necessarily prevent an image from being deleted. The tag simply lets the processing admin know that you think it's replaceable, and he or she should read your reasoning on the talk page. (I did.) If the discussion convinces the admin that the image could not reasonably be replaced, then the image won't be deleted. But if someone could replace the image (even if you, personally, aren't able to), the the admin will still delete the image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've said this before, although I forget where. I think when deleting disputed RFU images, the talk page should be left up for a few days and a note left by the deleting admin saying why he/she was unconvinced by the argument. Otherwise people just feel they were ignored. Of course, it's easy for me to prescribe extra work for admins... &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking back through it, this image didn't seem to have a disputed tag or a talk page. Perhaps you tagged a different image as disputed, Kafziel, thinking it was this one? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was definitely a tag on it; I placed it several days ago and checked it yesterday just to make sure it was still there since there were no replies.
 * So, does all this mean you found a free version, or someone who can supply one? Otherwise, I still don't get it. Every fair use image is, theoretically, replaceable. Given enough time and a limitless supply of money and resources, anything that exists in the universe can be photographed and released into the public domain. Fair use is meant to fill that gap, because even governments understand that it's unreasonable not to have a middle ground somewhere. Fair use exists, and we might as well use it while we can. We shouldn't be deleting photos just because there might be a free one floating around somewhere.
 * I know this is a really contentious issue right now, and I don't think it's made any better by deleting disputed photos without discussion. It's not the end of the world, just something to consider. Kafziel Talk 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking through the Image:WesStudi.jpg page history, and it shows you uploaded it on Sept 27, adding the following description: "From Wes' casting photos. ". Then on November 22, Chowbok added. Then I deleted it today. There were no other edits listed. The talk page, Image talk:WesStudi.jpg, has no history, meaning it was never created.

Regarding fair use, our first fair use criterion requires that an image be non-replaceable, meaning that it would be impossible for someone to create a new image and release it under a free license. If that would be possible, even if it would be difficult, we can't use a non-free image. Jimbo Wales has said it would be better to have no image at all than to have a non-free image, if the image could be replaced in the future. This has been our policy for a long time, but it was not consistently enforced until recently. Many people, in the meantime, got the mistaken impression that we could upload any promotional photo, but that's not the case. We can, however, use non-free photos if they are non-replaceable: good examples would be a person who is no longer living, or an event that can't be repeated. Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't post my rationale on the talk page; I used the other option and included it along with the template. I've never had an image tagged for that before, so I don't think I could have done it on the wrong one; I clicked the link in the message Chowbok posted on my talk page. Could be I'm losing my mind, though. Maybe it was just a really vivid dream. :)
 * Anyway, essentially this all just boils down to what I figured in the first place: disputing the speedy deletion is pointless. I just wanted to know for future reference, in case I see those tags on other photos. Cool. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You should put the disputed tag on the image page, but your actual dispute on the talk page. It's definitely not pointless to dispute it if you have a good case; I've withdrawn several nominations based on points raised on disputes, and Quadell has decided not to delete several nominated images because of the disputes as well. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I used this tag (or, at least, I meant to): . The second choice on the template page linked to in your message. Oh, well. No biggie.
 * I should have been more specific: it's pointless to dispute a tag placed on a photo of a single living person (which was the case here). I'm not too worried about it, because most of the photos I upload are either GFDL self-made or public domain. I uploaded this one a long time ago and had forgotten all about it. No big loss. Maybe one of our Oklahoma editors can accost him in the dairy section of a Piggly Wiggly or something. Kafziel Talk 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Translation of the Week: Trillo
The current Spanish Translation of the Week is located at Threshing-board/Translation. This week's project is to translate es:Trillo into English. You previously expressed interest in working on this translation. If you are still interested, please consider joining the translation taking place at Threshing-board/Translation.Fagles 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Input requested
Am I missing something here, or is this really as absurd as I've seen it? Cheers, Postdlf 15:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurosawa again
Yeah, I just read about that. I should have checked that out before I sent the emails. I didn't mention anything about the GNU license. I may just give up the ghost on this one for now. But I've learned something. So I have that. Thanks for your help. Doctor Sunshine 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Free images discussion
Sure, sounds like a good idea. I should have some time tomorrow morning to read through and share my thoughts. Have a good weekend! TheQuandry 21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
First off, thanks for being reasonable. Many editors here seem not to be. It is much appreciated!

