User talk:Quadell/Archive 43

Resp
Ok...now I'm a member :-)

On a semi-related topic, I'm thinking about applying to be an admin. Any feedback prior to submission would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked and responded. Any additional insight would be great. THANKS!!! — BQZip01 —  talk 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I will write the article and upload the photo. which licence should I use? Historic? (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

You probably want to use this:

All the best, – Quadell (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists of G1 buildings in Somerset
Thanks for your comment re List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset. I've now nominated List of Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset - if you had any comments that would be great. I'm gradually working my way through all the sub lists at List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset - but there are lots of red links & other issues so it could keep me going for quite a while.&mdash; Rod talk 11:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Labkovsky image
Thanks for your kind help in this matter. I have followed your advice and removed the image from the article. I have replaced it with a link to the source webpage. I'm not sure whether it's permissible to edit its Image:EdwardLabkovsky.jpg page or not (?) so I have not attempted this. By the way, I agree with you about "1948" not matching the photo, and I think the date must be wrong for other reasons too, so have deleted that also. Please let me know if all is well now. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, it's permissible to edit any page you like. I think you've done the right thing, and everything seems to be in order. – Quadell (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx Quadell. I've just tried to clear the image page, but it removes the tags and not the photo, which makes it worse. I can't find a way to unload the photo from Wiki. So I undid my edit and the page is now as it was. I don't think it's permissible to clear the image page, because removing the tags would just attract more tags and a possible accusation of vandalism. This is a pity, because unloading the image from the server would have put everything right.--Storye book (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the image for you. (I'm an administrator here.) If there's anything else I can do for you, let me know. Thanks for your work here! – Quadell (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx for your kind help, Quadell. It wasn't a very flattering image of the subject, anyway - so it's all for the best. Thanks again. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vega
Hi Quadell- Is it possible to transfer the text ( subsection) I already added to Chevrolet Vega I plan on adding more too. (Vegavairbob71.167.64.240 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, it's always okay to use text from another Wikipedia article. – Quadell (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I mean can it be done at once without re-writing it. (Vegavairbob71.167.64.240 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, you can use cut-and-paste. There's no automatic way. – Quadell (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A question- I brought the Vega article from 22-72 bytes since Feb 15th; images from 2-20+ and added most of the 72 citations-add citations tag removed by admin last month. No-free images, well written, and very complete. I added an extensive problems subsection to correct a neutrality issue in which that tag was removed by admin. last month. Does it qualify for A or better? It's still B (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, I'm not sure. You could request a reassessment at WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment, and maybe someone will assess it for you. If not, you could request a peer review. These are the best next steps on the way to eventually getting the article featured. Good luck! – Quadell (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Playford
You can delete the image if you wish, it's a photo of a photo. Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Bartolome_ramos.jpg
Hey, I 'm not the one who uploaded the latest photo of mayor Bartolome Ramos of Santa Maria,Bulacan Angeles624

Socsci != scisoc
That's what you get when you type things too quickly! Thanks for correcting. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) – Quadell (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball fields
Thats AT&T Park, and a different file of the image is used in the article. I guess the other one can be deleted? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When to ask for history merge?
So while I'm thinking about it, ListasBot 3 is building its list of old talk pages. What's the criteria for determining that the content is important enough to request a history merge? Scratch that, I figured it out. Matt (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dab cleanup project
Hi, I'm cherry-picking through some of these, starting randomly at page 40 and working on the pages which have missing items (but doing all the rest of the cleanup on those pages, too) and the odd other one which catches my eye (some "only one blue link" pages etc). For Annandale I found an extra addition which your bot hadn't found, probably because it's got an incorrect (I think) two-level geographic disambiguation: Annandale, Pasadena, California. I spotted it because the bot had picked up the local railway, Annandale (Pacific Electric)! I'm not sure whether you'd want the bot to cope with incorrect headings, but thought I'd mention it anyway. Cheers, PamD (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Cwnet.jpg
Hey they Quadell,

