User talk:Quadell/Archive 51

From Russia, with Love (novel) & Images
Hi Quadell, I wonder if I could ask your opinion on the number of non-free images of book covers to use in an article. I'm working my way through the Bond novels, aiming for a GA status for all of them. I've got to book five, From Russia, with Love, which has three different covers, all of which are non-free. This seems to strike me as excessive, but I cannot find anything guidelines as to what an appropriate number would be. I'm guessing only one, but would appreciate your thoughts, if you're able to help. (To put it in a slightly better context, I'm aiming to get the article to the standard and length of some of the previous books - Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker, etc. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, using three book covers is a WP:NFCCa violation. I've nominated 2 of the 3 covers for deletion. – Quadell (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thought so! I'll drop them from the article straight away and leave it with just the first edition cover in there. Thanks again for your help - you're an absolute star! -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thanks, Blue Raspberry! I'm enjoying it. All the best to you as well! – Quadell (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Logo Uploading Problem
I have a problem to upload a non free logo of Assiut University, i tried a low resolution with a logo license in wiki English not the commons and a list of types of extension and i still have a problem that the logo also do not match the MIME type , the links to the logo are http://www.aun.edu.eg/images/logobig.png and http://www.aun.edu.eg/faculty_news/aun/Uploadimage/icon/iconnews_1515.gif , so sir I'll be thankful if you upload it and give me the link for it ,Thanks in advance sir Ahmadpontymageed (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That was very weird. The University was calling the logo a PNG, but it wasn't in PNG format. I was able to edit it on my desktop and save it as a GIF, then I uploaded it and included it in the Editing Assiut University article. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Translated Copyright Templates
While still creating and improving copyright templates, I found that already existing templates which have translated version are a problem. If I want to add new condition, the translation become useless (or, at least, less useful). Deleting the translation is, understandably, not welcomed. What could be done with such templates?--Antemister (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. Perhaps there is some way to add a request for an updated translation? – Quadell (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Abd al-Rahman al-Mahdi now perfect
At least, almost perfect. Not bad, anyway. Well... time for a vacation in a hill village completely cut off from the internet. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent work! This article has passed GA status with flying colors. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I really appreciate the time and care you put into the review, and your patience with my slow-motion responses. I learnt a lot from this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Question
Quadell, is it okay to post on the Parker's Snake Necked Turtle page "can be found at the San Deigo Zoo"?

PanthalassaRex (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone can edit the Parker's snake-necked turtle page, including you. Just click the "edit" button at the top, add the information, and click "Save". But if you want to be helpful, you should include a source. Is there a book or pamphlet or website some other reliable published information that says this turtle can be found at the San Diego Zoo? If so, include that source so everyone will know the information is reliable. Check out Citing sources for more. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hank Williams
Hi, I'm here again to ask for your help for a review. I worked a while ago on Hank Williams' article and I nominated it a while ago. Since you do a good work, I would appreciate your help if you are not busy to review the article. Thanks again for your time!!!-- GD uwen    Tell me!   22:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can review that. I know very little about Hank Williams, but an outsider's assessment is sometimes more valuable. Give me a few days... – Quadell (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Take your time. An outsider's assessment is very, very useful. It proves if the article is complete enough to learn about the topic. Thanks for your help once again!-- GD uwen    Tell me!   15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

-- GD uwen    Tell me!   16:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Another image question
Would like to upload this early image of Danny Thomas as it's one from when he was working in Detroit as Amos Jacobs. He worked at WMBC there from 1932 to 1940, leaving for Chicago then and also making his final name change to Danny Thomas. As you see, the only identification on it is the name, the radio station and the cafe he was performing at (which is probably how the newspaper had the photo). Suggestions, please, as it's bothering me that the photo can't be positively traced back to Thomas, WMBC, or the cafe. Thanks, We hope (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a really tough case. I would upload it with the old pre-1978 thing, since it was clearly published without a copyright symbol. But it's debatable, and it's too bad we don't have more information. – Quadell (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Normally try to stay away from situations like this but when it's a rare photo, or one that's perhaps our only chance to have a free use image of some earlier performers, you want to try.  I upload both sides of images as a rule, so the notations would be on record.
 * If I haven't been too much of a pain, there are two early cartoon stills I'd like to ask your opinion of for use. Thanks again, We hope (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Sure, feel free to ask about any odd cases you find. – Quadell (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK--both are from the same cartoon. Both are marked on the front with the same production number hidden in the drawing in one case, and both have the same odd stamp on the back that could be mistaken on first sight to be a copyright mark but appears to be either a photographer's or collector's stamp. They look to be photos of the frames taken for publicity purposes as the cartoon itself was in color, and the original print of it is said to be lost. These would be nice for the article page we have on it. Thanks again ! We hope (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * frame 1
 * frame 2


