User talk:Quadell/Archive 50

Your GA nomination of Trapper Nelson
Hello Quadell, I just wanted to let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Trapper Nelson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Hope I have done my best.  Roh G ??  &middot; &#32; 16:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Good fungus (wow!)
Thanks very much for the star. It's nice to know someone's noticing. That one'll hopefully be going to FAC, soon- just hoping my enquiries will turn up a usable image! J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great to hear, and good luck! – Quadell (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

re: User:Quadell/MoveToCommons guide
If you allow me to, I will tweak it a bit. If not, no hard feelings. I was thinking of creating my own page either way.

One thing though, I would not grade transfers. In my opinion transfers are either acceptable or they are unacceptable. If they're missing information or are not understandable, it's not a "C", it's "unacceptable". Grades have an air of finality about them, whereas the methodology we should be using is "that isn't quite right, here's how you fix it".

 S ven M anguard  Wha?  00:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, tweak away, I'm glad to have any help! I see what you're saying about the grading... but how would you judge a move that transferred all material successfully, but left the image uncategorized and needing a botcheck? It was a successful move... but it'd be a shame to pass up an opportunity to add information, when someone is already looking at the image and seeing how it's used. I couldn't "reject" a move like that for reward purposes, but I'd like to encourage better work at the same time. If grading isn't the way, then how? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Quadell. Thank you for taking the time to move those images to commons and for pointing me in the right direction for the relevant policy (here). I'm not 100% on image policy so your explaination was much appreciated. I will ensure I do this in future. Anotherclown (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's what I do. If you have any other questions, or if a tricky situation comes up, feel free to contact me. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

GA
Hello Quadell!I have reviewed your article Trapper Nelson. Now, the article has no problems so I have promoted the article as GA per GA criteria. Hope I have reviewed well,If I have done any thing wrong please notify me So that I can rectify my mistakes.Thank you.  Roh G ??  &middot; &#32; 12:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great news! You did well, checking against the MoS and verifying the sources. I know it's weird when a GA has no images, but I did a thorough search and couldn't find any free ones. Thanks for the review! – Quadell (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah!I too have gone across the web and couldn't find any.Hope I'm ready for working on other parts of Wiki.Cheers  Roh G ??   &middot; &#32; 13:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

John Neild GA
Hi, thanks for holding this open for me. I've attempted to address the issue by organising the information in the "early life" section thematically rather than chronologically, dealing with personal affairs first and career second, and of course by playing around with a lot of the sentences. Let me know if there are any lingering problems. Thanks again! Frickeg (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll try to fit in a review of my own when I have more time. Frickeg (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed
Hello Quadell!I just want to know that MoS says Reliable sources are needed for verification.can you help me out with this article cite? is this reliable or not?? Regards.  Roh G ??  &middot; &#32; 16:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a good question. I can't really tell. Did you ask at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard? That's where the experts on RS hang out, and they'd probably be able to give a definite answer. – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked now!! waiting for their comments. Thanks for the help.I've seen your review for me.It really gives more energy to work on wiki regards  Roh G ??   &middot; &#32;

communication book
Hi. Good for you for making up a replacement for the book. I don't know if you saw that at   Courcelles seems to have changed his mind now that he knows that I made the book myself. But whatever; I really can't get my head around this kind of stuff! However, if you don't mind, I have a suggestion: if it were possible to add grid lines between the images on your board that would make the board  even more realistic. --Poule (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that on the Commons; thanks for pointing it out to me. I'd rather use your photo than my illustration, but if the FAC people would prefer my illustration then that's fine too. Yes, I can add lines between. I'll do that now. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The communication board looks much better. Thanks.  I think we should wait and see what happens with the Commons discussion; we can always return the picture later, if it clears the hurdle.  I may also write to the company... you'd think they would be delighted to have their devices/symbols on a page with high visibility.  Maybe they could even donate some better photos than mine!--Poule (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

GA pass
Hi

Thanks for the banner congratulating me on getting the Belitung shipwreck article through GA. It is nice to be appreciated every now and again :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted image view needed
This was deleted 19 August File:Micah Schweinsberg.jpg as a non free image. I believe it's back again with a free use tag as File:MicahSchweinsbergteresa.jpg. The summary lists the deleted file as another version. Thought I recognized the image as being the same one which was deleted, but can't see a copy of the deleted photo. The deleted photo listed a url as its source. The account has uploaded other images to both WP and Commons which could be questionable.

