User talk:Quadell/Archive 49

Good Article promotion: Michelle Pfeiffer
Thanks for the kind message!!!-- GD uwen  Tell me!  00:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Featured Article promotion
Thanks for the kudos. I love the homicide picture you chose. lol —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mighty Jill Off
Yeah, sorry; I'll do it on Sunday (I have a wedding to worry about on Friday/Saturday). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the huge delay. I've been sick and tired all this week, so I have very little creative spark to write. :S - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Surprise!

 * Thanks so much! It always feels great to feel appreciated. You're one of the good ones, Drilnoth. – Quadell (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi
I saw you gave User Vitorvicentevalente a barnstar here for his work on Love The Way You Lie Pt 2. I feel quite annoyed because it was actually me who did all the work on the article and I nominated it for GAN, which it passed. And for you to praise someone else who didn't actually contribute to making the article worthy of GA status in the first instance is a bit disheartening. Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  23:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Gnome-face-surprise.svg|30px]] That's weird! I don't know why I did that... (checking)... – Quadell (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like I simply looked at Talk:Love the Way You Lie (Part II)/GA1 and saw that Vitorvicentevalente had put the check marks next to the change requests. I hadn't seen that you were the nominator, and I hadn't seen all the work you did on the article either. (This was two weeks ago, back before I had the process figured out.) Mia culpa! Sometimes it's tough to figure out who's responsible for what improvements, but I certainly didn't mean to skip over you or ignore your work. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  10:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, more questions
Hi Quadell,

Thank you for your help. I have one further question. After I edit the image description, since it is originally my image, do I have to still request for undeletion, as Sfan00_IMG mentions?

Thanks, Ivanalu (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I answered on your talkpage. – Quadell (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help Quadell. I have edited the description. :)
 * (I apologize I do not know what is the etiquette. I guess respond on the individual's talk page if they are not active?).  Thank you for your help.
 * Ivanalu (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Different people use talk pages in that different ways, replying on each other's pages, or keeping it all in one place. So long as you understand each other, it's fine. [[Image:Classic smiley.svg|30px]] – Quadell (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question re: list; feedback sought
Hi, Quadell. I haven't pestered you for a copyright opinion on a long time. :D If you're not interested or able to weigh in, please just let me know, but I told the contributor I'd seek further opinions.

