User talk:Quadell/Archive 22

WikiProject Louisville growing and changing
WikiProject Louisville is sprouting its wings for 2007! We have a new Assessment Department and a much more refined project template. We have nearly 1,000 articles catalogued for our project. And we still have a lot of work to do. We have 500+ articles left to assess for quality, and all our articles, as always, need tender loving care. Please consider dropping by the project and seeing what you might be able to do to move Louisville-related articles forward. Cheers, and Happy New Year! Stevie is the man! Talk &bull; Work 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Date linking
Hi. I noticed and thought you might be interested in User talk:Guinnog/date linking. I am trying to mediate in a case which involves date linking, with a view to eventually trying to improve how we deal with date linking. I hope you don't regard this as spam; if so, feel free to ignore it. --Guinnog 08:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your contribution. --Guinnog 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:BirdCalCondor.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BirdCalCondor.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Nv8200p talk 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Is it possible if you can delete my userpage. I want to start a new one from scratch. Thanks YCCHAN 03:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Hi there. I've posted a cut-down version of the discussion you participated in at the above policy talk page. I hope you'll be able to contribute there, especially as I've proposed your guideline as a policy. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zipping_up_pants.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zipping_up_pants.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

O
Hi, do you think WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/O is ripe for consolidation? We seem to have the remaining people, maybe move some stuff to SFNI, and get rid of the blue links, and there's not much left, except optics and computing. I'd cleanup myself, but I wrote some stubs for the hotlist, and I don't want it to look like I'm removing the evidence;-) --Magnus Manske 16:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image help
Hi Quadell, you participated in a discussion about the fair use of Canadian politician images some time ago. You agreed with my suggestion that non-free images of living politicians from the past when their appearence was different were acceptable. No one disputed this. However, a user, Abu badali, disagrees. I wonder if you could offer your input, one way or another, at Image talk:Bobrae-premier.jpg. Another administrator, Zanimum actually closed the discussion and said the image should be kept, but Abu badali has reverted the closure and indicated on my talk page that "Zanimum is the admin that had committed most image abuses ... avoid his guidance", though I had sought no guidance from him. - Jord 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see both sides of the debate. I don't have a strong opinion; I can only say that (1) Abu is usually more "conservative" than I am (or than just about anyone else is) about the definition of "irreplaceable", (2) that some living persons have a physical change that is notable enough in the article to merit a non-free image of an earlier point in their career, and (3) some people don't. I just don't know enough about this particular politician's image or career to know for sure. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mzoudi.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mzoudi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ip: 216.20.9.22 that you blocked
the IP adress 216.20.9.22 that you blocked is part of the Weston Public School system. this ip is shared by a wide variety of users. if you could please unblock it, id really appreciate it. Gamersedge 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I blocked that IP back in September, with an expiry time of 12 hours. That block has long since expired. He has been blocked three times since then, most recently by User:Jimfbleak (with no expiration). You may want to speak with Jim. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:USA Mens National Team.jpg
Hi, you ruled this image as being valid fair use, which I'm contesting. Please see Talk:United States men's national soccer team for discussion. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. --After Midnight 0001 17:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Modena Balsamic Vinegar Tasting Pack.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Modena Balsamic Vinegar Tasting Pack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why you have reverted it?
I am notifying him that I have posted it on admin notice board. Why you have reverted it back?--- ALM 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He does not seem to welcome your comments on his talk page. It seems to me it would best not to continue to insist on commenting on someone's talk page, if they aren't interested in entering in a dialog with you there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A admin should always welcome dialogs. If they select not to do so then they should not be admin any more. Only other way I am left with is to file an RFC against him. I have enough material to do that but do not have time to waste on it because of my work schedule. --- ALM 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW although I am not active in wikipedia but I cannot forget, your removing a message which was even not removed by Jayjg. If he had removed it then it was okay. I really did not like your that act. Why you have done that? The message he called personal attacked I have not restored it but only told him about admin notice borad. WHY??????????????????????? If I have reverted three time then I have violated WP:3RR why you come and revert something on which there is no edit war. --- ALM 13:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Scott image
Could we possibly have the promo image of Michael from The Office that was release by NBC, so the Office character images will be consistent?- JustPhil 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Expandable Articles
Hi, there's a discussion on what to do with expandable articles here. As you've discussed this before I would appreciate comments. JASpencer 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me?
Hi Quadell... would you mind looking at a situation that is developing here? I remembered you well from the early Abu badali mess and thought you would be a great independent person to offer an opinion! -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks commenting so quickly :) -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Quadell, see my comments on the image talk page. --evrik (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PageantUpdater's WikiStalking campaign against me. --evrik (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Images you removed
Please provide detail why you chose to remove the following images:


 * 15:44, February 5, 2007 Quadell (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:RayMurphy2.jpg" (Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 18 January 2007)
 * 15:44, February 5, 2007 Quadell (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:RayMurphy.jpg" (Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 18 January 2007)

These images were uploaded and used according to Wikipedia policy, at least to my knowlege. What precisely do you think was not followed?

I checked the log and it looks like you have a bot that is deleting loads of images. I'm concerned about this. Please advise.--Paul McDonald 06:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. These images were listed at Category:Replaceable fair use images on 18 January 2007. These are non-free images, and as such, we must follow all our non-free image rules in order to use them. On such requirement is that the images be irreplaceable: that it should be impossible to take a photo of the subject and release it under a free license. Since Ray Murphy is still alive, it should be possible for someone to take his photo.


 * I do not use a bot, and wouldn't know how to do so.


 * All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So let me make sure I have this clear: I can't use the photos that I got permission to use because someone else could go take the same picutre instead?  I'm curious how someone could take a picture of Ray Murphy (Jr) from 1970 because he has not only aged but has suffered a severe injury.  The second photo was from family archives and it is unlikely that the people in the photo will be together again and at least one may be dead.  In other words, it would be impossible to take a photo of the subjects and release it under a free license.--Paul McDonald 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No one can ever take "the same picture" twice. But someone could take a picture that would fulfill the same purpose in the article: to show what Ray Murphy looks like, or to show Ray Murphy with his family. It's great that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, but I'd recommend you only upload free images, at least until you fully understand our policy on non-free images. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just foolish. We have permission to use the photos.  What makes them not "free images" ?? Why can't we use them?? And who listed them as "replacable fair use images" anyway?--Paul McDonald 13:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who listed them as replaceable. There was no indication, either on the image pages or on the image talk pages, that we had permission to use the photos. In fact, there was no copyright information at all. If Wikipedia, and Wikipedia alone, has permission to use the photos, then we still can't use them according to our policies. This is because we are not just any encyclopedia; we are a totally-free encyclopedia. We're licensed under the GFDL, which means that anyone can copy Wikipedia content and reuse it, even for profit, so long as they license their work under the GFDL as well. If we were to use images that Wikipedia can use, but that other re-users can't use, then we couldn't claim that Wikipedia was licensed under the GFDL. (Re-users could still get sued by the image copyright-holder for using their images without permission.) The only way an image is a "free image" is if anyone (not just Wikipedia) has preemptive permission to use them, even for commercial purposes. Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now this is making more sense, at least from a legal standpoint. So here's the question:  Once I go re-take these pictures, what "option" do I select on the "dropdown box" so that this doesn't happen again.  I'll take the photos, the rights will be mine to give, so that's not a problem.--Paul McDonald 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's always safe to choose the GFDL option. Many people also like the "cc-by" (creative commons attribution) license, which says that anyone can use the images so long as they credit the photographer. It's safest to leave a note saying you took the photos yourself, just so no one has questions about where it came from. Thanks for being willing to take these pictures for us! I'm sorry if I came across as rude before. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not rude, I just didn't understand. Thanks for being so clear--it took time, but it's worth it.--Paul McDonald 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good morphed image contrib
Quadell, good work on finding those morphed images; I've read many books on that subject. I'll add one to the averageness article, which is what that "effect" is usually categorized as. Also, do you know the name of the author of the images? --Sadi Carnot 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * His real name seems to be Pierre Tourigny, but he always goes by "manitou2121". He lives in Gatineau, Canada. More info. I'm glad you're interested in this! I find it fascinating. I'd love to see more images like this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I just wrote-up the averageness article, I'll also write up the similar youthfulness article, e.g. similar to babyfaceness, which is one of the main components of beauty, if you can find or get this image into the commons. Also, now maybe you could join in this discussion: Talk:Averageness that has erupted.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Image:Aging faces manitou2121.jpg – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work, I'll get that article going over the next day or so. Later: --Sadi Carnot 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Helen Fisher (anthropologist)
On a related note, seeing that you have sysop tools, could you remove the mis-speedy from this article added by an anon. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. That certainly wasn't blatant advertising. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work again. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 01:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of images in Amazing Race 5 contestants
Take a look at Talk:Amazing Race 5 contestants. Could you please knock some sense into Evrik? (PS at least I gave in gracefully when I realised it wasn't going to work!) -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about knocking any sense into anyone, but I did investigate the situation and comment. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Educating a relative newcomer
Would you have some time to try to educate User:B9 hummingbird hovering on how minimal rewrites are still copyvios? I tried, but apparently I don't succeed in getting the point across. I've noticed him on Cicada (check the history and talk page), and then on Tapihritsa (see also User talk:Lupo) and Robert Beer. Lupo 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. Let's hope it helps. Lupo 20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