 * "the original print of it is said to be lost"... Do you mean that the (color) cartoon itself is not available? Do you know if the cartoon itself was in color, or if the cartoon's copyright was renewed in 1966? (I'm assuming it was first published in the U.S.) – Quadell (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The cartoon was originally done in color and what's available now has been taken from a reissue print of it, which is also in color. The copyright was renewed in 1966. We hope (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, well I guess the question is whether the print is a derivative work of the copyrighted cartoon. For photographs of actors on sets, the photographer is not creating a work based on the broadcast -- the filmed version not yet been created when the photograph was taken, or it was being created at the same time. That's why many publicity photos of actors on sets are not derivative works. But for for animation, I don't know. It seems likely that the animation was already created when the still was created, or that at least enough of it was created to base a still on what was made. And that would make the still a derivative work. I really don't know enough about the process of animation publicity to say for sure, but I'd err on the side of caution and say that if a animated work is copyrighted, any publicity stills are copyrighted as well (unless we can confidently show that the stills were published first). – Quadell (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with you re: we don't know enough about when the photos were taken. We can't win them all, but it's fun to try anyway! :-) We hope (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This impolite bozo forgot to say Thanks! ;-) We hope (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, We hope! Keep on doing what you're doing. – Quadell (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed
Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I commented at the discussion page. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

GA
I'm aware you're very busy - but if you get a sec to look over my shoulder at my first GA review as reviewer that would be great... It's Talk:Reading,_Berkshire/GA2 and I'm looking for any feedback - and possibly an image expert to look over the pictures and check I've not missed anything obvious... Failedwizard (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, no trouble at all! It looks like you picked a tough one for your first. Keep in mind the previous GA nom back in June; that reviewer said the article was close, but his suggestions went unanswered for two weeks, so he close it as not passing. Hopefully the same thing won't happen here, but it might. Be sure that all of the previous review's suggestions are done (at least the ones you agree with). Honestly, if there are still unmet suggestions from the previous review, you'd be justified in quick-failing, but the article is very thorough and well sourced, so I understand if you don't want to do that.
 * Usually, a (-) like you gave for 2a and 2b means the article did not pass. If there are problems, but you think there's a chance it could be fixed within a week, mark that criterion with "hold" instead (like I've done at my current review). As you can see in my example, I like to put suggestions for improvement at the bottom so the nominator can see them all in one place and respond to them without making the GATable too long and unwieldy if there's a lot of back-and-forth. But that's just me; you don't have to do it the way I do it.
 * I checked all the images (That's a lot of images!) and they seem to all be legitimately free or validly used as non-free content, and all are correctly tagged and licensed.
 * If you need any specific feedback of tips, beyond what I've said here, just let me know. I'm on my way out right now, but I'll get back to you probably Monday. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're a star! thank you so much! :) Failedwizard (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as an update, I finished the review and placed it 'on hold' waiting for a couple of bits to change in the referencing, my worry is that the 'on hold' week is slipping by (finishes on the 10th) and there's not much activity.  I've just posted on the talks of the relevant editors - do you think there's anything I've missed?  Failedwizard (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, I just saw this... Sorry I missed your question! Anyway, it looks like you finished up the review and passed it. Congratulations on your first successful review! Well done. – Quadell (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Augustinian theodicy
Hi there, Quadell. I've recently been working on the Augustinian theodicy page in an attempt to get it up to GA standard. I found your comments on Irenaean theodicy really helpful, so I was wondering if you could have a look and give me any feedback you have before I nominate it for GA. Thanks - your help is really appreciated. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be glad to look at it on Monday or Tuesday. – Quadell (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's wonderful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see a couple problems.