Secondly, I really want you to consider this: You wrote: There is no legal reason why someone couldn't photograph the people listed, and release those images under a free license (like the GFDL).  THIS is where we hit an irrevocable fork -- because I believe there IS a reason! :)

Having worked in TV for many years, and having worked with lawyers to legally "clear" promotional photos, I know that in the U.S., the subject of a photo, especially if the subject is a "public" personality or celebrity, will almost ALWAYS retain some rights. They MUST be a part of the rights-clearance process. (That's the personality rights issue I keep talking about.) Which is why you HAVE to use a "fair use" claim for this kind of material. You're NEVER going to get a celebrity to sign away the rights to an image of them, in perpetuity, for all Wikipedia reusers, forever. Not only is fair use a solution to this, it's a responsible solution -- I've been told Wikipedia has stricter-than-U.S.-law-requires fair use guidelines already.

And for an image like, no, I don't think it's REASONABLE to think that someone in Finland could get him to put on his hockey uniform and pose for a studio portrait. He's already done that once before... for a photo that was distributed to the media to be used, and re-used, in just the manner as was being done on his page.

Thanks for taking a second look at those images. I hope further discussion can lead to their re-inclusion. Who knows? The "log rolled" once, maybe it'll roll again... ;)

Jenolen   speak it!  22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Block log
Hello!

I have been warned by another administrator (User:Khoikhoi) for posting this comment. User:Irpen has also posted a notice on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. As you are one of the users mentioned in my comment I would value your input in this matter.

I appreciate the fact that you are a serious and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I will take any positive suggestions from you on how I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia to heart.

Sincerely, --Oden 12:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thedrunkendiale

 * I am wondering of this site could be considered an internet phenomena or not. I know it is rather popular and extremely humorous. It features a guy who holds a weekly contest offering $100 via PayPal to the individual who leaves him he best Drunk dialing message on his voicemail.


 * I did not add this site to this article yet for fear that people would think I am self-promoting. I have no affiliation with the site and can’t find any direct marketing used to purchase products. I just think it is very funny and well known around my area.


 * I look forward to some objective input before I add, or do not add this site to the list. Take a look for yourself, you be the judge…


 * Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Would this apply?)

Thanks, 69.167.102.181
 * http://www.removedspamlink

P.S. I posted the same message on User_talk:Wavy_G for more opinions. Look forward to hearing from you...