James Abourezk
Hello Quadell, would you upload James Abourezk's picture into commons please? That would be very nice. --89.59.178.46 12:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) --89.59.199.222 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evrik
Would you care to take a look at Requests for comment/Evrik and leave a comment if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kogsquinge
I see you have verified some of User:Kogsquinge's as fair use, such as Image:Dt yr act large tbregman 2.jpg, after I had challenged their status under FUC#1. There are several problems with these images: I would be grateful if you could take a second look and revise your decision so that we don't have to further waste time to list elsewhere. The JPS talk to me  11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The source is too vague. www.cbs.com is a huge site.
 * 2) There is no evidence that the come from a press source.
 * 3) The major argument for fair use is that it is illustrating a fictional character. The photographs are clearly of the actors. They are professionally taken in a studio. This clearly denotes that they are "out of universe", and are, thus, at that moment, the actor and not the character. Contrast with Image:MWerkmeisterZeke.jpg.
 * 4) Additionally, many of the file names are named after the actors, not the fictional characters.


 * Greetings. I'll address your points individually.
 * You're right, the source is too vague. But that wasn't was I was looking at, in determining whether the images fail FUC#1 or not. You may want to tag them nsd, or list them at WP:IFD. I certainly wouldn't object. But if they are adequately sourced, or if the community feels that "cbs.com" is a good enough source, then the images should stay.
 * You're right, and I suspect the images are mistagged. (Most of the time, the Promo tag is used incorrectly.) However, it seems to me that the Non-free fair use in tag would be appropriate here. If they were correctly tagged, then the images should stay.
 * I don't necessarily agree. For instance, Image:Buffythevampireslayer-4.jpg is a photo of the actors, professionally taken at a studio. (It's not a screenshot.) But they are in character. (The image I cited is used in a featured article, by the way.) If the photo is of the actor in an outfit or pose that would be out-of-character for the character, then I'd concede your point. But these photos, for instance (1, 2, 3) appear to be in character to me. Other photos like these (4, 5) could be used to depict either the character or the actor, in my opinion, and I tend to give wide latitude in these cases.
 * I don't think the names of the files are particularly important in interpreting Fair Use policy.
 * I hope this helps you understand my thinking. That said, I'm not attached to what happens to these images, and you're obviously welcome to get a second opinion. IFD would probably be your best bet. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: AB
It means "ABsentee uploader" or it looks like it used to mean that. I guess somewhere along the line somebody changed the list of abbreviations and took that one off and I wasn't paying attention. What is the standard now? I see some AU. Is that the convention now - Absentee Uploader? I don't see those initials listed either in the "common reasons for deletion" Let me know and I will try to conform, but forgive me if you see more AB - old habits are hard to break sometime -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Subglacial map of Greenland
I came here to ask why you'd removed the subglacial map of Greenland and saw that you've already dealt with a question on why you remove images. That's fine, but if you would leave an Edit Summary explaining why, people like me would know that you're deleting the images for a reason and not as an act of vandalism. It would save us the effort of coming here to question you&#8212;or to leave a user warning. Thanks. &#8212;Largo Plazo 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I left an edit summary, which was a link to the page in question containing the debate. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you intended to, but your edit summary reads "(-deleted image)"! &#8212;Largo Plazo 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha! You meant for editing the article. Yes, I see your point. I was referring to the summary upon the image's deletion. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On Accuracy and Objectivity
Quadell - I am not completely dissatisfied with the deletion of the "spoof of Time cover" in the Michael Netzer biography for the reason you cited. At least, it appears to dismiss the claim that the image was superfluous and merely decorative. This said, I did not have an opportunity to defend its deletion on the grounds that though the image is a satire of a Time cover as an issue of fair use, it remains a serious, accurate, unbiased, and publicly known representation of the subject, perhaps the best representation of the artist's work and how he is perceived in the comics and entertainment industries today - moreso than any of the other images there presently - thus its presence on the page bears no satirical ramifications.