 * The lede should not contain material not present in the body. This lede describes an overview of the theodicy, says who Augustine was, and what works he wrote in. This material should be in the body. (See the next two points.)


 * I would add an initial section called "Overview" or something, with an overview of the theodicy. Without that, a reader is dropped right into the history without really understanding what it's a history of.


 * In my opinion, the Augustine section could be fleshed out. Certainly introducing who Augustine was would be useful, but also, the section has four rather thin paragraphs, and could use a more full explanation.


 * I don't think it's proper to say that Augustine developed his theodicy in response to the evidential problem of evil, since I don't believe the evidential POE had been articulated as such at that time. And the source you use for that paragraph, Tooley, doesn't mention Augustine at all. (Again, in the Plantinga section, you assert that the Augustian theodicy relates to the evidential POE and not the existential POE... but the source doesn't mention Augustine.)


 * I don't think http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/evil_and_theodicies_tutor2u.html is a reliable source.


 * I think Calvinism can be summed up in a more encyclopedic manner without a list or TULIP mnemonic. The section on Calvinism needs better referencing as well. I would advocate rewriting much of it. (Cavadini is a great resource here.)


 * There are many paragraphs with citations in the middle, but not at the end. That indicates that the final sentences of those paragraphs are unsourced. Make sure that every paragraph is sourced, and that every major statement of each paragraph is actually backed up by the source or sources given.


 * It would be useful to have a quote or quotes from Augustine. There are some possibilities here.

I hope this is useful feedback. I look forward to seeing how the article progresses! – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your feedback, it's really helpful. I'll see what I can do to improve it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at the Calvinism section and have tried to rewrite it. I think I've made it more encyclopedic, but I found that section markedly more difficult - do you think it is ok now (just the writing/style - I'm currently looking for more sources)? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's much better. The writing style is great. There is a small problem with accuracy, I think. Predestination is a subtle thing. I don't think it's quite accurate to say "Augustine proposed that the crucifixion of Jesus was enough to atone for all sins; Calvin suggests that Jesus' death was only ever supposed to sufficient for a small group of elect." I also think it's subtly incorrect to say "Augustine believes that anyone and everyone can be saved, whereas Calvin argues that only those who are elect will be." Here's why.
 * Calvin (as I understand his views) thought that everyone has free will, including the ability to turn to God and be saved. But he also believed that not everyone will, and that God knows who will and who will not. Therefore, paradoxically, if you are not "elect" (predestined to be saved), you won't use your own free will to turn to God and be saved. It's not that you can't, exactly... just that you won't. On the other hand, if you're elect, then God always knew you'd turn to him and be saved.
 * Now my understanding of the nuances of Calvin's teachings could be incomplete. You'll want to be sure to go with what your sources say, not with just what I say. But be sure not to inadvertently misrepresent Calvinism (even if it seems self-contradictory, is it does to many).
 * But yes, the prose is much better. – Quadell (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your feedback, it's really helpful. Thanks for that clarification (I never liked Calvinism); I'll have a look round for other sources to clarify the theology (the two I've found thus far do seem a little ambiguous). Would you say the sources in the section at the moment are ok? I have a slight concern about the reliability of the Mason source. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. The Mason source would be good in an article that covered different reactions to Calvinism, but in this sort of article it's probably too baldly POV. Good catch. – Quadell (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. After reading what you said about Calvinism, I've had a look at a few sources. What I've read seems to suggest that Calvin is proposing that God did choose who is elect and who is not before/at creation. Those who God ordained elect will eventually become Christian and those who are not elect will never become Christian. I've tried to add words to that effect to the article: what do you think? This was a useful source. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent source! Yes, the issue is always complex, and it's easy for laity like me to confuse one form of predestination for another. I think your summary is good, and I suspect the article is ready to be nominated for GA status. – Quadell (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your help, support & feedback. I'll just make the last few changes I had planned and will then nominate - thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to commons
Thank you for organizing the drive.--Guerillero &#124; My Talk  18:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the one that organized it.   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 20:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, it was Ebe123. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you Quadell, but Drilnoth was going to award, I placed a wait on the awarding, and SMasters, Drilnoth, and me wanted the Commons ambassaor barnstar. Finally, much reviews had to be done (111) for you (110) and Acather96 (1). Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 20:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Also, make sure that all the awards that could be v2.0 is that. I am changing for me. Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 20:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be adding a note and removing the awards.   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of these plans. I hope it's all worked out well now. – Quadell (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We finished at 97% so the teamwork barnstar was mis-awarded.   Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 20:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think several people showed outstanding teamwork, and fully deserved the teamwork barnstar. Including you. – Quadell (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hank Williams
Thanks, I'm still working on that. I have been trying to fill that gap in the timeline you pointed out and it has been taking me a little time to do some research.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   19:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've been very patient with my many nitpicks. I'm sure this article will end up one we can both be extremely proud of when we're done. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Poll on other wiki moves
I made a poll to decide whether to allow other wiki's moved files for the next drive. It's at the drives talk page at the end. Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. I commented there. – Quadell (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Background of the Spanish Civil War/archive2
Very helpful review, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! I think it's going to be an excellent FA once my nitpicks are taken care of. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh you weren't nitpicky at all, and I think it will go well because Grandiose is very easy to work with ... I was concerned at first because I was having a really hard time with the copyediting, but you've put your finger on a lot of the things that need to be fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, you probably noticed that he's going to be away for a few more days, but then he should be back for the duration of the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

