User talk:Quadell: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:28, 1 October 2008

Always remember: it's the most important encyclopedia ever. . . but it's still just an encyclopedia. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserveraccount

Hello Quadell,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 02:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Quadell ^(talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to myself.

Toolserver is at http://tools.wikimedia.de/
Info at meta:Toolserver
"Getting Started" at https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Getting_started

Bot errors

Polbot appears to be deciding when to place punctuation before references. E.g. [1] There is no general WP policy that says where punctuation should be; either approach can be chosen by (human) editors and this is dealt with at some length by the MOS. This appears to have caught out bot creators before; some versions of AWB did this for a while before they were fixed. Can you get polbot to auto revert? Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot should be checking to see if the article is unstandardized and if so standardize to <period><ref>. In the edit you diff you provided it did exactly as it should. (Hope you don't mind me answering this Quadell) BJ^Talk 09:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that - but on what basis has it chosen to go with CMOS over Nature format? This would seem to run counter to policy. Ephebi (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CMOS is the "preferred" version according to WP:MOS and is used on the majority of pages. BJ^Talk 10:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, there is no policy to change an existing style: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it." ref: Wikipedia:REFPUNC. Thus, to avoid making disruptive edits, a Polbot would need to detect what the original article's style was before attempting to impose any form of standardisation. FYI also see the bug report & fix that was entered for AWB, which faced with this same issue and noted additional problems with languages other than English Ephebi (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, exactly? "The bot should be checking to see if the article is unstandardized". BJ^Talk 08:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you are alluding to. There is no problem with polbot flagging up that the references are unstandardised, but there is a problem if it then tries to "correct" these errors by choosing its own style over the original editors' choice, per Wikipedia:REFPUNC. 10:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephebi (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

Your recent edits to WP:BRFA seem a bit funny to me: if you're approving a bot for trial, shouldn't you actually move the request to the trial section rather than just removing it from the page entirely? And what's with this edit, which introduced an "open" request into the trial section? Or am I missing something about how that page is supposed to function? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're probably right. I've been on BAG for less that 2 full days now, and I'm still learning the ropes. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first diff you list, I was approving the bot (not just for trial). I removed it from the page, and added it to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved, which is the correct way of doing it. In the second diff, I just forgot to change "open" to "trial" in the template. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, that explains it. I figured it might be something like that, but I felt kind of confused myself so I thought I'd ask. That page sure could use some maintenance documentation, like what we have for AfD and friends at Wikipedia:Deletion process. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ain't lyin'. All we have is User:SQL/How to close a BRFA. That's helpful, and infinitely better than nothing, but there's lots it doesn't cover. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush is a terrible President

"Image:Athabaskan DDH 282.jpg"

Hiya! I was wondering if you'd be able to restore "Image:Athabaskan DDH 282.jpg". I would then apply any and all appropriate copyright and fair use tags for the image. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry. The image is not free, and the ship still exists. Therefore it should be possible for someone to create a new photo of the ship and release that photo under a free license. Therefore the image is against policy, regardless of how it is tagged. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image review for Image:Hand of God goal.jpg

Hi, I see that you've reviewed Image:Hand of God goal.jpg previously, but I don't think one of the uses qualifies as fair use, and the rationale needs to be re-written for the other use to reflect the intent of fair use. I would appreciate it if you could weigh in at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:Hand of God goal.jpg. --Mosmof (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polbot error

Hi Quadell. Polbot put {{reflist}} in the wrong place in the article Janie Porter Barrett and broke a reference. The error isn't a big deal, but I thought I should let you know about it. All the best, Bláthnaid ^talk 19:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's bizarre! Thanks so much for the feedback. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tullio Levi-Civita

Hello. On the St Andrews University website this group photo [2] of an Edinburgh Mathematics Society Colloquium from 1930 is posted, together with a blow up of Levi-Civita here. The people who run this mathematical website from St Andrews have this copyright disclaimer. [3] Since their department took the picture, does that mean it can be used on WP? Would I have to get an email confirming this? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, St. Andrews' disclaimer doesn't mean anything and isn't helpful, but I'd still bet the image is PD. This photo was taken in the UK, and UK copyright law is retroactive. If the photographer is "known", then copyright expires 70 years after his death. If the photographer is "anonymous", then copyright expires 70 years after publication. The photo would still be under copyright if and only if the photographer signed his name on the back (or otherwise attached his name to the first publication), and if he died after 1938. Of course we don't really know who the photographer was or how it was first published, but I'd bet good money it was displayed (published) by the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, not by the photographer, and the name of the photographer would not have been very important for them to display. If it were nominated for deletion, I would vote to keep as "almost surely PD"... but I can't guarantee that consensus would agree with me. Sorry I can't be more definitive. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I uploaded it but it doesn't seem to behave properly. This is what happens if I try to put it in as a thumbnail. Any ideas? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me. It's probably just a browser caching issue. Try with one size, and then a different size on pixel off, like this:

Bot and external links

Hi, Quadell, in this last change of Polbot|Polbot about Aleksandr Lyapunov Russian sites (now) show some 'strange' chars. I've checked this for MS IE. I guess that internal links to 'pure' years are left out according to MOS:SYL or to so some similar (style) guide. Personally I prefer linking important years in biographical articles. Best regards. --xJaM (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, Polbot previously had problems with Russian characters, but this is now fixed. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category based Bot Tagging

