User talk:Quadell/Archive 38

Your fix to Template:Non-free use rationale
Hi, could you please revisit this? your fix seems to have killed others, like Image:AOV Adult Movie channel.jpg. --Storkk (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually broken the article link for every other image - I was just about to post on this. Many thanks, alex.muller (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Face-blush.svg|35px]] Oops. I reverted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Polbot Question
Please let me know when Polbot is approved for adding F-URs to radio and TV station logos, cause I would have a few that you can test it on:) - NeutralHomer T:C 17:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Early deletions
Hi, Quadell. I usually delete images anywhere from five minutes to a couple hours early only if there's one or two images in that category. I'll be more careful in the future. east. 718 at 23:42, December 21, 2007

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays Thedjatclubrock :) ''' (T/C)

Non-free use disputed for Image:U2 atyclb.png
Thanks for uploading Image:U2 atyclb.png. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image.  Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
 * The image needs a rationale for each article it is used in. --Rockfang (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're correct. I didn't upload the image, though; I only shrank it to comply with NFCC#3. I'm not really that interested in keeping it, to be honest. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Polbot
Hi Quadell.

I've finished the reversion of Polbot and fixed the wrong reverts. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There?
If you're there can you put a temp stop on the guy User:DenCA I've had a chance to talk to him? Thx. Wiggy! (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was watching a movie. Looks like the situation is taken care of. Happy holidays! – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thx in any case. Good movie? Popcorn? Wiggy! (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Amusing edit
I found this edit amusing for some strange reason - hey, at least this person is cognizant of WP:BLP! Videmus Omnia Talk  07:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Q-box
Very nice!! Wow, that is so much simpler... even I understood it. ;-)

Might I suggest that you include a link to List of colors or Web colors though? I found these articles to be quite useful in determining the "codes" I should use for the various colors. Cheers--DO11.10 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea! I did this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Andreas Papandreou.jpg
Season's Greetings Quadell. I apologise for the intrusion but since you are an image expert and an admin, could you please tell me, if you can, what exactly happened to this image I uploaded. It had a proper fair use rationale and I got no courtesy deletion warning. I can't even find any deletion records but maybe you can. The only reason I know about it, is from this diff. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. But upon further investigation I found the admin responsible and I will ask directly. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Literacy.PNG
Could you make a better image? Literacy is a serious matter.Tonytypoon (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I can't. I'm really not a graphic artist. You may want to ask one of our many talented and prolific Wikipedian artists though. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Proposal
User:Carcharoth suggested I contact you about some ideas I've had for how we handle fair-use image issues. I've set up a proposal page here: User:Mbisanz/ImageSystemProposal and was wondering if you had any comments or know coding well enough to help implement such a suggestion. Mbisanz (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tejero golpe.jpg
I transferred this to Commons and it was deleted by an admin the same day, evidently not realizing that csd i8 requires a waiting period. Commons also promptly deleted the license the image was under and the image. Can you restore the image locally and revert the license back to fair use for me? :) -Nard 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's been taken care of. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Ryan
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Timothy Ryan. ..
 * Resolved. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your strong support in my RfA, and thoughtful comments. The whole thing was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alhaznawi video aljazeera.jpg
Resolved. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nashiri.jpg
Resolved. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

IFD debate
On the December 27 log, there are a bunch of MO##.gif images. Do they all need deleting?  Maxim (talk)  17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm doing that now. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed you stopped for some reason, a bug or something or whatever. I made a list in my userspace, guess I don't need it. :-p  Maxim (talk)  17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mzoudi.jpg

