User talk:Quadell/Archive 26

KCH Tower Image
I've granted the permission to upload the image on the page. pls do not remove it thank you. Mike86 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that if the photographer has granted permission for Wikipedia to use the image, but hasn't released the image under a free license, we can't use it. See here for our policy. And if you look at the image you reuploaded, Image:KCH Control Tower.jpg, you will see that it states that it should be speedily deleted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot & disambiguation pages
I have a comment and a question about the note that Polbot is leaving on the dab pages it edits. First, it is not true that "All dab entries should begin with a link." Although it would be fair to say that most entries should begin with a link, MOS:DAB includes several examples of various kinds of dab entries that don't start with links. And my question is this: Is Polbot removing only piped links that begin entries? Because not all piped links on dab pages are incorrect. When a particular item is not directly linked but is instead linked to an article that mentions the disambiguated term, piping is often used--for instance, to direct the link to a relevant anchor within the article. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget the question: I can see from the edit histories that Polbot is only changing front-end piped links. I should have looked first. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Greetings, and thanks for the feedback. Yes, Polbot's dab task keeps links like This section, and she also keeps links like Jaws (film). Further, she has a list of all articles that use Category:Wrong title templates and ignores those as well. All the details are at Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 5.
 * You're right -- Polbot's html-comment note is a simplification that isn't technically accurate. I'm open to suggestions for rewording. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps " (Each entry should contain exactly one blue link, which should usually appear at the beginning of the line. For exceptions and other guidelines, consult WP:MOSDAB.) " I know it's redundant to mention WP:MOSDAB a second time, and I'm far from confident that my version is superior to yours. But you did ask for a suggestion, and I didn't want to be a nitpicker who wouldn't step up and at least offer an alternative. Best -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. I've changed my code to use a slightly modified version of this. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image of Belhus wood
You recently took out the link to a deleted image on Belhus, Essex; did you also delete the image? If so why? Rjm at sleepers 07:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Yes, I deleted the image because it didn't have a copyright tag. Looking over it, I see that the license was described in text -- I should have been more careful. I have now restored the image and placed it back in the article. I also added the cc-by-sa-2.0 copyright tag, to follow policy. If you add copyright tags to your image uploads, you can prevent them from being unnecessarily deleted. See Image copyright tags for more information. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rjm at sleepers 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Brunokirby2.jpg. Since you participated in the original discussion, I thought you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nv8200p talk 14:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I commented. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For starting my day with a laugh
Yay! Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

red flag abominations
That's very thoughtful of you to protect the page displaying botched up claims. Whoever is behind this campaign of attempted laundering of "suicide-turned-passed-away" death mode is doing nothing but disservice. If Chris Reynolds has something to do with it, then shame on him and on his Red Flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.127.237 (talk • contribs)


 * I see you're the one who has been continuing to add unsourced allegations to the article. On Wikipedia, we only add statements that can be backed up with reliable sources. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted picture Jason Roberts Press Pic 2006.JPG
Hi Quadell,

I have noticed that you have deleted a photo that i uploaded. I am having trouble uploading this picture. Can you please assist me in uploading this picture, as i don't want to waste anymore of your time with my mistakes

I hope you can help.

Thanks sunjay7


 * Greetings. I'm afraid we can't accept this picture on Wikipedia. The reason is, Wikipedia is a totally free encyclopedia, and we try to use only "free images" whenever possible. A free image is one released under a free license (like the GFDL), or one that is not copyrighted at all. The image you uploaded is a popular one, used on many websites. . . but it's not a free image. Since someone could take Jason Roberts' picture and release that photo under a free license, we can't use a non-free photo of him. See Image use policy for further info. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Abdulaziz_al-omari_alive.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Abdulaziz_al-omari_alive.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I had better source information, but I don't. – Quadell (talk) (random) 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell
Yep, I'm here about about the image I uploaded and you deleted. I wasn't sure about the licesing, so I waited for revision before using it on the article about the manticore. Now, thanks to you, I have a better idea about this licesing thing regarding images, so thanks!