Also possible there are either sock or meatpuppets connected with this as they seem to work in tandem in the interest of this page Micah Schweinsberg. User 1 User 2. Would an SPI be useful with this? We hope (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's the exact same image. User:Musicloversb17 uploaded it, and at first gave no information. He later provided http://drummin.skyrock.com/94.html as a source, with "Sky Rock.com" listed in the permissions field. It was deleted as a clear copyvio, and I have speedily deleted File:MicahSchweinsbergteresa.jpg as a duplication of previously deleted content. I don't have the ability to do an SPI check, though.
 * Thanks for watching this. I've left a note at Commons:Commons:Village pump about it as well. – Quadell (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for looking! We hope (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There's another one here on WP but not at Commons. I noted the source on the file page: File:Redrootssmallerpic123.pdf. We hope (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to trouble you again but the image has been re-uploaded for the third time File:MicahSchweinsbergplayingdrums.jpg by the original uploader. We hope (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I took care of it. I also warned the uploader. – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is Oh, Brother!. Thanks!! We hope (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ducie Island
Hi Quadell, after checking all the sources of the article again and the valuable help of the Guild of Copy Editors, I think it's ready for a new GAC. I have nominated the article again.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's passed! Congrats. – Quadell (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

St. John's, Newfoundland
Thanks for contributing a second opinion on the St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador GA review. Folklore1 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's what I do. – Quadell (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Templates (IV)
--Antemister (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mali: Official documents are PD (article 10), see Chapter VI for the duration of copyright
 * Mauritania: Does not have a copyright law, but Article 128 of some commerce law and article 401 of the penal code forbid reproducing copyrighted works
 * Commons:Template:PD-Iraq Official documents not covered by copyright article 6
 * Commons:Template:PD-Lebanon (Law): Chapter VIII for Terms of Protection, article 4 excludes official documents from protection
 * Congo, Republic of: article 14 excludes official documents from protection, Chapter 9 for the duration
 * Botswana: article 4b excludes official documents from protection, article 10 for the duration
 * Commons:Template:PD-DRC Official documents are without copyright, if a understand article 7 correctly


 * Thank you again. I have updated Commons:Licensing, PD-Lebanon, PD-Iraq, and PD-DRC. I have also created PD-Republic-of-Congo and PD-Botswana. – Quadell (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Moma
Until this discussion is decided one way or the other and in keeping with WP:AGF it is a sign of 'bad faith' not to let the imagery remain...Modernist (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do assume good faith; I don't your question your intentions, and I'm sure you want to improve Wikipedia. But it's important to remove non-free content as soon as possible, when its use violates our policies. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Request
Hi Quadell, just as I was looking around for an uninvolved admin, your name popped up on my watchlist. :)

I'm looking for someone to speedy delete this fair-use image, which isn't used anywhere and can't be, per BLP. It was recently uploaded and added to Jessica Valenti, the subject of the large inset. The image has been used to harass her in the past, and she feels harassed by it now. She has asked that it be removed; see her comment here. Discussion at BLPN here, where there is consensus that the image is inappropriate.

If you want to know the background, the context in which the image was used to cause a problem for her is described by her here in The Guardian, 8th paragraph onwards. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a non-free image of a person for whom a free image exists. I deleted it per F5. – Quadell (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, it was not being used just to show what she looked like, so WP:NFCC does not apply. It was used because the photo itself was subject of commentary in the article.
 * Also, while the photo may have been somehow used to attack the subject, notice that the source of the photo was the subject's Flickr account.
 * That said, I do not necessarily endorse the article mentioning the controversy surrounding the photo. I've even tried to raise the issue with Ms Virgin above, but at the time she was happy with the article covering the issue. --damiens.rf 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Quadell. Damiens, probably the less said about this going forward, the better. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Aw, thanks so much! I review a lot of different kinds of articles, but I always enjoy reviewing your nominations. I've got two more on order now... All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Toronto summit GA
Thanks a lot for your kind words! I'm glad it finally attained GA status. :) EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a topic that many people hear peripherally on the news, but few understand well. It's great to see good articles on topics like that. – Quadell (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for second opinion at GA review
Hi Quadell, I was wondering if you could take a look at Caffo, which is currently being nominated for GA. I am still rather underexperienced, so I would like a second opinion regarding the comprehensiveness of the article. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I was feeling like it would probably warrant a pass, but I wasn't sure. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WASP-44 GA Review
The appetizer's out. The main course will be on the table in a sec. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You do an excellent job at tearing up the backlog of me-nominated GANs. Again, thank you very much! --Starstriker7(Talk) 15:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On me


HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Just for being an all-round decent Wikipedian. Leaving a personal message for every editor who's had a good or featured article promoted is very kind, and certainly helps to make those editors feel appreciated. I've also been admiring your work on Bill Clinton from afar, and it's good to see a seasoned editor taking on such a mammoth task and keeping the GAN afloat. All the best. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding WikiScotch to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 01:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, friend! Bill Clinton is turning out to be a lot tougher than I'd thought. I hope I get it up to GA standards, but even if I don't I'll know I improved it significantly. – Quadell (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edward Millen
Thanks for you note, and sorry to be so long in responding to it. I've examined the text you mentioned, and the article follows it closely. But how close is too close? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was also unsure, so I asked User:Moonriddengirl about it. My question and her answer can be seen at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 38. I brought this up a the GA nomination here. He made these changes to the article, and I helped further revise the article here. At this point, I felt it was far enough from the source to be safe. I hope this is helpful, – Quadell (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very helpful, thanks. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Templates (V)
--Antemister (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Andorra: Article 4,2 decleres official publications as PD, article 18 for the duration
 * Angola: Article 9a decleres official publications as PD, chapter IV for the duration
 * Antigua and Barbuda: Article 9b decleres official publications as PD, article 10-13 for the duration


 * I appreciate you finding this information. I assume you'd like the information on Commons changed. Are you able to make these changes yourself? – Quadell (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried, it is easier than I thought: Can you have a look on Commons:Template:PD-Andorra, Commons:Template:PD-Angola, Commons:Template:PD-Antigua and Barbuda (is there no copyright protection for normal, non artistic photographs on Antigua and Barbuda?)--Antemister (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It all looks good to me. (I believe photographs are considered "artistic works" is Antigua and Barbuda.) – Quadell (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Request Clarification
From what I read, you supported the deletion of an image ("Oversized Koran folio.jpg"), and you still want to have a position of higher responsibility within Wikipedia?

Wow, that almost makes me login again --91.10.41.42 (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, five years ago I uploaded an image of my wife at a Quran exhibit at the Smithsonian. Soon after, she told me she wanted the image removed, so I removed it. I'm not sure why you're still going on about this. – Quadell (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No; I don't think we ever met.
 * So you removed content from Wikipedia just because your wife wanted it? Was this a naked picture? Was she even recognizable in the picture?
 * And again, you think this is appropriate for a steward? --79.223.29.3 (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, this is not an old story, you are continuing to keep the content away from wikipedia. AFAIK, no replacement pictire was ever found. If you agree that your action back then have been despicable, all you have to do is to publish the picture. --79.223.29.3 (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we want to move venue: []
 * Well, that was not allowed, so please reply here. --79.223.29.3 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