I've walked a fine line in my involvement with that article and don't wish to make an issue of it. I simply feel the article itself and the Wikipedia project are enhanced by its presence, in light of the accurate and objective representation it holds. If this defense of maintaining it sheds a new light which might reverse your decision, accuracy and objectivity may become better served. If not, for reasons you're likely to explain, I will accept it with pleasure, having become more knowlegeable in the ways of Wikipedia. Best regards, MichaelNetzer 03:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Schilde.jpg
Hello, I have a question since your are more knowledgeable of image policy than I. I am not sure where else to take this. This Image:Schilde.jpg is in nine different articles by the same author about a family,  yet the image caption states it's  the city shield of Schilde. It seems to not have rationale for being in those articles. I don't know Dutch so using systran translation from the links provided didn't help much except reinforce that permission must be gotten and I don't see that indicated on the image page. The question is should this image of a city shield be in bios? Thank you. --Dakota 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked into this, but I'm afraid I don't know whether that's appropriate or not. Sorry I can't be more help. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)--– Dakota 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dropkick.jpg
I would like to ask you to reconsider your deletion of the above image as "replaceable fair use." the above image depicts an important moment in the career of Doug Flutie and a notable event from the perspective of NFL lore. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 00:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. I didn't know that particular kick was notable. I re-added it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If you get a chance, would you mind closing up the two outstanding IfDs on the image? I would, but I try to avoid conflicts of interest in my use of admin duties and whatnot. Cheers.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 13:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on TV highlights from Internet on image
Hello. I was referred to you both by User:After Midnight and User:PageantUpdater on image issues. I have a question regarding images from video highlights the Internet on information about sports competition. This is in regards to the recently completed 2007 FIS Nordic World Ski Championships in Sapporo. Can a paused video highlight from Eurosport.com that is saved and then uploaded be considered a copyright for a TV screenshot under Fair-Use? Please advise. Thank you. Chris 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is tricky. In order for us to use a "fair use" image, we have to fulfill all our fair use criteria. Since the Championship is a non-repeatable event, any photo of the events that day would probably pass criterion #1. But there are exceptions. If the photo is only being used to show what a given athlete looks like, then it could be replaced by a new photo, and thus we can't use the photo.


 * Also criterion #1 isn't the only thing to look for. For criterion #2, if Eurosport.com is selling the photographs or using them to make a profit, and if our use could decrease the worth of their copyright, then we can't use the photos. According to criterion #3, the photos should be low-resolution, and we shouldn't use too many photos on a single page. Etc. You should carefully read over the fair use criteria. Then, if you think a photo passes, go ahead and upload it. If you have a question about a specific photo, let me know. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Dental_x-ray.jpg
An image that you uploaded from stock.xchng or altered, Image:Dental_x-ray.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OrphanBot 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Womans_legs.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Womans_legs.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket Talk 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: jayjg
What a timely event that you left me a message, as I was about to make a notice on the admin noticeboard/incidents.

Yes, I would very much like your opinion on the matter.

A user informed me on my talk page that jayjg may have violated WP:NPA, and cited these two examples:
 * 
 * 

I did find those comments offensive (and false as well), and I notified jayjg on his talk page regarding the issue. Jayjg then proceeded to remove the warning, citing his "big yellow box". It was at this point that I asked some other users for help as well.. All three of these users were related to the issue (on the Talk:Israeli apartheid page). They also had concerns that Jayjg may have violated WP:NPA. I then put another message on jayjg's talk page to tell him that removing warning templates is bad form, and he proceeded to remove that as well, and accused me of stalking. I reverted his edit, but then I reread WP:TALK and realized that was a bad idea, so I removed the warning. I would like to know your opinion on the matter. Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  16:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you need more context, please note these two edits. In the first, Kirbytime states that the Holocaust is alleged to have happened and in the second he states that "The Holocaust" is a political epithet. Those are his words. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, you were correct in removing the warning after Jayjg indicated it wasn't useful to him.

