User talk:Quadell/Archive 31

"the aphorisms of the loquacious and the blabber of the taciturn"
Lovin it. ;) --Iamunknown 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Help
Would I be able to use this this image in an article? What would be the licensing if I could use it? Thanks! ~  Wi ki  her mit  17:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's tough. The proximate source (PA History) doesn't cite the original source. If the photo was take in the 19th century, as implied, then it's PD (PD-US or maybe PD-old if the photographer's death date is known) -- but that could be a newer photo made to look old. It says the pic comes from the Pennsylvania Dutch Visitors Bureau, but the pic isn't on their website. I suppose we can't use it, unless someone can determine the original source. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Commons
I finally got around to creating a Commons account and will be doing my image uploads there (and will encourage others to do the same). I notice that [trused Flickr reviewers are shorthanded - I'm willing to help there, but am I too "new" to apply? I think I have a good grasp of the Creative Commons license. [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]] Talk  03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've never applied, and I don't know much about the process. I'm an admin there, and I'd put in a good word for you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

From User:Pepeton

 * Hey men, why did you delete my images,I know it's copyright but, upload it difficultly (Pinaghirapan ko yon e!).Next time, ask me! ok.In my user talk.Pustahan tayo.
 * Please read the message at the top of the page, salamat po. I understand the policies are complicated, I'm sorry. Sige na - Videmus Omnia Talk  05:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sige delete mo uli, I relaized my mistakes, ok .Ok lang sa akin at least nagawa ko yon
 * Walang problema! Mabuhay! Videmus Omnia Talk  05:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note
User_talk:CharlotteWebb. ~  Wi ki  her mit  08:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. Thanks for letting me know. I'm staying out of this one though. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

0_o
. 0_o. Adding more links doesn't over-ride the fact that userpages have long been set no-follow and contribute only minimally to pagerank and other such metrics. --Gmaxwell 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope that's not considered blackhat, is it? (I certainly wouldn't put the link in article space.) All I know about SEO I learned from the FA. :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please restore Image:Wikia.png
Can you please restore that deleted image? I want to create an article using that image. Thank you. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored it. Note that there is already an article on Wikia, and that image is an obsolete version of the logo. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've just used the logo. It's now in Logo of Wikia. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've nominated that article for speedy deletion. We generally don't create encyclopedia articles merely to list 2 logos. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to your Polbot
Hi, I see that your bot has been adding 1 or 2 articles a minute, mostly about dubious wildlife. It looks like he's really pushing our progress toward the two-millionth article mark. As long as he keeps working, we might just reach 2,000,000 articles before September 19, 2007 (or even before August 28, 2007 11:09 AM CST according to Gandalf61, who claimed only 543.75 days from the 1,000,000th article.)


 * :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope he keeps it up 'cause that's quite a lot, maybe even for a bot. Do you suppose you could step up his work to about 3 or 4 articles a minute? Who'll mind anyway? =-) --70.179.170.133 02:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * She (Polbot) was only authorized to write six pages a minute (including talk pages and categories), which is about 1 to 3 species per minute. I used to run her at twice that speed, but she got blocked for it. So I cut her speed down. She'll run out of species eventually though -- she's already done all the birds and all the amphibians, and I expect to finish the reptiles tomorrow. That'll leave mammals, fish, invertebrates, and plants. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's one or two amphibians you've created, there. How's that good idea of letting the stub-sorters know coming along?  Alai 06:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ....Just let me know if/when you ever do fungi as this whole process is great but needs a few human shepherds to fix the glitches (which I've done a bit for birds). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jenji Kohan
Sorry to disturb you, but you recently deleted a picture I uploaded of Jenji Kohan.

It was a screenshot from a DVD, and I put the appropriate tags.

Now, however, I do not and I am having trouble getting it back on her page.


 * Since Jenji Kohan is alive, we can't use a non-free picture of her. It's against our non-free content policy. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand. There are tons of pictures of other living people from promotional and/or screenshots.

I put the appropriate tags and cited the owners of the image. Please do not delete it.