St James' Presbyterian Church of England, Bristol
You were most helpful a few months ago.

I have scanned and uploaded File:StJamesPresbyterianCofEBristoldaybombed.jpg  and put it in the article  St James' Presbyterian Church of England, Bristol  only to have it deleted by someone.


 * I believe that it has significant, if local, historic interest
 * I feel confident I have copyright in it (the Bible was given to me at my christening).

I am wondering if you can influence the situation and try to get it included in Wikipedia.Duncanogi (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there doesn't seem to anything copyrightable in the picture, and I'm glad that you're willing to contribute it to Wikipedia. The image has not been deleted; it still exists at File:StJamesPresbyterianCofEBristoldaybombed.jpg. But it has been removed from the article.
 * It's really up to the Wikipedia community as a whole, whether the image belongs in the St James' Presbyterian Church of England, Bristol article. I can see both sides. You may want to start a discussion at Talk:St James' Presbyterian Church of England, Bristol, to try to get more opinions about the question. Meanwhile, what I have done is move both images (the picture of the tower and the bible) to Commons, and the article now has a link to the Commons category that lists all related images (including the Bible scan). – Quadell (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:War of the Pacific
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks & A Little History
Thanks for your input and advice. I've never used the Wikipedia permission e-mails before, so I am a little bit nervous. Five years ago, when I admit I was being a bad user, I once provided real world contact information to an administrator. The contact person in the real world received some very nasty and threatening e-mails and it actually damaged our friendship. Ever since then, I've been extremely hesitant to provide any kind of outside contact data to Wikipedia. I'm told OTRS is secure, so I guess it will be okay. Just wanted to let you know where I was coming from. -OberRanks (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. Yes, OTRS is totally safe, but in general you're wise to be carefully about revealing colleagues' personal information on Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding awarding of "copy to wikimedia commons" sep 2011
The problem is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives is showing that sep 2011 drive has been awarded and its now closed.I know that there was a misunderstanding regarding the awards and my award was deleted because somebody else wanted to present the award.But with the awarding being closed it has become more condusing.Just wanted to ask you whether I should revert back to the old award that you gave me. Sorry for the trouble but you seem to be considerate enough to listen to me ...  Vivekananda De  --tAlK 12:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. There was a lot of confusion there at first, but it's clear you have earned your barnstars, so feel to undo the removal. Sorry for the trouble. – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!!!
'This user is a steward '

I throw a metaphorical party for you :) Failedwizard (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, congrats!    Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 00:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ebe123. It was very big of you to change your vote, and I appreciate it. I'm looking forward to the next drive. – Quadell (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats and Best wishes!!! Vivekananda De  --tAlK 04:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats!! Look forward to working with you on the next drive. --SMasters (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Shapley-Folkman lemma: Image review for FAC
Hi Quadell!