Basically, we've got a copyright question where the contributor is seeking feedback to a table he'd like to implement. The listing is at Copyright problems/2011 July 19. I have some concerns that he may be right to worry, since the table is described by its poster as "my personal interpretation and point-of-view", which clearly removes it from the realm of fact. But there are some differences in the table as implemented in the article, and I wanted a second opinion--hopefully from somebody who may be familiar with the subject. :D I've also asked User:Dcoetzee. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A conundrum! I have commented there. – Quadell (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much! We need more contributors on Wikipedia who understand policy and want to help. So I'm always happy to show people the ropes. I hope you stick around and keep contributing to this great project. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tiverton Preedy
Hi Quadell, thanks for your note. I've only recently (this morning) seen it; and have responded on my talkpage. I agree in part but not fully with my collegue Jed. Some prose is OK; some of it is in commmon use on the TV and in newspaper, but is poor all the same; but not all of it is good. With copyright violations becoming a hot topic at WP:GAN and elsewhere, it would be good if the article was checked against the book used as a source. Perhaps that has been done already, I don't have the book. Sorry this comment does go somewhat go against WP:AGF, but in the worst case, if there are violations the author/publisher could take legal action against wikipedia.
 * It's true, reviewers need to be careful. I don't have access to the book either, and no part of it is available online. Thanks for your feedback! – Quadell (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments. If you were not aware: unfortunately for me, DKY started checking GAs for copyvios out of interest. Two of the many articles that I reviewed at GAN in 2009 were found to contain copyios, another (outstanding) GAN reviewer also suffered. Adverse comments being posted at DKY talkpages and then migrating across to GA talkpages. I'm trying to put the message across that such checking is difficult to do, but it aught to be done: I'm not sure that that message has been heard correctly. Pyrotec (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much! GA nominators and reviewers deserve appreciation for their efforts. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you broke the record (which nobody kept track) of receiving the most barnstars in a month (or at least in a week's time). OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review of Yarborough v. Alvarado
Hi! Thanks a lot for taking on the GA review of Yarborough v. Alvarado. I'm really excited to get some critical feedback on the article and am looking forward to improving it! Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Would you like to tell me what on earth you are talking about? You appear to be imposing yourself in an issue between myself and Jimbo.. I fail to see the purpose of your "last warning" when it is clear this guy is maliciously attempting to stifle my contributions to Wiki. How about you tell him to get off my back and stop throwing spanners into my articles, before questioning my integrity? Ma&reg;&copy; usBriti sh  [talk]''' 19:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning your integrity; I'm letting you know that your behaviour violates our policies. You may strongly disapprove of User:Jim Sweeney's edits, but he has not resorted to calling people names and making personal attacks, you have. If he does so, he will be warned as well.
 * I can't tell him not to edit "your articles" as you request, because there is no such thing as "my articles" and "your articles". Here on Wikipedia, all articles belong to all of us, and anyone may edit any article that interests him or her. See Ownership of articles for more.
 * Regardless of any of that, you have to stop calling users insulting names and making personal attacks. Anyone who does this after being warned, including you, can be blocked by any administrator. You'll have to deal with your disagreements in some other way. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed reply, it has taken me a while to find the appropriate Wiki policy relevant to this matter. The fact of the matter is that JimSweeney is, and has been, WIKIHOUNDING me. His behaviour is scrupulously devised to agitate, provoke and bait me. He has engaged in passive-aggressive behaviour, and acted sanctimoniously, before hiding behind policies to mask his own behaviour. That is a "prig" per se - and calling someone a "prig" is neither an insult nor an attack, it is an observation - the manner in which he reacted to the term only proves my point. Calling someone a "prick" would qualify as an attack, because it IS an offensive word in itself. Therefore your reaction to this matter has been overly subjective and I protest in the strongest manner to your "warnings" given the full circumstances, which you are clearly unaware of - and as an admin I believe it is your responsibility to retain an open view when dealing with conflicts between editors. You are effectively siding with the aggressor, against his victim - me. Please withdraw your 2nd unwarranted warning or I may have to seek further advice from another admin regarding this matter, which I do not take lightly. You claim you are not questioning my integrity. Indeed you are, sir - by allowing misconduct to be taken against me, right under your nose, you are allowing the security on wiki, and my good intentions as an editor simply trying to nominate an article that has taken me 3 months to develop (technically "my article" in terms of birth and maturity, not possession) to be undermined. You are supporting a covert malicious act, on Jim's behalf, which is discouraging to myself as a contributor and others who view this conflict in-depth and see the truth of it. I'm sure you do not want to see this matter raised out of proportion - therefore I suggest you reconsider your position in the matter, and issue your warnings in future with a clearer understanding of the whole matter rather than an isolated frame provided by the perpetrator himself, who has thrown you ammo and you have taken it blindly. Which brings me back to the term "prig", defined in the article as "A prig is generally a passive-aggressive, instigating fights rather than participating in them. The prig is a survivor and will unconsciously attach to any group that seems to further his or her prospects. The prig approaches social interactions with a strong sense of self-righteousness." I choose my words carefully, and stand by them always. You can see that Jim clearly threatened me: "I will allow you to apologise for this edit summery [...] if not I will have to report it as unacceptable." Again, are you going to be subjective and ignore this fact - or does this passive-aggressive evidence speak for itself? (WP:DISPUTE) NB: Another admin pointed out that Jim's "demand" for an apology was "passive-aggressive" and "sanctimonious", therefore I know others condemn his behaviour. Why didn't you, instead of hounding me also? You might not be able to tell him not to edit my articles, but you could advise him to maintain his distance from me in future to prevent further conflicts - the guy is obviously an egotistic nut who thinks he has the right to push people around, demand things and curry admin favour - about time someone knocked him down a peg or two and put him in his rightful place as an editor - I don't care if he wrote 5,000 GA's, The Bible or if he built Wiki - he has no right to harass new contributors like myself (WP:DONTBITE). Hey, prove me wrong.. I'm open to undeniable evidence. If I really felt I was "guilty", as you all seem to think - would I have wasted my time typing all this riff-raff for your indulgence? Perhaps you should also consider this WP:REASON RULE before issuing warnings like Parking Tickets, in future; I consider your reaction hasty, unreasonable, and supportive of bullying tactics - I don't expect you to agree, but then few admins will ever admit when they're wrong, on any website.
 * Thanks. Ma&reg;&copy; usBriti sh  [talk]''' 06:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't want to be the only one looking at this, so I reported the situation at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, so other admins could see the situation and weigh in. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, instead of passing the buck you could have given me a simply spiffing reply highlighting the nuances of admin duty and serving King and Country, old boy, but whatever.. looks like a ripping conversation, wot wot! ;) Ma<font color="#CC0000">&reg;&copy; usBr<font color="#CC0000">iti sh  [talk]''' 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dolph
Thanks, quite appropriate image too!? Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a tough time finding an appropriate image there! Commons:Category:People icons has tons of nerds and businesspeople, but very few tough guys or body builders. Dolph deserved the best. :D – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"We get used to it..."?
Do you mean we get used to Wikipedia policy, or to Orange Mike being right? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter. "Oh, him. Being right about policy again. Let me check.... nope, still correct." [[Image:Face-grin.svg|30px]] – Quadell (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not many people bother accusing one of being right about things around here! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, much of what you know about policy you learned in the school of hard knocks, granted. And there have been people who have taken exception with your interpretation from time to time, or so I hear, especially in deletion debates. But it would be hard to accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about... at least, for those of us who don't want to look too dumb. – Quadell (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Love on Top for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Love on Top is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed here until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. <font color ="green" face= "Lucida Calligraphy">Jivesh   &bull; <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="red">Talk2Me  11:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I've never edited the article, and I've never actually heard the song. Looking at the deletion discussion, I apparently am not up-to-date with what song articles merit deletion and what ones don't. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Amina controversy GAC
The rules say it's your decision! Deryck C. 07:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm in. – Quadell (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Askarov GAN
Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough review of my nom at Azimzhan Askarov. I've addressed some of the issues you've raised there, possibly all, but I ran out of steam in trying to determine what would be reliable enough sources for expanding the article. To be frank, much of my last few weeks on Wikipedia were spent watching admins drop by DYK to explain why we're all worthless pieces of shit there for not being up enough on these rules (or, in some cases, for bothering to create new content at all), and I'm sorry to say that the experience has soured me enough that it's no longer worth it to me to learn the finer nuances.