 * Those "tons of pictures" are all against policy, and need to be deleted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to (now) archived comment
Re this: I don't think that Ryulong's block was a good idea, but I can understand how he construed such actions as harassment. The concept of tactfulness is difficult to define on a Wiki. I've discussed the reasoning behind this at AN/I, but I thought your comment deserved a response and clarification. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, and for being thoughtful. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Asteraceae
Hi Quadell, I have perceived that in the list of Asteraceae or Compositae the great majority of the species is from Ecuador. Where is that are the other countries species? I believe that there is a mistake, certainly. Berton 15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just checked in IUCN Website and just these species are really in the list, I think it is totally incomplete.Berton 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I have not finished the plants. Polbot will work on mammals and fishes, and will then go back and finish the plants. So no worries. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting help from experienced admin
Hi, Quadell, I'm looking for help again. This relates to a message I sent to someone who was tagging his uploads with PD-self but gave some website as the source. I left him a message querying it, and he replied to me that he was the admin of the website, and that the copyright was his. As far as I know, he'd have to email the Foundation with some verification of that, wouldn't he?

Please take a look at:
 * Biospeleologist's logs
 * User talk:Biospeleologist
 * User talk:ElinorD

Many thanks. ElinorD (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda embarrassed, but I'm really not sure what the proper procedure is. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images. Sorry I can't help more, – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's just I've seen you helping so many times that I was beginning to believe you knew everything about image tagging. ElinorD (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh heh heh heh heh heh, SqueakBox 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of photographs of concert performances
Ex Cathedra

Hi, Quadell, you recently deleted Image:ExCathedra-BirminghamOratory.jpg and Image:ExCathedrasingers.jpg. The reason why I had stated that the images were not replaceable was that they were of concert performances, and photography and videography are generally not permitted during such performances. Isn't this a sufficient justification? Cheers, Jacklee 18:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not. Some venues don't allow photography, but others do, and we have tons of free pictures taken at concerts. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So you would need some evidence, such as a quotation from a concert programme stating that photography and videography is not permitted? I suppose that photography and videography at pop and rock concerts is usually accepted, but I believe that such activities are generally disallowed at classical music, dance and theatre performances. Cheers, Jacklee 09:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. This requires further investigation. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, was wondering what you were going to instigate. ;-) Cheers, Jacklee 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I brought the matter up at Fair use review. You might want to comment there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Shh...
Just thought I would tell you, subliminally, that I agree with what you said to User:Ryulong yesterday. Just minutes prior to that 'discussion' (of sorts) over image tagging, the said user and I had been in a confrontation about a user's edits to a page which I interpreted as vandalism. But that's over and done with now. Anyway, I completely agree with what you said. Take care. Scar ian Talk  00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Could polbot link dates so they display per users' date display preferences?
EG. It's kinda minor, so I wouldn't say anything, except the well you're drawing articles from seems to be bottom-less. ;) Thanks Seattlenow 01:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to keep you from having to go-a-huntin', the relevant guideline is Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Seattlenow 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I fixed that. How's that for quick turnaround? ;) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome! You're the man. Seattlenow 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Chit-chat
Hi how ya doin? -Nard 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. Just beautiful. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot #6
Nice.... here's some improvement suggestions....

- UtherSRG (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Include the status_system field
 * 2) Use status_ref field instead of slapping the source data into its own section, and remove the Source section with a References section
 * 3) Put a blank line between sentences you want to be in different paragraphs, and before sections. Don't put sentences on different  lines if you want them in the same paragraph.
 * 4) If there's a Wikiproject for the beasties, include it's banner on the talk page. Also, if there's a Wikiproject, see if it has a todo list with the common name the article should be at. (I know that primates and marsupials both have lists of species common names.... 'cos I put them there....)


