Jump to content

User talk:Quadell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phanavan (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 5 October 2007 (→‎Shiotani Teiko. And dozens and dozens more just like it.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stop: Are you here to ask about an image I deleted? Please click here first.
Quadell's talk archives
The full archive
Just the most recent

Why do you keep deleting the files I am using to write an article about Jobing.com? I have an email from thier PR director giving me permission to use all of the logos/photos I am posting.


Shiotani Teiko. And dozens and dozens more just like it.

Hi. You created an article saying, in full: Shiotani Teiko (塩谷定好? しおたに ていこう, 1899 - 1988) was a renowned Japanese photographer.

Actually it's Teikō, not Teiko, and according to WP's silly rules we have to ignore his real name of Shiotani Teikō and instead call him Teikō Shiotani. But that's not the main problem, which is that he's described in just about the same way as Kuribayashi Satoshi (栗林慧? くりばやし さとし, born 1939) is a renowned Japanese photographer. Or indeed Watanabe Kanendo (渡辺兼人? わたなべ かねんど, born 1947) is a renowned Japanese photographer. Or Orihara Kei (折原恵? おりはら けい, born 1948) is a renowned Japanese photographer. And so on and so on and so on. Which all means that somebody looking among Category:Japanese photographers is highly likely to land on a mere substub.

I can count on my fingers the people likely to turn a half dozen or so of these substubs into articles. No, on my thumbs: User:Pinkville and myself. But he's busy and I am too. I'd rate the probability that more than half will be converted within a year to more than stubs at well under 1%. It's an interesting "proof of bot concept" exercise, but is it good for anything else?

Tell you what: I'll match you one for one. You turn two of these into articles; I'll turn two into articles. You turn ten into articles; I'll turn ten into articles. How does that sound? -- Hoary 05:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great challenge! You're on. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Do tell me when you've done one, as I can't keep the whole damn lot on my watchlist. Well actually I can, but I lack the time and effort to put them onto my watchlist. Also, I'll be intercoursingly busy during the next month, so in the short/medium term I may only be able to match you up to ten.
I'm sure I've got entire books by at least twenty of these substubbed people, so I ought to be able to do more.
What's odd about the list are some conspicuous absences. (Not just people I think are good, but people who, rightly or wrongly, are celebrated and successful.) Asai Shinpei is one, and there are more though I can't think of them right now.
Not that it's any of my business, really, but did you scarf the list from User:20th Century Art (Zenhan)'s page, or do something else? -- Hoary 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I scraped from Zenhan. I'll let you know here, or on your talk page, when I have one ready. I don't think I can make any of them featured, but legitimately "non-stub" is the goal. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my first. Ichiki Shiro. It's not much beyond a stub, but it's something. (It took an hour of research, and I think I found all the info that's anywhere on the web regarding Mr. Ichiki.) By the way, was I right in listing him as a Hatamoto? My sources say he was a retainer of the Daimyo (in the Edo period, of course), and I know that he spoke with his Daimyo, so he couldn't have been a Gokenin. But I don't think he was a warrior, so I don't know. So far as I can tell, all Togugawa retainers were either Gokenin or Hatamoto. Am I correct in my inference? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you're fast.
Unfortunately I don't know squat about Tokugawa retainers and the like. On several occasions I've tried to interest myself in feudal history but have always fallen flat. I suppose I can't separate it from the hammily acted, cheesily lit TV period dramas I sometimes have to tolerate when at the in-laws'. LordAmeth might know. (And this photographer's right up Pinkville's street.) -- Hoary 13:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for a progress indicator? -- Hoary 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, except for a number of factors, one of which is that it's problematical copyrightwise (or so I infer from a comment elsewhere by one User:Quadell). I've already chucked in one extra list, and I'll certainly add one more, and I may add one after that; perhaps it can then be described as an original creation. All this is delaying my editing of any article. Still, I'll get around to that too in time. -- Hoary 06:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. No one is posting an endorse/overturn opinion probably because there are questions that need to be answered. Also, Spanneraol is making some good arguments, but not citing policy so it is hard to tell whether the arguments meet policy. Would you please post a detailed explaination of the deletion, providing links to the relevant policies. Thanks. Jreferee t/c 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons problem

Can you offer a neutral opinion on this gallery on Commons? There's a user there who keeps deleting photos from the gallery - have tried to talk to the user, but I can't understand what they're doing. His point seems to be that the photo subject might not like the photos he's removing from the gallery. I don't get it. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he doesn't like the photos because in his mind they're not as flattering. It's weird. I'll keep an eye on it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

Nice to keep bumping into you! ElinorD (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was you I was racing against! Aha! :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had twenty open in separate tabs, and when I tried to delete, I got error message — several times. ElinorD (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Angry look.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Angry look.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. OsamaK 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frightened eyes.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Frightened eyes.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. OsamaK 09:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sorrowful expression.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sorrowful expression.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. OsamaK 10:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big copyvio problem

Looks like we have at least a couple hundred images of military insignia from http://www.uniforminsignia.net, which explicitly claims copyright of all images on its site. Most are tagged with the deprecated {{Military-Insignia}} license template and the uploaders are gone in many cases as well. I've started tagging some as copyvio but would appreciate some admin help in doing some deletions if you get some free time. (Would also appreciate assistance from any other admins watching this page.) Videmus Omnia Talk 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the tagging has already started an ANI thread; copyright expertise there would be welcome. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wee bit of help?

If I could ask an admin-ly favor of you (I handed in my own bit at least for the duration of my current relative inactivity), could you move Great Transformation to The Great Transformation? Many thanks, --RobthTalk 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Always a pleasure to run into you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IPhone Cover Flow.jpg

Hi Quadell. You deleted Image:IPhone Cover Flow.jpg because it's on Commons right now. However, i forgot to transfer the copyright tag too, so maybe you could look that up and add it to the page on Commmons? There's a deletion request on Commons on the image right now... Thanks, File:Huskyeye.jpg Husky (talk page) 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took care of it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm curious as to why you removed the gallery from the Polar Bear article? I thought it was helpful to the article, and I don't see any violation of WP:NOT. Would you mind explaining?--Yannick 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's not a violation, but all those images are already on the Commons, which is prominently linked. As I said in the edit summary, "that's what the Commons is for". There's nothing wrong with having a gallery, but I think it looks cleaner and more professional without it. (If someone wants to see a gallery, they can click on the link to Commons.) It's not like the article is short on images as it is. Just my opinion though. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged replaceables

De-templated. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the problem is, but I noticed a couple on the hijackers, glad to see you caught them as well. Just a "thanks for keeping alert" Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be too careful with those dead hijackers. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUR expedited request

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gokturk Flag

Hi, Quadell. The image of the Gokturk flag was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2007 [1]. I realized that User:Barefact provided detailed source description on the talk page of the image [2]. Is it ok to remove the deletion tag and close the nomination? Actually, the factual accuracy tag is also to be removed then, since it's sourced now on. Regards. E104421 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine to do. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quadell&oldid=162539301"