Perhaps the article has developed far enough to pass as is; if not, please accept my apology for not seeing this quite through to the end. I'll withdraw my other GANs to avoid wasting anybody else's time in either case. Thanks again, and all the best in your future editing -- Khazar (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I heard there's been a lot of unpleasantness at DYK lately. I'm sorry you've gotten discouraged. Despite this, there really are pleasant places in Wikipedia to work, and there are appreciative folks here and there. I hope you stick around! All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't hear you...
You probably know this, but just in case:
 * Huh, no, I didn't know that. So it should be "the first recorded use of augmentative strategies with the deaf", but "in the Deaf community"? – Quadell (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... not sure - I think so. Just mentioning it in case it turned out to be revert-bait for someone who felt strongly about the issue :) One of the wonderful little things that make language delightful Failedwizard (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Templates
You recently updated the Sudanese copyright template after the independence of the South Sudan. There are similar issues with other such templates concerning the question if government works are PD, this is important if you want to upload the official coats of arms. In most cases this is possible, exceptions are usually only some former british colonies. Unfortunately information about this is not given in the templates, which means that often coats of arms get deleted. In recent months, I collected several country-specific PD-templates which do not provide this information. I already did some research in the several copyright laws (which are easily avaible here), but I also need one here to update the templates:
 * Commons:Template:PD-Algeria Art. 9
 * Commons:Template:PD-Cambodia Art. 10
 * Commons:Template:PD-Malaysia see talk page
 * Commons:Template:PD-Ethiopia Art. 5

Can you update them?--Antemister (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for doing all this detective work! I'll look at it in the next couple of days. – Quadell (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

These are my responses. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Article 9 of the Algerian copyright law specifies that government work can be used for "fins non lucratives" (non-profit purposes), and such works are not said to be in the public domain. Since non-profit-only works are not considered "free" on Commons, I don't think that PD-Algeria should be changed.
 * I have updated PD-Cambodia, though I'm not sure a coat of arms would qualify as exempt.
 * PD-Malaysia seems to be basically correct. I tweaked the wording a little.
 * The Ethiopia law exempts "any official text of a legislative, administrative or of legal nature, as well as official translations thereof." But official texts aren't hosted on Commons.
 * There are many flags and arms of Ethiopia in Commons, all of them licenced inappropriately (usually the very common CCGFDLwhatever-Copyfraud). If you are interested in correcting those templates, I will from time to time check each template. At the moment, I need a license template for the newly created coats of arms the Democratic Republic of the Congo(Law in French)--Antemister (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the DRC copyright code, it appears copyright is honored for 50 years after the death of the author (article 74), or 50 years after the publication of anonymous and pseudonymous works (article 76). Copyright for photographs is 25 years from publication (article 77). I don't see anything that would indicate coats of arms or government insignia are PD. I have made a template at Commons:Template:PD-DRC. – Quadell (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Asters listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Asters. Since you had some involvement with the Asters redirect, you might want to participate In the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stoned  11:36, 8August 2011(UTC)