 * You're welcome! – Quadell (talk) (random) 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ecover12.gif
Take a look at the rationale the uploader inserted. Keeps removing the 'no rationale' tags, I really don't want to war with him. Videmus Omnia 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people are exasperating. If you can't fix the uploader, fix the image, I always say. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

From the realm of "I Don't Care"...
but somebody else probably will: I don't think Neko Case tours with the New Pornographers any more, having established her solo career. Hence, the deleted photo is of a defunct lineup of the band. Hence, you can't go shoot a new one. (And, having a major solo artist in the band certainly makes that old lineup noteable, etc.) However, as previously stated, this is from the realm of "I Don't Care"... it's just another example of how exubernt deletion is eliminating material that people think can be replaced, but probably, really, can't.   Jenolen    speak it!  00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says that she is still a current member. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You should know better than to believe everything you read in Wikipedia! :) I was looking at  - which contains the quote: Though a regular contributing vocalist for the New Pornographers, Case will not join the band for its own spring tour. "They always make sure they cover territory twice," Case says of the Pornographers. "But I have to work on my own stuff."  Which obviously, if that's still the case, would make it tough to ever get a photo of her with the band.  As previously noted, this is totally from the realm of "I Don't Care" - I'm not a big enough fan to know the current status of Ms. Case and her tours; I simply think this is one of the many cases where baby and bathwater are being tossed aside for non-existant copyright concerns.   Jenolen    speak it!  07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence there made me laugh out loud. Thanks. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Bourque image
Dear Quadell, I'm wondering why you deleted the Wayne Bourque image without an explanation. It fit all the criteria, that you cite on your webpage. Bellagio99 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. The Wayne Bourque image is a part of an advertisement, but it is being used to depict Mr. Bourque. Since the person is still alive, someone could take a photograph of him and release that photo under a free license. Because of this, we cannot use a non-free image to depict him. That's our first non-free content criterion. Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Upgrade
Two hundred Johns down, maybe 100 more to go? Can't say that I'll be able to finish them as quickly from here on out, I am trying to repair the pages that incorrectly link to the dab pages as well. Burzmali 01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Helping with CSD/images backlog
Hey, I see that a number of subcategories at CAT:CSD are backlogged, and wanted to pitch in. But before I jumped into things, I wanted to see if there were any tips or advice you could offer. If you get a chance, drop me a reply. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, sure. Thanks for being willing to help with the backlog! I take care of CAT:NT and CAT:NL daily, so you don't need to worry about those. I also deal with CAT:REFU, but I tend to leave the controversial ones, mostly because I'm a big sissy. :) Feel free to take those on. Sometimes I'll browse through CAT:NR looking for potentially useful images, and I'll add rationales to those. I would personally only delete NR images that aren't really important to have anyway, but that's just me. I don't understand the idea behind CAT:NS, so I avoid those. I mean, if the image is truly sourceless, that's fine, but many of them are album covers or publicity-type shots of fictional characters where the copyright-holder is obvious. I personally don't think we should delete non-sourced album covers, but it's not a fight I want to take on. CAT:DFUI could use the most help.