 * As for 1 and 2, I don't really like those parameters. If somebody modified my code to include those, I'd run the altered code, but it seems like a lot of work for a questionable gain. So I'll pass. For #3, that's a good idea. I've now fixed that. For #4, I'd already put MaTalk on mammal talk pages, but I didn't know about the marsupial and primate (and cetacean) Wikiprojects, and now I've already done those. I can go back and readd those banners though, when Polbot is done with the mammals. Thanks for the feedback! – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Using status_system changes which image is used for the status info, so using it should not be as optional as you make it. It also adds a link directly to the status system into the taxobox. The reference should be used as it is a standardized reference. I manually updated all of the primates your bot created yesterday. By saying you'll do it if someone updates your code is saying you don't care if you create more work for someone else. Please take the 5 minutes it will take to update your bot, so as to save me hours of time fixing the mess your bot makes. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline at Taxobox usage says "Optionally, you may also specify the criteria used by IUCN". I opt not to. Regarding status_ref, the guideline says "Or just add a normal bullet point reference to the ==references== section of the article", which is easier for me. Your estimate of how long it would take to change this is not accurate. Most people don't like being told what to do, and I'm no exception. If you don't want to change the articles from using one optional format to using a different optional format, no one's forcing you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, "Source" is a non-standard section and should not be used in the first place! - UtherSRG (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It really is the source for the article. It's not just a reference; all information came from it as a source. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another point: You should check to see what existing categories exist before blindly creating family/genus categories. Some projects use a different category structure since the taxonomy structure is navigated via the taxobox. (Primates and marsupials both use something other than family/genus, as does much of the rest of Mammalia.) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're being rather rude, considering you're asking me a favor. I don't "blindly" create family/genus categories -- I used to put all articles into "family" categories with the common name, but after discussing it a long time with many other editors, consensus emerged that using genus categories was the best way to go. She's a bot; she can't make informed judgments. She does the best it can, so cut her some slack. If you'd like to create a better bot, I'll gladly step aside. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sociable
I realise I am at fault regarding the image I uploaded at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociable Could you let me know where I went wrong and give me some advice so I can avoid this in the future? Many thanks Jason7825 03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. Thanks for contacting me. I see that the photograph Image:Sociable 1.jpg has been released under a free license, specifically the cc-by-sa-2.0 license. It was deleted because you indicated that only Wikipedia has permission to use the image, and Wikipedia chooses to only use images that re-users can also use. However, the cc-by-sa-2.0 license says that anyone can use the image (so long as they credit the photographer and release any derivative works under a free license). It was the "Wikipedia-only" choice that caused the image to be deleted, but I see that the "Wikipedia-only" notice wasn't really accurate. I have now restored the image (with just the cc-by-sa-2.0 tag) and placed it back in the article. If you need any further help with uploading images, just let me know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your explanation and effort regarding this image, it is much appreciated. Jason7825 01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is one more thing, I came across this image: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/06/06/australians-ride-side-by-side-on-bicycle-built-for-two/
 * I would like to add it to the sociable article, so I contacted the guy who made the page and he had this to say:


 * "Jason, I scanned that image from the august 1934 issue of the (now defunct) magazine Modern Mechanix."


 * What would the copyright status on this be? Could I upload it to Wikipedia?


 * This one's iffy. If this image's copyright has expired, then yes, you can upload it and tag it PD-US. If it's still copyrighted, then we can't use it, since it wouldn't pass all our non-free content requirements.
 * Is it still copyrighted? I dunno. Since it was first published in 1934, it would only still be copyrighted if (1) it was published with a copyright notice, and (b) the copyright was subsequently renewed. I don't see a copyright notice on the magazine page or on the cover, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. And I don't know if the copyright was renewed -- according to the Mechanix Illustrated article, the magazine was reincarnated under various names until 2001. So it's iffy. If you really want to use it, you could upload it and tag it PD-US, explaining why you think it's public domain. I can't promise it wouldn't be deleted though. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your guidance. I uploaded it along with an explanation. Jason7825 01:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also another question - it is the only reference I have seen that says that Hubert Opperman is the inventor of the sociable. How would/can I reference that info? Jason7825 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's easy. I'll reference it in the article, and you can see how I did it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Jason7825 01:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete [[Image:HUPPENTHAL.gif]]
Huppenthal is an elected politician who's image was released as a press kit. It is copyrighted but it is fair use to use the image in a biography just as it is used in his official biography. I have read the policy and a free image does not exist and security precludes obtaining one. Please restore it. --Tbeatty 05:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that security would make it impossible to obtain a free image of this politician. Politicians are public figures, and frequently appear at events where they are photographed. I will not restore the image, but you can contest the deletion at Deletion review if you feel my deletion was incorrect. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and a few words
I appreciate your words of support on the block. I've been doing a lot of thinking, and it's probably best for me to get out of the image business, since I really don't like getting blocked, and Ryulong has not apologized nor withdrawn his threat of blocking me yet again if I tag images. It's been interesting, but this is just too contentious - Wikipedia is something I do to relax from my real job. But I appreciate your help and mentorship all the same. Best of luck. Videmus Omnia Talk  06:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Georgia
Polbot doesn't seem to realize that there are two places in the world named Georgia. Please teach it to link to Georgia (country) instead of to the disambiguation page. Thanks. --Russ (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. I'll fix that. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cooperative
Hello, I have a question about one of your edit long time ago. It appears to me that you just slapped the article with a GA tag without any reviews or checklists posted on the talk page. It is important to have such messages left in talk page so that others can vertify if the article really satisify the criteria outlined. Please explain your reasons to me. OhanaUnited   Talk page   17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Back in 2005, the "Good article" concept was brand new. It was encouraged at the time to simply find articles that you thought were "good", and slap the article with it (as you put it) to get the idea up and running. The instructions at the time simply read "The process by which articles are designated as 'good' should be much simpler and quicker than that by which articles become featured. Simply add any articles here that match the criteria, and add GA to the top of the articles' talk pages." The criteria have been more formalized since then. I see you've only been around about a year; stick around, and you'll see lots of new projects change their criteria. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Riverboarding articles
Hi. Please see Robert Carlson's reply on my talk page. User_talk:Shawn_in_Montreal. He explains that: "The images I would upload are of me, but not taken by me. They are souvenier photos you can buy from photo services that sell photos of your river trip as mementos. When I buy the photo I assume I get the copyright to publish as I wish. What do you think? Is there a tag category for this type of ownershipthat would satisfy Quadell?" I've checked the free use tags on the image upload page and I don't know what to tell him. Perhaps you could reply on the Riverboarding talk page? thanks, Shawn in Montreal 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel
Thanks for the advice. I won't be the only one stewarding the article now, as it has been brought to the attention of several others. VanTucky (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