Editor Ucucha has requested a review of the images for the article Shapley-Folkman lemma. I see that you have recently reviewed images for another featured article, and so I hope you don't mind another request.

Thanks for your contributions to the project.

Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I'm on it. – Quadell (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so very much for your help! :) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC
Sure, unfortunately I'm away for the weekend, but I'll review when I return  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've now done this. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's-up on the review I left hanging for the Hudson Valley Rail Trail. I hope my support is enough to get it through!--~TPW 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll see! Thanks for doing that. – Quadell (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you Roh. I will certainly do my best. – Quadell (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Background of the Spanish Civil War FAC
Thank you for your comments so far, and I do think moving completed points to talk is a very good idea. I have only a few more points to account for, although some of my replies require your oversight, if you could drop by. Ta. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your diligence. It should be ready soon, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Buster Seven   Talk  12:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I'm glad it's helpful! Wikipedia dearly need more high-quality article on theological and philosophical articles. – Quadell (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly agree. I'm quite interested in the philosophy of religion, so hope to contribute a lot more to that area. Would you mind if I continue to run improvements to articles and articles I create past you for feedback, please? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! – Quadell (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Featured_article_candidates/Rochester_Castle/archive1
Has this one passed your image review? - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll go make that clear. – Quadell (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2011 October 12
If you could take a look at this and see if I dealt with it correctly, I'd appreciate it. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks like a valid use to me, in line with WP:NFCC. Well done. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I have in the past avoided dealing with NFCC and given the officiousness I have recently experienced, I am likely to go back to that. But since some articles I monitor are probably going to lose images over it, I figured I'd do some cleanup while I have to keep an eye on the deletion lists. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm very familiar with the NFCC situation, so if you have questions about any specific images, feel free to ask me here privately. – Quadell (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright check
Hi Quadell, and congrats on making 100k edits. Could you take a look at the file contributions by User:JAGO? I suspect copyright violations, as the images are of web resolution and have no exif data, but it is already near midnight here. Thanks in advance. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I searched on both TinEye and Google Image Search, and these images don't show up anywhere else on the web. Although the new food ones are closer to web resolution, the older ones are larger, and all of the subjects of the photos are from the same location: in and around the Hague. I don't see any reason to doubt the uploader's claim that he created the photos himself. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC
Hi Quadell, thanks for doing reviews at FAC! One small point: we're discouraged from using templates like ✅ in FAC reviews. I've taken the liberty of de-templating a couple of your reviews. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join the January 2012 Move to Commons Drive
You got this message since you added yourself to the last time or is a member that stated yourself for moving files or related help. If you do not want notification for a future drive, please add yourself to this list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Images and Media at 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC).


 * You forgot to add yourself at the logs subpage. You won't be able to get any score without!  Also, you're not supposed to add the timestamp (~~~~~).
 * Ah, okay. I think I have it now. – Quadell (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC for 1689 Boston revolt
I made more of your suggested changes and revisions; I am still unsure on two points. You can check the review for more details. Thanks!  DCI  talk  04:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have updated my review. There are still a few issues remaining. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving images to better names
Hello. There is a bot as far as I know but it takes its time getting round to all the articles. Admins come along later and delete the redirects. You may find it easier to change the links in the articles yourself to speed things along - I've done this myself with a few articles - but it's up to you what you'd prefer. Hope that helps. Cloudbound (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Replaceable fair use
Template:Replaceable fair use has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fleet Command (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Turkism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Turkism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/FfD
Hi Quadell. As you probably know, when nominating files for deletion at WP:FFD using twinkle, it occasionally fails to list the file. Because of this bug, I have set up a program to generate a list of files nominated for deletion without an associated nomination. A few of the files you nominated for deletion came up in the report, so I thought you might be interested in this list. Regards,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this list is a great idea. – Quadell (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why my image in the chroma subsampling article was deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:420-progressive-single-fiel.png&action=edit&redlink=1

"A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

18:25, 5 June 2009 Quadell (talk | contribs) deleted "File:420-progressive-single-fiel.png" ? (An identical copy exists on Wikimedia Commons)