--79.223.29.3 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I submitted the image myself. Then I removed it myself. This was not a steward action. You seem very angry about this, but I have to confess I don't understand why. – Quadell (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the idea that I'm angry? Is anger required in pointing out appalling mistakes in someone's behaviour?
 * AFAIK you are no steward, so that obviously was no steward action. Still, you attempt to gain a position of power within Wikipedia, and should be prepared to answer questions about its policies. In this case the question is: Am I allowed to remove any content I added to Wikipedia? --79.223.29.3 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This varies from wiki to wiki. On the English Wikipedia, G7 at Criteria for speedy deletion allows a user to delete an article or image if he or she is the only significant contributor to the page. But all Wikimedia projects must adhere to the Foundation resolution on images of identifiable people.
 * Neither of which applies here, as I understand the matter. Do you have anything substantial to add? --79.223.29.3 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't consider my action to be "despicable" or "appalling", as you put it, and neither did the vast majority of commenters at the RFC. That RFC was closed 5 1/2 years ago, and I haven't heard anything about it since. I understand you disagree, and I respect your opinion. Since I no longer have access to the image, I'm not sure what more you would like me to do.
 * I think you (understandably) misread what the people said. There are the ones simply disagreeing with your act entirely (Babajobu, Dragons flight and Kaldari) and the ones who admit that it was a mistake but grant you special dispensation (Curps and JesseW). Now, I don't blame you for wanting to protect you wife, but actions have consequences, and after a blatant abuse of admin powers for personal gain, you should have given up any office in Wikipedia. That you actually apply for stewardship is a sad joke (though not entirely suprising for Wikipedia).
 * Babajobu is especially perceptive here, pointing out the hypocrisy of anyone pardoning you. From my experience, IAR and accusations of Rule Lawyering are always brought up when an admin messed something up (along with unspecified accusations of WP:HARASS).
 * Incidentally, I don't view stewardship as a "position of power", as you put it. It's simply another volunteer job. I'm willing to do it, but if the community decides they would rather someone else do that job, then that's fine with me too. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your glaring misjudgement about power might be an even more compelling reason to resist your candidacy. I know that false modesty is practically law here, but for a stewardship this is taking it far into (take your pick) the delusional or the political lie. --79.223.29.3 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW: By accommodating religious extremist who want to treat your wife as cattle you are helping them, and it's not very hard to understand that. --79.223.29.3 (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Promotion question
Hey I just saw that you had put a congratulations on my talk page for the promotion of an article to GA. I've seen your messages on several user's talk pages. Do you do that on all articles passed to GA? If so that's impressive and appreciated. Great idea and keep up the good work! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings! No, I don't do it on all GAs. It's more of a hobby of mine, thanking nominations when I have time. There are many new GAs every day, and sometimes I get busy and miss a day or two. I also skip over some of them. It's just my way of saying "Thanks" to those that I'm particularly impressed with. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The people who bring articles up to GA or FA status are the real workhorses of Wikipedia, and they deserve recognition. I'm trying to do that myself at Bill Clinton, and it's a serious challenge! But I think I may have passed the hump now. Wish me luck! – Quadell (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Projects...
What a lovely message to be getting :)

As it happened my current todo list was to wait patiently until I could vote on the steward elections... but yes I plan to thoroughly extend speech-generating-devices soon and I'm doing a bit of a research dig on that at the moment, will be coming back strong on that shortly :) I think it can at least be much stronger representation... but I'm vaguely open to getting involved with anything in wiki-land at the moment - I've got a lot to learn :) Failedwizard (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you did a lot of work on speech generating device back in July! Once I'm finished on Bill Clinton, I'm game for that, or anything else. Of course, if you'd like to wait, that's fine too. – Quadell (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

