User talk:Quadell

Quadell's talk archives

The full archive

Just the most recent

Your deletion of Image:The Sign next to the Rochdal Canal.JPG

I pretty much created the Castleton, Greater Manchester page and I am rather annoyed that you and other people have torn it apart without consulting me. If you had referred to the history of this page you would see its main editer as me. I would also like to know why you deemed it necessary to delete my own image without consulting me first. Yes, I should have explained that it was my image and I didn't, but I would have appreciated a message. I am going to upload alot of images in and around Castleton and upload them, and I hope to see that they remain. Also, alot of sources yourself and other people placed have false links and citation is needed. 11:05. Michael D. Atkinson, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I thankyou for your swift reply and the return of the picture. I apologise if I appeared rather snappy at first, I didn't want to create any friction. I hope we and others can work together on the Castleton article, and I thankyou for bringing it up to speed.

Image copyright

Since you seem to be the "go-to" guy on image questions, could you take a look at my proposed solution to the copyright problem of Image:Churchill on HMS Kelvin June 1944.JPG and Image:HMS Kelvin.JPG at WP:PUI? -N 12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

In dealing with Image:Core_01.jpg. However, just to let you know, you put it on the wrong WTHS. New Jersey has 6 Washinton Townships, so its a common mistake. No need to worry, as i have reverted Robbinsville High School back, and added the restored image to Washington Township High School (New Jersey).

Also, just so the distinction is clear, I have split the core section of the article into to phases (one of which being construction), and added more info on the construction itself (such as cost, architects, what was built, ect) Hopefully this will keep it within WP guidelines.

As for the other images, I'm gonna try and drive out there tommorow after work. If I do, I should have the new images of the building in its current state up sometime tommorow night. Feel free to check it out.

Again, thanks for your help with this issue. Rawboard 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Webb RFAR

I noticed your contribution to this request for arbitration. The statements you make cross a line from observations to personal attacks. You present your opinions as if they are facts, and lack even a basic assumption of good faith. Would you consider moving them elsewhere or rewording them to mitigate the damaging accusations? Thanks, --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think are personal attacks? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"I strongly suspect that the account-holder has no further interest in editing as CharlotteWeb because the account was designed solely to be a sockpuppet admin. Her defensiveness and evasiveness are telling." Although you qualify this with a mention of strong suspicion, ending this statement with "defensiveness and evasiveness are telling" invokes the idea of this being an established fact. "In all likelihood, Jayjg's actions prevented another sockpuppet-admin, like User:Runcorn" is also problematic. On what grounds is this likely? The comparison to Runcorn is obviously not designed to paint CharlotteWebb in good light.

In any case, I respect your right to a personal opinion. However, in an exhortation to the artbitration committee not to accept this case, these statements are unnecessary and potentially hurtful. The remainder of your statement should be able to stand on its own. Please consider other possibilities, such as CharlotteWebb feeling the need to stop responding due to a real or percieved fear for their personal safety. Coming to the conclusion that the only possibility was intent to harm Wikipedia is a rather negative and disappointing result.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I feel my statement is useful and appropriate as-is. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I appreciate your response. Completely aside from this thread, I would like to mention that I think that User:polbot has made an excellent contribution to the field of disambiguation in Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation. As a backlog junkie, something like this warms my heart!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete requested - author changed his copyright

Hello. You recently deleted three images I had uploaded.

• Image:Britomart Denis Wilford 02.jpg,
• Image:Britomart Denis Wilford 02.jpg,
• Image:Ports Of Auckland Jellicoe.jpg.

I have contacted the creator of the images, and he has assented to change his copyright to Creative Commons without the noncommercial restriction. Please undelete and change the copyright tag, I will take care of reintroducing them into the articles. Please leave a note on my page when you have done so. Thank you.

Updated copyright tags would be found at [1] and [2], though I believe the links were also provide on the image description pages.

Cheers MadMaxDog 06:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great! I love hearing that another copyright-holder has chosen to release his images under a free license. I have restored the images and updated the licensing information. I don't have a record of what articles they used to be in, though, so they're currently orphans. Could you put them in appropriate articles for me? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation

