User talk:Quadell/Archive 29

Striking the correct balance
Hi Quadell, I don't know if we've met, but I've seen you working with image copyright issues recently, and I just wanted to say I think you're doing a very good job of upholding the policy without disregarding the feelings of those who may be upset at image deletions. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! It warms my heart to hear. Sometimes I feel like just saying "If you have a question about an image I deleted, don't ask me, read our policy and take it to WP:DR if you have to!", or else I feel like saying "Okay, I give up! Keep your 50-image gallery of Backstreet Boys pics!" But then I remember why I'm doing this: to help people, and to make the Wiki a better place. Comments like yours keep me going, ElinorD. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thorsteinngestsson
User:Thorsteinngestsson seems to be making essay/arguement pages. . . I have tagged them all as spam, is that correct or should I be using a different tag? -WarthogDemon 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't know, to be honest. I don't work much in that area. You might ask at the Village Pump. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Special Permission for Cisco Images
Cisco has sent me an email telling me that any image I upload to wiki they grant me permission to use and grant permission under the GNU License.

I hope this puts this issue to rest once and for all. Could you remove the delete tag or am I allowed. Actually I am going to remove it, because I have the permission. I will email it again.

Please let me know any thoughts on this.

Thanks

Al --User: (talk • contribs • count) 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great! Thanks for your patience. Well done! – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for closing the debate. I read this GNU License, I really dont see where photos are covered. Could you point me to the spot? In any event Cisco agreed and many thanks. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 11:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a really good question. Some believe that photos are covered as "documents" of a special case, with "content" but without text. Others believe that photos are only covered by the GFDL insomuch as they are a part of a larger document -- in this case, the image description page, or the containing article. Some people prefer to license their images under a Creative Commons license instead, just because of this ambiguity. This has never been tested in court, so it's hard to say for certain. It's been discussed on Wikipedia a few times, but never conclusively. Anyway, thanks again for getting these high-quality freely-licensed images! – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kay Körner
Hey Quadell! You seem to be very active regarding image deletion on en.wikipedia.org and that’s why I contact you. I am not familiar with the procedures here and in this special case the user mentioned above would just revert my edits. The user uploaded hundreds of copyvios on Wikimedia Commons in the past, I am sysop there (and on de.wp) and had to deal with it. A lot of the deleted images were uploaded here as fair use (often with the template whenever it’s just a photography like thousand others), without providing a fair use rationale but a stunning quality (see Image:Sport Association Dynamo.png and it’s gallery or Image:Dynamoparade in GDR Berlin.png). A lot of images are orphaned, others are clear copyvios (Image:Erich Mielke SV Dynamo.jpg, Image:Single scull.jpg). The same person also used the account „Lucken“ to upload images (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Lucken). Please help me dealing with this user on your platform. Thank you in advance, --Polarlys 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll look into it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't expect any kind of civil response or anything approaching compliance from this guy. He's straight up POV with a long track record of disruptive behaviour and doesn't give a hoot about what you or anybody else has to say. Good luck. Have fun. Besides User:Lucken he's gone as User:Fox53 (which discussion page you should check out) and as IPs beginning with 141. and 72., out of Dresden, Germany. Wiggy! 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the user is student at the University of Dresden, he often uses the library to remove warnings and deletion templates. On his incivility: I am member of various Wikimedia projects since 2003, but I was never treated with such a degree of hostily (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kay_Körner&oldid=5655732). The user is from the former GDR (whenever he is just about 20 years old) and over 65 million people from the former FRG are his “enemies” since they “discriminate” (quotes by Kay Körner) the others and steal “their time, money, reputation, job, family, health”. The GDR was “the opposite of this society” and because of this the society of SV Dynamo (his favorite sport club) is considered as “dangerous” as well (to “christians” (enemies as well, see the response on Quadell’s hints) for example). Then he calls me a “bastard”, insults my parents and talks about christiany in a patronizing way. His uploaded images (copyvios) are “evidence” for “purity” and “strengh” (of former times of couse). “Hakennasen” (jews) “discriminate” him. Several “bastards” and other insults follow. I am the one, who “destroys” the “evidence” of “these old days” (and so on). --Polarlys 23:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know just enough German to be able to parse "Hakennasen". Wow, what a guy. Perhaps I should point him to Conservapedia? Maybe he'll bug them instead. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy cow. And I thought he was giving me a hard time. The guy's a jerk and should be blocked in whatever incarnation he shows up. My sympathies and support to you Polarlys. Good luck with it, stand your ground.


 * I'm also irked that he thinks its clever to tag himself as an accompished English speaker and translator on his user page when he doesn't have a hot clue about the language. That's disingenuous and unhelpful. I dislike having to chase around cleaning up after him. Wiggy! 00:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. I'm blocking the three incarnations I know of. If he shows up again in another form, let me know and I'll block him again. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Driving me crazy
Could you please look at Tony Robbin? It has two infoboxes, and I want one to display immediately below the other, but I just can't get it right and I've been dicking with it for an hour. I tried userboxtop and userboxbottom but that looks like crap. Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk  01:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite right, because the infobox widths aren't the same. But is it close enough? – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk  02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am...
...beyond sick of this image witchhunt bullshit. When was the last time you CREATED an article rather than destroyed it? -- Cjmarsicano 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I create articles, and upload images, all the time. Please be civil. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have yet to find evidence of your having created articles lately. I've been through your contributions.
 * I am not going to bother wasting my time wiith a fair use rationale, no matter how sincere, because uninformed persons like yourself are going to delete the damn images anyway because of some policy that was never voted on or agreed to by the majority of Wikipedia users. I've gone through it with for the past several months dealing with WP:H!P-related articles alone, defended and rationaled and attributed every fair use image that I and the other members of WP:H!P have worked on, and every single image was still deleted. I am not going to put up with it any longer.
 * Wikipedia's current image policy is unrealistic and unconstitutional. It should have been struck down by a lawyer or a federal court a long time ago, but apparently no one has been brave enough to begin that process... yet.
 * There is nothing civil about being on the receiving end of watching one's hard work being destroyed. I am beyond tired of watching Wikipedia become a pathetic shell of its former self as well as a site that disrespects the laws and values of the country its servers exist on.
 * Do whatever you want with the image. I no longer care anymore. Jim Wales and his legal yes-men can have it. Within a few years there will be no Wikipedia for them to have; it'll be the biggest joke on the internet since Pets.com.
 * No longer yours, CJ Marsicano.
 * For further details please refer to this article.

See my comment on the Lalla Ward image removal. I've not been a wikipedian for long but already I'm finding the image policy too restrictive.We need to do something about these individuals who keep deleting the images. It totally sucks bigtime Godfinger 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow
Just, um... wow. I noticed the above section in looking at the recent contribs of the charming fellow who posted it, and wanted to thank you for your patience in dealing with people and your dedication to copyright and free content issues on the project. Cheers and take care, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Awww, thanks! It means a lot, coming from you. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that statement. I have the utmost respect for those who enforce the non-free images policy. hbdragon88 07:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! You make me smile. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, keep up the good work Quadell. Anyone who is ranting about constitutional issues can safely be ignored as they really have no idea what they're talking about. -- Cyde Weys 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! I'll add this to my growing collection of "August Wikipedians who have left me encouraging notes today"! – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My words might not carry as much weight as those of some others, but I do have some first hand experience here. It can be very difficult to take the abuse that simply comes from doing the right thing, pushing along our mission, and to do so tirelessly in a manner which is consistently cool, controlled, and respectful as yours is quite an achievement. While you may hear more often from people who are angry, confused, or just trying to cause problems, the hard work you do is appreciated by many. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When I'm fed up, I like to blow off steam by torturing beanie babies listening to soothing music smoking crack drinking a refreshing fruit beverage. Thanks again! – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use
Hey, perhaps you can help me understand how this works. How does one "create" or convert a non-fair use image INTO fair use? And particularly as it relates to articles on musical artists (which is what I focus my research on ), are there any photos of artists that survive these replaceable fair use challenges? Souldier77 05:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't know why that part about "converting" non-free images into free ones is there in our policy. I think that refers to maps or diagrams -- you can create a new one based on the old data. I don't think there's any way to "convert" a non-free photo into a free one.
 * There are free photos of artists that survive, though. Here are some free images of artists:


 * All these images were specifically licensed under a free license by the photographer. If you would like to obtain a free image of a given artist, the best way is to ask them. User:Videmus Omnia has written some tricks and tips for this at User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images. Hope this helps! – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops! I just realized you said musical artists. I don't know why I thought you said visual artists. There are many more free images of musical artists than visual artists, actually; see the various images in Commons:Category:Musicians, Commons:Category:Musical groups, and their subcategories. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lalla Ward Photo removal
The image of Lalla Ward has been removed because it was not deemed to be 'fair use' on the basis that Lalla Ward is still alive and could be photographed by a wikipedian. Frankly I think the policy is absurd. Lalla Ward is notable for her appearance as Romana in Dr Who. Tell me, how are we to get a photograph of Lalla Ward as Romana if she no longer plays the part? Yes I agree-lets get rid of this (to quote another wikipedian above) 'image witch hunt bullshit' It seriously is holding back the development of the Wikipedia Godfinger 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The image was used at the top of the Lalla Ward article, and any contemporary image of the actress would illustrate the article just as well. Our policy on replaceable non-free images is clear. One reason that we disallow such non-free images is this encourages the creation of free content, such as the photographs of artists above. No one would bother to create and contribute such free images if we could use non-free images just as easily. Because Wikipedia is fundamentally dedicated to promoting and expanding free content, we want to do whatever we can to advance that. The temporary lack of an image of a given actress is, all things considered, a small price to pay for the acquisition of free images such as these. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, point taken but if we take the notability criterion into account then Lalla Ward is known for her part as Romana in Dr Who. Free Content? Well, maybe I have a few things to learn about all the legal manure that inhibits the dissemination of information but fair use is what? Fair use. I mean the fair use of an image to disseminate a relevant image or piece of information for the benefit of everyone. I mean, the image is not being used in any commercial sense here. It is the genuine fair use of the image. If everything has to be photographed by a wikipedian then that will seriously hold back the development of this fine project and who knows, eventually lead to it's demise. Sorry for the heated comment earlier. Best Godfinger 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You could say the same about text. It would be much easier to copy text from the Encyclopedia Britannica than create it oneself. One could say "If everything has to be written by a wikipedian then that will seriously hold back the development of this fine project and who knows, eventually lead to it's demise." But that's what Wikipedia is all about: creating new, free content that is available for everyone, not just reusing non-free content because it's easy. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can write an article anytime. Taking a photo occurs at specific points in time. A big difference. I appreciate the point you are saying but I think you are sacrificing the free dissemination of information for a particular ideological point of view-granted we all have our particular ideologies-but I don't agree with you. Sorry. Godfinger 14:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's not a point of view, but policy. Sorry. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok It's policy. But policy is obviously the POV of those who make the policy. I guess as an upstart newbie I shouldn't  interfere with those who get their kicks form enforcing the poilicy or those who obtain glory and satisfaction from producing free images for the Wikipedia but the point I am making in this particular case is that you are NOT going to get a free image of the actress in the part she is most famous for. The nearest you will get is a fair use of the image. Godfinger 14:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be be civil and don't make personal attacks. No one has ulterior motives here -- we're all just trying to improve Wikipedia.
 * It is customary in articles on actors to have an image of the actor at the top of the article, and it doesn't have to be of that actor in any particular role. Any contemporary photograph of the person would have the same encyclopedic value in the article it's in, given the way that the image is currently used. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)Have to tried to obtain one? And does she look all that different in the part she plays than she does in "real life"? I can see needing a copyrighted image for Michael Dorn, because he is essentially unrecognizable when in character. Is it the same with this actress (I'm not that familiar with her.) Videmus Omnia Talk  14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Quadell, I mean no disrespect but it's just what I think. Apologies for any offence. Godfinger 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problems. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that Image:Ward01.jpg still has a warning tag on it. I assume that if a fair-use rationale is written for its use in Romana, then that will be OK? How far does "replaceable living people" policy go in that respect? In one sense, the picture is illustrating a fictional character, and so is not replaceable (unless we assume there is a free picture out there that already exists, but which no-one has published or found yet). In another sense, the three pics there are only illustrating the article (but do an excellent job of doing that). Is that allowed under fair-use? See Frodo Baggins for another examples of pictures illustrating different depictions from different adaptations of the same character. Is that acceptable? Carcharoth 15:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, if someone writes a rationale on why the image is usable in Romana, then the image will be perfectly acceptable in that article. An image of a fictional character, used in the article about that character, is non-replaceable (satisfying NFCC #1) and necessary (satisfying NFCC #8). In the article about an actor, it really depends on how the image is used. If it's used at the top of the article in a way that any image of the actress could be used, it's absolutely replaceable. If it's used in a main section on the portrayal of that character (as in the Elijah Wood article), that is widely deemed acceptable. If it's used in a stubby article, or illustrates a character not important enough in the article to get its own section, then it's generally deemed "decorative" and "non-necessary", violating NFCC #8.
 * The Frodo Baggins article is borderline. On the one hand, the images are used in a gallery, which is a big no-no for non-free images. Each image is not in its own section on that particular portrayal. On the other hand, the article could be easily rearranged to have sections on "Portrayal in Lord of the Rings (animation)", etc., and the images would be acceptable in that way. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but at the end of the day, they are illustrative, showing examples of different depictions of the same character. That is why they are in a gallery, which could be in a section covering all adaptations with that character in it. I think the gallery prohibition is more for categories and galleries without any accompanying text to justify the use of the image.
 * (interrupting) If one given portrayal (say, in Bakshi's LotR) is not important enough to have its own section, many of the good folks at WP:IFD will decide that the portrayal is not important enough to have a non-free image either. I don't think the Frodo Baggins page is a clear violation, but I do think it's borderline. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One problem with doing this for all the main characters in The Lord of the Rings is that this can get out of control, even if you have text beside it writing about the different portrayals. Do you do this for every character? (Some people would want to).
 * (interrupting again) That's kind of up to the people who write the pages. Basically, NFCC #8 is evaluated based on how the article looks now. If a given role (or portrayal) should be important enough to merit extended commentary, but the article doesn't contain such commentary, then the image is in violation. Conversely, if a role shouldn't be important enough, but the article gives that role an entire long section, then the image isn't in violation (unless or until the article is corrected). – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I once gathered together a large gallery of pictures used in Tolkien and Middle-earth related articles. I forgot to link fair-use images instead of putting them in a gallery, but when reminded I and another editor removed the gallery tags and linked instead. It has been interesting watching the page of blue links steadily turn red. For most of the images, I can't be bothered to write fair use rationales (most are screen captures from the films), but I am still pondering which ones can or should be saved.
 * (and again) That's why there's a requirement to have fair use rationales: if it's not important enough to write a rationale for, it's certainly not important enough to use a non-free image for. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing that is important to change is the way screen captures and artistic interpretations of a character have been placed in an infobox as if it is the definitive portrayal, when in fact the original portrayal is words on a page. The pics, as you say, should go in an "art" or "adaptations" section. Anyway, the gallery is at WikiProject Middle-earth/Images. I can't find deletion records for all of them, so I assume some were deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Is there an easy way to check that? Carcharoth 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those images (that I checked) were deleted from the Commons. (You would check by adding "Commons" before the colon, like Commons:Image:Liane de Pougy postcard.jpg.) Those redlinks without a record were deleted back before Wikimedia software started keeping a record of deletions. Back then, there was no undeletion -- and when I mistakenly deleted an image incorrectly, you can bet I caught hell for it! – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you running on autopilot?
Quad, now what are you up to?