William Poundstone picture deletion
hello, i am writing to inquire if someone from this profile had deleted the photo from the William Poundstone wikipedia entry. I had requested an received express permission from the author himself to use the photo of him on his wikipedia. What more authorization or documentation might I need to leave it posted on that page? --Frenkmelk talk 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At Requesting copyright permission, the first paragraph states:
 * To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. That's because Wikipedia itself states all its material may be used by anyone, for any purpose. So we have to be sure all material is in fact licenced for that purpose, whoever provided it.
 * If you read Requesting copyright permission, it should tell you everything you need to know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * okay, so i have the email requesting the author allow the picture and then i have his affirmation it is okay to post it. but now i am confused as to how to send this permissions request. i mean, it says to send it to: "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org"; but is that supposed to be an @ and a "." in there and sent via my personal email or what? the language is confusing to me as this is not something with which i am familiar, but one day hope to be. i just need to be prodded in the right direction, all i want to do i assist in affixing one of my favourite author's pix to his wiki. thanks, colin --Frenkmelk talk 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the address to mail it to is permissions-en@wikimedia.org
 * It's a little confusing. They write it in that cryptic way to avoid getting too much spam. If you send the permission to that address, you shouldn't have any further problems. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was the image "yuksel.jpg" removed from the "Edip Yuksel" article user:jonnyk1982

 * I'm afraid the image is copyrighted. The page you got it from says "© All the materials,books, articles and essays on this website, www.yuksel.org, are COPYRIGHTED." We are a free content encyclopedia, and we can only use images of living people if they are not copyrighted, or if they have been released under a free license, such as the GFDL. You tagged the images as "GFDL", but that would only be true if the copyright-holder agreed to license the picture under the GFDL, and I don't think they have. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel
Yes hello Quadell, Greetings. Concerning the Boerboel entry, no you have got it the wrong way around. It is in fact the user van Tucky that keeps changing the entry with out discussion, and changing it completely. Not once but countless times, and never have they approached me with a proper proposal or argument before they do this, furthermore their changes are completely subjective and incorrect, following a particular line of personal agenda, nothing to do with the proper breed facts. I would ask you to take this into consideration before leaping to the wrong conclusions. It is important I feel that the public are not miss-led by one persons personal agenda. Have a good one, Frikkers


 * I replied on your talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Tina Turner non-free media king strikes again
I notice you just deleted that file. Could you take a look at User_talk:ElinorD and advise? -Nard 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rock Springs masscre
This article was promoted to FA yesterday, thanks for your work on the references.