 * Thanks, I commented there. – Quadell (talk) 11:50, 8August 2011(UTC)

Thanks
Hi! Thanks for your wikilove message :) Am still learning to read articles with the reviewer's glasses on. Would definitely try my hands at it when I feel I would be good enough at that. morelM William 06:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Johnmitchellumw.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Johnmitchellumw.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 21:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. – Quadell (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Red Headed Stranger
Hi Quadell, since I have seen that you have reviewed 20 GAC, and that you're pretty experienced on the subject, I need some help. Recently I nominated the article Red Headed Stranger to GA. It was listed today, but there was not much feedback from the reviewer, so if you have the time I would like to ask you if you can check it out for a second opinion. I think that any user deserves the benefit of the doubt, but after being reviewed in other GAC's I know that a reviewer has always something to say. Thanks for your time.-- <font color="#E62020" size="2.5px">GD <font color="#273BE2" size="2.5px">uwen  <font color="cyan" size="0.5px">Tell me!  00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings, GDuwen. Some reviewers give a lot of feedback, while others are rather taciturn. (Some reviewers don't say a lot because they didn't review the article all that carefully, but, to be fair, others review the article very carefully but still don't say much if the article is in great shape.) I tend to be more loquacious, myself. To be honest, I'm a pretty tough reviewer too; as my review history shows, I've failed more nominations than I've passed. But if you're up for it, I'll look over the article myself and give it a 2nd review. – Quadell (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have finished my 2nd opinion at Talk:Red Headed Stranger/GA1. It's on-hold, waiting for the issues I brought up to be addressed. – Quadell (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! It passes my very strict review. Very well done! – Quadell (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Wow, thanks! I was worried you might be miffed at me for closing the review... I'm glad to see that you're happy with how it worked out. If you want to do another GA nom review and you'd like a helping hand, let me know! – Quadell (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Thanks, I love baklava! I'm just glad there are folks working on getting articles up to GA status. Did you see this part of the Signpost, about progress in Good Articles? Apparently, more than one in 300 Wikipedia articles are now "Good Articles", which is a higher proportion than we've ever had! Go us! – Quadell (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Saskatchewan for you!

 * Thanks, I... I guess Saskatchewan is okay by me! [[Image:Face-grin.svg]] – Quadell (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

GA appreciation
Thanks. I am accepting Tigers on my user page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha covered. Rowr. – Quadell (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wikilove :)
I wish I could review GA nominees, but given my terrible track record at getting them promoted I wouldn't trust my own opinion on what makes a good article :¬|  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  15:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

MOA-2009-BLG-387L GAN


I've tried to beef up the infobox. Let me know what you think. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks great, and it's passed now. Great job! – Quadell (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Yum! I'm pretty hungry right now, actually, that looks tasty. brb, snacking... – Quadell (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops!
Hi, wish you hadn't deleted "File:Albert Schlechten1.jpg" because "File:Albert Schlechten.jpg" was improperly uploaded to commons, it's copyrighted. See  I really wish it wasn't, but I'm afraid it is. So can you restore the fair use version before the museum curators get pissed at us? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you're incorrect. Let's keep all discussion at Media_copyright_questions; I've replied there. – Quadell (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm willing to be incorrect on this one.  I've just lost too many screaming meemie panics on this in the past, so am real gunshy.  But if the community blesses it, at least  ** I ** won't be in trouble with the Museum crowd.  ;-)   Montanabw (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. It's worth it to be careful. – Quadell (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the barnstar! After deailing simultaneously with three trolls elsewhere, your decency and goodwill was a breath of fresh air.  Not sure which award you'd prefer:  do your tastes lean toward sugar (cookies) or booze (Guiness)? LOL!
 * Oh, I'm a sugar-man all the way. IRL I never touch alcohol... but I sure do touch a cookie or two. :D – Quadell (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Need second opinion re: images, please
There are 2 images I'd like to add to the Ernie Kovacs page. My belief is that both would qualify as PD-pre 1978 based on research done re: provenance of them. One of them is a very rare image, as there are no known copies of the television program itself still in existence. Talking this out would probably take up more room than is fair for one question at Media Copyright Questions. Would you be willing to be my "sounding board" on them? Thanks, We hope (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can ask me questions, and I'll do my best to answer. Any links would be helpful. – Quadell (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! Before I went this far with it, I took copies of both images to see if I would be able to remove the watermarks; was able to.