I just found out that the image on W (Double You), which should be protected fair use because of the group no longer existing, was tagged by you. The group is broken up and thus, no free alternative exists. This does not look good on you. This is one you're going to need to remove the tag from because given the battle over WP:NFCC by WP:H!P, its really going to look like a witchhunt to some people. --CJ Marsicano Cjmarsicano 15:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Thanks for finding that. If you find any more images tagged as replaceable that you feel are not replaceable, simply tag them with, explain why, and move on. No need to make a big production out of it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, just because the group is no longer active does not mean a free image cannot be obtained - presumably the images still exist and could be released by the group members, their former management, or a fan. You should at least try to obtain a free image. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Vid, please see WP:H!P Image Statement regarding Hello! Project artists and the total impossibility of obtaining free images of them. -- CJ Marsicano 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From that link I found: "If anyone has had the opportunity to photograph their favorite MoMusu member in public, they're probably shithoarding the picture for themselves." - to be frank, this self-depiction of WP:H!P members is not going to win them (and you) any fans. If they don't want free photographs taken, then that is unfortunate, but there is not a lot that can be done about it. Sometimes life isn't fair. Fair-use is not a panacea to overcome personality rights and similar considerations. There is a certain type of Wikipedia images that are becoming more common: celebrities snapped by fans who spot them off-duty. Often these pictures are awful. Promotional pictures would be better, but if we can't have those, then no picture is often best. Carcharoth 15:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it that people so frequently try to invoke 'personality' rights in order to convince us to use unlicensed photographs? There are no personality rights implications for Wikimedia's activities: they are only an issue when you use a persons image to promote something or suggest an endorsement in advertising. If the subject, or their fans, don't prefer an image which someone has donated to us, we welcome them to release a better picture under an acceptable license. We don't allow users to illicitly copy Encarta articles into Wikipedia just because our current text isn't perfect, nor do we allow people to do likewise for photographs.--Gmaxwell 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not advocating using unlicensed pictures. I just put things in a different order and distinguish between good and bad quality free pics. Good-quality free picture > no picture > bad-quality free picture > fair use picture. I happen to disagree with the "if there is a bad free picture, the celebrity will rush to give us a good free picture" philosophy. I prefer, "if Wikipedia has a good reputation, and if the article is in good shape, the celebrity may give us a free photo". The classic case I use is Image:Ian Thorpe on a plane cropped.jpg. It is obvious that this is a pic taken by a fan who happened to be on the same aeroplane as Ian Thorpe. I look at it and my first thought is not "great! a free pic for our article", but "what a rubbish pic. I hope no-one puts that on Wikipedia". Anyway, this is really only a minor point, but I hope you get what I am saying. Carcharoth 16:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there is a lot of room even for people who think good>none>bad>non-free to disagree since there is a lot of subjectivity in good vs not-good. Even with the example you gave I have to say that the image is as good as the images many of our users post about themselves. It's also the case that press photos frequently set an unreasonable standard: They frequently come from staged photoshoots some of which have taken hours, and often the pictures are touched up, repainted, and, arguably, outright fabricated. On that basis a decent argument could be made to reject PR photos entirely on accuracy grounds. Even with substantial experience, world class equipment, and the cooperation of the subject, the PR photos are sometimes going to be better than Wikimedian photos because we should have a different commitment to honesty.
 * The "it's not good enough, none is better" argument also causes some people (such as me) to avoid submitting their own good performer photos because they don't want to deal with someone arguing that it sucks and that it must be deleted because they'll tolerate nothing less than a non-free publicity photo. I know that your postion is more reasoned and nuanced than that, but because we tolerate your argument we also tolerate the same argument being made by people who are simply trying to make a point that we must accept unlicensed images, and as someone who personally puts a lot of time and energy into his photography, I simply don't have the patience to deal with it and I know thats also true for some others.
 * As far as the lower quality images inspiring people to submit good ones, it's demonstratable that it has happened... and by all appearences it's more effective than having pretty articles and just waiting. It's also the case that our efforts to get free releases have been roadblocked a number of times by copyright holders saying "you didn't make them release it freely", yet another issue caused by allowing too much fair use and only accepting good works when they are competative with the best staged shoots a press agent has to offer under non-free terms.
 * I'd be willing to live in a world where we decided good>none>bad>non-free if I thought we could ever get reasonable agreement on what constitutes good vs bad, and if we could somehow avoid subjecting reasonable photos to being called bad just because someone would rather have a non-free image. I don't know how to get there from here, but I don't see anything wrong with the essence of your position.--Gmaxwell 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it demonstrably has an effect, great. But I think it is still important to maintain standards while doing that. A good starting point for 'bad' would be out-of-focus pictures or one where part of the head was cropped off, or other technical points that can't be fixed digitally. But that's obvious. The borderline quality cases are more difficult, and I'd generally give way and allow the 'bad' free pics until a better one came along. Carcharoth 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet, tight crops which exclude at least part of the head are bread and butter material in commercial photography (random first google hit example), and such images are widely found in promotional portfolios. Summarily, shallow DOF with only a portion of the image in sharp focus is also found in commercial portrait photography... although less frequently. I understand what you are mean, and that you don't care about cases where cropping or focus control is used intentionally and well... but the difference between the two can't be determined by a meat-bot with a checklist. It is exceptionally hard to legislate good taste. So long as it isn't cut and try the quality argument will always be used by people who are purely trying to push for more non-free images. --Gmaxwell 18:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I happen to have this page on my watch list :-) and I just want to cut in here to say I've found this conversation quite entertaining and informative. Thanks, CJ, for inadvertently starting a great discussion! Of course having a non-free image of a living person or active band is not an option, no matter what the quality of the free images is. (That's supposed to be "is", right? Agrees with "quality"?) With deceased people you have a difficult balance, with those who are arguably most qualified to judge how useful an image is (enthusiasts) also the most biased toward non-free images. But rudeness toward a photographer of free images in not acceptable, regardless. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It also says on top of that article: "In addition to the above disclaimer, the original author of this post(...)" - that would be me - "(...)would like to point out that this essay contains some sarcasm and other dark humor in order to help further illustrate the points he makes in this essay. The author is not responsible for anyone who has these remarks go over their heads." -- CJ Marsicano 15:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely missed that. Thanks for pointing that out. Carcharoth 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image keeps coming back
I think might need some salt. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a very minor note
Hello. When you consolodated the fair use image notifications here, you actually deleted one of my comments. It isn't the end of the world, because (based on the statistics of me saying stupid things) it was probably stupid anyways, but, in the future, someone intelligent might be commenting on pages where you're adding notices, and you wouldn't want to remove their comments. :) Bladestorm 16:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry about that. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem uploader
User:Stabora, an apparent Jewel Mische fan. I'm constantly having to watch that article for copyvio. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think (s)he's being malicious; (s)he just doesn't understand. No one had yet left a (non-template) message on h(is|er) talk page, so I tried that tactic. If that doesn't work, a block threat is next. Let me know if (s)he continues. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:RaQ550.jpg
Not sure why you tagged this photo. This photo and ALL Cobalt photos and information was released by Sun Microsystems into Public Domain when the division was closed. I added the PD tag and left the press kit info intact for history. But this is a free photo. Please advise what is wrong with it. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm. That image has contradictory tags. One tag says it's copyrighted, the other tag says it's not copyrighted. If it's copyrighted (and not released under a free license), then we can't use it. How can we tell for sure whether it is or not? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what happened. Colbalt Networks was purchased by Sun Microsystems.  Later, after losing over 1 billion (yes Billion dollars) they closed the Cobalt division that they purchased.  I cannot comment on the Cobalt article even though I know what really happened -but- regardless, Sun released everything into public domain in 2003.  Now since the picture was from a press kit I left that tag, should I of removed it? Because I know it is in public domain?