Hi there, I hope you remember expressing serious concerns regarding category based WikiProject tagging by bots here. I made this FAQ list which tries to answer some of your concerns. Let me know if you have any questions . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hijackers

Since you were such a principle author on the hijackers' articles, I thought you'd be interested to know that CSIS refers to two of the "identities" indeed being unknown - as the Canadian intelligence agency apparently believes that they were indeed using stolen passports, and the actual names (and thus stories) of those two hijackers prior to their entry into the United States under that name, are false.[4] Just struck me as interesting to see a security agency refer to that outright, not even entertaining the notion those were actually the identities of the hijackers. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's big news, and unexpected. But it's terribly problematic. The CSIS intelligence report casually mentions that "At least two of the 9/11 airline hijackers entered the United States assuming the identities of Saudi Arabian citizens whose passports had gone missing years before." It doesn't say which two. The footnote references "Washington Post, “Investigation Flight 77 Investigation”, September 23, 2001, p. 2, para. 3." But this doesn't pan out at all. "Investigation Flight 77 Investigation" is a rather improbable title, and the online WaPo archives don't list anything similar, so I went through the microfiche at my local library. There was an early morning edition and a late edition that day, which were completely different, as well as suppliments for each neighborhood and a "Washington Post Magazine". I looked through them all, and couldn't find any headline similar to what the report mentioned. Further, there is no "page 2"; there's a page A2, B2, C2... all the way to N2, and SC2 as well, but none of them matched. As you might expect, there were tons of article on 9/11 that day. There was a rather long article on Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, describing how some FBI groups had been trying to keep an eye on them, but there was no mention of identity theft.

I wish I knew what the CSIS report was referring to. There was a WaPo article from 9/20, "Some Hijackers' Identities Uncertain", which seems particularly relevant. It spoke of a Salem al-Hazmi who was still alive and claiming that his passport had been pick-pocketed, and that the photo used by the FBI was of him. I haven't found any follow-up on that. The same article mentions an Abdulaziz Alomari whose passport had been stolen in Denver. But the article implies that the hijacker Abdulaziz al-Omari did not use that passport, since it says they had different birth dates. (The Wikipedia article says they had the same birthdates, but none of the sources given back up that claim, and the photos are clearly of different people.) I'm a bit suspicious, since there was a lot of confusion in the weeks following the attack. After all, the 9/20 article states that al-Omari was a pilot in the attacks, which is simply false. Other confusion was common: Atta was frequently confused with Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta. So I really don't know what to think.

It's absolutely plausible that some of the hijackers used stolen identities. And it makes sense that the U.S. media and U.S. government would downplay that possibility, since if we don't even know who the hijackers were then it's hard to have either emotional closure or confidence in government. So I'm open to the possibility... I'm just not sure the CSIS report knew what it was talking about in this instance.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this to my attention! I hope more information eventually comes out. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment bug?

I don't know what the problem is, but a comment (added by the bot?) seems to have broken the References in the Chick Webb article, as viewed in Firefox 3.0.1. Other bot changes seem to work OK. I deleted the comment, but could you look at it? Thanks. -- Margin1522 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Koran_desecration_protests_1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Koran_desecration_protests_1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth missing

Hi. I noticed you are adding Category:Year of birth missing to articles. Good job! Please keep in mind that when the person is alive, the use Category:Year of birth missing (living people) is recommended. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to copyvio on Youtube

Hello again. I wonder would you kindly take a look at the links to Youtube in the "Listen and Compare" sections of the articles Dramatic soprano, Coloratura Soprano and similar, a list of which can be found in Soprano. In my view these violate Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking. I've pointed these out to User:Nrswanson here but to no avail. D7240 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin bots

Hello, I have recently had an encounter with an unapproved admin bot, and despite an extremely clear dictate by policy that these bots should be blocked, have been discouraged from doing so. Depending how this situation resolves, I will likely file an arbitration request to hopefully resolve this issue once and for all. You commented on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Adminbots, stating that you ran an admin bot. To help get an idea of how widespread admin bots are, as well as get a uniform decision, I would like to ask: Do you still operate this bot, and does it operate when you are not present? Please reply on my talk page, thanks, Prodego ^talk 00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Khaled al-Harbi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Khaled al-Harbi.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Perlwikipedia

Please help me with Perlwikipedia since this is my first time programming in Perl. My bot could not post articles in Vietnamese language correctly, but a stuffs of mangled data, though I used the command:

encode('utf-8', $text_out);

Please see [5]. Thank you. Nguyễn Thanh Quang (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your bot you make categories with no point. I noticed most only contain one article. Please make categories with more than 2 articles. Thanks --Pomeapplepome (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont make categories that small. Thanks. --Pomeapplepome (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Password game.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Password game.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 :::Ah, okay, that explains it.  I figured it might be something like that, but I felt kind of confused myself so I thought I'd ask.  That page sure could use some maintenance documentation, like what we have for [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and friends at [[Wikipedia:Deletion process]].  —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 ::::You ain't lyin'. All we have is [[User:SQL/How to close a BRFA]]. That's helpful, and infinitely better than nothing, but there's lots it doesn't cover. &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
+George Bush is a terrible President
 == "Image:Athabaskan DDH 282.jpg" ==