 * Auction 1


 * image front
 * image back

Earliest date stamp on back is 31 May 1951. This places it at Channel 3, Philadelphia (formerly WPTZ-TV). Other research confirms the shot to be from his early morning program, 3 To Get Ready. There are no copyright marks, but auction description contains the following: "All copyrights are owned by The Baltimore Sun or the issuing photo agency." My thought is that the original owner of the image was WPTZ-TV and they did not place copyright markings on it, so this caveat re: Baltimore Sun doesn't apply. They were provided the image by someone else for publicity purposes. The 1977 date stamp would place this as publicity for the PBS special The Best of Ernie Kovacs.


 * Auction 2


 * image front
 * image back

This has an ABC press release on back dated 19 March 1968. It was a publicity photo for the 1968 ABC special The Comedy of Ernie Kovacs. Research indicates the special was made from his 1960-1962 work at ABC. Shortly after his death in 1962, Edie Adams discovered ABC was recording over the tapes of his work in their possession. She used the proceeds of one of his insurance policies to purchase them from ABC; she began her archiving of his work in this way. I believe the owner of the image in 1968 to be Edie Adams, since she was the owner of the videotapes at the time; they were used by ABC for the special with her permission. The auction description says: "All copyrights are owned by The Baltimore Sun or the issuing photo agency." Don't believe the newspaper could be considered a copyright owner here as again, the image was provided to them by someone else for publicity purposes. The provider placed no copyright marks on it.

Why I'm anxious to get them as PD pre 1978 is because Kovacs' work was so highly visual and most of what we have of him are non-free files. Most of what's available would also be non-free images. It would be difficult to be able to "give up" one or two of the non-free images on the article for these, as I think we might be gaining something but also losing something in the process. Thanks again! We hope (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a complex question, and I'm afraid my answer is just a complex. For all of these situations, what matters is when and how the work was first published. Although "publishing" is not well-defined legally, a work is held to be published when copies are made available to the public (as a book), or when the original work is made available to the public in such a way that copies can be made (such as a sculpture being put on display where photography is allowed). So was a work "published" when it was broadcast on TV in the 1960s? As strange as it may seem, this is an unresolved legal question; there is as yet no case law to answer the question, and legal scholars disagree on the issue. (Remember that there were not any home devices that could record TV broadcasts at that time.) So whereas a film has clearly been published for the purposes of copyright law (since copies of the film were distributed to theaters), we just can't say with any certainty whether a TV broadcast was published or not. If TV broadcasting is a form of publishing, then nearly all pre-1978 TV shows are currently in the public domain, since that would mean they were first "published" before 1978 without a &copy; symbol. If they were not published when they were broadcast, then they were only first published after 1978, or are unpublished works, and will be under copyright for the life of the creator plus 70 years.
 * Okay, but these aren't TV broadcasts; they're photographs. (The resolution is much higher than would be possible through TV technology of the time.) These were made on set by a photographer, with an actual still camera, as often happened at the time. Were these photographs ever published? And if so, where and when and how? I'm having trouble understanding the details of this situation. Was it a Baltimore Sun photographer who created these photographs? If so, they are probably still under copyright. (The Baltimore Sun would have either published the photos in their newspaper with a &copy; symbol in the paper, or they would have sat on the photos and not published them at all--but then they'd be "unpublished works", and still under copyright.) But the other possibility is that the photographs were made by WPTZ-TV and ABC respectfully, and distributed to news organizations as press photos. If that's the case, then the photos are probably not copyrighted. They would have been "published" when they were copied and distributed to news outlets, and (unlike the way newspapers were published) this form of "publishing" was almost never done with a &copy; symbol or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
 * So can you tell me who created these photographs? Were they created by the television stations for distribution to news agencies? Or were they created by the Sun for publishing in their paper? – Quadell (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The 1951 photo would have been done by WPTZ-TV; the program in question was a local Philly show and would have been of no interest in Baltimore at that time. I can't say whether or not it was published in any of their local papers, as I don't know. The 1968 photo has an ABC television press release on it; it would appear that it was created for the publicity of the 1968 ABC special. In both cases, the Sun did no more than receive the images and possibly publish them in their paper for publicity of the 1968 and 1977 specials. We hope (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Searching copyright information for 1978 & 1979 for WPTZ turns up nothing and searching for KYW (call letters that replaced it), turns up nothing that would apply to the show or the image. We hope (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to really know your stuff regarding U.S. copyright law! Okay, yes, I think you can upload the photos and tag them with . Explain that they are publicity photos and were first published in [whatever year] when they were copied and distributed to news organizations without a copyright notice. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