 * Even the OS was released but the OS was released to BlueQuartz http://bluequartz.org/ under the http://bluequartz.org/story/open.html

Sun, after losing the Billion did not want to have anything to do with it anymore and released everything. If you really need more proof it will take awhile but I can get it. I personally remember the announcement since I owned 6 of these units. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I sent an email to sun. This will be much harder to get an answer about.  I have to find someone that still works there that remembers this. :-)


 * The question is, is this image released as public domain? If so, it shouldn't have the non-free promotional tag. If not, it shouldn't have the PD tag. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok so, I was wrong to keep the first tag for history sake. When I saw the photo I should have just fixed the tag. Got it.  I also sent questions about the images to Sun.  I am really confused as what I have learned so far.  To the best of my knowledge they released everything to public domain. Under copyrights and trademarks they retain the right for the Sun Cobalt logo. It makes no sense. Why release everything into public domain and not the logo? --User: (talk • contribs • count) 03:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the logo is probably protected by trademark law, not copyright law. It's a different type of intellectual property. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I updated the tag, photo was released under BSD, but I sent emails asking for confirmation from Sun. Want more proof than a link to a website but it looks pretty clear everything was released so the japanese working group could create Strongbolt and BlueQuartz. Strongbolt actually uses the image as well.  Even without an email confirming, it looks like this is how it was done.  Please let me know what you think. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 09:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to challenge it, but if someone else did, it would have a tough IFD battle without a link or e-mail or something verifying that it (or everything related to the working group) was released under BSD. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is why copyright paranoia is bad
it's a 150 year old photo found various places on the net, and they delete it for not having a source?? What, do they think it might still be in copyright? -N 01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The cutoff for Commons is if the author died more than 70 years ago. If a 30-year-old photographer took a photo in 1869 (while Lopez was in office), and died when he was 70, the photo would still be under copyright in Europe. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

John Hewson
He is out of the public arena, looks nothing like he looked in 1993, and no copyleft alternative is available. No fair use equivelent is available. Timeshift 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be. But he can still be photographed, and that new photograph could be released under a free license. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But it wouldn't be an equivelent image. And how exactly does one get in contact with a former PM no longer appearing in public to take a photo? Are you even from Australia and do you understand our politicians here? Timeshift 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You could try e-mailing him. That works for some people. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (sorry to pop in) Or you could try e-mailing organizations he has been affiliated with (like the universities he taught at or the corporations he worked at). That has also worked (see User:B/Obtaining free images).  --Iamunknown 02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great link! Thanks for mentioning that. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And if I get no response? Timeshift 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded above. If you would like to include an image of this living person, your best bet is to try to contact him and see if he (or a related org) will release a freely-licensed photo of him. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, what if I get no response (or am told no photos are available) when I e-mail? Timeshift 03:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! Sorry. :) I completely misread that. Okay, if you get no response, you could locate images online, and try asking those copyright-holders if they would license their photos. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * what if I get no response (or am told no photos are available) when I e-mail? Timeshift 04:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as Mr. Hewson is alive, it is possible for someone to photograph him and release that photo under a free license. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy, a decree from the Wikimedia Foundation, says that we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

your input
Can I get your input on something? I tagged all of the images at List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes as lacking rationales, honestly expecting the WP:SPA that uploaded them not to come back. They did, and have rationaled all of the images identically, saying that "Image's purpose is to represent the show's episode title." and "Image replacement is not available.". As these images are all primarily being used in the list, w/o any critical commentary or even any reference, I feel that they easily fail WP:NFCC. But I don't want to go through each individual image again and ifd them, that would be excessive and further would raise 's--ire that I'm not inclined to sit through just yet. What do you suggest? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You could list the question at Fair use review. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Skin
 But, but. . . I thought you hate all pictures of women showing skin! At least, that's what people say, right? ;) – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Right after voting I recalled the "skin incident". That was ironic. :) --Abu badali (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See also. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Would them find it less "suspect" if the bulk of my watchlist were composed by biographies of handsome guys instead? :) --Abu badali (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't like skin, you won't like the latest batch of photos I got from Kelly Madison's manager husband! (About to upload now, too many to use in article, most will end up on Commons.) Watch my page! Videmus Omnia Talk  04:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Q-man,
Since you've pretty much given a thumbs up to the W (Double You) image, would either of us be out of line to speedy keep it with a Rk tag, or do we have to wait until the week passes? The suspense is killing me.

P.S. You're welcome for the discussion I started this morning. Something will have to give with current image policy at some point, judging from what I've seen so far. -- CJ 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Q-man! I like it! I speedy-kept it. I have to say, though, you have to be careful using the image in articles about the individuals. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but until a "free" image comes along - and in the case of Ai Kago, who is pretty much the J.D. Salinger of J-pop now, Lucifer would need a snowplow first - it'll have to do. --CJ Marsicano 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A Clear Mistake
Hello. I would like to point your attention to:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1361/842254497_92905df431_b.jpg

... which is a screenshot about an image recently deleted in the anti-fair use hysteria.

As this clearly shows, the image - ''It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use'' - was indeed made available by CBS to ALL media outlets. Also please note that the AP lists this image as an "Undated CBS promotional photo".

As user Abu Badali put it, All we're asking for is some proof of this detailed description of CBS's distribution methods and and this image was really distributed according to this description. So here it is. Will you assist in restoring this image?

Jenolen   speak it!  03:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Investigating. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll have to excuse me: when you talk about "anti-fair use hysteria", my brain switches off. I have to manually switch it back on. But with it on, it looks like you have confirmation that the image is, indeed, promotional, and is not sold. That appears to be the only objection to the use of the image. Could you provide a link to that site? (The url in the image is hard to read.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to the Flickr image, see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2007-January/001287.html; if you are refering to the URL of the AP search, you can't access it unless you have access to an AP account. --Iamunknown 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ann Richards image deletion, review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:AnnRichards-closeup.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I've gone directly to DRV since there is still an active IfD on the page which has not been closed and since you didn't give a reason there why you chose one side of the discussion over the other. Sincerely, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi -- I hope that what I wrote on the DRV explains my confusion at the time, my lack of confusion after your explanation, and my mea culpa for probably not assuming enough good faith in the matter. Thanks for a quick reply.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, no hard feelings. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chabon.jpg
This image needs to be speedily deleted. It is in violation of Paramount Pictures copyright. See my notes on the page. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction: It is not in violation if Paramount allows the fair use of the photo. They will not allow the photo to be altered in anyway however. Now will they allow GDFL of the photo. --User: (talk • contribs • count) 10:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

About your Polbot
Hello, I have noticed a possible mistake in your bot. When I typed in Complete rewrite into the search bar, I was redirected to Henry Ward Beecher. I was expecting more like a redirect to Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_rewrite, so I guess this is some sort of a bug in the bot.

Thanks! ~Iceshark7 13:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's really funny! I replied there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Biographical project notification
In case you are interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. :-) Carcharoth 13:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I ain't here no mo'
Quad, I just swung by my old user page for only the second time in nearly seven months, mostly out of morbid curiosity. I saw the note you left a few days ago regarding an old, old image I uploaded.

You're a decent user and I appreciate your diligence, which is why I'm taking the time to leave word with you here on your userpage (and especially since I removed my e-mail address from my old profile). I am no longer involved with Wikipedia in any size, shape or form. My adminship was removed at my request. As far as I'm concerned, any and all contributions I've made may be removed; in fact, I wish they were. Trolls still abound here, including the little SOB that sent me over the top. I honestly think that he/she is a Daniel Brandt meatpuppet, but that's no longer my concern.

In any event, if there are any more images of mine you feel don't belong, please wipe 'em out. No need to leave word. If you'd be so kind as to remove the notice on the talk page, I'd appreciate it. It was protected at my request and I have no way to remove it.

Very truly yours, the former Lucky 6.9 via 71.102.80.39 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see you gone, Lucky. I have removed the notice. While I was at it, I nominated for deletion all the image that you uploaded that were likely to be problematic, so that this could all be taken care of at one time. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you much, my friend. When I saw that you'd not only taken the time to tidy up my user page but to do the "dirty work" of removing my improperly licensed images, I couldn't resist the urge to correct a couple of mistakes in a couple of articles via my work IP, one of which I saw in all its inaccurate glory over at Answers.com when I was looking for something else related to the subject. I figured one good turn deserved another. Again, many thanks. The ex-Lucky 6.9 once more, this time via 74.62.174.104 02:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Be careful! You might get sucked back in! ;-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, now there's a thought. One that makes me break into a cold sweat, but a thought nevertheless!  :)  Seriously, I left in good stead, my IP's aren't blocked and I asked to be deadminned.  The threat of an RfC because of my locking out my talk page against disgruntled users like the one who threatened me with that action in the first place was more than I could handle.  I'd hoped that I made the site a better place, but it seems that I was a victim of the unwavering problem that permeates Wikipedia at present:  This site eats its own.  Still, the kind words even after all this time are appreciated.  So, who knows?  Take care and believe me, it was great chatting with you once more.  Best, The Artist Formerly Known as Lucky 6.9 via 74.62.174.104 03:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Macero.jpg and Image:Maceroinstudio.jpg
I've read through the fair use criteria, etc., but I guess I'm still not entirely clear why these two images fail. First off, I believe that both images enhance the article, as they show the subject once then, and once now. And I believe that they are freely usable.