 * Some advice: add a notice to the top of your talk page like the one on mine. That cuts the "why you delete my image!" talk-page messages in half. Know that you'll get talk-page questions anyway. Be polite, even when you feel like a broken record. You'll probably get e-mails too. Same deal. Every so often, I'll look through my deletion log to see which images have been reuploaded, and I check them to see if they're the same image with no new licensing info. If they're just unauthorized reuploads I delete them under CFD#4 and leave a warning on the uploader's talk page -- something like User:Quadell/reupload, although I'm frequently nicer than that. Lots of times, the uploader doesn't know why the image was deleted, and reuploads it innocently, and just needs to be made aware of what's going on.
 * Anything else you want to know? – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating...
Spent the last couple of days trying to obtain free images from notable people. No luck, except I got an e-mail reply from the B-movie actress Kelli Maroney. She e-mailed me a photo to use in her article, but forgot to include the GFDL permission and hasn't replied to my follow-up. A bunch of work for nothing... Videmus Omnia 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, she wrote back! And I got one from John Ringo too! Videmus Omnia 09:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's terrific! See, this is why rejecting rfu images is worth it. Do you know about Example requests for permission? These are what I use. Also, I sometimes will find a good photo of a celebrity by an amateur on Flickr or something that's not free, and write to the photographer asking for permission. I've had really good luck with this. Even people who write things like "ABSOLUTELY NO UNAUTHORIZED USE ALLOWED!!!1!" will give full permission once I tell them how much Wikipedia would like to use their image. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I actually used one of the examples from the permission requests. Do you know about how long OTRS is taking to process the permissions? Someone already dropped a note on my talk page warning me about uploading a GFDL-licensed image without proof of GFDL. Videmus Omnia 12:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really know how long it takes. I assume the note-leaver didn't see the OTRS info on the image description page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Oh, and I just got another one from Helen Smith. I'm on a roll! Videmus Omnia 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:JaniceVidalCover.jpg
Regarding your replaceable fairuse claim on Image:JaniceVidalCover.jpg, I moved the image to the album itself, My Love (album), and off the person, Janice Vidal, and removed the claim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great. No objections. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Bourque photo (again)
Oudadell, OK, I will take a pix of Wayne next time I see him, and a general release. From what you say, that would do the trick. Bellagio99 14:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one more question
Sorry, Quadell - I know I'll get the hang of this yet. How do you contact a Flickr user? For example, I want to request GFDL license of this photo. (Having problems with repeated uploads of fair use images to Mary Elizabeth Winstead). Videmus Omnia 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind - FlickrMail! Videmus Omnia 15:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're too awesome with the great advice - it took less than 20 minutes to get a good free photo of an A-list actress on Flickr. Videmus Omnia 16:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Niiiiiice. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. This one's even better. Videmus Omnia 01:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted images
I uploaded several images of Chicago's Navy Pier that were found were the work of employees of US Federal agencies. Work of of US Federal agency employees, in performace of their duties are in the public domain. I recall putting valid tags on those images, reflecting this.