 * Resolved. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BJBot
This bot appears to have listed many images for deletion at both January 1 and January 2, in some cases with the author defending the image at only one of those dates. Just a head's up. -Nard 12:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rifleman 82 seems to be taking care of it! Cheers. -Nard 14:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A giggle
See the history of Image:Seal of Freetown, Massachusetts.gif for a giggle. The user has been edit warring with a bot for months over which fair use template to use. The only thing that motivated me to fix the licensing was getting tired of seeing this in my watchlist every day :P 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image meandmybf.jpg
You closed this as "keep" when there was zero consensus to keep, and four out of five users wanted it deleted. Why? Exploding Boy (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I explained why at the top of the closure debate, just below the ifd top. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I read it, but it's not a very good explanation. Every user who commented favoured deletion, save the original uploader (and, not coincidentally, subject of the photo).  If you'd looked at the relevant article talk pages, you would have seen that users also rejected the inclusion of the image on those pages.  In the summary you gave on the image page itself, you state that "consensus was to keep," when that is clearly not the case.  Consensus was to delete; you made the decision to keep apparently alone and against consensus.  Exploding Boy (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Image deletion debates are not mere votes, as I'm sure you know. No amount of !votes can override policy, and there is simply no policy that could lead to the image's deletion. If you feel the "keep" decision was in error, you can take the issue to WP:DRV if you like. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Meandmybf.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg]] was linked to another article, so the delete rationale given was not valid
I see you deleted the image. Did you know that this one was used on another page, and as such was not in violation? It was in Abdullah_el-Faisal until you deleted it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdullah_el-Faisal&diff=182000719&oldid=180581750. As such, I am requesting you restore it so that it can return to article Abdullah_el-Faisal. If you do not mind, I can restore it myself. -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this use fails WP:NFCC, in that it was a non-free image used to illustrate a living subject. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray_J_-_Un-Kut.JPG on User:Quadell/ifd_precedents
you have this marked as kept, but image was deleted with deletion summary "deleted per ifd". Taemyr (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was originally kept, but it was relisted. Investigating. . . – Quadell (talk) (random)


 * Looks like the work of a bot at Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_24. Anyway, I restored the image, removed the IFD tag and placed the image back in the Un-Kut article. That is the only article I see that I removed the image from even though you mention in your IFD closing that the image is used in two articles. I also closed the Dec. 24 IFD discussion generated by the bot. -Regards Nv8200p talk 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

New image stuff
Would you be interested in helping out at the image trial of Task of the Day? See the talk page for more, including a section on bot operators. Carcharoth (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Blue think.svg|35px]] I don't really work well with others on that sort of thing. But thanks for the invite! – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"censorship through the back door, if you'll pardon the expression"
I just sprayed coffee out my nose. Thanks for the morning laugh! :-D --Stormie (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:SMirC-laugh.svg|25px]] I couldn't resist. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
Could a screenshot of Melissa Theuriau qualify as fair use since it depicts her performing her profession? I think I tried using a screenshot before, but didn't use that rationale, do you think that would apply using Non-free television screenshot? Or perhaps a different rationale? Jonjames1986 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not. Screenshots can only be used to identify the program, or in "critical commentary" (such a discussing why a specific screenshot is notable). I'm afraid there's really no way around WP:NFCC. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Another question, what if I got permission from the copyright holder to publish the image? I'm pretty sure that one of the options for licensing an image is that the copyright holder gave permission. Would that be permissible?
 * --Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Boy, I hate to bring you nothing but bad news! But no, even if the copyright holder gives permission for Wikipedia (alone) to use it, Wikipedia won't accept the image. It's counter-intuitive, I know -- but Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia, so it's important to us that anyone be able to reuse all our content. For this reason, we can only use an image if other websites can also use the image, even for commercial purposes, without asking the copyright-holder permission.


 * But there's a ray of hope. If the copyright holder is willing to allow anyone to use the image for any purpose (including modification and commercial reuse), then the image is "free" and we can use it. Many groups, especially large companies, refuse to allow this, but smaller companies and individuals sometimes do. If you can find a Flickr user who has photographed Ms. Theuriau, you have a decent chance. You can find Wikipedia's helpfile on requesting this at Requesting copyright permission. A guy named Videmus Omnia has had terrific luck doing this, and has written his own "how-to" at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. Good luck! – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete [[Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg]]
The discussion was in favor of keep!--CltFn (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave my reasoning at the top of the discussion, just below the ifd top tag. The issue wasn't how many people wanted to keep the image; the issue was whether the image violated our policies at WP:NFCC and #8. We would have to change our policies there in order to keep the image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