Was wondering your rationale for deletion. The discussion was split 50/50 and the only one who supported was yourself. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I fixed the image's licensing issues; it was ineligible for copyright based upon. In short, the discussion was split, so deleting it based upon those merits seems like an error. Maybe I'm missing something here. Would you object to restoring it and relisting it for further discussion? — BQZip01 — talk 17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted it mostly just because it was orphaned and there was no clue what it was a logo for, and because it looks like a poor quality version of the logo. If the topic (whatever that is) is notable enough to deserve an article, then it should have a better-quality version of the logo uploaded and used. But as it is, I don't see the use of a low-qual image of random letters. – Quadell (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a logo for The CW Television Network. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. There are indeed better images of their most recent logo, but this one is a little older than the current one but older than the original (full disclosure: my wife loves that network and my DVR is full of their shows). In any case there's no reason to delete it as it is usable in such an article and isn't a copyright violation. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 —  talk 03:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, if you want to include it in the article, sure, I'll restore it. – Quadell (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just leave me a note when it's restored. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And now added... — BQZip01 —  talk 05:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:GFDL-presumed
Template:GFDL-presumed, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Template:GFDL-presumed during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ?  Johnny Mr Nin ja  18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Approving a bot that clearly violates current policy
I am curious why you approved a bot that clearly violates current policy? If you disagree with policy, I understand. Then you should try to have the policy changed. I don't think you should have approved the above linked bot request.--Rockfang (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you mean the policy about bots having the word "bot" in their name? – Quadell (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Sorry, I should have been more specific.--Rockfang (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just didn't see it as a big deal. The purpose of the restriction is so that it's obvious when it's a bot making edits and when it's not. With WD&S, it's only editing two pages, reports in Wikipedia space that are only bot edited. It also says its a bot in every edit summary, so it was clear to me that it's in compliance with the spirit of law, if not the letter. – Quadell (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thank you for replying.--Rockfang (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mariasela Alvarez
The images are available in hundred of articles, forums and blos in the Internet. I have seen pictures of many Models, and actors, like Al Pacino, how where those images uploaded? --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The photo of Al Pacino is a free image, created by a Wikipedian photographer and released under a free license. We don't use non-free photos of living people on Wikipedia, even if lots of other sites do. – Quadell (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ohhh the wikipedian photographer knows Al Pacinohow about Miss Puerto Rico Ingrid.JPG I really just want to learn,why some pictures here are tag as own work,when it is obvious that they are not. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the photographer was at an event that Al Pacino was at, and he took a photograph. The same way with Miss Peurto Rico. It happens all the time -- I don't know why you're being suspcious. – Quadell (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No sorry I'm not suspiciuous. I meet Al Pacino in DR when he came to film The Godfather. I was staying at the same hotel he was, and he went to pool. But there are hundreds of picture here, from Beauty Pageant, and are copied from the Internet, and the wikipedians just tag them as own work. Well no picture for this article then. thanks anyway --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What to do about some of these old talk pages?
Hi Quadell,

What do you suggest we do about some of these pages that ListasBot is finding (such as this and this)? Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would move them to become archived subpages of the new talk pages, linked to from the talk of the new talk page. (Why didn't I think of that before?) – Quadell (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh...I like that idea. Matt (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another ListasBot question
Hey Quadell,