My thanks to you for putting up with me with this!! We hope (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed
Hi, I am working on a draft of an article at User:KateJardiniere/draft and I would appreciate your expertise as an experienced wikipedian in helping me get it ready to be an article. Thanks!
 * Greetings! Sure, I can help with this. Let's discuss it at your user page. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Aw, thanks! I'm glad my head full of trivia can be useful sometimes. (That's why I hang out here.) – Quadell (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Kovacs 3 to get ready 1951.JPG Even Gertrude says thanks! :-) We hope (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Happy Quadell day!!!1!!oneone!1eventy!! jorgenev 20:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh wow! Thanks, I'd actually forgotten, despite trying to remind myself on my userpage! I think I'll go celebrate by having a piece of cake. – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, two stars in one day! This has been the best Awesome Wikipedian Day a guy could wish for. Thank you so much. – Quadell (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence
Thanks for jumping in on that GA nom. I thought I'd have more time this week, but real-life work got crazy. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I learned a lot! I'm glad it passed. – Quadell (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

John Neild
Thanks for reviewing the article. The paraphrasing thing is always tricky when there are very few sources. I'll try and address the issues within the next week. Frickeg (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've emailed you about the Wilcox source which hopefully will help on that front. Frickeg (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been quite busy - would you be able to hold it until the weekend? I should have some time to properly work over that passage then. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ducie Island
Hi Quadell, I'm here again to ask for your help to give another opinion to a nomination (hope I'm not being too insistent). The article needs a second opinion to determine the changes to be made, since the original reviewer has been involved pretty much on it. Thanks for your help!-- <font color="#E62020" size="2.5px">GD <font color="#273BE2" size="2.5px">uwen  <font color="cyan" size="0.5px">Tell me!  15:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always fair to ask. The worst I can do is say no. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|25px]] Okay, I'll try to review it on Monday. – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the reviewer closed it as "not passing". You renominate it, though it would be best if you could first fix any of the problems found in the previous review. Once you've done so, and you renominate it, let me know and I'll review it. – Quadell (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll work on that and I'll call you back.-- <font color="#E62020" size="2.5px">GD <font color="#273BE2" size="2.5px">uwen  <font color="cyan" size="0.5px">Tell me!  20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of an image
Hi, what's the status of an image that scanned from a book? There are two files in our Wikipedia (Image:67letter.gif & Image:67letter-1.gif) and are disputed about their copyright. These images was published in a book (about 20 years ago) for the first time. Can we use it as a Non-free content image? If yes, so we can copy two pages of any books as a non-free content? (PS: This is a hand-wrote letter of a person who was died 20 years ago and someone have published it in his book was died 2 years ago) Thanks a lot & I appreciate your help. -- ?MehranVB? ?talk 08:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, this looks like a complex case. The images are of Farsi text, and they are hosted on the Farsi Wikipedia... I'm I correct about that? Some Wikipedias (such as the English one) allow non-free images in certain contexts, according to our policy at WP:NFCC. Other Wikipedias allow non-free images under different rules, and most don't allow non-free images at all. (Wikimedia Commons, the central image depository for all projects, also doesn't allow any non-free images.) I can't say whether the Farsi Wikipedia allows non-free images or not.
 * You said that these images were first published in a book about 20 years ago. Was this book first published in Iran, or the U.S., or somewhere else? If it was first published in Iran, then we have to use Iranian copyright to determine the status. The copyright on these letters would be held by the people that wrote them originally (not by the person who republished them in a book). As I understand it, Iran would protect this copyright for 30 years after the death of the author. If the person died only 20 years ago, the letters would still be under copyright.
 * According to WP:NFCC, a non-free image can only be used on the English Wikipedia if seeing the image itself provided a substantially better understanding of the topic than reading text about the image would supply. Because of this, non-free images of written text (such as letters) are not allowed on the English Wikipedia; we prefer to simply have translations of the relevant parts in the text of the article. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, here are some info that may help: 1. Yes this is Farsi on Persian Wikipedia. 2. Basically Non-Free content are allowed to use in Persian Wiki except the ones that published in Iran (because Iran doesn't have any exact rules about that) 3. This book was published first in the Internet (and not any other countries) unofficially. 4. This book is the only source which prove that this letter is real or fake. 5. you said "non-free images of written text (such as letters) are not allowed on the English Wikipedia" can you please denote this policy exactly? 6. And my unanswered question: Is this right to use an image which includes two pages of text in Wikipedia? (because copying of a long text in Wikipedia is not allowed and break the free-content laws whether it's be a quote or not, two pages is very long, and we can do that, so we can scan the books and use their texts in Wiki) Again Thanks you for devoting your time for us. --Mhr.mgmz (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I used my second account. --Mhr.mgmz (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Regarding your point #3, books are never legally published "on the Internet". They are always published in a specific country -- either the country where the user submitted the data, or the country where the website server resides. Regardless, a letter first published 20 years ago, from an author who died 20 years ago, is going to still be under copyright anywhere in the world. So we have to accept that this is a non-free image.
 * Regarding your point #5, see Non-free content, especially the section on unacceptable uses of text. It lists, as an unacceptable use, "An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source." So therefore, your answer to question #6 is no, we cannot host these pictures on the English Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It gives me great pleasure to see your accurate answers, I wish you luck. -- ?MehranVB? ?talk 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're too kind. – Quadell (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin
Hello Quadell. I don't think we've ever interacted on WP. I'm involved with a rather difficult dispute over an interpretation of NPOV. Two editors are now claiming that there is already consensus for their position and say that they are unwilling to even discuss the issue any further. I don't think there is any consensus, but none of us are able to assess that with the objectivity of an uninvolved person, so I'm looking to find an uninvolved admin. Would you be willing to lend your assistance? Thanks, Jakew (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm willing to look at it. I'm afraid you're probably talking about Female genital mutilation, right? – Quadell (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm afraid you're right.  There was a requested move that led to the current title (I initially opposed but withdrew that opposition as it was clear that consensus favoured a strict common-name approach).  Since then there's been a lengthy debate over what term to use within the article itself.  Some editors favour a "always use the term used by the majority of sources" interpretation of NPOV, leading to "female genital mutilation"; three others (including myself) favour a more nuanced interpretation, preferring "female genital cutting".  Myself and one editor negotiated a compromise that would involve using a term used by several UN bodies ("female genital mutilation/cutting"), but this has been rejected by several of the others who favour the term "FGM".