hi
Another couple of requests for Commons :) Could you alternately undelete Image:KarlJaspers.jpg for me (or since the image is copyrighted copy the text of the various revisions for me) and re-delete Image:Yuliya.jpg for me (which was just recently undeleted so I could fix the licensing at Commons). Thanks :) -Nard 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Artículo_bueno.svg|20px]] Done, and done! – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for name disambiguation
Hi there. The list of names for disambig'n is almost empty. Is it appropriate to ask you to run your bot again? --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes! I've been waiting for you fine people to finish off Batch 1. Perhaps this evening I'll run it to create the second (and, probably, final) batch. [[Image:SMirC-thumbsup.svg|30px]] – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds splendid. Thanks. No rush, I'm sure. btw I've contributed perhaps 1% of the work here - wouldn't want to misrepresent myself. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much - very prompt of you. One subpage done already. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay! I figured Q would go quicker than M. [[Image:SMirC-wink.svg|25px]] – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Seal Phitsanulok.png)

 * Resolved. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Seal Singburi.png)

 * Resolved. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please protect this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

Thank you. Theaveng (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your query on WP:RFAr
Quadell, you might wish to have a look at my response to your query at WP:RFAr. Hope this sheds some light on Cla68's addition of Jayjg to the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

block
Perhaps, you didnt see my question on my talk page about this strange block. I'm interested in finding out details about how this happened, i.e. who reported me me for this slight technical and accidental lapse, instead of letting me know so I could correct it? Its seems very petty. Thanks.

"Opps, I just used the edit summary to state my reasons, since there was no discussion about the change. Who reported me to the enforcement board anyway? A simple note to me would have sufficed for me to discuss this on the talk page. Ironically, now I cant discuss it, until after my block expires." Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I reported you to Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. I noticed the situation, since I have New antisemitism on my watchlist. (There was a dispute about one of the images, and image work is where I spend most of my time.) If you're wondering if there were secret groups conspiring against you, then I hate to disappoint you. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to include you (at this time) in the vast right-wing conspiracy. But, I'll maintain a healthy vigilance. heheGiovanni33 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the reason that Jayjg's name was added as a party to this case: . I believe that was sufficient.  I'm going to readd his name.  Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added him as a party before the case opened. Look at the talk page here and then try to tell me that he's not involved:  Talk:Israeli-Palestinian history denial.  As you said, I'm not the only one calling for him to be added.  I'm correct to add him again.  I left a note on Rlevse's talk page.  As the clerk, if he agrees with you, he can remove his name. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, it looks like Jayjg's last edit to that page was back in March. But yes, the clerk should certainly decide whether his name should be added or not. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * His last edit to the article was July. Here's a related article with more recent activity .  If the clerk removes his name, I won't readd it. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There was an incident only two weeks ago involving Jayjg accidentally posting a partisan canvassing message to WikiEN-l, exposing what is no doubt the tip of an iceberg on both sides - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=183457247. Cla68 cited it in the AN/I discussion that led to this arbitration. I agree with his view that it's a significant issue and I'm detailing it in evidence for the ArbCom. It would certainly make sense to add him as a party since I'll be requesting that his conduct be reviewed. I'm happy to add myself as a party if necessary, though I've had no involvement with the vast majority of the disputed articles. And don't forget that you should also be abiding by the injunction not to "edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case." :-) Or do you want to become a participant? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting to remove a comment (when the page says not to comment) is not the same as commenting myself. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pobot
I am sorry about all the problems getting Polbot approved. I have become extremely frustated with the BAG process and with Betacommand in particular and his "super" bot that does not need to comply with the guidelines; and with admins who blindly delete images that BetacommandBot has tagged with a 7 day tag even though they are being used correctly and only lack the needed FUR's which Polbot could have easily added. Well, just needed to blow off some steam someplace where it would be understood. Thanks for all of your efforts. Sorry I created such a mess for you. Dbiel (Talk) 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem, I understand. You really didn't create a mess. You were vocal when you noticed it, but even if you had been completely out of the picture, I think things would've turned out the same: BetaCommand reverting my bot's unauthorized edits, and the bot hanging forever without approval. I'm really not sure what to do about BAG. Anyway, all the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I hope things can change regarding how missing FUR's are being handled. It is stupid to delete an image that has been around for months or even years, that is being used correctly but is simply missing the required FUR and doing so with only a 7 day notice. Dbiel (Talk) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just been thinking a bit. You might want to go ahead and run it as semi automated using your personal account, which does not need approval and simply blindly click to save each edit. Not as nice as running it the it should be run, but at least it would get the job done, and with a maxlag setting of between 5-10 you should be able to get quite a few done in a hurry. You would not actually need the maxlag, but it might be nice to use just in case the servers do get overloaded. Dbiel (Talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I had thought of this bot working the other way: you start with a logo category, and verify that the page using the logo belongs to some relevant category. Anyway, since it's obvious you have the script essentially written, could you just grab the categories from whatever page uses the image, display them, and add in manual approval for each edit? I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to run the script that way. Gimmetrow 01:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The community already "did something" about BAG. It broke up a functional, competent group and replaced it with a free for all. Ironically, that all came about because of an incident with Cydebot which was a forerunner of the current BCB issues.