This image should not have been deleted because the chroma subsampling article is missing that image and it is missing content. Help? Glennchan (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I must have deleted this image because I believed that it already existed on Commons at the same name. I see that this image once did exist on Commons, but was deleted there for having insufficient licensing information. I have restored the image here, and have placed it back in the Chroma subsampling article. Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another media question for you!
Hi there, Sorry to have to hassle you again with a media question, but I wonder if I could pick your brains again. We're trying to get List of James Bond films the the Featured List process at the moment. There has been some talk about the single image we used on the page, :File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png, a non-free logo image. In your opinion, is the use of this image acceptable as the page stands, or would there have to be additional justification? This is the old version of the page containing the image. If you have any thoughts I'd be very grateful to hear them! Many thanks, as always - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've commented at the FLC. – Quadell (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great - many thanks for that indeed. (I just have to get the CSD F6 tag taken off it now!)- SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Polbot and monotypy
In August 2007, User:Polbot went through the articles it had created based on the IUCN Red List, and starting redirecting monotypic genera to their sole species, and noting on the species articles that they were in monotypic genera. How did Polbot expect to know which genera were monotypic? Did it assume that any genus with only one endangered species was necessarily monotypic? I have just come across one obvious error (Chevreulia given as monotypic, despite containing 5 – now 6 – species ), and I am worried that Polbot may have made a large number of similar errors, potentially running into hundreds or thousands of false statements and misplaced redirects. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Stemonitis. I share your concern. You asked "Did [Polbot] assume that any genus with only one endangered species was necessarily monotypic?" No, not exactly. Polbot looked for genera where only a single species article existed, and where IUCN only listed one species. (The IUCN lists many species that are not endangered, such as the "least concern" species Chevreulia lycopodioides you allude to above. Also, many articles on species were created by individual human editors.) I was under the impression at the time that where the IUCN listed a genus and species, it listed all species; however, this is not always correct. Where only one species article was listed for a given genus at both Wikipedia and IUCN, Polbot concluded that it was monotypic.
 * In many cases, of course, the species truly is monotypic, and the conclusion was correct. In other cases, the species was considered monotypic in 2007, but more recent research has shown other species in the genus. (Polbot can hardly be blamed for that.) But in a third group of cases, such as the example you found above, Polbot treated the species as monotypic when it was not. (Thank you for correcting this error in the cases you found, by the way.)
 * So what's to do? I can no longer run bot tasks, as I no longer have access to the environment I used back in 2007. I do, however, still have my logs. On this page I have listed the 606 remaining cases where Polbot treated a species as if it is monotypic within its genus. For many—perhaps most?—cases, this assumption was accurate. For others, the information has since been corrected. But in others, the article incorrectly claims the species is monotypic within its genus. I'm still unsure how to proceed; I can't run a bot task to correct any problems, and even if I could I wouldn't know how to tell if the assertion of monotypy is correct or not. (I wouldn't want to remove correct information, after all.) Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and I would welcome any advice or assistance on what can be done from here. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I, too, have been wondering how best to proceed. Your log is a good start. The best procedure I have come up with is to mark any assertion added by Polbot that a taxon is monotypic as citation needed, provided it hasn't been subsequently backed up by a citation. (What happens to the genus redirects will depend on the true status of the genus.) It may be best to involve a WikiProject in cleaning this up; I imagine that would have to be WP:TOL, since there are both animals and plants (and potentially other kingdoms) on the list. I'm busy for the next couple of days, but I'll look into the situation in more detail after that. The problem has been lying in the shadows for several years now; another week or two won't cause much extra harm – I'd rather get it right than rush it. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a great idea. Adding citation needed is something I can do, at least. I have done a few, and I have updated User:Quadell/scrap2 to give instructions to anyone willing to assist. (Feel free to reword or change those instructions in any way you like, of course.) – Quadell (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A follow-up question: Phlebolobium doesn't appear on the log you prepared, but it was both created by Polbot, and redirected as monotypic by Polbot (which appears to be true in this case). Is there a second bunch of presumed monotypies that need to be added to the log, or is this a one-off? --Stemonitis (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)