 * The problem is how to move onwards from here. If I'm wrong, and there is a consensus, I need to drop it.  On the other hand, if there is no consensus, then we need to keep searching for an acceptable compromise, however tedious it may be.  Hence my request.  The whole discussion is at Talk:Female genital mutilation, but there's a huge amount of it.  Talk:Female genital mutilation is probably a good place to see the current status. Jakew (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: the discussion on just this topic (not on related topics) is over 22,000 words. That's several times longer than the article itself. I read only the "compromise" section, but I still don't understand what the major POVs are, or what terminology choice are being considered. This is intensely uninviting for outsiders to comment on. The natural result is that only those users who already have extremely strong opinions on the matter will care enough to wade through the debate.
 * It seems to me that this situation is exactly why the Requests for comment process was set up. I would advise you to start an RFC, perhaps using the posting tool. Be sure that your summary explains the specific issue under debate. This will require some background information for those who are not already involved, but do your level best to keep the description as neutral and brief as possible. Avoid acronyms, unless that's a necessary part of the debate. For example, it might go something like this: "There is a medical procedure most often called 'blah blah blah' in the reliable sources(footnote), but also referred to as 'something else' or 'yadda yadda' in other sources.(footnote) Consensus determined that the article should be at 'blah blah blah', but debate has continued as to how the (I'm not really sure what the debate is about, so explain it.) Some editors feel that consensus has already been determined, that (something). Others feel (something else). The questions at issue, even after lengthy debate, are (questions one and two). I'm hoping that outside opinions will help us reach consensus." Or, you know, something like that. If you'll create this RFC, and it's comprehensible to an outsider, I'll certainly comment. Deal? – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your suggestion, Quadell. I think an RfC might be a good idea, but I'm slightly hesitant to do so as I don't want to appear to be beating a dead horse.  I've proposed another temporary compromise, and I want to see the reaction to that before doing anything else, I think. Jakew (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still very uninviting. There's a suggested compromise, somewhere in the middle of the third major section from the bottom. It suggest a 3:1 ration of terminology used... as opposed to what? Would some people be happier with 1:1, and others all:none, I'm guesssing? Is FGC "female genital circumcision" or "female genital cutting"? An outsider wouldn't know. It seems to me that none of the terms used are inherently wrong, and no proportion (such as 3:1) is impossible... depending on the bulk of opinion. And right now the "bulk" of opinion is pretty internecine. It seems like using whatever the source used for that statement would lead to a lot of consistency problems, but I'm still not sure what problems that solution is trying to fix. You're still using the talk page as a way to talk only to people who are already extremely familiar with the issue, in a way that inherently discourages outside opinion. If there were a 1- or 2-paragraph summary, I could respond intelligently, but it would have to be neutral... and the best way to do that is with an RFC. Let's face it, you're already beating a pretty old horse... but is it a dead horse? That's the whole question. There never has been an RFC on the topic, has there? Just a requested move?
 * I'm just not willing to dive into 22,000 words of combative and lingo-filled prose, which is what I would have to do to have an intelligent opinion at this point. But if you do open an RFC, please let me know, and I'll do my best. – Quadell (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I take your points. I've drafted something at User:Jakew/sandbox.  Could I request your feedback on it?  I've condensed it as much as I can, but I'm concerned that it's still a bit long (3 paragraphs + 7 refs). Jakew (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reworded a sentence to make it clear that you're asking how to apply the policy, not whether to do so. You may want to tweak that sentence further, I don't know. But I think your summary is great. I don't think it's too long or complex. – Quadell (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Many thanks for your advice.  Jakew (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Templates (II)
Again an issue concerning copyright templates
 * Commons:PD-Yemen: Official documents not covered by copyright (Art. 4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antemister (talk • contribs) 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call. I added that. – Quadell (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Doh...
I made an edit to AAC talk page without logging in - could you revDelete? It's a little too easy to work out exactly where I live from the IP address... can do email if you want more particulars... is edit just before yours... :( Failedwizard (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have oversight ability, so I'm not able to do that. You could try contacting one of the users with oversight right, such as User:Wizardman or User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. – Quadell (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies - thought it was all amdin... will head over to one of your recommendations...Failedwizard (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User page
Hi mate! I just want to inform you that i have used your user page creation.It was really awesome,i just cant wait so i have picked your without informing! sorry may be it resemble yours and i want to go through it (possible fixes.Hope you agree! Thank you <font color="#00000">RohG?? &middot; &#32; 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, I hope it's useful to you. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!can you help me?I want you to know that my account which is used by me is also used my bro which he's reverting edits by twinkle! As i was really interested in editing wiki pages and make them up to wiki standards.I don't know what to do now!the pages are reverted but marking some of them as vandalism and Notifying the user (which is a false notification).Can you give me some suggestions? and how to protect my page being used by others??? Regards! <font color="#00000">RohG?? &middot; &#32; 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is against Wikipedia policy to share an account between multiple people. As our policy says, "User accounts can only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked."
 * You should change the password on your account to something your brother does not know. (You can do this my clicking here.) Then be sure to log out whenever you're done editing Wikipedia, if you're using a computer that your brother also has access too. That should fix your problem. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!![[image:SConfident.gif|20px]] You have saved me! <font color="#00000">RohG?? &middot; &#32; 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Templates (III)
--Antemister (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Commons:Template:PD-Malawi: Article 7a declares official documents as PD
 * Mosambique: Official documents are PD Art. 5a, see Chapter IV for duration of copyright for all other types of work