Another question for you on ListasBot. I changed ListasBot 2 lastnight, does this require another BRfA (since it should be done as part of setting 'living=yes' or 'activepol=yes' in a WPBio template anyway)? Thanks, Matt (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think that counts as a bugfix, not a major feature addition, so it's covered in the original RfBA. – Quadell (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, thanks. Matt (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Caesars
''I think that it's dumb to have a photo of a statue removed, but if it in the law then yes it should be removed. The problem that I have is how do we know who has and if there is a it's copyrights?'' B64 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. Yeah, I agree, the law is dumb. In Germany you can take a photo of any sculpture in a public place, and it's no problem, but in the U.S. you have to get the sculptor's permission. (In France it's even worse -- you can't take a photo of a building you live in without getting the architect's permission!) Anyway, it's very hard to figure out who holds the copyright on the sculptures. You could try e-mailing the casino, if you think it's important. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
Thought I would stop by and formally introduce myself. I am guessing you are a lawyer or interested in legal matters. I too am a lawyer but of the M&A ilk so the copyright/FUR stuff is interesting to get to grips with. See you around. – ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I've seen you around, and your comments have impressed me. I'm actually not a lawyer (though I sometimes wonder if I missed my calling); I'm just a layman who reads a lot about copyright law. It's fascinating stuff! If you're interested, there's a project on copyright issues (WikiProject Copyright Cleanup) and another on images (WikiProject Images and Media) that are great places for people to bring up issues in a centralized location.
 * I see you've been a Wikipedian for years, and it's terrific to have experts on Wikipedia. I hope to see more of you! – Quadell (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:May be Disturbing.gif
Please undelete this image. -- Cat chi? 05:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but there was consensus at Files_for_deletion/2009_April_22 for the image to be deleted. If you think the deletion is in error, you're welcome to take the case to Deletion review. – Quadell (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: WikiBirthday
Thanks! I see you've just passed your fifth b-day yourself. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Gná and Hófvarpnir
Why is it that in this case the subtopic title is not useable while every other is? Weird. Hekerui (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I always just use the ten main topics. – Quadell (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Briggs (cricketer)
Could you please take a look at the image 'situation' regarding this page, you changed the image in the infobox to one which is definitely not him. The problem being there are files on both Wikipedia and Commons with the name of File:Briggs.jpg and the Wikipedia one (the incorrect one for this file) takes precedent. I'm no image expert so don't know whether you can bypass the Wikipedia image or whether you need to move the files to a new name, but hopefully you can sort it out. Thanks. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Sorry for the mix-up. Yes, I'll fix it later today, when I get a minute. – Quadell (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see someone else already fixed it. Thanks again, – Quadell (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issue
Seeing that you are an advocate of NPOV, ther is a page that I'd like you to take a look at: Troy Davis case. This article is about a death row inmate seeking appeal. The page has become very sympathetic to his cause and as it is now reads like campaign for his exoneration. I've tried to start solving this myself but I don't really have enough experience to do a major rewrite. I've also gone to the NPOV/Noticeboard but it is backloged. Thank you for your attention. JakeH07 (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll take a look at it later on. – Quadell (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot award!
Thanks so much! I'm sure Polbot will appreciate the oil. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Non-free photos of non-free 3D works
Well, I would have suggested Wikipedia talk:Non-free content or Village pump (policy), but now I'm sure anymore. The more I read over things the more I think it's not even worth pursuing. There are so many interlinked areas to coordinate, I worry about splintered discussions and keeping up with intricate policy changes. Following the whole thing from beginning to end would take up more time and energy than I have available to be on Wikipedia. I'm no lawyer and most of my dealing with images has been a giant headache; I joined Wikipedia to write articles not deal with policies that aren't adequately defined. I guess forget about it. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Yeah, it's frustrating and sometimes exhausting. I'm sorry it's been difficult for you. I still think it would be a good thing to have a centralized discussion on it, but I understand if you don't think it'd be a good use of your time to head that up. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thanks! I'm getting the hang of complicated templates, finally. (For a particularly frustrating template bug, see Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group: an invisible Left-to-right mark character in a template's parameter field made the parameter think it wasn't empty, even though it looks empty when you edit. Horrible to figure out.) – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I guess that that would be a unicode control character? WP:CODEFIXER and WP:AutoEd have basic RegExp to remove those; I'm not sure if it could also be used by the bot. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot operator has fixed it, and all is well. (As a pro coder, these sorts of bugs give me nightmares.) – Quadell (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tree image
Dear Quadell