You deleted two images: Image:Navy Pier Entrance.JPG; Image:Navy Pier Dock Street Entrance.JPG. I seem to have missed the one week grace period, for discussion, defense, etc. Were these the images I remember uploading? If so, am I mis-remembering putting valid tags on them? If I remember correctly that I put tags on them, is there something wrong with my choice of tags?

Thanks Geo Swan 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When you uploaded those images, you didn't put any tags on them. Because of this, the software automatically tagged them with a deletion notice, asking them to be deleted in seven days if no tag is added. After seven days there was still no tag, so the images were deleted.
 * If these are public domain image, we'd certainly like to use them -- thanks for uploading them. I have restored the images for you, but they still have no copyright tags. If you tag them, they won't be deleted, but if you don't, then they'll be deleted after another 7 days. To learn more about how to tag images, see Image copyright tags. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks.  Navy Pier images, but not ones I uploaded.  I'll look for the ones I uploaded when I get home, and put them on the page...  Again, thanks for the restoration.  Now that I know I didn't make a mistake in tagging, I don't need them.  Geo Swan 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability protection
Hi there, this is the second time this policy has been protected recently. Last time what appeared to be a consensus wording was produced on the talk page in these discussions. However, when this version was added to the policy, it was immediately replaced with a different wording. I am unsure if the efforts to reach consensus will be more successful this time, but I have started a talk-page survey of opinion on the various formulations here, to try to get a better sense of people's thoughts on the matter. As you are the protecting admin, I'll keep you posted on progress. All the best Tim Vickers 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, a consensus seems to be developing around draft 1 or 3 as shown here. Importantly, nobody has said that they prefer the wording currently on the page and several editors, myself included, have expressed strong reservations about this new wording. Unfortunately, not all the editors who participated in the recent edit-warring, including the editor User:SlimVirgin who wrote this controversial formulation, have participated in the discussion. This appearance of agreement is probably an illusion! Tim Vickers 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus on the talk page now appears pretty solid on draft 1. I've placed requests for opinions on the talk pages of everybody who regularly contributes to the page/talk page, asking for additional comments and opinions. Tim Vickers 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Block
Oh yes, thank you for enlightening me on wikipedia's policies by blocking my account, now how can i get the power to block your account for edit warring, deleting information and compulsive obsessive behaviour ? PianoKeys 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can block users (as well as perform other special functions) if you're an administrator. You can become an administrator if the community consensus is that you understand Wikipedia's policies and can be trusted to use administrative abilities fairly and in accordance with policy. You can apply at Requests for adminship if you wish, but I have to be honest with you: I wouldn't be likely to support your candidacy. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where can I go to have someone who is already an administrator stripped of their powers ? Guess who won't be getting support from me. PianoKeys 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for comment. Good luck. Videmus Omnia 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image problem
Hi. Another user and I are having a heated debate about the use of Image:Dulé Hill.jpg in the article Dulé Hill. I would appreciate any comments that you have. The argument has already gone to mediation (Quentin X 23:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I've now commented, thanks. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:ZuleykaRivera.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ZuleykaRivera.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. Abu badali (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Bot