 * Hoorah! I'm glad to have done my small part on such a great article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Barry Henthorn image

 * Hi. Can you check out the CEO mug shot that keeps getting reposted to Barry Henthorn by a pesky spammer? Canuckle 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up
Thanks for helping to clarify on the assorted Transformers -boxart images. There are still a bunch of -boxart images that would fall under the same rationale for deletion. Would it be best to apply the disputed FU tag and link to the onslaught talk page, or is there a better place/way to nuke them? --EEMeltonIV 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA?
You opposed my candidacy for adminship in my RfA that closed on April 6, 2007. As you're probably aware, I opened an RfC on myself to address the concerns raised during the RfA. In addition, since that time, I've resumed editing articles (detailed on my talk page) and participating in peer, A-class, and Good Article reviews. I was considering accepting a re-nomination for admin and was wondering if you still had any concerns of questions that I could try to address in advance? Cla68 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of [[Image:Ashley_Maher-pub.jpg]]
I must object to your process. The image had a description of where it was taken from, justifying its fair-use, and your notification is worthless when it's simply a message on the User page. How many casual contributors to Wikipedia do you think log on every week, let alone every 48 hours! Send an e-mail before you delete the content! Such bot-like behaviour from Wikipedians will only alienate people who write an article or two, or fix a paragraph here and there, like me. Yours disgustedly, Kjetilho 21:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's our established process to notify users on their talk page, not to e-mail them. If you think our process should be changed, it would be more effective to suggest the change at the appropriate policy, instead of blaming those who correctly apply our policy. (Consistently following policy is not necessarily bot-like.) That said, if an image is deleted in error, it's trivially easy to restore it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a pointer to that policy document/discussion? 84.48.79.209 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above question was asked by me -- Wikipedia had logged me out for some reason. Just one more thing which needlessly makes life harder for casual contributors. Kjetilho 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Quadell...
I've been watching at MauronZ talk page and an user called Soda-POP let him a disgusting message descriving his eggs(I don't know if you know, but in Spanish the translation off eggs(huevos) is also use as testicle). Having in count that MauronZ and Soda-POP can speak Spanish better than English, I think that bougth understood perfectly the message.

Please, do something respect this,

Yours, LeAngeGardien 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm sorry about my gramatical or ortografic mistakes, my English isn't good at all.

More biographical stuff
Thought you might be interested in an update. I've been working on the template approach to tracking the non-bio and listas parameters. See Template talk:WPBiography. I'm hoping the "with listas" category will show the benefits of a people super-category that is correctly sorted, as opposed to the ones at the moment that are generally mixed (eg. Category:Living people. I'll keep you updated on what happens. On Polbot matters, do you have any idea yet when you might be able to do the trial run 3a discussed at the bottom of User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run? Thanks. Carcharoth 03:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings. It's been busy here at Quadell-world lately. You may have to keep bugging me about this one. I had taken out the code to change defaultsort, and this included the code that decided which sortname to use. So I'm having to recreate that decision part in order to list a suggested sortname. I hope to get that run soon. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I had guessed you might be busy with other stuff, but was getting a bit worried there. An update on the WPBiography stuff is that the new categories went through OK. See the discussion and the aftermath at Template talk:WPBiography. You might also want to scroll down and read some of the later sections as well. Anyway, the new categories are: Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles, Category:WikiProject Biography non-article pages, Category:WikiProject Biography templates (not new, but now populated via WPBiography), and the big two: Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Now, I don't know precisely how long it takes for massive categories like that to populate (I know it depends on the Job queue), but at the moment there are only 30 nonbio pages (which can be cleaned up manually), and the class=NA category can similarly be cleaned up. The exciting categories, relevant to what we are trying to do, are the listas categories. The use of Category:Biography articles without listas parameter is clear: all those articles are not properly sorted. The use of Category:Biography articles with listas parameter is less clear, though there are two things to note: (1) the number of articles in that category (do you have a tool that can count the number of article in that category?) will tell us by subtraction roughly how many are in the other category; (2) some of the benefits of having a properly sorted category can be seen, especially with regards to disambiguation pages. First though, I have to fix the WPBiography template so that the listas parameter is used in all the categories. Having it used inside a DEAFULTSORT magic word turned out to be a bad idea - other talk page templates also use DEFAULTSORT, and when they are placed below other templates (such as WPBiography), they over-ride the earlier DEFAULTSORT. The only way to be sure that listas is being used as planned is to manually place it in all the 212+ categories in use on WPBiography. I'm hoping a fairly painless find and replace will do that. So, now you'va had this update, where do you want to go from here? Carcharoth 22:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oldcollege.jpg
Can you please undelete this image. It's not replaceable fair use. Thanks ExtraDry 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the building still exists. Why do you think it would be impossible for someone to photograph it? – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel
Quadell you have still got it wrong, it is not me changing the page. It is van tucky changing the page, I am afraid you have to go further back into the history of this entry to be fully informed. And no van tucky has never discussed making any changes, they have just made them, and not small ones but basically the entire page? I think you will find this is not acceptable practise. Informing someone, never mind me, of the changes is not discussing them, and changing whole pages is not contributing. As I am South African and have intimate knowledge of this breed it is the least they could do. I repeat this is not an American breed. happy editing Luud