The tree is the elm cultivar Ulmus 'Nanguen' better known by its registered tradename of 'LUTECE'. The tree was about 6 years old when photographed, and survives today at Great Fontley, England. Cannot remember the circumstances of its uploading, clearly one of my 'off' days. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've uploaded the image to Commons with the additional info. – Quadell (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

six deleted PD-pre-1978 images
Hello Quadell- 71 Chevy Vega Hatchback.jpg 1976 Monza Towne Coupe.jpg 1976 Buick Skyhawk.jpg 1977 Olds Starfire SX.jpg 1978 Olds Firenza.jpg 1978 Pontiac Sunbird Formula.jpg Anetode gave me a final warning and bot removal (Carnildo) removed these deleted PD-pre1978 images. They were deleted for non-proper copyright status. Anetode talk page shows him to be a user. check my talk page for the posted warning. Can this warning be removed and image deletions reversed? Thanks.{VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)}
 * I'm communicating with User:Anetode now. There are ways of undeleting images. The first step is to talk to the admin who made the deletions, which is what I'm doing. He may agree and undelete them. If not, we might take them to WP:DRV, but only if that's necessary. – Quadell (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

LivingBot 6
Wow, I reckon "flawlessly" is probably an exaggeration, but yes, it's hasn't destroyed the wiki yet. Still, nice to get it off the books. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: WikiBirthday
Thanks! Its been a good year and i hope the next ones will be to.  Cheers  Kyle1278 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI
You may have noticed, but with some kind help from friends Docu and MZMcBride, I've been using python more often than AWB these days. I thought I should let you know because you recently approved Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6 for AWB, but I've switched to python using a script written by MZM (code pasted onto the BRFA page). It seems to be working quite well. let me know if the BRFA page needs to be updated at all. (also, is it OK to paste the additional info at the top like that?) cheers, –xeno talk 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's unusual to post updates and code on the BRFA page, but I suppose it's fine to do. You should probably leave a note on User:Xenobot, perhaps in "task 6", linking to the new code. That's great that you're using python; it's much more flexible than AWB. – Quadell (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can do it a different way, by using the redirect page User:Xenobot/6 to transclude the BRFA instead. I'll fix this up a bit later. –xeno talk 13:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval, I believe this needs to be removed from the ones you've approved already, right? (Its new as of late Feb). –xeno talk 03:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. I fixed it. – Quadell (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK and Shadow Hare
The article looks like a good candidate for DYK, but it is too short right now. The prose portion of the text needs to be at least 50% longer. (I count about 1000 characters now, and the standard minimum for DYK is 1500 characters.) Once it's long enough, write a hook (or two or three) and nominate it... (I might have more to say, but it's bedtime now.) --Orlady (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! I've expanded it, and I'll nominate it shortly. – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice contribution! --Orlady (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan
Hi, I just wanted to notify you that I have filed a Wikiquette complaint against this user and would like you to take a look at what I've got there. Apparently, this user has a long history of unconstructiveness and aggression towards other editors, especially those who choose to remain anonymous. I would like your honest input on this matter. Thank you very much in advance and I do apologize that your time gets wasted with this kind of bullshit. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is being adequately discussed at AN/I, and I have nothing new to add to the discussion. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sambot 11
Hi Quadell.

I've got the cron-job up and running for this task now, and it made about a dozen edits this morning. One thing it is doing, however, is making edits like this one, which obviously is fairly pointless. Any thoughts about how to make it work more usefully?