Hi Quadell, I'm glad that you like the new template I created. Following through on your suggestions, I have changed the parameter "screenshot" to "image", and have added an extra paraemter: "other" which will appear as "other information:" and which will allow you to add any extra notes you may wish to add. I will work on your other suggestions in the near future, but I am currently on a holiday and have only a limited time using an internet connection. I should tell you now however, that because of the change in parameter from screenshot to image, none of the images here are now not appearing, but I have gone ahead and fixed that up for you, if thats okay with you. Thanks for your suggestions, and I hope to make further improvemnts (and perhaps more, specific infoboxes, or sub-infoboxes) soon! -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey. I just made another update. There is yet another parameter: "Excl. comp.", which brings "Exclusion compliant?". If = yes, then the bot is added to the category you specified, if no, then it is not added to the category. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons images
What should I do when I see no-source images on the Commons? (Like this one.). Videmus Omnia 16:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, some Wikipedians just ignore problems on Commons, thinking of it as an unrelated and separate project. Do you have an account on Commons? I do (I'm an admin there), so I tagged the image and notified the uploader. Unfortunately, it often takes months for images to get deleted on Commons. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look into a Commons account - thanks! Videmus Omnia 16:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Another question about deleted images
Dear "Quadell" recently some of the images I have uploaded have been deleted, while others have not. I am confused as to the rationale why some are deleted and others not... I do not want to engage in an upload/delete "war". I would very much appreciate if you could explain this situation. I can add that I have been creating or updating entries for underground metal bands, such as Judas Iscariot (band), N.I.L., Nortt, and Striborg, as well as entries on members of such bands, e.g., Andrew Harris (musician) and N. Imperial. I believe that images add value to the entries that shows what these bands look like. I am using lo-res pictures that are often found on CD inlay, and are thus promotional photos. I cannot imagine that is hurts these bands to have their picture on wikipedia. Many of these acts rarely appear in public, if at all, and I have not been able to find replaceable free photos. Your help would be appreciated. Branko 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I know, it can be very difficult to find free images of bands. Unfortunately our non-free content policy does not allow us to accept non-free images of active bands, even if they are legal to use under fair use law. It's that first criterion, that requires a non-free image to be non-replaceable, that's the problem. Even if the bands are not very well known, if they are still together then it should be possible for someone to photograph them and release that photo under a free license. Because that's possible, we can't use a non-free image in its place. User:Videmus Omnia, above has had good luck writing to the artists asking for free (GFDL) images. If you'd like to try that strategy, Requesting copyright permission has a lot of tips and templates.
 * As to why some of your images have been deleted and not others, it could be that some just haven't been deleted yet. Or, if the band has broken up, the image may no longer be considered replaceable, so that could be a reason. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. IT still does not make sense to me. If an image is widely available on the internet, and the artist(s) himself/themselves make it available for promotional purposes, how can it hurt a band to put that image up on wikipedia? Or, let me put it differently, how come http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mardukpic.jpg has been up for several weeks with no problem? At any rate, I did contact N.Imperial and he has given me permission to use his photos! Branko 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't hurt the band. Our non-free content policy isn't just there to make sure we're not hurting the copyright-holders (although that's part of it). It's also to encourage free content. If we could have used a non-free image of Mary Elizabeth Winstead, it wouldn't have hurt the actress -- but then no one would have bothered to create a free image of her, like this one. The rule about not using replaceable non-free images came straight from the top -- Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia. It isn't likely to change. – Quadell (talk) (random)