Macero.jpg is a publicity shot of the subject, intended for free use in any media relating to the subject, to illustrate the subject. In fact, if you walked up to the subject and asked to take a picture for your Wikipedia article, he would rather just hand you one of the publicity shots anyway. The copyright is retained (usually by the record company) only in order to control the context within which the photo is used, rather than who can use it. So it is, in effect, a free license. Also, if someone were to duplicate the Wikipedia content somewhere else, use of the image would still be ok within the context of the same subject (that's another of the criteria, right?).

Maceroinstudio.jpg additionally depicts the subject along with Miles Davis in a recording studio. This is also a freely usable publicity shot, and shows the subject with arguably his most important collaborator. Since this is a historical photo from 50 years ago, it can't be recreated. And Miles Davis is, of course, deceased, and therefore the image would anyway be non-replaceable.

Thanks. ANW 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings, and thanks for contacting me. The portrait of Teo Macero fails only the first criterion (though it passes all the others) in that it is a portrait of a living person. Since Mr. Macero is still alive, someone could still photograph him and release that photo under a free license. That makes the non-free photograph "replaceable". This restriction primarily exists to encourage the creation of free content. (If a non-free photo can be used, why create a new free photo?) To this end, the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Board recently passed a binding resolution that we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."
 * As for the photograph of Mr. Macero with Mr. Davis, this is not replaceable. It can be used, so long as it fulfills criterion #8, which requires that the image "increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." This is a borderline case. Many would argue that the statement "Macero collaborated with Miles Davis" is not better understood by the inclusion of this image.
 * I have written to Mr. Macero and his agent, requesting a freely licensed image that can be used with his Wikipedia article. The letter states that the article currently does not contain an image of Mr. Macero (as an inducement). I would consider restoring the photo of Macero and Davis together, even though it's a borderline case, but I would like to wait to see if I get a response to my letter first. If a freely-licensed image or images could be used, that would certainly be ideal.
 * All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this. Sorry if I'm going off on a tangent, but I'm still wondering the distinction between something that's freely usable as a publicity photo, and a photo that's just plain free (...and I always enjoy discussion!). I have a little music background, and typically the record company will buy photo shoots outright from the photographer and then turn around and (with artist approval) make certain photos non-free (e.g. photos used inside a CD booklet), and certain photos freely licensable (e.g. the CD cover (with all graphics intact), publicity shots, etc.). These latter images are not entirely free so that there is simpler legal recourse if they are misused (e.g. to pirate CDs, to libel the artist, to make money on fake tshirts, on a porn site, etc.). Where the use of an image generates moral objections from the subject, or falsely implies an endorsement, there is always legal recourse; just not as straightforward as when there's a license. So if a "free" license like CC is adequate for use in the Wikipedia, isn't a publicity photo's license sufficiently similar? And if I went and took a photo of Mr. Macero, wouldn't I still attach a CC license that requires attribution, etc. (which seems equally, if not more, restrictive than the typical publicity photo)?

I understand your point about encouraging the creation of free content, but it seems that especially where celebrities/public figures are concerned, why encourage more people to go out and take more pictures of them? And if all we need is permission to use an existing photo, then aren't we just asking the subject to explicitly license to the Wikipedia an image which is already licensed to the public for publicity purposes?

Thanks. ANW 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took so long to get back with you. It's my understanding (though I could be wrong) that publicity photos are released with the general permission that you may copy the photo all you like, but without permission to modify the photo or exploit it for profit. If I tried to collect publicity photos of various actors and publish the in a book without the copyright holders' permissions, I believe the copyright holders could sue me if they chose to. In order for an image to be considered "free" on Wikipedia, it has to be licensed to allow unlimited copying by anyone (without prior approval), unlimited modification, and commercial reuse. If a license for an image allows all these (even if it requires attribution), it's considered "free" and can be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Most of the time, though, the fine print of the "terms of use" won't allow at least one of those conditions. Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're correct about the modification aspect. That's certainly true for album covers as well. The cover artwork is released for publicity, but if you have an album cover that's just the artist's photo, with a title over it, you may not remove the title and just use the photo. The whole cover must be shown intact. In fact, I believe the distinction of using the whole album cover as opposed to zooming in on part of it is also specified in the license. In any case, I can't imagine a publicity shot ever being released under terms that would allow modification.

Thanks. ANW 17:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Phelps.jpg
You just posted to inform me that the Phelps photo (which I uploaded nine months ago and had completely forgotten about!) is not really Fair Use acceptable. Your absolutely right - you might as well delete it now instead of waiting the few days required by the template. Thanks for the heads up too - very considerate. Batmanand | Talk 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I have also written to the Nobel Foundation, requesting that they release an image of this person under a free license so that we can use it on Wikipedia. We'll see what happens. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnett image
I just emailed Barnett about the image today, and I've been promptly replying to your posts on the image page. Was it really essential to speedy the image when it is pretty clear that the image owner has released it? I think you are being overly trigger-happy, and should make more of an effort to explain what you are doing before you do it. Do you want to grow the encyclopedia or are you jsut trying to zap as many images as you can? DickClarkMises 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what image you are referring to. Could you provide the name of the image, or the article in which it was included? – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Image talk:Randy barnett.jpg DickClarkMises 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I hadn't seen that it had a pending GFDL license. I have restored the image for now. If we cannot eventually confirm that the image is released under the GFDL, it will have to be deleted, but there's no problem if its released under a free license.
 * Just to let you know, if an image is tagged as "non-commercial use only", it will be quickly deleted. It can be restored easily enough, but that license is explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia. Also, you may find Requesting copyright permission useful, or User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images, when requesting GFDL permission from public figures. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, the copyright holder must provide an explicit statement releasing under GFDL. "For Use on Wikipedia" won't work - it has to be available for anyone to use, even commercially. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand, and if you will refer to the image talk page you will see that I have explicitly asked him to review the terms of the GFDL and send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org informing them as to his decision. DickClarkMises 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image query
In response to your message to me re: the image in Harold Pinter ("Image:Pinter lecture photo 2.jpg"), I have replied by adding the template suggested with an updated explanation. If there are still problems, please let me know. It is my understanding (from written [e-mail] correspondence with the representative of the copyright holder) that I have permission to upload this image on websites relating to the subject. I am not certain of how that relates to Wikipedia's policies other than what I have read in various copyright/fair use articles in Wikipedia. The same image is featured on other websites about Harold Pinter along with the copyright information that I have also provided. I have added the Nobel Prize photo gallery URL to the external links sec. of Harold Pinter, which features a version of the same still image and the Illuminations copyright notice. There are not free (non-copyrighted) images of Harold Pinter as far as I know. I have some personal photographs of him (which I have taken) but they are not as recent and not as appropriate as the one currently featured in the infobox and I do not want to license them with a GFDL notice because doing so would involve using my actual name as the photographer, which I do not use on Wikipedia due to privacy concerns.
 * In an above reply, you mention writing to the Nobel Foundation asking for release to feature another person's image. It may be that on behalf of Wikipedia, you might want to write to Illuminations to ask for similar permission if you still feel that it is needed.  I do have written permission (from publicity) at Illuminations to feature the still image with the copyright notice on my own website(s) relating to the subject (Harold Pinter).  See Illuminations "Terms of Service". --NYScholar 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already written to Mr. Pinter's publicist with this request. That's the primary reason why I removed the photo. I don't want the publisher to write me back saying "Why should I provide you with a freely licensed photo when you're already using one of our photos without permission?" Please don't readd it to the article.
 * Even though it's legal under U.S. "fair use" law to use the image we're discussing in the article, but it's definitely against Wikipedia's policy. We just don't allow non-free portraits of living people, even if many other websites do.
 * Incidentally, you can license your images under the GFDL without revealing your identity. It is acceptable to use a pseudonym, and many people do, when stating that they are the copyright-holder of the work. I hope that you will consider this option. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quadell: I do not think that writing to Mr. Pinter's publicist is going to result in acquiring permission to use that image; the image is copyrighted by Illuminations (not Mr. Pinter). If by "publicist", you mean Pinter's agent, that is Judy Daish and Associates.  I do not think that the image is within her purview.  Again, the copyright holder of that particular still image is Illuminations.  It is very unlikely that you will get a satisfactory response (if any) from the agent's office, but perhaps you will.  Given the "terms of use" on the Illuminations site, the image from its commercially-produced DVD is its intellectual property.  In the course of my receiving a screener of the DVD for review, I engaged in the correspondence with its publicity representative, who gave me permission to feature the still image on my website(s) about the subject (Harold Pinter).  Again, if you feel that further permission is needed, the appropriate people to contact are at Illuminations.  I feel that involving Pinter's agent in this matter is inappropriate. --NYScholar 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I e-mailed the "contact" link on the official Harold Pinter website, haroldpinter.org. I did not request the use of that particular image, which I do not believe will be released under a free license. I requested any image of the author, since all that Wikipedia requires is a portrait to show what the subject looks like. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just suggesting that too when I encountered an "editing conflict" as we were editing at the same time. I am not sure that the "contact" link will get a reply--the site is monitored by Mr. Pinter's assistant who is very busy and the contact link may go to the website creator, who does not have the authority to grant permission for images; it would be Mr. Pinter's assistant who would need to be contacted.  You can do so via the forum on his website.  Perhaps use a subject heading: "ATTENTION:Permission request."  "ATTENTION Calendar" gets her attention re: productions that she wants listed on that part of the website. --NYScholar 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I have also now attempted to contact Judy Daish as well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We are overlapping! I was just about to write that I think that "any image of the author, since all that Wikipedia requires is a portrait to show what the subject looks like." is a very good idea. (I really do appreciate that still image, however, and I think it would be great if there were some way that Wikipedia could feature it legally (with permission from Illuminations).  [From my correspondence with their publicity representative (early 2006), I think that might be possible.] --NYScholar 17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I added some reference to this discussion on Image talk:Pinter lecture photo 2.jpg‎. I also added brief explanation on Talk:Harold Pinter. --NYScholar 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:CIMG0672.JPG
Hi the uploader declares "fair use". It sounds like its hers though, maybe some clarification is needed? ccwaters 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the user's talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Barefoot image
Let's have the discussion at Talk:Barefoot, OK? –Henning Makholm 20:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See you there! – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A little help?
Hello again, Quadell. I have Prince William of Wales on my watchlist, and I saw adding an image to the article. I checked the source, and found that it didn't have a free licence, so I reverted. I then looked at the contributions of the uploader: and found several images that seemed to have been just taken from websites. I removed some from articles.