re: signatures in JS
Hey Quadell. Have you tried splitting up the four tildes in the script, a la ? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't... it's so obvious, I'd never have thought of that! Let me try... – Quadell (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, works like a charm. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could escape each tilde with a slash to avoid string concatenation. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Ah, Dr., you give the best prescriptions! Make mine a sasparilla though... I never could handle my fake liquor. [[Image:Emblem-cool.svg|25px]] Thanks for the appreciative note though, seriously. It's never a truly negative community when there are still positive voices around. – Quadell (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:OnlyForQuadell
Do you know what might be going on with this user?  Acroterion   (talk)   16:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's the first I'd seen of that account. It may have something to do with recent vandalism on my page, or it may not, I'm not sure. Anyway, he doesn't seem to be up to any good. Would it be appropriate to block the account for username policy violation? – Quadell (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't seem to be trying to impersonate you, but I can't tell what they're really after apart from stirring things up.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, diffs of the talkpage vandalism are here: diff 1, diff 2. Do you think they're related? – Quadell (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say they're related.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to leave the issue alone. If they have some issue with you they'll see this conversation. If not, then it's just happenstance.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to report the user name as an attack username, but I see this is being observed already.--Cerejota (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reported and indef blocked --Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jumbotron images
Thanks for checking further on this. That's pretty much what I figured. Oh well. Guess I'll have to try and get closer to Sam Bowie personally next time! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well, too bad. I wonder if there will someday be a Wikirazzi, following celebs to try to get good, free photos... :D – Quadell (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I might already be part of it. While I wasn't close enough to get a shot of Bowie, I did get Joe B. Hall, Denny Crum, Del Harris, Brandon Knight, DeAndre Liggins, and Francisco Garcia at this event. I always try to have a camera on me when I go to these things for that very reason. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, great work! – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All your images
So I reviewed one of your images, I found that there was no source specified so I checked other images. All your moved images have the problem. Might I ask w=if you know the source? If you do not know, might I suggest that you stop with that type of image (Della Grazie Battery). Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 13:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is the uploader of the image, who took the photos itself. The image description pages say as much. ("Copyright H.J.Moyes - harry@shoka.net User:Shoka") – Quadell (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated the "source" infomation on Commons to better reflect this. If there are no further problems, I'd like to continue to transfer other photos by the same user. – Quadell (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

... listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Nobel laureates that Wikipedia has decided are &. Since you had some involvement with the List of Nobel laureates that Wikipedia has decided are 'Jewish', but won't say why redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Warden (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes, I see that this was appropriately speedied. – Quadell (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review
Further to your encouraging message, I've made an attempt at starting my first GA review (here); if possible, could you take a quick look and check I've made reasonable comments?  Jebus989 ? 09:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comments look very reasonable. That review is surprisingly thorough and helpful. But I note that the template at Talk:James D. Watson still says "status=onreview"; according to the instructions at Good article nominations, you should probably either put the review "on hold" to wait for changes, or simply fail the nomination outright. I think either option would be appropriate, though I'd personally be more inclined to the latter. Thanks for reviewing this nomination! – Quadell (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I agree with your inclination and have failed the nomination and notified the nominator. I hope to get more involved with GA reviewing in the future!  Jebus989 ? 11:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

AAC pics
Do you think that I should add something to the rationale that I designed/made both the communication book and the overlay shown on the gotalk ? It seemed from Courcelles comments that it was an important fact. Poule (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be a good idea. (Sorry for not responding sooner; I've been out for a couple days.) – Quadell (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem about not replying; 24 hour service not required and wikibreaks encouraged, say I! Anyway, I've added a bit more on Commons, which hopefully will help. --Poule (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

s(teward)
I hope you good luck at the steward elections. I will be participating as I do to each meta-wiki thing. Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 11:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the well-wishes! There are a lot of very capable candidates this year. Whether I'm elected or not, I'm confident that there will be a lot of good, new stewards come October. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup Barnstar

 * Coming from you, TonyTheTiger, that means a lot. Thank you for your patience and your insights. What a long strange trip it's been. – Quadell (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Media question
Hi Quadell, I wonder if you can help with a question regarding an article. I'm not sure if this is something that should go onto the NFCR page or if there is another review forum that is more appropriate. I'm looking at possibly starting work on the James Bond (film series) article to get it back up to GA status. The page contains a stack of non-free images, some in montage: firstly, are the montage pictures allowable, do you know? Secondly, would you consider (as I think I do) that there are just too many non-free images on the page? thanks if you can help on this! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a really good question. I would say that such montages are sometimes acceptable, though it's debatable. (Regardless, they should certainly have better copyright information: each film's name and studio at the very least; perhaps director as well.) I think we need to look at each non-free picture in turn.
 * File:BobSimmonsGunbarrel.png is very questionable, since it's already in a more specific article. I would remove it.
 * I think File:Bond, James Bond.ogg is acceptable, but I see there's disagreement on that point. :)
 * File:ParisandBond.jpg has to go.
 * In my opinion, File:James Bond at Madame Tussauds, London.jpg is not free and should not have been labeled as such. It's a wacky way to get around copyright concerns. A screenshot would just violate the studio's copyright, but this violates both the studio's copyright on the character and the sculptor's copyright.
 * File:BondChase.JPG, in my opinion, is acceptable. It's important to see the action and the variety to fully understand the topic.
 * File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG is more dubious. The flirtatious banter doesn't come through, nor do the multiple images convey much (to me) more than a single screenshot. And I doubt a single screenshot would be appropriate here. I'd remove it.
 * File:BondTitleMontage.JPG is rather in-between. It does convey what the text describes in ways the text alone doesn't convey, it is an iconic aspect of the film franchise, and the variety is important. On the other hand, it feels less necessary to me than the BondChase image. I would lean toward removing it, but it's a borderline case.
 * Of course, if you nominated the images for deletion, perhaps a different set would be deleted. And if you nominate the article for FA, perhaps a third permutation of images would be kept. So take this as one man's educated but unofficial opinion. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great - many thanks for looking over it - I'll delte one or two of the obvious ones, flag the remainder of the questionable ones on the talk page and delete them in a few day days of no-one objects. Thanks again - much appreciated. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A ps on a separate but connected matter, the .ogg file on Dr. No has been debated for a while and I've ammended the situation in the article, raising a new sub-section to talk about the introduction of Bond and some of the viwes of critics and analysts (as well as the polls) I'm hoping that this will sway a few of those who previously questioned it! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Promotion