 * No doubt you are more familiar with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Still, either one of us must be confused. I have seen other photos of living people that are not tagged for deletion or disputed, e.g., this one of Marduk (band), or this one of MADtv (which has no fair Use Rationale, yet has been up since December 2006). Let me repeat that the individuals of whom I have uploaded images belong to the black metal underground music scene, and rarely, if at all, appear in public. – Branko 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Both those examples you mentioned are not allowed on Wikipedia. I have tagged them as such. They must have just fallen through the cracks. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your reply and sorry to be a pain... I do understand that as a rule "an image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like," and "is is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph," is unacceptable. I don't want to point out the many other images of living persons that I have seen on wikipedia (with or without rationale), what I still don't understand is that a promotional (non-free, low-res) image is better than having none. It illustrates the subject of the article and (if low-res) could hardly be used for commercial purposes and thus create copyright infringements... It does say that cover art and promotional material is allowed... What I guess I am saying is that it sounds a bit too "paranoid" to me to keep deleting such photos... – Branko 00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. You said that it seems to you that having a non-free image is better than having no image at all. This may be true in the short run, but think of it this way: if an article already has a perfectly good non-free image that we're allowed to use, why would anyone bother to produce a free one? Wikipedia used to be fairly lax about this, simply tagging such non-free images with "Replace this with a free one as soon as possible", but those images never got replaced. Why bother? But as soon as we began deleting replaceable non-free images, people started finding and creating free ones left and right. The lack of an image is an obvious gap, and people want to fill that gap. There are now hundreds of free images of musicians that never would have been created or freely licensed if it weren't for our restrictive policy forbidding all replaceable non-free images. You may still not agree with this policy, I don't know, but I hope you understand it a little better now. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Let's leave it at that then. :-) – Branko 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion - jcb-abcnews
You deleted the image under the "invalid fair use" claim... as I read the policy I was supposed to be given 48 hours notice, but got none, so I don't know exactly why they said the fair use claim was invalid... what's the issue and how can I remediate? -- Archibald16 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We cannot use portraits of living people on Wikipedia, due to the first criterion listed at WP:NFCC. See User talk:Quadell/image deletion for details. According to the logs, the Wikipedia software automatically tagged the image as "replaceable" when you uploaded it, and stated that the image would be deleted if no reason was given why the image was not replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit count
I just looked at your edit count, and it was exactly 45,000. I thought that was pretty crazy. — thesublime514  •  talk  • 04:13, July 8, 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, now with this edit it's too high. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Awwww, you ruined it :-( — thesublime514  •  talk  • 04:18, July 8, 2007 (UTC)

Help with Bot
Hi i was wondering how to run a bot i have got the instuctions but i dont understand them.I got the user name for it and i got all this stuff but i still dont inderstand if you can help i would REALLY appreciate it!(Sparrowman980 05:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Hm. What kind of bot are you hoping to run? What would you like it to do? Have you ever written a computer program before? You might want to try using AutoWikiBrowser. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

k thanks i will try it.(Sparrowman980 05:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