You helped choose Cactus as this week's WP:AID winner
MER-C 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:SombatMetanee.jpg
I am seeking advice on how to proceed with the issues raised on Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg. I believe that a very solid fair-use rationale has been crafted and there are very good reasons for using the image on the page, especially now that a free image has been provided that serves the purpose of what Sombat Metanee looks like. The image that has been deleted serves to show the actor's appearance at the beginning of his career, something that is commented on in the article. I do not believe that a free-use image could be found to replace it. I have left a similar query on this on User talk:Angr, but have not yet received a reply. I would like to have a definitive resolution to this, if possible. If you can share some of your experience with me as to how these cases go, I would appreciate it. Thanks. — WiseKwai 14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Your suggestion was helpful. I plan to follow up in a few days, hopefully giving Angr some more time to look at my claims and respond. One question, though: When is a discussion formally "closed"? In looking at the tag I would use to notify the admin editor of the dispute, it makes reference to this. But what if the discussion is not closed? — WiseKwai 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Coreylat.jpg
Thank you for all of your help getting me to fully understand the correct image licensing that I should be using. Not everyone is as patient as you. Ta-ni-ni 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thank so much! I'm blushing. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Creative commons?
I'm talking to someone who has a pretty big internet archive of photographs of store signs. I wanted to use a couple of them on articles I work on. I asked her if I could use some of her images and pointed her to the GFDL page on Wikipedia and she said I could use them and also mentioned that she was looking into licensing all of her images under Creative Commons (not necessarily for us, but in general). Do you know where I can find out how to get all this processed for her so we can use her images here under Creative Commons? TheQuandry 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's good news! We can use cc-by-2.5 ("attribution license", which requires only that the author be attributed), or cc-by-sa-2.5 ("share-alike license", which also requires that any derivative work be also licensed under a creative commons license). The ones we can't use, unfortunately, are cc-by-nc ("non-commercial", which only allows non-commercial use), and cc-by-nd ("no derivatives", which doesn't allow modifications). There's a lot of info here, of course, and this has a list of all the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Naugthy or nice.jpg
I've marked Image:Naugthy or nice.jpg with the no-rationale tag again. The rationale needs to identify which specific article the rationale is for, which that rationale does not do. This is because otherwise, people may think it appropriate to add the image to any article they feel like, even though this would be in violation of WP:FUC. It's not clear to me that this is fair-use for 3LW, though this may well be the case. It is obviously fair-use for Naughty or Nice. --Yamla 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (I know you did not upload this image but I think the rationale is yours...) --Yamla 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed the rationale...but I am not sure that I did it in exactly the right way... --Ta-ni-ni 23:00, 5 December 2006
 * I think you did just great. Thanks. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your actions
Well...I see as an admin you have simply deleted nearly everything that was marked, except for three images that could not be "replaced", as opposed to 29 deleted. So much for wasting my time writing all those justifications - as an admin, you simply do what you wish. Please be aware that as a result of your actions, I will no longer load images of any kind to Wikipedia, and will encourage others to do the same as long as the current "policy" regarding fair use images remains enforced as you see it. You are a complete waste of time, and refused to provide a single example of your so-called reasonableness as I requested on the discussion page of an image you eventually deleted. Even one-time press kit images that could never be duplicated were deleted. What a non-surprise. Tvccs 05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope this negative experience will not dissuade you from contributing to Wikipedia. My actions are always up for review -- if you'd like to take the matter to WP:AN, I wouldn't object. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with Tvccs, and I, like many others your leadership has inspired, have stopped finding and loading images to Wikipedia. Your work seems directed toward diminishing the encyclopedia, and toward providing negative experiences for as many conscientious editors as possible (always following the rules, of course). On the positive side, there are many improperly licensed images in Norway-related topics. Your considerable talents could be used to good effect there. Lou Sander 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Norway? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I reviewed your comments on Friday's talk page, and will combine my reply here, rather than cluttering his page. As far as "hard work" goes, the only hard work involved is that done by the hundreds of Wikipedia editors who have in good faith posted proper fair use images, spending many hours doing so, only to see them obliterated by you in a fraction of the time.  You have obviously pissed off many, many people as the lead "enforcer" in this action, and you take obvious pride in repeatedly affiliating yourself with Jimbo Wales, who you believe apparently has some sort of super-authority on this issue - many, many others disagree with him, and your entire premise in repeatedly referencing his thoughts on the subject. As far as your mass deletions, the numbers (3 saved, 29 deleted) speak for themselves, as does your user log, and your single-minded pursuit of "policy".  And as far as your supposed clean-up of the pages you altered goes, if you check again, you'll find your statements that you fixed them all are untrue.  I'll offer the same courtesy as you offered me, and let you find your mistakes.  Your pseudo-politeness does nothing to mask the reality of what you're actually doing.  With all due respect.  Tvccs 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me add that whether I would choose to open a WP:AN, you couldn't object, so your earlier comment rings as hollow as most has everything else in reality on these matters. There are other ways of spending time on this issue, if I so choose to devote the energy - I'm not wasting it on another round of spending hours defending my actions to have my arguments again totally ignored, or continue to spend much time contributing to what are becoming the extended pissing contests on this issue that are having zero effect on how Wikipedia is being enforced no matter how many users see their work destroyed by you. I hope your time finds you organizing the Wikipedia Papparazzi you and your subordinates believe exists, or needs to, rather than repeating your current approach to mass deletions of fair use images.  Somehow, however, I think you won't.  Because you'll be too busy with your "hard work" destroying the work of dozens of others. Tvccs 02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, come on, man. A lot of us have had photos deleted due to the change, but it's not Quadell's fault. That's just the way things go. It would be one thing if you had climbed Mount Everest and snapped a photo of the view from the summit, but that's not the case. All you did was sit at your computer and upload a bunch of pictures somebody else took. Yeah, they got deleted. Yeah, it sucks. But have some perspective. There's no need to take it out on the people who are stuck doing the dirty work. They didn't make the rules. Kafziel Talk 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I'm glad the many people I personally contacted and the dozens of hours of work I spent doing same are so totally meaningless.  Unless I'm missing something, it seems "sitting at your computer" is the only way content is added to Wikipedia. I see you've done plenty of positive contributing via your page, and keep up the good work in that regard. And in this case, they are most definitely helping make the rules. In sum - See above.  Tvccs 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:2UK soldiers.jpg
Hey, can you take a look at this? It's protected and I'm not sure why. I'm trying to take the deprecated fairuse tag out of everything, but this one I can't edit. Can you either unprotect it of change it to Non-free fair use in? Thanks... &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected. It was on the main page a year ago, and no one remembered to unprotect it when it left. --RobthTalk 07:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