Malborne.jpg
Please undelete this pic as it is one I have taken myself. Unfortuanely I think I gave it the wrong copyright status when uploading, which should be free use but I did put a message on it saying it was my own photograph.
 * Well, I would, but it looks like you already reuploaded it. It is tagged correctly now, and it shouldn't be deleted again. Thanks for contributing your photos to Wikipedia! – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding an allegedly innocent question about testicles
Hello, thanks for your message. Sincerely, I do not see what was the problem. According to LeAngeGardien, it is because I made a question about the testicles of Mauron. It is not an attack, is simple curiosity. But, please, do not believe everything what they say to you. Those two users are very conflicting and as they do not get enough with have obtained that they blocked to me in Spanish Wikipedia, now came here to follow bothering me. Best regards. /\n|)r0|v|€d@ {Post} 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The fair use image you uploaded is replaceable by a free one
You left me a message on my talk page about Image:Andrew Sage.jpg‎, which I don't understand. The edit summary was:
 * The fair use image you uploaded is replaceable by a free one

Theoretical this is true because the person is still alive, but how should I get an own (free) picture within seven days I don't understand. Should I rush to the airport, fly from Europea to the US, find the guy, spend some thousand dollars? What do yoy want to hear from me? - Mdd 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to do any of that. We're not requiring anything of you. We're just letting you know that Wikipedia can't use a non-free image of a living person. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so fair-use principles only apply to non-living persons? - Mdd 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fair use" is a part of U.S. copyright law. Non-free images not only have to obey the law, they also have to follow our non-free content policy, which is stricter than the law. There are many images which may be legal to use, but which Wikipedia does not want to host. Non-free portraits of living people is one example. Non-free photos of existing buildings is another. Basically, if a new photo can be taken of a subject, then we can't use a non-free photo. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning this. I'm aware of the non free content policy and have had some discussions about it before. One of the crusial sentences is:
 * Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose...
 * Now I can come back at my first point. Theoretically new pictures can be created of living persons... But how can I bring this into practice? Can you maybe more specific show me the rule that no picture (based on far use) of any living person is allowed in the Wikipedia? - Mdd 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, here is the binding resolution of the Wikimedia Board, which states in part 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) 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In this document I read: "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose. It doesn't say that all existing pictures immediatly have to be removed? - Mdd 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have questions about policy, the appropriate place to ask them is on the policy page's talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all: I would love to become free photo's for my articles, but at the moment I don't know how to get them. In the meantime I like to illustrate some longer biographical articles with pictures of living persons. In the rules I still read that this is allowed, as long as no freely licensed work is available? Please let me know if you think I misinterpret these rules? - Mdd 22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot use replaceable, non-free images. If you upload them, they will be deleted. Portraits of living people are almost always considered replaceable. If you'd like to obtain free photos, you could try e-mailing the people and asking them. More info here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks I will look into that and probebly give it a try. - Mdd 22:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review
I wanted to do this a while ago, but I wanted to take the time to thank you for your response to my request for deletion review. It was respectful, understanding, and flattering. That, unfortunately, can be a great rarity in deletion reviews and deletions in general. I greatly appreciate it. CaveatLectorTalk 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Your note made my day. Mutual respect during disagreements is indeed rare (and it takes two). I know we have the same goals. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm back!
Thanks for your words of encouragement - my break is over. Let's do our best to make Wikipedia a free encyclopedia. It warms my heart to think that, in places from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, people without much money can take the free content we create and use it to make paying enterprises which write and distribute textbooks for disenfranchised little girls, and repressed minorities, who need an education, without having to pay for the information or photographs. Thanks again! Videmus Omnia Talk  00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ≥
 * Sorry to butt in, but this made me curious. Is this actually happening, or is this something that we hope will happen in the future? I know there have been some CD releases by charities, but I wasn't aware the sort of thing you are describing was actually happening. Carcharoth 22:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See "2006 Wikipedia CD Selection". Cheers, Jacklee 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He's back, I'm going
Farewell, I'm deploying. Watch my user and talk pages here and on Commons while I am gone, would you? See you in a few months. -Nard 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wow! Sorry to see you go! I'll watch over your page on the homefront. Stay safe! – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot and categories