Problem uploader...
Hi, Quadell. Did you had the time to deal with the uploader I mentioned here? He's still uploading problematic images. I'm asking that because I've run into a second issue I would like your help with... --Abu badali (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I left her a warning. I just left her another message. I'm not comfortable blocking her unless it's clear that she's intentionally violating policy. (It's getting closer.) Who else ya got? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your tool
I don't have an image tagging tool. I think you meant to thank User:Howcheng. MECU ≈ talk 20:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! Oh well. Sorry to bother you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this out
Removing PUI notices and reports at WP:PUI. Videmus Omnia 20:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Boring politicians
I was randomly looking at what else Polbot does, and noticed that it nicks public domain text/data and repackages it as Wikipedia articles. For US politicians and endangered species so far, by the looks of it. Recycling the content of other websites wasn't really why I got involved in Wikipedia (writing from sources is much more rewarding), but the incomplete and "notes" state of one of the articles annoyed me, so I did this. The history of Danville was vaguely interesting. Do you think Polbot would approve? :-) Carcharoth 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I should tell Polbot about it. She'll get jealous. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like she heard anyway, and threw a hissy fit. See below. Carcharoth 10:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot malfunctioning
See John B. Macy. --Stemonitis 05:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. For what happened, please see this old version. It seemed to leave HTML text in there from the original source. Carcharoth 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a particularly annoying bug. In maybe 1 out of every 500 bios she makes, they end up looking like gobbledy-gook. I don't know why. If you see any more like that (and don't feel like fixing them yourself), just leave them at the bottom of WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/American_politicians/Representatives, with the others she can't handle. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are these obscure US politicians so interesting! :-) I've managed to link to several of the things and places he was involved with, though sadly we don't have an article on the steamer tragedy where he lost his life. Have a look at the story here. Maybe we have an article on the "palace steamers", but I haven't been able to find anything yet. Carcharoth 11:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot and US Congresses
I don't know how far you are along the run, but would you be able to tweak Polbot to link to the US Congresses? The two I've tidied up didn't link, and the naming convention is easy enough. See List of United States Congresses. Maybe you could even get the clever bot to go back and relink them in the ones she's already done? Carcharoth 11:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm pretty far along, but there are a couple hundred left to do I'd imagine. It's an interesting problem. J. Edwin Ellerbe, for instance, says "to the Fifty-ninth and to the three succeeding Congresses". I guess this would have to be changed to "to the 59th, 60th, 61st, and 62nd Congresses." This would be challenging. I'll think on it. I'm glad these auto-generated articles are inspiring a little extra learning! – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Images Improperly
You tagged images for Tanith Ghosts and Leonatos. All images of both of those two fall under Games Workshop copyright, as the names themselves are even registered. Your tagging of the image, without providing an example of a free image, voids your ability to place a tag on the image. That means that you have tag spammed. Since you have done this repeatedly without providing of a free image example, you have broken a Wiki rule. Please stop further spamming and follow the rules by providing actual verifiable evidence that there are free image versions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.139.87.53 (talk • contribs).
 * For information, 4.139.87.53 is almost certainly a sockpuppet of SanchiTachi, who has been indefinitely banned for disruption.
 * However... I would argue that SanchiTachi is at least vaguely on the right lines here: any photos of GW minis are covered by GW's copyright as they are derivative works of the miniature itself, so I do not believe it is possible to produce a free image for the topics in question; I have placed a slightly more detailed form of this on the images' talk pages.
 * However however... I also recognise you were placing these tags in good faith, as this is a complicated area of copyright law which has caught many people (including myself) out in the past and bid you well in the future. Cheers --Pak21 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Yes, the underlying art is copyrighted, and any new photograph would be a derivative work. However, in the case of a new photograph, we would only have to provide a rationale for the underlying work, and not for the photograph itself. For these photographs, we would have to justify the use of both the figurine's copyright and the photographer's copyright. That's why the photographs themselves are replaceable. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, are there precedents for the deletion of non-free photographs of non-free objects for replacement by free photographs of the same? Cheers --Pak21 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's rather common (although I can't think of any off the top of my head). If you want a second/third opinion, you could list the images at Fair use review. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot 3 (again)
I see Polbot3 has been approved for a trial run of 50 edits. I'll restart discussion over there so we can work out how to do this. If you don't mind, I'd like to review the edits from the trial period and discuss those before going any further. Carcharoth 14:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. --ST47 Talk 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yee-haw! – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. --ST47 Talk 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cowabunga! – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad edit by Polbot
- there should be only one s in theorems. --Zundark 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, this is troubling. I'm not sure if this function will improve articles, all in all. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you not somehow (yeah, that's the difficult bit) detect when the "new text" has introduced "ss" or rather "s]]s" ? Or are you going off the idea of a bot changing piped dablinks altogether? I did a bit of work on dab pages, and I was often piping links. Maybe there are turning out to be more exceptions to this 'rule' than you thought? Carcharoth 15:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the trouble is, Polbot can reliably find dab pages with bad pipelinking. But she can't reliably fix them. About half the time, she just changes it from a non-standard format to another non-standard format. I'm not sure whether I'll run this function or not. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Category on Commons
Hi Quadell, I really don't like the fight that is going on on wikicommons arround species articles vs species categories. You bot is making theses categories and articles symetric. What a strange idea. We should all take a big decision if we want species articles or species categories. Once the decision made, launch the bot to kill one of those. In the mean while, your bot the duplicating information. And you risk a fight with those that do the contrary. Also, your species articles are not under the species category, but under the genus category. That part I really do not like. That means that genuses have duplicated entries: species articles AND species category (See commons:Category:Taxodium) I have a personal favor to ask: could you also duplicate the taxonavigation? Because the species article taxonavigation provides a link to the species category that sometimes (at least when created by your bot) has no taxonavigation.