November 9
Greetings. I see you recreated Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 9 November 2006. It doesn't currently have any images in it. Do you still need it, or can I re-delete it? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I had re-created it after some of it's earlier image had been undeleted (after the great purge). If it's empty now you can delete it. You can also assume the same for any other such category I may have re-created. Best regards, --Abu Badali 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim Eternity
Why did you remove her picture? It wasn't pornographic; it was a publicity photo.  Don MEGĂ | 60645  20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that it wasn't pornographic. I deleted it because it was what's called a "replaceable non-free image". That means that it's not a free image, but someone could (hypothetically) photograph her and release the photo under a free license. According to our first fair use criterion, we can't use photos like these. (We can't use a non-free to depict a subject if someone might reasonably be able to photograph the subject in the future.)


 * This rule has been around forever, but it didn't used to be enforced very consistently. So people uploaded a lot of promotional photos of celebrities. But User:Jimbo Wales decided it was time to start enforcing it, so now we're deleting all non-free images that could at some point be replaced with free ones.


 * And hey, if you get a chance to meet Kim Eternity, take her picture! :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Help please
So, I finally actually found two images that I want to upload and got permission for them. Here's what I got via email, please help me out with a) whether this is enough or b) what else I need to get from him... Thank you!
 * ''Hi Jennifer,

I hadn't sent a response... but you have just reminded me I was going to :-).

You are welcome to use my picture of Gordon Ramsay for his entry on Wikipedia. I am happy for them to be published under the GNU Free Documentation License. Thank you for asking.

I also have a few of Gary Rhodes which you are welcome to use if you edit that entry too.

Dave. '' Jmdustin 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's wonderful! Thanks for asking for permission. Yes, that's all you need. You can safely upload the images and tag them GFDL. Also, this page tells how to forward the e-mail to get it verified by the Wikimedia Communications Committee (just to make sure someone doesn't delete the image as a suspected violation). All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help.. I'm just going to say that I'm still not happy with the way it came about, but it is a lot easier to get the flickr people to license the pictures GNU than I expected. Surprisingly, I've gotten three in one day!  Perhaps adding a link on your talk page about where to find the ask for permission templates and a how-to would make you more endearing?  LOL Jmdustin 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Actually, there is a link on my page to Example requests for permission, although it isn't exactly prominent. I think I'll move it up. I'm very glad you've been asking permission for these - far too few people do that. If there's anything I can do for you by way of thanks, let me know. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