Jayjg's comments do not appear to me to be personal attacks. He merely seems to be quoting you. I have no opinion about whether these quotes are a fair representation of your beliefs -- by saying that his comments are offensive to you, you seem to imply that they are not. Perhaps you could state unequivocally on your talk page that you believe the Holocaust is a solid historical fact, and that the term is a description of events and not a political epithet. This would at least end the controversy. If you can't state this truthfully, then that's fine; you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. But you can't very well call it a personal attack for someone to accurately quote you, especially if those quotes do represent your real views on the matter. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But they don't! Anyone reading the context of those quotes can see that I said those things merely for effect. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have said this. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it a little disturbing that in response to a editor's request that you investigate a personal attack made against him (and by implication others, myself included), you actually ask him to instead prove himself innocent of the slur that was made against him, by posting a message on his user page no less. Doesn't this show how serious making such kinds of intimations are? I certainly didn't appreciate the slur against G-Dett, Kirbytime or myself and by implication everyone arguing for Israeli apartheid to be so named. Did you miss it?:

And now I note that he has described The Holocaust as a "political epithet". These are your allies, G-Dett. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Wow, what a sleazy and stupid smear, Jay. It was hardly that. But it's good to be aware of the people who support your position. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (....) It's not a strawman, Jay. Tiamut is talking about guilt by association, which is indeed the logical fallacy underlying your cheap smear.--G-Dett 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC) No, it's pointing out that when people with rather offensive views argue in favor of your political positions, then it's wise to review those positions to understand why they appeal so much to people with such offensive views. By the way, saying the earth is round isn't a political position (in case you were wondering). Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs)

I didn't ask Kirby to prove he isn't guilty of anything; I asked him whether he meant the things he said about the Holocaust. What you're calling a "personal attack" and a "smear" was just Jayjg quoting Kirby and linking to a statement he made. I don't see how quoting someone can be a personal attack, sorry. If Jayjg had said "Kirby said X, and that proves he's an ignorant anti-Semite", then that would be a personal attack. But Jayjg merely linked to Kirby's comments and said, basically, "Draw your own conclusions". That isn't even close to a true personal attack. Many people might conclude from the linked comments that Kirby is an anti-Semite (despite Kirby's claim that "anyone reading the context of those quotes can see that I said those things merely for effect"), and I told Kirby he could clear this up by stating his views clearly. Which he has chosen not to do.

So I understand Kirby's complaint to be essentially this: "Jayjg quoted me saying that I think the Holocaust might not have happened, and I call that a personal attack because people will infer that I'm an anti-Semite. (I also won't say whether I think the Holocaust is a historical fact or not.) So on the one hand, it's obvious to anyone reading the context that my quotes don't make me an anti-Semite; but on the other hand, Jayjg's linking to my quotes is a personal attack because it isn't at all obvious to someone reading the context of my quotes that I'm not an anti-Semite." This just doesn't add up to me. Either Jayjg is quoting Kirby's own personal attack against himself (by making himself look anti-Semitic), or Jayjg is linking to a quote that anyone can see is innocuous. Either way, I don't see why Jayjg should be censured for this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And saying that all editors advocating for a position opposite to Jayjg's own should reexamine their positions based on this mischaracterization of Kirbytime's words ... that's just fine? Do you really think that it is responsible fo an adminsitrator to try to intimidate people out of participating in a debate by intimating that they hold less than honourable reasons for being involved in that debate? With respect, I think your missing the bigger picture here. Its a violation of the spirit of WP:NPA against a whole slew of editors with an opposing POV, and it certainly isn't civil or conducive to a healthy editing environment. Sorry if I sound offended or angry, but I actually am. Are you're telling me it's okay for Jayjg to insuinuate that I and others are anti-Jewish? Tiamut 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't insinuated that, though. You've inferred it, which is something quite different. You seem to see no issue at all with the most blatant personal attacks on me, but have no issue turning any remotely twistable statement I make into a personal attack on you and others, at which you then take great umbrage. That's very troubling. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tiamut, please stop trying to stir up trouble between other editors. Everytime I see your name, you seem to be engaged in personal attacks or attempts to pit one person against another. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any of Jayjg's statement as being personal attacks. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. You say above that you "don't see how quoting someone can be a personal attack," and of course this sounds very sensible. But there is at least one way in which quoting someone can be a personal attack, strange as it may seem. The rhetorical figure of the reductio ad absurdum involves making knowingly ridiculous, self-evidently false statements that follow logically upon some proposition that the speaker wishes to expose as spurious. If someone else comes along and quotes only the knowingly ridiculous part, as if it were sincere, the result may be a technically "accurate" quote and still constitute a willful misrepresentation. Quoting out of context is always dodgy, but it can slide into something much more serious when a reductio ad absurdum is involved.