Sample of the problem: commons:Category:Taxodium_distichum has no taxonavigation, when Taxodium_distichum has.

Cheers, fr:User:Liné1 or commons:User:Liné1 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am no longer running this bot. It is clear that there is no consensus for its functionality, so I stopped this function. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Species stubs
I'm not great with categories myself- try looking to other bat articles. Category:Bats would be a nice start, and then there should be categories based upon where they can be found, I would imagine. As I say, I'm not great on categories myself, otherwise I would add the categories instead of tagging the articles as uncategorised! J Milburn 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Piped links on disambiguations
I undid this Polbot edit. Piping to add quotation marks or italics to a title is quite common and within the WP:MOSDAB guidelines. I do not know the bot programming, but perhaps it can be modified to recognize such pipelinks and not "fix" them. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Polbot shouldn't have done that. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the quote marks to italics, but now I see that songs use quote marks. Looks like I need to re-read the MoS... Regardless, this is a case where I, personally, prefer to have the description call the item a song, and drop the "(song)" bit by using piping. Carcharoth 09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Species
Hello and thank you for nice work in operating Polbot :). I moved these articles based on lists such as: List of mammals in Sudan which are based also on IUCN data. As for the double-redirects, well it's a tough work for human Wikipedian :), I think there are some bots who check them and fix them. Anyway, thanks for your work. Would it be possible to also categorize those species articles? - Darwinek 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure! How do you think they should be categorized? I'm not an expert at categorizing species. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When creating articles about bats, just add Cat:Bats. In future, you can always ask experts at WikiProject Tree of life. - Darwinek 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After thinking it through, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The bat-stub template adds Category:Bat stubs, which is a sub-category of Category:Bats. So this would be placing an article in both a more specific and less specific category, which our guideline recommends against. Instead, whenever someone expands one of the articles to non-stub status, they can add Category:Bats. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ernestmartinmurderer.png
This image was incorrectly tagged with non-commercial use only. Please undelete it to allow me to write a proper fair use rationale for it. It is the mugshot of an executed man, irreplaceable as he will never be arrested again and is now dead. It is perfectly reasonable fair use to use in the article describing his crimes and execution. -N 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is now restored. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I struggled with NFCC#8 and I ended up making a very grandiose and poetic rationale. While it is probably true, can you look at it and suggest anything that needs fixing? Thank you so very much. -N 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I made an additional #8, more prosaic. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:SanchiTachi
You posted some questions or statements about fair use images on User talk:SanchiTachi. I haven't read what you exactly said, but I do know that SanchiTachi is under an indefinete block, so won't be responding (if that's what required). And please don't contact me about them - I tried to upload images, but really don't understand the fair use stuff etc. (it's not written in clear English). Cheers, Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V unprotection
The admin involved was Jossi, who was not involved in the dispute in any way. I contacted them on their talk page and asked their advice on how to proceed. Link. I do not understand this reversion and re-protection by SlimVirgin as Jossi was not part of the edit conflict that led to protection. Tim Vickers 21:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you want to do here? The consensus on the talk page here and here is clear, but SlimVirgin appears to me to be determined to block this addition in any way possible. Perhaps that is an uncharitable interpretation, but adding indefinite protection seems extreme. Tim Vickers 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's on a time-limited 2 week protection. It's silly to think you have consensus after 2 days. Be patient. These things work themselves out eventually. It's just best not to give the fire more fuel when the editing is hot. Let's let it cool down a bit before unprotecting. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We have been discussing this change for about two weeks, and there is strong consensus on the talk page for this wording Link. Unfortunately the protection isn't time-limited any more, as SlimVirgin has added indefinite-protection to the page. As this is a pretty important page, I've raised this at ANI. Tim Vickers 22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's probably a good move. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The page has now been unprotected by User:John Reaves, who was not involved in the dispute. I'll wait to see people's advice at ANI before I do anything. Tim Vickers 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use?
I totally disagree with you. Fair use says: if a photo might reasonably be found. These photos you are disputing are not resonably findable or I would have used them. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid our policy at Non-free content forbids us from using a non-free image if a free image could be "found or created". It may be impossible for you, sitting at your computer, to create a new image of a celebrity. But someone could. I'm afraid it's pretty well established in our policy. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Quadell, I am shocked by your statement. You are pointing me to a guidline not a policy. Please point me to the policy that states this.  This guidline does not state what you say it does and I can see nothing wrong with the photos I uploaded.  They qualify under fair use policy statements that I have found.  But I am listening if you want to make your point. So far, I do not see anything wrong with these photos. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 14:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even the policy listed under this states: in the section, detailed "fair use" rationale states that if there is no free photo a fair use photo may be used. So I say, find a free photo of these units and I will agree with you the ones I uploaded may be deleted. But you will not be able to find free ones, so as the policy states, since free ones are not available, the fair use ones may be used.  Do you see the point here?  Furthermore, I see many many examples of fair use photos on wiki from press kits with none being contested.  These are the most important photos I could find to convey knowlege that words alone could not.  Deleting them will be a dis-service to the reader of wiki.  They are not just fluf for the articles. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 14:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The page itself, Non-free content, is a guideline, yes. But if you scroll down to the very first section, "Policy", it is an official policy. The very first criterion there says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. . . As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture." (emphasis added). It may be shocking, but it's true. It's against policy to keep a non-free image around in the hopes that a free one will be found; if a free one could be found, we can't use the non-free one. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cary Bass demandez 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
see Cary Bass demandez 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

fair use for deletion categories
I notice you are adding NOGALLERY to the fair use for deletion categories. Please note these are specifically exempted from the policy for the very plain reason that people need to see which images are being deleted (Non-free_content). Cheers. -N 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I only do it for my convenience as I delete them. Feel free to take NOGALLERY out whenever you feel like it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ta. -N 00:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)