The user seemed to be still uploading and adding as I was examining the images to see if they might be free, so I left a message asking him (her?) not to upload any more without being absolutely sure that they were released under a free licence. Half an hour after I left that message, the user uploaded another (presumably unfree) image of a living person, and the anon added it to an article.

I've made another request to the user to stop uploading these images, but as I'm not very experienced in image cleanup, I'm not sure what to do next. A bot came along and tagged some of the images, but I'm not sure if I should just hit the delete button or leave them for seven days (or whatever the normal period is). The picture of Prince Harry is a Reuters photo. I notice also that the user sometimes uploaded a new photo after the old one had been deleted, and that his (her?) talk page is full of image copyright warnings. I'd very much appreciate a more experienced pair of eyes taking a look. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I blocked him for 1 week and speedied all his uploads. Thanks for catching this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Any luck?
How goes it with your author image requests? I'm currently working on political pundits and bloggers, got jaded with pr0n (though I a got a lot of responses). Videmus Omnia Talk  01:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A few people replied saying "Try asking this person instead". No positive responses yet. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

another one
User:Nadia_Kittel = Kay Körner. See User talk:212.201.55.6. Regards, --Polarlys 01:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I can't tell why Alison thinks they're the same person. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are. Nadia Kittel’s user page: „Welcome to Kay's user page“. GDR references, from Saxony. A lot of „SS“ and „Dynamo“ edits and uploads (false licenses again). I found some other sockpuppets on de.wikipedia.org, they referenced each other and sometimes he put his real name under images, using one of these accounts. --Polarlys 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Blocking. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, to confirm (after the fact) they are indeed the same person. Thanks for your help with this. Wiggy! 02:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Window Dressing
I have a question for you my friend. If a photo is free. Can it just be in an article if it is not mentioned? For window dressing? I thought you need to talk about the photo item in the article, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc9000 (talk • contribs)


 * There is no image policy that requires a free image to be only used in certain articles. So far as our Image use policy is concerned, you can put a free image on your user page, on a talk page, or in an article where it's only used decoratively. However, Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. If adding a non-related image to a page detracts from the encyclopedic value of that page, then it shouldn't be there. Is there a specific example you had in mind? – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly I need help with vandal
Dear Quadell, please read my complaints of User:Mathsci here. He overstepped all limits of normal behavior, and fortunately some of his posts revealed his identity. He posts highly uncivilized racist statements as "Bulgarian mafia" puts the Japanese flag, etc., with purpose to offend and ridicule other wikipedian, including me, etc. I believe people should argue about their visions, and even disagree with others, but in civilized manner. Would you kindly post your thoughts on all this -- I tried to follow your advice and do not care of this user, but he is obsessed by me, and does not want to stop. I believe the only solution is ban from Wikipedia. Kind regards, Danko Georgiev MD 09:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it. Give me a little time. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PD self
Hi, I was wondering about uploaded by User:Mikecraig. According to the the image was deleted because it did not have a valid tag? May I ask what other licenses/tags are required to go with something as plain as PD-self? Benjwong 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. There was no license tag on the image when it was deleted. According to the log, User:Mikecraig uploaded the image in December with a PD-self tag, but User:Longhair removed the tag on June 29, replacing it with the no license tag and commenting "replacing PD with no licence, image located on web site referred to on image talk page". The image's talk page still exists at Image talk:Steambbqporkbun.jpg. It appears to have been a copyright violation. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. For a minute I thought PD-self now require more steps. Benjwong 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot and species pages
Great idea on grabbing the info from the IUCN list! Just a few things: Overall, excellent job, though! This fills in a major gap with WP:PLANTS. And I wanted to thank you also for placing the WikiProject Plants assessment template on the talk pages of the species articles (but not on the genera pages--was that an accidental omission?). Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A few genera articles I've come across have had pink taxoboxes when it was a plant genus article (e.g. Apeiba and Acropogon before I manually changed them). It must be difficult to get the programming right, but you might want to check to see if the problem was more widespread.
 * 2) On species pages, it's general practice to also bold the species with the genus abbreviation in the taxobox parameter "species =" so that both this and the "binomial =" parameters are bolded.
 * 3) The "name =" parameter should also have italics if its a species name.
 * 4) I was wondering if anything could be done about the categories added to the species pages. The upper level categories are horridly overstuffed now (e.g. Category:Rosids). Is there anyway for the bot to place it in the most specific category (genus level) and if the genus level category doesn't exist, it could create it? Or perhaps scan for the most specific existing category. I've been trying to tame the categories with BotanyBot and just stumbled on to your contributions with Polbot today.