 * Thanks. I updated Commons:Template:PD-Malawi and created Commons:Template:PD-Mozambique. I also updated Commons:Commons:Licensing to reflect this. – Quadell (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible Assistance Please
Hello. I've added an article on Jade Alexis and have questions regarding sources. I thought I had enough reliable sources however does not appear so. Would you be able to provide some assistance? Any help is greatly appreciated. --LizGere (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Well, I'm not really an expert on what are considered reliable sources when it comes to contemporary sports figures like Jade Alexis. I know that official news sources, such as ABC and Fitness Magazine, are far preferable to self-published sources like blogs. It looks to me like there are reliable sources in the article. I do feel like the article still does read like an advertisement. For instance, trivia like "To relax, Jade travels, goes to the movies, reads and finds new and healthy places to eat in New York City" aren't really suitable for an encyclopedia biography, and things like "She does not accept the word 'impossible' or 'can't,' if there is a will there is a way" are not up to the level of professionalism we require. If you make the prose more factual and less glowing, I think you'd be justified in taking off the proposed deletion tag.
 * One other question, though: were you the photographer who created File:JadeAlexisWiki2.JPG? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the assistance. With your feedback I have edited the article to remove those points you mentioned. In terms of the image, I am not the photographer (Sara Forrest) however have approval to use the image on Wikipedia. Thank you again! --LizGere (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

GAR
Hola! Quadell i want you to intervene you in this article so that i can rectify my mistakes/errors that done by me hope this work wont be burden on you and please notify me that you have answered my Qn? so that i can check it.waiting for your opinion .Regards <font color="#00000">RohG?? &middot; &#32; 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. – Quadell (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quadell,thanks! <font color="#00000">RohG?? &middot; &#32; 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

 * Thanks! I love a good falafel. – Quadell (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Review
Hello!Quadell i have started reviewing the article which you have nominated for GA,but it may take some time to review as iam sleepy. Thank you! <font color="#00000">RohG?? &middot; &#32;
 * Thanks, I commented further on your talkpage. – Quadell (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anneliese von Oettingen
<b class="IPA">r<font color="#8B0000">? ana?</b> (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)