[[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 07:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Bots/Requests for approval/Sambot 12   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've done a 50-edit trial, so if you want to check it's worked as you wanted, that would be great.  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 21:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:NA gills icon.png
Hi :) I can't delete the image because it's still being used by Mycomorphbox and I can't figure out a way to remove that reference. If you can do so, feel free :) -- Luk  talk (lucasbfr) 08:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After looking it over, I don't think either image can be deleted. The template is based on having images with both names, and it wouldn't be easy to change. Not sure how to tag intentional duplicates like this.
 * In other news, I like the new name! Although when you made the switch, it appears to have duplicated your bot pages: Note User:Lucasbfr/CommonsImages (Ok) vs. User:Luk/CommonsImages (Ok). Which are the real ones? – Quadell (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I screwed that one up :D. I'm gonna remain on User:Lucasbfr/CommonsImages (Ok) because I'm too lazy to implement a 2 names solution for the bot :). -- Luk  talk (lucasbfr) 00:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadow Hare
Buddy, should it not References proceed External links?. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the standard is there. Feel free to fix it if it's wrong. – Quadell (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the fixing. Here we go this is the link for Mos guideline, WP:LAYOUT. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for taking a look at Troy Davis case. I appreciate your commitment to NPOV. I am like you in that i beleive Davis should get a new trial but think that page is very biased. Thank you for your time. JakeH07 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

file:A BorisA Berlin1948.jpg
Hi again Quadell. Please could I request assistance on this one? I'm trying to get the copyright question right on USSR photos which have clearly been made before 1951/54. I yesterday uploaded such a photo file:A BorisA Berlin1948.jpg which is rare evidence for important recent research on the subject of the article Alexandrov Ensemble. However it has been tagged on the grounds of the administrator being "not sure" (see Possibly unfree files/2009 May 4). I have responded, giving further information on the image page, and on the discussion page, but have had no response, and no modification to the tag. Please could you kindly give your opinion on this, or modify the tag if appropriate? I am happy to ask for the image to be deleted if it's justified, but at the moment we are in limbo, with a deletion tag on the article page. The exam season at my college starts tomorrow, so from tomorrow until the end of July I shall not be able to monitor these pages daily. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've left a detailed comment at that page. – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Quadell. Thank you for kindly going to so much trouble over this one.  I guess now I'll just have to wait and see whether a decision is made.  The trouble is: it's almost impossible to find out anything to order, about births, marriages and deaths in the USSR at that time, let alone about who took photos. I have been trying in vain to find out the fate of the young hero of that hour - Nikitin - who was a famous tenor, still mentioned today by Alexandrov Ensemble directors - yet he suddenly stops recording in 1951 at the approx. age of 33, and that's all we know.  If we can't trace the fate of the much-loved and still-remembered Nikitin - what chance do we have of tracing a non-famous photographer who, if still alive, would be at least 80yrs old? My guess is that the photo was taken by a Russian member of the choir. This is because the other photograph (see image-link in article) shows all the photographers and reporters crowded at the sides of the stage, and there is no space for outsiders to get to the middle of the choir, between the choir and orchestra - which is where our photographer stood.  I don't know if any of that helps, but it's the best I can do.  I'll copy this onto the discussion page.  Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks
I thought no one noticed. Where did you find this out? Wow! I'm just too overwhelmed. Thanks, really, thanks a lot. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Wilson dab
Hey, Quadell, thanks for the message on my Talk page. This editor has now put a warning on my page and Cunard's re breaking the 3RR, which as far as I can see neither of us have. However, the editor in question has re-added this entry six times and it's back on there now. Can you offer any help with this? The editor has posted about it on the MOS:DAB Talk page and corresponded with 3 editors about it, but isn't backing down. I hate to get embroiled in these things, but I can't let somebody bully their way through this either.