 * Thanks for the feedback and the compliments! As to the first issue, yeah, that's a bug Polbot had a while back. (She made both plant species and plant genera pink.) I've fixed that, and Polbot is right now going back and fixing those plants species that she mistakenly colored pink. It's much harder for her to automatically fix miscolored plant genera though, unfortunately. Still, she won't make the same mistake going forward. (Same thing with the Wikiproject tags. It'll be on genus pages going forward.)
 * I wasn't sure what to do with species bolding, and the taxobox "howto" page doesn't specify. Thanks for letting me know - I've now changed the code so that the species name is bolded.
 * The category issue is a tough one. Originally, Polbot didn't put in categories at all, but several users requested that she add categories to new species pages. There's no standard for category names, so I've just been looking at the category that the family is it. (Sometimes it's the family name (e.g. Vespertilionidae), and sometimes it's a common name for that family (e.g. Vesper bats). I could have the bot add the species to a genus category, and create the genus category is one doesn't exist. . . but there two problems with that.
 * What category do I put the new genus category in? A family category? If so, should I create that category if it doesn't exist? And then what category would I put the new family category into?
 * The bot already creates a genus article with a list of the species included. (It doesn't contain any other meaningful information, really.) So categorizing by genus would duplicate the taxonomic structure. What I mean is, the family category (or subfamily category) would contain, say, a "Dephomys" genus category and a "Dephomys" genus article. Both of these would contain the same information: A simple list of species. This duplication doesn't bother me, but I proposed that a bot do much the same thing over at Wikimedia Commons, and all hell broke loose. (You can see how heated it got here.) So I'm not sure duplicating the category/genus-list structure would be a good idea. Then again, I'm not sure what to suggest. Having 1,300 rat species in category:Muridae seems less than ideal. What do you think?
 * Thanks again for your comments. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of the little style issues. And it's good to know the other issues are fixed :-) Thanks!
 * Interesting points about the categories. It is bloody tough when there's relatively little consensus. To understand how the bot works a little more, could you tell me if you have separate tasks for plants and animals (or any other kingdoms)? If so, plants have a different consensus than animals. Animal categories and articles are usually common names since they're often regulated by a single naming body (especially birds). Plants, on the other hand, don't often have this luxury and WP:PLANTS has seen many arguments over an article title's name. That's why we finally agreed upon the naming convention: WP:NC (flora). It doesn't specify anything about categories, but except for one major exception that I know of (Category:Legumes instead of Category:Fabaceae, generally a result of the taxonomic uncertainty), all plant categories are at the scientific name.
 * So if you were going to do this, I would suggest the following guideline (though we should probably check with others to see if this meets their approval):
 * Place both species and genera articles into a category named after the genus (e.g. Category:Acropogon).
 * Have the bot create the genus category and make it a subcategory of the family category (e.g. Category:Acropogon is a subcategory of Category:Sterculiaceae).
 * If the family category is a redlink, you could try the next level up OR could you have your bot generate a list of orphaned genus categories and have us manually place them? I doubt it will happen often since there are many, many family categories out there already.
 * I see what you mean about the commons debate. I had watched a similar debate happen at the Commons WikiProject Tree of Life. It would initially be duplicating the information in the article and the category, but the goal on Wikipedia is that the article will grow once other contributors get their hands on it. So it will soon become more than a list and the category will still be serving its purpose as a taxonomic hierarchy system. Because the goal of Wikipedia is different from commons, I doubt you'd run into the "duplication of information" debate since it's already accepted that we create both an article and category with a taxonomic structure in mind.
 * If it's too difficult to deal with or control, it's ok. It's just more work to clear it out later, but at least all the articles are in a close to top-level taxonomy category. I got BotanyBot approved for Category work and had neglected the bot for some time. So perhaps now it's time to get back to it and help clear them out! Hope my comments help. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Rkitko covered everything. I think manually requesting family categories be created would also be okay. How many families are red-linked, can we just create the categories now?  KP Botany 00:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Very helpful comments, guys. Getting a list of families is not easy. I'm working on that at the moment. If the taxonomic structure of plants would hold still for five minutes, it'd be easier. :-)

It's the same bot function for both plants and animals, but there are lots of "if" statements for special situations. Each group has their own style vagaries. For example, mammal articles always capitalize the first letter of each word, counting a hyphenated word as a single word, as in "Pale Leaf-eared Mouse". But for fish, none of the words should be capitalized unless they are proper names, as in "large-mouthed Alaskan salmon". Other WikiProjects have different rules, and not all the rules are very clear. And exceptions are everywhere. I figure I'll just do the best I can, and I can always have Polbot go back and fix the articles if there's clear consensus to format (or categorize) a certain way. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of categories, I wonder if I should mention the idea of categorizing the redirects to the article titles? This is done already with Banksia plants. See WP:CAT-RD and its talk page for details. Some examples are Category:Genus Panthera, Category:Panthera, Category:Banksia taxa by common name and Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name. Could creating and populating such categories ever be tackled by a bot? Carcharoth 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Polbot could do that, if there is consensus that such a task would be a good idea. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably best to leave the discussion until later, but based on scanning the article it would be able to pick out the scientific name redirect (or the common name redirects, whichever system was operating), and somehow decide where to categorise it? Would it check that what it found really was directing towards the article it started with? I'm not great on taxonomy, so I'll leave it to others to decide how best to tackle this, but I'd be mightily impressed if Polbot managed to do this. Carcharoth 01:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think she could do it. She could get the scientific name from "binomial=" in the taxobox, and the common name (if one exists) from the "name=" or the bolded parts of the first paragraph. She'd have to code around common irregularities (like "name=Carcharoth's Wolf or Big Scary Wolf" or "binomial=Canis Scarius (Quad., 2007)", but I think I could code around those. And yeah, she could check if the redirects point to where they're supposed to. What would be more complex is situations where there is more than one common name (e.g. Namib Brush-tailed Gerbil), or more than one accepted binomial (e.g. Mammelomys lanosus), or where a single common name is used by multiple species (e.g. Elk (disambiguation). – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't checking a "what redirects here" list be quicker? The problem there, I suppose, is that even when you have that list, a bot doesn't know whether it is looking at a binomial name or a common name, so it has to refer to the article it is pointing at for help. Once it knows it is a binomial (or trinomial, or whatever) redirect, it would simply look for the genus category to put the redirect in (hopefully the naming conventions and permutations for genus categories aren't too arcane), and create it if it didn't exist. Not quite sure where it would put the common names though. And common names shared among different species is a real nightmare. I was over at wikispecies just now, trying to navigate down from Eukaryota to Homo sapiens sapiens. It's a little test I like to try every now and again. I took a few wrong turnings, ending up in the Platyhelminthes, then at Geotria australis (whatever that is), The weird thing was that I was looking around for something to tell me what this animal was. It wasn't until much later that I realised that you are meant to use the interwiki links down the left-hand side to get to the Wikipedia article on the subject. Not very intuitive at all. Then I headed back to the wrong turning I had taken at Hyperoartia, and chose Gnathostomata instead. Took another wrong turn to end up at Monotremata, briefly went towards Strepsirrhini, and then chose Callicebinae, before finally seeing Hominoidea, at which point I realised I was on the home straight. I sailed past all the extinct Homo species, and soon ended up at the Pioneer plaque picture. Anyway, I leanrt a little bit about Wikispecies and the Tree of Life projects (I get the impression there are a few of those around), and also about Wikipedia's taxobox navigation. It is all rather confusing for me! One thing I was wondering is how defunct binomial names are treated in the various systems? Carcharoth 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Asteraceae contributions
Looks great to me! Will Polbot add the genus articles to the genus category as well? (e.g. Aetheolaena in Category:Aetheolaena) Thanks for making all those changes! --Rkitko (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm. I currently have genus articles in family categories, e.g. Viguiera is in Category:Asteraceae. Do you think the Viguiera article should be in Category:Viguiera instead? Or in both categories? Or what? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My take on it has always been to place the genus articles in the genera categories, since that's the most specific category. I wouldn't place it in both to avoid overcategorization, but I suppose leaving it in the family categories is fine, too. --Rkitko (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been barnstared!

 * Thanks so much! You made my morning. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any time... or morning ;) But jeez, your talk is growing darn fast... Renata 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, it's hard for me to keep up. You should see my archives. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of plant families
Here are two lists of plant families (they're not infinite or even as large as a list of animal families by any means, there are under 500 families):

http://www.life.umd.edu/emeritus/reveal/pbio/WWW/famlst.html

http://delta-intkey.com/angio/www/index.htm

The second one uses the non-"aceae" endings for the families I gave you earlier--don't add any family names that don't end in "aceae." KP Botany 03:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This is very helpful. I'll see how this compares with the list I've made from IUCN publications. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Kay Körner
You blocked user User:Kay Körner, but he found ways to bypass all atttempts to stop him. Please could you look at User talk:Kay Körner. There you can see his way to keep a deleted article and his way to go on as Kai Körner, although you blocked him. --Thw1309 07:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. You're not allowed to have non-free images on user-talk space. Still, I have enough of a history with this user that I don't think I should be the one to deal with it. (The images will be deleted soon enough anyway.) By the way, there doesn't seem to be a User:Kai Körner, but if you find any new sockpuppets, please let me know. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted image
hello, Image:aria_c_jalali.jpg was deleted off of Aria C Jalali! wikipedia entry, because i forgot to give the rationale. now i cannot reupload it, but i am prepared to give rationale, how do i do this? it was my photograph, i took it, and i give full permission for it to be public domain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scenehands (talk • contribs)