I'm also sorry about the state of your application. There's too much for me to read now so it's a bit too late to get involved, but if I had been a member of BAG still and involved in this from the start I would have tried harder to find a way to get this functional and approved. It seems we're all too eager to approve destructive bots (i.e. those designed to speed up the deletion of images) and turn a blind eye to admin bots actually doing the deleting, but we can't get our act together with bots to clean up rationales nor with the obvious solution of boilerplate (template) rationales for album covers and the like. It's too bad but that's Wikipedia 2008 for you. --kingboyk (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like polbot would have been a waste of effort after all. Most of the images would be deleted even with a rationale. I'll look into the query from NancyHeise below, too. Gimmetrow 08:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez
Since you've made speculative statements that links which *in your opinion* violate privacy or BLP cannot be included on *Talk* pages, perhaps you'd be so kind as to quote exactly that section of policy which discusses whether links on Talk pages, and any other pages which are not article pages are actually addressed in the way you speculate. Thank you. Wjhonson (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, contrary to your unsourced claim, you will note on the WP:BLP that talk pages are specifically exempted from the general rules, and seperate issues are brought forth about them. If you'd aquaint yourself with how those seperate rules work in regard to non-article space that would be helpful. Wjhonson (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Back up your claim of "speculative defamation" with an exact quote from my site. As well, everything in my article is sourced from *public* information. How does that "violate privacy", and I would note we have no policy on this issue in the first place, seperate from BLP in general which does not cover this issue in this form. Wjhonson (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to add you to the ArbCom on this issue. If you don't want to be added, be sure to respond as soon as you can. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in running for ArbCom. Do you mean you'd like to add me as an "involved party" in a case? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question
Hi Quadell,

This issue Image:Berks arms.gif from Copyright_problems is quite over my head. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers--DO11.10 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll comment there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that makes perfect sense. And also thanks for your comments/decisive action on the Gaming World list (methinks there might be a need for a bit of wikipolicy here). I'll let the good people at the Berkshire Wikiproject know that their image is about to be deleted, and then go ahead with it tonight. Thanks again, and cheers--DO11.10 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I have another question for you. In regards to Image:Ebony Ayes portrait.png, Image:Danuta Lato portrait.png, and Image:Jim Morrison portrait.png. These look like they might be derivatives of existing publicity photos. After much searching (can't imagine my husband's reaction should he venture into the browsing history :-) I can't seem to find a "source" for these images. I did find an original source for Image:Roberta Pedon portrait.png, which makes me more suspicious. What should we do with them? Also, I really appreciate your help, but is there another page that I should/would be better to refer these kinds of questions to? --DO11.10 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your husband?. . . Oh dear! Congratulations, you've just revealed my subtle sexism to me. You're a scientist and a Wikipedian, and I just assumed you were a boy-mouse and not a girl-mouse. I'm so chagrined! [[Image:Face-blush.svg|30px]]
 * Incidentally, you wouldn't be the first Wikipedian to use the "No, Honey, I was doing research for Wikipedia!" excuse. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|30px]] I know one user who has contacted a number of porn stars to request freely-licensed portraits for Wikipedia, and his wife tolerates it.