 * Thank you, FW. That one was very difficult, but it's quite rewarding to have it completed. – Quadell (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So...
forgive my newness (and phone-based editing), but is game over? or is there anything we can do? Failedwizard (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks definitive, though I admit I don't understand what happened. I asked the delegate about it, so hopefully we'll find out more. Very discouraging. – Quadell (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting old image names after a move
You have to rename the existing links before you delete a filename after a move. Once you delete you have permanently severed any ties between the image and the articles it appeared in. See File:Gonzalo de Quesada y Aróstegui.jpg as an example, the old name was deleted as were any connections to the image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're quite right. I try to always do that whenever I delete an image. I must have missed this one... thank you for taking care of that for me. – Quadell (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!


I appreciate the sentiment, and for the encouragement. The cool thing about it is that I've recently gotten back into interpreting. How'd you know? ;) Christine (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal request
As a follow-up to my questions at WP:MCQ, could I request you take a look at the current work and give me your opinion as to the closeness of the wording? The meaning itself would be more for a Japanese speaker. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied at User talk:Crisco 1492/TIP. – Quadell (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied from there: "Fair enough. I hope the user I asked for help is willing. I'll blank the page. Thanks again for the help. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)"
 * Thanks Quadell. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you were the user in question! Oops! Ah well... I still think you did the right thing. (The thing is, I wrote to some Japanese friends asking for help translating, and linking them to that page. Do you think it could be unblanked for just another couple days?) – Quadell (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Abd al-Rahman al-Mahdi
Thank you for helping. I think the subject is interesting, the article pulls together a fair amount of material and is accurate as far as it goes. But I am not sure how accessible it would be to someone who knows nothing of the subject, whether there are aspects that should have more or less coverage, whether it is truly neutral, etc. A fresh pair of critical eyes would be great! Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm on holiday, and I'm reading through and taking notes in my downtime. I'll get back with you on this soon. – Quadell (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your initial assessment does not surprise me. There are some bits that I find rather puzzling myself. A general criticism that I am not quite sure how to handle is that this is a view through western colonial eyes. Yes, I would like to take it through - I am happy to attempt to make any changes suggested. Don't be polite. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

New Loew
Sadly not :( But since I (as editor-in-chief) always end up sharing in the other editor's pain, so I can justly bask in their limelight :P - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving images drives
First of all, thanks for your participation. I would like you to move WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drive Nov 2011 to WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/Jan 2012 without a redirect and move the subpages too. After the current drive, I would like WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drive Sep 2011 and its subpages to be moved with a redirect to WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/Sep 2011 and subpages. Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 10:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) Done both. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I was asking the September drive to be moved after but okay.   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 09:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this was taken care of. Thanks, Drilnoth! (I'm on holiday now, and my internet access is spotty.) – Quadell (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, this is a surprise! Thanks! If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. – Quadell (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo ownership question
Would like to add this image to our Fred Allen article, but need an opinion on original ownership. At lower right front, there's a CBS Photo logo, but the back is stamped Acme. There's another onethat's similar but it has no CBS Photo logo on it. Would really like to use them both; neither have negatives left.