 * Greetings. It looks like the image was re-uploaded. Just follow the link, click "edit", and then add along with a note that says you took the picture yourself. If you need anything else, let me know. Thank for contributing your images! – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 777
Please check the capitalization of a title before you change something like "Century" to "century". -N 10:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No Problem. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chadian soldiers in Toyota pickup truck.jpg
Hello Quadell. I see you had deleted Image:Chadian soldiers in Toyota pickup truck.jpg, an image created by Francis Tyers, arguing that it was CSD 17, after a request for a speedy deletion had been made by Bleh999. I've restored the image as I feel that CSD 17 doesn't stand here, as I highly doubt that an image taken from the 1987 Toyota War can be judged "a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found", as the number of images on this central african conflict is very low, as it had little media coverage. It must be understood the great difficulties in finding images touching the contemporary history of the lesser known African countries. For this, I think that if you insist on deleting the image, the issue should be brought to WP:IFD. Ciao,--Aldux 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On review, I agree with your decision. I removed the RFU notice from the image, and re-inserted the image into the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you so much! I love your taste in poetry, by the way. Hafiz and Kahlil Gibran are two of my favorite poets. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

About that bot I want. ..
Okay, so I may be able to write you something (it would not be that difficult), but I'll need you to try some things out. First, make a "perl" directory on your hosting computer. In it, copy down the latest version of Perlwikipedia.pm and Login.pl from here. When you've done that, let me know. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Archer904 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Now create a new textfile in the perl directory called "test.pl". Copy and paste the following code into that textfile and save it.

use strict; use Perlwikipedia; my $pw=Perlwikipedia->new; $pw->{mech}->agent('Archer904'); print $pw->get_text("User:Quadell/scrap");
 * 1) !/usr/bin/perl -w
 * Then, at the command prompt, type "perl test.pl". This should read User:Quadell/scrap and print the results to the screen. Does that seem to work? Or do you get errors? – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, here is where I show my ignorance: How do you get a command line up? I haven't used a command line since DOS 5. I'm a markup language coder, and don't use them. I got the file created, "and its in the perl directory in the cgi-bin directory, so I know I'm on the right track, but I don't know how to execute the file. Archer904 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I should clarify a little: I'm running Vista, and I know how to open an ftp site in Windows, and I know how to get a c: prompt, but is there a way to move from c: to the ftp site? Archer904 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're saying that your machine runs Windows Vista, but you're not physically sitting at the server where the files reside. That server is with the provider, and it's presumably running Unix. You upload files using an FTP client. Is this all correct? – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Disregard previous. Google is my friend. To answer your question, all is correct, with one clarification: Vista has an embedded FTP client that makes the remote host look like just another directory on your computer (you use the Windows GUI to navigate the FTP site). However, I have FTP command line access now. I'm in the cgi-bin directory, where Perlwikipedia.pm, login.pl, and test2.pl all reside, and from the ftp> prompt, when I type perl test2.pl, I get "Invalid command." Archer904 18:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. That's because the FTP command line isn't a "real" command line. It lets you run FTP commands (like "put"), but it doesn't let you run real-live Unix commands, like "perl". To do that, you'll need some way to log into the server. The two usual ways are Telnet and putty. I can talk you through this, but you'll have to be able to Telnet into the server (or putty into it), and it may not be the same username and password. It probably is though. As a test, click the start button and enter "cmd" into the search, then click the cmd icon. You'll get a DOS prompt. Type "telnet hostname" (where "hostname" is the actual name of the host, like where you ftp in to). Try the same information you use to ftp, to see if you can get to a UNIX command prompt this way. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, started out not having telnet...Vista includes it as a feature that starts out "off" and you have to turn it "on." Got that done. Now I get "could not open connection to the host on port 23" which is the default port that it tries. Thanks for walking me through this and being patient, by the way! Archer904 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, in order to run a bot, you have to have some way to run perl. If your ISP lets you run perl, they must have some way to let people Telnet in. I guess you ought to ask your ISP somehow "How do I telnet in?" Since they support programming languages, they have to get this question a lot. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a little digging, and learned that you have to request to have Telnet/SSH enabled. I put the request in and expect to hear back within 24 hours. Thanks! Archer904 20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got puTTY going, and my SSH was turned on, and I got in, and I found that they had put a perl test script in the directory to make sure it worked, and IT ran fine, but yours had errors. For example:

Unquoted string "u" may clash with future reserved word at test2.pl line 2. Bareword found where operator expected at test2.pl line 2, near "" (Missing operator before t?) Unquoted string "t" may clash with future reserved word at test2.pl line 2.
 * So I'm not sure what that's about, but we're making incremental progress. Archer904 06:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's odd. What does the text script look like? – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like this:

use strict; use Perlwikipedia; my $pw=Perlwikipedia->new; $pw->{mech}->agent('Archer904'); print $pw->get_text("User:Quadell/scrap");
 * 1) !/usr/bin/perl -w
 * Archer904 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, that's the script I gave you. I meant, what does the test script that works look like? – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

use CGI; print "Content-type: text/html\n\n"; print "hello world!"; Archer904 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) !/usr/bin/perl -w
 * 2) a quick test cgi-script to verify setup
 * 1) a quick test cgi-script to verify setup


 * That's weird. I can't think of any reason why the test script I gave you would result in the errors you reported, while the test script you list would not. I'm out of ideas. I guess just doublecheck that you were actually running "perl test2.pl", and that test2.pl actually contains the text you reported. If there's not some simple error like that, you might try asking User:Shadow1 or User:Oleg Alexandrov, two Perl gurus. Sorry I couldn't figure this one out. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, I just thought of a possibility. Re-upload test2.pl, but be sure to use "text", not "binary", for your ftp setting. That may do it. (Worth a try, anyway.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image resolution
Is there a consensus somewhere on acceptable resolution for non-free images per WP:NFCCb? I'm speaking of standard things like album and book covers, or movie posters. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there's not. In fact, many people are hostile to the idea of standardizing this, since this could lead people to think they have a "right" to a certain resolution. 300x300 seems to be the de facto maximum for album covers. I personally feel that a non-free image should not be stored at a higher resolution that is viewed in the article, but not everyone agrees. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think 300x300 sounds livable. I've run across some album covers at 1000x1000, but in those cases the cover is mostly being abused to portray what the artist looks like. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

image:s1henri.jpg in article on Henri Wittmann
This image was taken by me with the subject's permission and is used on other websites, including the CALIFA's. noula69 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason the image was deleted was that it was only available under a non-commercial license. Even though Wikipedia is non-profit, we still can't use images unless they are free for anyone to use, even commercially. If you are willing to release the image under a free license, such as the GFDL or cc-by, then I'll restore the image and put it back in the article. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm willing to release the image under GFDL. How do you want me to go about this? noula69 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the image and put it back in the article. There's nothing else you need to do. Thanks for being willing to release your image under a free license! All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to you. noula69 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ecuadorian plants
Hi you may want to think about using Category:Flora of Ecuador ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a tricky one for the bot to know. Not every country has a "Flora of" category. I'll look into how possible that would be. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And there has been extensive debate in the past over how useful such categories really are. Mainly over whether the categories should just be "endemic" species or whether they should cover all species. Ecuador is likely to have a lot of endemic cloud forest species, but the problem centres on how widespread species (eg. the common rat) should be categorised. They have in the past ended up with hundreds of "Fauna of X" category tags. The same problem applies to some plants. Should the oak tree have a category tag for every country it is found in? I can look up the CfD debates if you like. Carcharoth 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Found only .... Plants
Please have polbot use "endemic to" ( "endemic to" ) instead of found only, if possible (see change I made at Sium burchellii). Use the scientific names, as WP:Plants uses scientific names over common names, and I don't know if you have the botanical knowledge to decide when to use common names (rarely, only with valuable economic crops in articles about the ethnobotanical aspects)--by which I mean that, if you recognize specific crop plants or medicinal plants or something, you could set polbot to use common names in those instances, but I suspect it would be tricky. KP Botany 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the feedback. Do you think I should use "endemic" with animal species as well? I'll switch plants to using binomial names in the future -- if it should be listed under a common name, it probably already has an article anyway. Thanks again. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't know much about animals, except that they eat plants, but, yes, in biology, this is precisely what endemic means, "found only in," so there's really no need to use other words. Yes, if it should be listed under a common name, it probably is already--a little tidier than the way I said it.  So, yes, scientific names only for plants.  When are you going to start on Algae?  And thanks for the link to the list.  KP Botany 03:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)