When I look at the whole sequence of exchanges the two diffs are pulled from, it's very clear to me that Kirbytime is employing a reductio. It may be an ill-advised reductio, given the seriousness and delicacy of the subject, but it's nevertheless a reductio. I would be curious to hear how anyone could read it and conclude otherwise.

A final note. I think your suggestion to Kirbytime – "Perhaps you could state unequivocally on your talk page that you believe the Holocaust is a solid historical fact, and that the term is a description of events and not a political epithet" – is ill-advised, however well-meaning. It would have the air of a coerced pledge of allegiance to historical truth, and like all such statements, would seem to implicate even as it exonerates (I am not now nor have I ever been a member of...etc. etc.).

Thanks for your forebearance. I weighed in here not because Kirbytime asked me to, but because I myself ended up broadsided – not by the initial misreading of the reductio (I was unaware of that conversation) but subsequently, when Jay parlayed that misreading into guilt by association in order to gain leverage in a separate debate with me.--G-Dett 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. They're well put, and I appreciate you not fanning the flames of what is an emotional subject. I can see how Kirbytime's statement could be a reductio ad absurdum. If Jayjg were quoting him out of context, then that could be misleading (though not, in my opinion, an egregious personal attack). But Jayjg linked directly to Kirbytime's comments, which presents the context for all to see. If Jayjg's intent had been to cherrypick a benign subargument, making it look like a racist statement, then I can't imagine he would link to the comment's context.


 * I also don't mean for Kirbytime to take any sort of a loyalty oath, and I can see how my suggestion might have looked that way. He doesn't have to state his beliefs if he doesn't want to, and he shouldn't feel pressured to. But he is taking great umbrage at the (perceived) implication that he might be a holocaust denier, and I just think that if he chose to state his beliefs in a forthright manner he could prevent anyone from making the incorrect inferences that he so obviously dislikes. Or he could decline to say what his opinions are, which is fine by me -- but then he can't blame people for getting the wrong impression if he won't tell them what the right impression would be.


 * The subject of Israel's treatment of Palestinians (not to mention the historicity of the Holocaust!) has caused a great number of vicious and hurtful words to be spilled from both sides onto the pages of Wikipedia. If one is thin-skinned then one should avoid these subjects like the plague. And if not, I'd recommend you let slide any ambiguous slights; rest assured, if you take part in these debates it won't be long until you receive some quite unambiguous slights, and probably from both sides at once. : ) – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your very reasonable explanation Quadell. And I'm sorry if my comments seemed rash. Next time I'll avoid writing them in the heat of the moment. Tiamut 13:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission for Image:Kenyan_man_2.jpg
I was wondering if you could send the permission you have for this photo and all other photos from Sam's Exotic Travel Photos along with a link to the image page(s) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If you don't this beautiful image (and any others with the same source that I find) will unfortunately have to be deleted in 7 days. Thanks in advance, Yonatan talk 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I am also an administrator on Commons. The image page itself already links to here, which includes copies of the e-mails. I also forwarded the e-mails to permissions. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you happen to have the OTRS ticket number? Yonatan talk 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I just forwarded the e-mails when you brought it to my attention, and they haven't responded yet. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I got it now. The OTRS ticket number is 2007031910013307. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks ;) Yonatan talk 14:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:CA_rule110s.png
‎ ¿Cuántas generaciones se demuestran en la imagen CA_rule110s.png‎? --Selket Talk 15:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No sé. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Question on LightningVolt deep blue sea picture
I was hoping to use the deep blue see pic that you had submitted but wanted to make sure that permission had been granted by the author, Lars Lentz. His web site appears to sell this image via iStockPhoto. Has he licensed it under the CC x SA license? Thanks, jay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayedees (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I can't find the image you're referring to. Could you link to it? – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That link is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:LightningVolt_Deep_Blue_Sea.jpg