New Tag
Hi, I've noticed you have a lot of tags layed out on your page. What do you think of this new tag I made/modified? . Plz write back on my talk page. Ta, FrummerThanThou 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg
The for Image:SombatMetanee.jpg  has begun, and because you archived the talk page and were involved in discussions about it, I thought I'd let you know. Thanks. — WiseKwai 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to the RFU template
So, how do you feel about this? It seems like the point is to make it as difficult as possible to get replaceable images removed. I also don't like how this was kinda snuck in with no consensus. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:Irpen
I have started a thread regarding User:Irpen at WP:ANI (here). Feel free to comment. Sincerely, --Oden 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cv-unsure
I recently tried using Cv-unsure according to the instructions at Copyright problems which suggest using. This is incompatible with the template as written, because the template includes ] . Therefore either the template or the documentation should be changed.  I would like to change the template to simply include  because it automates the process of people including their username.  The only problem is it will break backwards compatibility for any people who actually checked the generated link and used the template as designed.  On the other hand, I suspect uses of this template are transitory and any broken instances will expire in a week or so once the copyright issue is resolved.  Your thoughts? --[[User:Dgies|Dgies 16:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think it might also make sense to change the template to not take an OLDID, but rather a URL for the old version because people are more comfortable copy/pasting URLs than parsing them for CGI variables. --Dgies


 * I think you're right. Those are good ideas. Feel free to implement them. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, made the change and updated documentation. Bracing myself for complaints I broke talk pages. --Dgies 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Argo Tea in Chicago
Since you're an impartial person, I thought you might be interested in commenting or voting on this. TheQuandry 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup on Argo Tea
Thanks for the help! It looks much better now. (I'm not great with Wiki reference styles). TheQuandry 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Argo Tea
I too would like to thank you for your help with Argo Tea. I am not sure if you are a Chicagoan, but we would welcome your manpower at WikiProject Chicago TonyTheTiger 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, y'all. I'm a Cincinnatian, but I'm a fan of quality teas, and I'm not a fan of over-deletion. The article has become quite good, and I enjoyed improving it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:P zelikow.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:P zelikow.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok  ☠  20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. Going over the "P"s now, ran across this. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. I don't even remember uploading this. (It was over 2 years ago.) Yes, it's certainly replaceable. Maybe I can find a pd replacement. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image
Hi Quadell, I was wondering if you got my email regarding the images. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 03:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings. The four images in question are highly emotionally charged, and there are parties on both sides wishing to promote or suppress the images for political reasons. This make a fair determination difficult. Image:Beit HanounBlood.jpg and Image:Gaza morgue .jpg are not, in my opinion, important enough to the event to warrant inclusion in the article. I stated this before, citing FUC#8, and I feel the same way about Image:Rocketed ambulance.jpg. But Image:Qana massacre.jpg is more relevant, and is trickier. (The fact that there were casualties is significant in the article, whereas the fact that there was blood in an alley is not.) I personally would argue that the image's primary function is decorative, not informative, so it should be removed, but others may disagree in good faith. Is it appropriate in the article? Hard to say. The best articles on battles or massacres usually do not have photos of unidentified casualties (e.g. attack on Pearl Harbor or the Battle of Dien Bien Phu), although such images exist and could have been used. There are a few exceptions, though, such as Battle of Gettysburg and Battle of the Bulge. These are usually tasteful, and are evidently not being used to suggest barbarity on the part of one party or the other, as seems to be the case here.


 * You also asked me to predict whether they would ultimately be kept. That is a much harder question. Since partisans are much more interested in the debate than non-partisans, it may come down to which side is the most persistent, unfortunately. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could weigh in since you have a succint and clear understanding of the relevant policy and you wouldn't be considered partisan. At the very minimum, your action on the more clearcut images would be most helpful. While there may be political considerations coming into play, I cannot see the encyclopaedia benefiting from these pictures being accepted, and then having all the suicide bombings etc. getting their own sets of graphic pictures, which undoubtedly the other side will do. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (postscript: Image:Qana 38.jpg should also be party to this discussion)

Fresh Expressions
I wondered what the copyright problems are regarding the Fresh Expressions entry I posted which led to its deletion by you. Thanks