UPI bought them in the 1950s, but according to the LOC few of the Acme marked photos in their collection were ever initially registered for copyright. They also found no Acme renewals for those that were. (This may open another interesting can of worms for free use images here.)

My thought is that CBS was the original owner of the images as they're both publicity photos with their press releases on the back for the premiere of Allen's show in 1940. What's confusing is the Acme backstamps and I'd like to have the opinion of someone who may be seeing it differently. Thanks!! We hope (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good find, regarding the LOC! That could certainly be useful for other images. In this case, however, these publicity photos were almost certainly created by the production company (CBS) and distributed to the press. This particular copy was owned by Acme, who stamped it, but I don't believ Acme ever held the copyright. That would have been CBS, but these sorts of images were almost never registered for copyright, and you can see that this image was first published in the U.S. without a &copy; notice. I would use the old tag. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! Am seeing scads of older Acme images online for various older news stories and publicity type photos.  If we can put something together regarding Acme's images and their status, it would open up many, many more opportunities for free use images here. We hope (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can put together a sampling, a list of a dozen or so, I (or you) could post the question on Media copyright questions so we can get more eyes (and have something to point to if there are questions down the line). – Quadell (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Am in the process of getting some Acme examples together now. It seems they were around from 1923 to 1952 and looks like many state and university libraries have Acme photos in their online collections. They look to have been a serious news force at one time, as I've seen Acme photos of John Dillinger's body and some of the Lindburgh kidnapping in the various online collections. We hope (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now have some examples from both eBay and from the Indiana State Museum. The Indiana State Museum has 32 Acme photos in their collection and you are able to view both front and back of the photos.  What you will see is a variety of stamps and some which still have their copy tags attached identifying them as Acme photos.  It looks like Acme was in business prior to 1923, as there's a 1918 photo of Connie Mack that has their stamp on the back of it.  UPI has also stamped the photo but of course it qualifies as pre 1923. We hope (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Indiana State Museum list of Acme Photos


 * Connie Mack 1918 eBay


 * 1948 Patricia Neal eBay


 * 1949 Ham Radio Opearator eBay


 * Jitterbugging circa 1940's-PhotoCentral


 * French Commander Alphonse Pierre Juin 1942 eBay


 * Supreme Court Justice Byrnes & Jackson 1941 eBay


 * Paterson NJ Wright Aeronautical Corp 1940 eBay


 * Photography Speeds Plane Production 1940 eBay


 * I've seen several others that are on Commons as coming from Acme, usually through the LOC. There doesn't seem to be a standard Acme copyright tag or anything, and I honestly don't know whether that would be helpful or not. Anyway, thanks for the finds. – Quadell (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Abd al-Rahman al-Mahdi - Status
Just to say thanks for your excellent input. I will keep working on the article, but am a bit busy in real life clearing a backlog of work before going on vacation next week, so may be delayed getting all the changes made. I find that they takes more thought and time than I would have expected. This is valuable learning. Again, I really appreciate the effort you have made and think the article will be much better as a result. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I'm willing to leave it on hold for a bit, so long as you're still planning to actively work on it. – Quadell (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, no question. This one turned out a lot tougher than I expected, but I will work it through to completion. This is a valuable process. It does not particularly matter to me if the article gets flagged as "GA", which will not be of any interest to readers. But I want to clear all the comments and get it to a reasonable level, partly because the subject deserves it, mostly because I thought I knew a lot about how an article should be written but find I have a lot more to learn. Be picky about my changes. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Featured Article promotion
Thanks much, Quadell! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Irenaean theodicy
Hi there, Quadell. A little while ago you reviewed and rejected my Good Article nomination for the Irenaean theodicy article. I've spent the past few days trying to improve the article to get it to GA standard. Do you think you could have a quick look and tell me if there is anything you think I need to improve before I renominate the article? Thanks very much. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look at it soon. – Quadell (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (replied on your page.) – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)