 * Okay, thanks. Yes, it's available under cc-by-sa-1.0, as I have now documented at Commons:Image talk:LightningVolt Deep Blue Sea.jpg. This is true of all LightningVolt's images. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort all of you at the wikimedia commons put into veryifying media rights. Thanks for the help. Incidentally, my site is storytop.com It lets you create cartoon-like stories using public domain, CC and similarly licensed artwork. With each picture I try to carefully cite the author and other relevant data. Jay


 * Hey, no problem. :) I also left a note on all the other images from the same source. By the way, your page is great! It's a great idea, and it's really well executed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL tag on Image:Albaa.jpg
Hello, Quadell. I noticed that way back in October 2004 you placed a tag on Image:Albaa.jpg, without giving any apparent reason for doing so. I'm curious to know why this was done. Perhaps the image was uploaded before the modern profusion of image copyright tags, and in that age images (like text) were assumed to be licensed under the GFDL by virtue of having been uploaded at all? —Bkell (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. This photo was created by Uwe Kils, and was uploaded by the photographer (copyright holder). At the time he uploaded the image, there was a notice on the image upload page stating that if you hold the copyright to an image, you must release it under the GFDL in order for us to use it. (This was back in the days before image copyright tags.) So Kils implicitly granted permission for it to be licensed under the GFDL.
 * Thank for going through these old images. It's double-checkers like you that keep Wikipedia from devolving into a sea of copyright violations. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I assumed the reason was something like that. —Bkell (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals
I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria

Image:Hamburg_cell_apartment.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hamburg_cell_apartment.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this image would not pass our fair use guidelines. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hackett.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hackett.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this image would not pass our fair use guidelines. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hackett.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hackett.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation 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. Selket Talk 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW - AT&T Corporate Center past editor
TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Idw-cp
Hi, I saw you created this template. I tried to add some permission info to it. See. But since I copied some of it from the text permission tag, it doesn't really work. It doesn't has to be GFDL for images. Do you know a page where all the free content image tags or licenses are placed. I should know where it is, but for some reason I can't find it. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are really three pages. Image copyright tags/Free licenses has all the free licenses (like Creative Commons and GNU), Image copyright tags/USA shows all public domain tags for works produced by the U.S. government, and Image copyright tags/Public domain has all other public domain tags. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Image copyright tags/Free licenses is the best one suited. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved Article
I saw a link to Subway Experiment from Operation Whitecoat. The link led to Operation Whitecoat. I was wondering if you could use any administrative powers to find out what was written on Subway Experiment before someone gave it a redirect. The Subway Experiment was completely different than operation whitecoat, so I'm curious as to why the Subway Experiment article no longer exists. I guess it just didn't have much information. Xpanzion 06:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to have ever been any article at Subway Experiment. Perhaps you could change it from a redirect to a short article? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Link
It might be best just to leave it. The bad stuff has been removed apparently. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:KatieBlair.jpg
Please note that Abu badali has nominated Image:KatieBlair.jpg for deletion again. I seriously cannot believe we are back to this. PageantUpdater User Talk   Review me!  16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock Springs Massacre
Hello. I don't know if you remember this article or not but you commented on a peer review in September 2006, when I was a Wiki infant. : ) Well, now I have significantly more experience and have brought the article to GA status. Currently, I have been working to improve it to FA. Right now there is an informal peer review ongoing on the talk page. Any input you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. The article has undergone quite the evolution, from the version you saw during the peer review, to the GA version, to the current revision. More work needed is outlined on the talk page, if you have any comments about current stuff there feel free to chime in as I am looking for some input on some of the points I have posted. Thanks again. IvoShandor 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to thank you. IvoShandor 07:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar


 * My pleasure! – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)