Pete Pillinger pete.pillinger@freshexpressions.org.uk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.103.191.71 (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I deleted the Fresh Expressions page on October 25, because it had been listed at Copyright problems since October 17. Most of the website had been copied from http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/section.asp?id=46, a site which does not indicate that the text is freely licensed, but merely states "© Fresh Expressions 2006". We cannot use text copied from other websites, I'm afraid, unless those sites explicitly license their content under the GFDL or release their content into the public domain. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Book covers
Hello, Quadell, I hope you're well. Since you're a veteran copyrights guy, I hope you don't mind if I call your attention to the wikiproject I've set up here, for replacing fair use book covers. Lupo and I and a couple of others have been working on it while it was in my user space, and made significant progress, and I'm hoping to attract some more volunteers. Thanks. Chick Bowen 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Argo Tea
Hi, just to let you know the article was kept when the nomination was withdrawn. I've closed the nom and removed the AfD template from the page. Thanks for providing the necessary sources to prove notability, you've likely saved the article from deletion. Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 02:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay! – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD Images slower than IFD Images
Please see Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images and provide comments. I believe speedy should be faster than an IFD and 24 hours is enough CSD time. --MECU ≈ talk 13:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

LeRoy Homer - you are not correct
Hi there. I just wanted to alert you that you're completely wrong in posting in numerous places regarding United Flight 93 on 9/11 that there is some kind of decisive proof that co-pilot LeRoy Homer was not murdered in the takeover of the plane by the hijackers. In fact, despite your claimed support of making sure sourced articles are the rule on Wikipedia, you never adequately sourced these statements. But a reading of the 9/11 commission report finds absolutely no such information to back up these statements you've added to the UA 93 canon on Wikipedia. Not even a sentence of conjecture that maybe it was true, and certainly not a single statement which even remotely suggested that Homer rather than Dahl or any other "pilot" was alive in the cabin based on that one cryptic line from one of the terrorists (there isn't even conjecture whether the voice was talking about Ziad Jarrah -- perhaps he'd left the cockpit briefly and another terrorist was at the controls? maybe it was a nervous, joking statement because of nerves, or some unseeable frustration with the control panel?  there is no way to know with the evidence at hand). There isn't even a minor consensus among published experts and analysts about one or both of the pilots not being dead - certainly none that names Homer specifically. If I'm wrong, please show us the source material, and if I am wrong I must be completely blind. I'm just alerting you to this, I've already edited the ones I found - but then stopped when I saw you'd added it on LeRoy Homer's personal article as well, and just decided it would be better to just bring it up directly with you rather than continue myself - it was getting me pretty agitated, and I'm sorry if I am not using the respectful tone you deserve, or if you might feel I crossed a line in tone - I apologize in advance. 9/11 is a sensitive subject. NYDCSP 18:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings. 9/11 certainly is a sensitive subject, and understandably so. The terrorist line you mentioned above has led many to conclude that the pilot was still alive, as I'm sure you are aware. Like so many details about that horrible day, there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. No Wikipedia article should state that something is incontrovertibly true if there is significant doubt. Since you are emotionally involved in the issue, it might be best if you mentioned your concerns on the talk page and less dispassionate editors choose the best wording -- but that's just my suggestion. Either way, I hold no ownership over the article, and I'm not attached to one particular interpretation of the facts. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with almost all you wrote. "The terrorist line you mentioned above has led many to conclude that the pilot was still alive, as I'm sure you are aware." Who? Do you have sources? I haven't found much besides some list-serv discussions and some very obscure blogs, and none were considered experts or even leading theorists (conspiracy or otherwise). Also - I wasn't the one who posted as apparently incontrovertible truth that LeRoy Homer was not killed, as you did. In fact, in one posting you flatly said that his death has been speculated, but that "it was not true" based on the 9/11 commission report. That itself wasn't sourced, nor was it a true assertion (the report said no such thing). Also, if I'm not mistaken, the transcript was not even in the 9/11 report - it was released as evidence in the Moussaoui trial. So - I didn't include statements about LeRoy Homer in Wikipedia- you did. I objected to them because they were not factual, either in their paraphrased sourcing or in what they said about the events. I am as emotional as the next guy, but it really does concern me when people try to rewrite history - especially concerning that day. NYDCSP 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Common.css
Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. -- ShakingSpirit talk  on behalf of Kaldari 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)