I've edited a bit of your latest batch, but won't do as many as last time because it's hndis pages I focus on. However, I'll keep chipping away at it and mop up the name pages in your next batch. Your bot shows up just how many dabs need work on them! I've got 15,000 of the hndis pages on my watchlist, so at least I'm quite confident about them, but there are many articles which still aren't on them. Oh well, at least I'm not stuck for things to do on here! Thanks again, Boleyn2 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I blocked him for 24 hours. The 3RR violation is obvious, and his messages are inappropriate as well. I see there is an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation too. I'll keep an eye on things, but let me know if you continue to have problems. Thanks for all you do! – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Block Evasion
Hi Quadell, just a quick note to point out that User:Melchiord is apparently using the User:Gregory Clegg identity to get past your ban per this edit. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS question on PUF
Greetings. I'm not an OTRS user, and I only vaguely understand how the process works. On Possibly unfree files/2009 April 23, IronGargoyle noted that has a permission verified by an OTRS ticket. For reasons I'm unclear on, IG suspects that other images (listed at Possibly unfree files/2009 April 23) might be covered by the same ticket. Can you confirm this? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That permission ticket applies only to the one image where it's used. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright question
Hi! You answered my question about the WWII family-owned photos and if how they can be released for use on WP. You said there is no paperwork involved or anything to have this figure's son release the photos, but how does WP know it has indeed been released under a free license? It just takes my word for it? Is it just a verbal thing/email thing where this man's son tells me, "Yeah, we'll release it under that licence" and I tag the image with it? Or does he need to send an email to WP confirming that he does indeed wish it to be released under that license? Is it really just as simple as I'm reading it to be? Thanks so much for your help!

Oh, also, if the family owns a photo (as in, the rights presumably), but it's been previously published in a book about the WWII figure in question (but never released via a free license thing, only given a credited byline), does it still belong to the family and they can give me permission? Or do I now have to seek it from the book's author/publisher? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. If the copyright-holder uploads the image himself, he can simply pick a license at the upload and that's fine. If you're uploading it for him, he'll have to certify that it's truly released under a free license. The best way to do that is to upload the image to Commons and add OTRS pending to it. Then have him e-mail permissions-commons@wikimedia.org saying the following:


 * As for your second question, the creator of a work holds the copyright regardless of whether it was published by someone else. You don't have to worry about asking the book's author for permission. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

List of people who have served in both the United States Congress and the United States Supreme Court
I've just finished throwing this together, please evaluate and let me know what you think. I'm concerned that the numbers I came up with don't match what Abraham's book indicates. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it sure looks to me like you covered all the bases. Does Abraham just give a total count that's different from yours, or does he list them? – Quadell (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Abraham just gives a total count; I have another book, "Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics?" by David M. O'Brien which lists the prior positions of the judges as including 6 from the Senate and 2 from the House (both sources are concerned only with occupation at the time of appointment). Some news sources have reported lately that fourteen Senators have been appointed to the Court, but it is not at all clear whether they mean current and former. bd2412  T 00:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons images
Hey-

I'm just curious about some of the local images that you deleted since they are now available on commons. It looks like a number of recent ones didn't have the full upload history which is needed for GFDL reasons, and one was tagged for deletion on Commons. F8 says that the upload history is needed and image shouldn't be tagged for deletion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The upload history is only needed for GFDL images where the previous versions were used in the creation of the current version, and by separate authors. (For instance, if you upload an original GFDL map, and I modify it, saving it over the same name, then the upload history is needed.) But for PD images, or CC images, or for "replacement" versions of images that don't use previous versions, or for images previously published elsewhere, the upload history is not required for the GFDL. Are there examples where the Commons version didn't have GFDL-required history?
 * Also, I've been pretty careful not to delete the local version when the Commons version was up for deletion. What image was it? Was it perhaps nominated for deletion after I deleted the local copy? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah; okay. I hadn't really studied the CC licenses and wasn't sure if they needed the history or not (although I did notice some GFDL images (like this one) which don't have the full history). I looked through a number of the images from the time where I saw the one tagged for deletion, but couldn't locate it; I really should have recorded that in my original post, huh? Anyway, it was most likely orphaned (so many are...) so wouldn't meet fair-use anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)