 * But back to your question. I would say that since the uploader obviously claimed GFDL on a derivative work once, we can assume these others are likewise derivatives of copyrighted works. I'd just delete them. As for where to ask questions like this, I'd ordinarily recommend listing them on WP:PUI, but I know you're the king queen of PUI. You could try that page's talk page, or maybe the talk pages of WP:IFD or WP:CV. If you know the image is non-free, and you want to know if the use is acceptable under our non-free content policy, Fair use review may be your best bet. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not the first to make that mistake (trust me) . Okay, thanks I'll delete them then. Even looks like someone beat me to it on one of them?--DO11.10 (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Speeches
re : in the U.S., since "fixation" is required. And only the words are PD, but not recordings. In countries where fixation is not required, even spontaneous speeches are copyrighted. (But that's of a lesser concern for the English Wikipedia.) Cheers, Lupo 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Right-o. Point taken. I'm just putting the fact in abbreviated form to save space. I have another question: what is it about recordings that are eligible for copyright? If I go out and record some bird songs, do I hold the copyright on that? I didn't create any of the sounds, so it seems to me that I didn't provide any creative content. But I suspect it's considered copyrighted anyway, for reasons I'm not clear on. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh... I suspect so, too. I guess it's the same as with music recordings (only that you don't have to have the bird's consent to record its performance): plenty of choices what to record, where to record, and how to do it, mastering of the record, etc. Producers of phonograms just get this copyright, and I'm not aware of any threshold of originality regarding recordings. Lupo 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they shouldn't be copyrightable. And when I'm king of the world, copyright will only be granted to those who contribute significant creative content to a work. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|30px]]

Also, I guess transcripts like this CNN interview with Patty Hearst or this InfoWorld interview will Bill Gates are in the public domain. It's weird using them on Wikisource, what with the big &copy; notice on the bottom, but it looks PD to me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Greek fathers
Hi, Quadell, I saw your message in Greek WP and in Greek Wikisource. If you are interested in Greek fathers, there is also this site: http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/pkleida.htm (unfortunately only in Greek, as I see, but the index should be comprehensible) with texts from Paul Migne's Patrologia Graeca. As far as I know it is constantly updated and the goal is to include all texts from all listed authors. --Archidamus (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Barry Schuler new image copyright issues
I am new to Wiki and especially confused when it comes to adding images. I would like to switch out the current photo of Barry Schuler to a more recent and accurate image. I thought I posted it correctly but it was deleted, Image:BarrySchuler-AFIfilmfestival.jpg. Please help! The image was taken during a preview of his new film Look at an AFI festival by an unkown photographer. I want to upload it again but I am hesitant because of my previous error. It is a free content image and can be used by all. I am just not sure how to place the appropriate tags. I look forward to your response and help in this matter.