Great idea! How can it be kept up to date though? Did you ever see List of people by name before it got nuked? That had several lists that help with disambiguation. Are your suggestions comprehensive (looking through the whole database), or would the bot have misssed some examples? Carcharoth 09:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, it's not comprehensive at all. It just lists the ones I happen to have found while creating redirects for U.S. representatives (Polbot's "Function #2"). I'm sure it isn't even 1% of the total. In fact, I have a list of 1000 more, and when enough of the current ones get done I'll add the next thousand or so. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is where the DEFAULTSORTing comes in! Once all the biographical articles have been DEFAULTSORTed (and the majority will need checking by humans, due to Asian name conventions and oddities such as "Prince John..."), then you can stick them all in one category and browse using a system similar to the one I set up for Category:Living people. See User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index. At random, I clicked on "Pr" and found five people called "Prado", but only two of them are listed at Prado. Incidentially, one of the people on the list at Prado was Edward C. Prado who doesn't have any birth categories, persondata, or WPBiography template - finding all the articles like that will be difficult. I've now added the birth category and WPBiography template and a DEFAULTSORT key. I 'forgot' to add listas, so your bot should catch that. :-) Guilherme Raymundo do Prado is sorted under Raymundo do Prado, so appears here in the Living People category. So in that case, the DEFAULTSORTing doesn't help the disambiguation, but it would seem to be a step in the right direction. Carcharoth 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons fro deletion of image

Hi Can you please specify the reason why you deleted the Arya_logo.jpg image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Balagopal.k (talk • contribs)

Certainly. When you uploaded Image:Image-Aryalogo.jpg, you forgot to give any information about its source or copyright status. As Wikipedia:Image use policy explains, we can only use images on Wikipedia if you give the source (where the image came from, and who owns the copyright), and you give the image a valid copyright tag. Since the image didn't have either of these pieces of information, it was deleted.

If you can tell me where the image came from, I can restore the image and help you list the source and give the correct copyright tag. Just let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions:

1. If the picture which was uploaded came from a specific event which could not be replaced by a free image, it should be allowed to stay correct? So screenshots of live television events should be allowed to stay?
2. Screen shots from DVD movies should be allowed to stay as well because they identify the movie and specific parts of the movie they are representing?

Thanks!! :-) Lindell005 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Illusions image

I have already given details about the images source, so the tagging is not needed. I f you need more information, then use the urls supplied.

I have removed tags. Dewarw 14:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did give adequate information about the image source, but the image does not have any information about its license. (It was previously tagged as a web-screenshot, but it's clearly not a web screenshot.) Is the image available under a free license? If not, how does the image fulfill out non-free content criteria? This information must be provided, or the image can't stay on Wikipedia. The other tag, "replaceable fair use", clearly says "Do not remove this tag." If you think that the image cannot be replaced by a free image (which seems doubtful to me, personally) then add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} as the tag instructs. This is why I re-inserted the tags. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What does "replaceable fair use" mean? Anyway, I though that I had to replace the tag with the new one. That is why I took the tag off- maybe I should not have. I removed it with reason. I did not, like a vandal, just remove the tag purely for enjoyment. Thank you.Dewarw 07:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Image:Duke Ellington with Sathima Bea Benjamin.JPG

The photo is a personal photo from Sathima's collection, has no copyright, and was ok'd by her for use on the Wikipedia page, as well as on several websites, including her own. I am uncertain why you decided to delete the image without mentioning this to me first. (Edit - Sorry for writing that above entry without having signed in first!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mrhotpocket (talk • contribs)

I deleted File:Sathima and Duke.jpg because it did not have a valid copyright tag. You may not know this, but all photographs taken since 1923 are automatically copyrighted, and cannot used on Wikipedia unless they are released under a free license by the copyright-holder (usually the photographer). This is all very complicated, and I don't want to make it difficult for people to upload free pictures.

Basically, if the legal copyright-holder is willing to release it under a free license, then we can use it. That would mean that anyone can use the image, though, and not just Wikipedia. If so, I can restore the image. It'll have to be give a valid copyright tag -- I can help with that too. Just let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Magnus VII

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Magnus VII, by Rursus (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Magnus VII fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

no pages link here, numbered king of undefined nation is very ambiguous

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Magnus VII, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Magnus VII itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jock m sommese

Take a look at this article. It teeters on the brink of being libelous, I think, but I'm looking for another opinion. It has a source, but the article seems to be more "definite" than the article it cites. Joyous! | Talk 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem. I brought it up to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It would be nice for Wikipedia not to get sued. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable deletion.

Why did you delete the publicity image on the Type O Negative page? Logical Defense 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• He's re-uploaded it as Image:Type_O_Negative_Dot_Net_Pub_Shot.jpg. -N 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. Because the © is now more relative to the image's nature now, which is the only reason I could imagine it being deleted before. Logical Defense 05:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:FischerTim.jpg

Please cease reverting edits to this image. Your last two reverts restored superceded information which applied to another image which has been replaced with the current image. The current image is from the Australian Parliamentary Handbook. AUSPIC has given written permission for photographs of Members, Senators and Governors-General appearing in current and past editions of the Parliamentary Handbook to be used on Wikipedia. The Replaceable fair use tag was removed when the disputed image was replaced. This is the licenced replacement. Reverting that edit and threats to block editing are inappropriate. Any further threats of this nature will be referred to WP:RFC/ADMIN. Dbromage 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)