Hey, Quadell. I just got back from vacation, and I'm trying to catch up with my Wikipedia tasks. I monitor User:AlexNewArtBot/CameroonSearchResult, which lists new articles that are likely related to Cameroon. There, I noticed several hundred articles created by your Polbot that deal with Cameroonian fauna. The problem is that none of them was categorized into the appropriate country-related category. For example, Mount Cameroon Speirops needs to be placed into Category:Birds of Cameroon. Would it be possible for you to update the bot to add such categories when it creates a new page? This would save me (and editors who administer articles related to other countries) countless hours of work! Thanks for any help, — Brian ( talk ) 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're quite correct, of course. The problem is, some countries split the "fauna of" category into birds, mammals, etc. Other countries only have two endemic species, and shouldn't have a "fauna of" category at all. So once Polbot is done with the animals, I'll have her look through the "fauna of" categories and recategorize as necessary. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome; good to hear that. I hope I didn't come off as disparaging your bot; it's of course better to have articles on these species than to not have them! Thanks for your hard work. — Brian ( talk ) 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This Is The Last Image You Delete.
For some time now, you have been hounding me on Wikipedia about certain bullshit policies that you have brought up against me, even though i legitimately created/asked for permission to use it on Wikipedia's site. Recently i uploaded 8 pictures that *I* took using my own camera, and yet you have deleted it without warning, i dont know why you chose that specific picture, but i am now about to re-upload it. If you delete another one of my images again, i WILL be making a formal complaint, and see how far i can go towards removing you as a moderator of Wikipedia. As i see it, you do more harm than good, thank you, and goodbye, hopefully forever. Zlatko 07:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking through your logs, it appears that you have claimed "Self Made, GFDL" on a number of images you obviously did not create yourself. I also see that you have not responded to questions on your talk page about whether you actually created certain images yourself. This makes it impossible for us to determine whether your claim of "Self Made, GFDL" is true or not. If you tag another image as yours, when you didn't create it yourself, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. But if you only upload images you actually created yourself, there shouldn't be any further problems. By the way, if you think my actions have been inappropriate, you can bring the matter up at WP:AN/I or WP:DRV. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're a really funny guy! How about next time not being an idiot, and actually reading the image information below the image itself before you delete it. Note the date it was made compared to the other images, the type of camera used, the resolution and numerous other aspects that seem to add up. Next time, check this, before you go on a wild goose chase, and start deleting shit that doesnt fit your personal approval. Or at least get someone who knows what they're doing, and isnt a rampant, bumbling fool such as yourself. Zlatko 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Stop making personal attacks or you'll end up getting blocked for that. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot and monotypic genera
Hi Quadell. I just blanked the page that Polbot created for the genus "Donacobius", and replaced it with a redirect to the only species in that genus, "Black-capped Donacobius" This is standard for monotypic genera (see the most recent discussion on "Article-less genera" on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds.  Can you set Polbot to create redirects for monotypic genera, or at least to not undo existing redirects in those cases?  Thanks.  Fredwerner 09:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. The thing is, Polbot doesn't know whether a genus has one species or several until after she has created all the species articles. Once she's done, she'll go back through and replace monotypic genera with a redirect. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Advice
Hello. I recently uploaded an image and since I have noticed that you delete them if their use is not fair, I thought maybe I would seek your advice on this. I an uncertain of the copyright status of Image:JBPriestley.jpg. . . the subject of the photograph is dead, and I reduced the resolution of the image. The image was fetched from here. I know fair use of a living person is invalid, but what of someone who is deceased? Could you help me tell whether this photo is legal or not? Thank you. Fl1942 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Images of deceased people are non-replaceable, so they definitely pass our first non-free content criterion. But they also have to pass criterion #10, which says that the copyright-holder has to be credited. Unfortunately, the BBC reprints that image, but fails to credit it or say who the copyright holder is. That's disappointing -- the BBC is usually much better about their sources. If you can find an image of the person where the photographer is credited (or the copyright holder), then the image should be okay. I'm sorry it's so difficult! All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, that clears some of the confusion up! Fl1942 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Floras
Hi Quadell, "Bertonbot" already concluded the flora categorization of the plant lists 1 and 2. He wants more, much more.:-) Berton 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I'll pass on the fanmail to her. Thanks! She'll be on it shortly -- she's in the repair shop at the moment, but I'll have her out soon. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)