Sincerely, --Ash3127 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for contacting me. We're really strict about images here on Wikipedia. If we don't know who the photographer is, then it isn't "free content". The only way an image is "free" is if the photographer explicitly released it in writing under a free license. That's why we often use older and lower quality images, so long as that image was "free content", instead of newer "non-free" images. I hope this helps. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I spoke with Barry and he gave his camera to a friend of his, Barry Wyman, to take the photo. Both Barry's are okay with posting the photo on Wiki. I uploaded it again but had some copyright issues. I wanted to give the photo an Attribution license and note that Brad Wyman took the picture with Barry's camera. Did I do this correctly? I would like to replace this photo with the current image on Barry Schuler's page. Is that okay? Please help if possible! --Ash3127 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation
Your explanation seems reasonable, but fails to take into account dark conspiracies and powerful shadowy groups attempting to subvert Wikipedia. Are you sure you weren't paid to say that? ;-) Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you know, IE and Firefox included tabbed browsing as a cover for the conspiracy. Microsoft and Netscape are in on it too! (Isn't Steve Balmer a you-know-what?) – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Genie (feral child)
Would it be acceptable to use a nonfree image in the article about "Genie"? I'm thinking it would because, although she is presumed to still be alive, her whereabouts are unknown and it would be nearly impossible to replace it with a free picture. I think it should be allowed for the same reason that a nonfree picture is allowed for J. D. Salinger, although I think in Genie's case the argument for including a nonfree picture is much stronger. I wanted to use a picture of Genie from the Nova documentary that was taken of her shortly after she was discovered when she was 13. It would show her during the time in her life when she was most notable which is another reason why a picture of her taken today (assuming someone could find her) wouldn't be a fair replacement since she would be in her 50's (assuming she is even still alive). Ospinad (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe this would be acceptable. It is clearly documented that she is difficult or impossible to locate, so WP:NFCC shouldn't be a problem. Just be sure to include a detailed Non-free media rationale that documents all this. (If you need help with that, let me know.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * THANKS! I asked you because I knew that if you were ok with it then I probably wouldn't get any trouble from other deletionists, (no offense :-). Oh by the way, I noticed that there was a picture of her in the article that you deleted a few months ago because of "replaceable fair use CSD 17" but I'm not sure what "CSD 17" means. I guess that isn't the same thing as the "No free equivalent" that you referenced? Ospinad (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense taken -- I'm a strict one. I think, in the deletion you mentioned, that I meant to say "WP:CSD" rather than "17". I7 is any a catch-all CSD term that refers to any WP:IFD problem, so long as the image was properly tagged and not resolved for 7 days. I don't remember deleting that image specifically, but I probably thought it was replaceable. I see now that it's not. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Unholy three.png
Could you please clarify you made to the above linked image? The summary states the image was created/released in 1955, but you altered the license information to state that it is in the public domain, having been released prior to 1923. I'm unable to read the date on the image itself, and was unable to find the image on the link provided, so any information you can provide would be helpful. Thanks, - auburn pilot  talk  20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings. The PD-US tag isn't just for pre-1923 works -- it's for any works first published in the United States where the copyright has expired. In this case, the image was first published before 1977 (May 16, 1955, to be precise) apparently without an explicit copyright notice. This means that the image was not copyrighted in the U.S. If there was a copyright notice that I'm not seeing, the copyright still would have expired unless the copyright was renewed in 1983 (28 years after the first publication). A search here for the "Keep America Committee" (the creator of the image) shows that copyright renewal was never applied for. A more specific copyright tag for this image would be PD-US-not renewed. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was just mentioning the 28 year protection stretch when I saw that you'd responded. What got me searching was seeing it first uploaded as fair use, then not being able to confirm the copyright when I saw it had been switched to the PD tag. - auburn pilot  talk  20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And just out of curiosity, what results do you get when searching that site for "Keep America Committee". Mine pulls up nothing. - auburn pilot  talk  20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing. I suspect the organization wasn't around very long, and didn't have its act together well enough to worry about copyright (much less renew a registration decades later). – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:PD-icon.svg
Hi, regarding your of the IfD of Image:PD-icon.svg. I just wanted to point out we don't have a local copy. The image only exist on Commons, not here and that's why I thought it was pointless to keep the page. It's not really a big issue if we keep the page or not, I'm just trying to figure out what the point is. Protecting that page only protects the local categorization, not the image itself. Rocket000 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Sorry, I misread your comment. I guess that makes sense. It's the same as SALTing it. Nevermind. :-) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs)

Heads up
I just created the redirect non-free use rationale--->fair use on Commons, which marks the file for speedy deletion. I noticed it affected a file you uploaded. The Commons copy does not have enough information to evaluate the rights status. I recommend either undeleting the local copy or updating the Commons copy with enough info to justify the PD-Egypt license. -Nard 14:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Seal Nongbua Lamphu.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Seal Nongbua Lamphu.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This image used to be thought free, but Commons determined it's non-free. It should definitely be removed from articles that it doesn't pass NFCC for. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut/paste move at Malagueña
Quadell, I can't figure out where or whom to ask about how to fix a cut/paste move I found at Malagueña and Malagueña (song) (I think). Any suggestions? --Iamunknown 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think I dropped the ball on this one. I used to know how to fix those, but I can't remember. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * lol, that is what happened to me too. :\  I'll ask elsewhere.  --Iamunknown 01:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)