Jump to content

User talk:Quadell/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Nirvana_band_four_members.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. fuzzy510 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right. I replied there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a ton for the quick response. I wasn't completely certain, since I seemingly learn some new wrinkle about fair use every day, but I thought so. No harm done! --fuzzy510 01:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel, again

I just wanted to let you know that, after his fourth revert on the first of August, Frikkers has been blocked for 31 hours by User:jossi as a result of my report at WP:AN3. After his block, I'll try to explain more in-depth to Frikkers about what constitutes a consensus-building discussion. Sadly, I think the language barrier is part of what is worsening this problem. VanTucky (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot running again soon?

Hi, I see there was an issue about the Arthropods which caused your Polbot to stop running to this day. Until that category's kinks get worked out, can't Polbot work on the other categories (i.e. the fishes, plants, and the invertebrates) in the meantime? I liked how Polbot created articles so quickly. --70.179.170.133 06:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I can run her for plants and other biota. Right now, I'm getting her to fix monotypic genera, but I should have her creating articles again soon. (It's been busy in Quadell-land lately.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Get a life outside of Wikipedia

Most of what you do here concerns the deletion of pictures. Do you get a kick out of deleting pictures all day long? This is not the Britannica, you dork. Why must you be such a joykill, this is Wikipedia. YOU DON'T WORK FOR WORLD BOOK. Plus, in the world of academia, Wikipedia is a joke; if you cite a wiki on a term paper, the instructor will laugh at you and give you an "F". Nagaflas 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't make personal attacks. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You're doing a great job, Quadell. ElinorD (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No one is saying that Wikipedia should be cited as an academic reference. Nonetheless, it is a great place to go for generally-reliable information on a wide variety of subjects, and a useful starting-point for further research. I personally find it very helpful when completing general-knowledge crosswords. ;-) Cheers, Jacklee 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Personal attack"? I'm the one that needs to "stay cool"? My goodness...Nagaflas 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot wanted categories

I created a bunch of Polbot wanted categories this morning, and as I expected it's not meshing exactly easily, but I think in the long run it's a good thing, these are issues we would have come up and have to be resolved sooner or later. See for example the discussion about elepids. In any event your thoughts on the matter are welcome... -- Prove It (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ProveIt! Yeah, I would be all for categorizing based on scientific name only. . . but there are many others who would disagree (and some or experts in their field), so I don't know if that's possible. Keep up the good work! – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Stabora

Still having problems with the above user uploading copyrighted photos of Jewel Mische under free license. You've warned this user previously. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Not sure how effective that will be, since he/she didn't make any contributions for 2 weeks previous to uploading and reinserting this copyvio. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fish species

Oy! Are you sure the site license allows you to fish for data like that? (Ouch. That pun hurt!) — Coren (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:-) Yes, there's no copyright probem. Only "creative content" can be copyrighted, such as sentences. Data isn't subject to copyright. (There was a debate about this earlier on WP:AN/I and the consensus agreed with me on this.) Thank for noticing, though. But no more puns for you -- you're grounded. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair 'nuf. Just wanted to double check. I catch a wide net when I patrol new page, and I wanted to make sure you were small fry before I got you off the hook. — Coren (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Go to your room. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My image deleted

I had an image of an infinity sign that I created that I want to be used here, I don't know why it was deleted, the rules and explanations are too complex, making them impossible to fathom. The system needs to be understandable if people are to make decisions on a license. I do want the image to be used. I hope that is clear. I also do not want to have to keep coming back and having it 'explained' as it still wont make perfect sense, it takes up time, and I want the image to be used. AmyNelson

I replied on your talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

New viper articles

Hi Quadell! I notice that you created a number of new viper articles last Sunday (29 July). However, very few of them seem to follow the taxonomy that's been applied to the main body of these articles. As a result, a number of them are attempts to describe snakes that we already have articles for. Are you aware of this? (PS -- You can reply here as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watch list.) --Jwinius 11:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. My bot uses the taxonomy at the IUCN redlist, and creates articles that seem to be missing. Inevitably, it creates some "duplicate articles", though I try to avoid these. If you can give me more information (what families, etc.) I can tag them as "merge" if the Polbot articles have any new information, or I can change them to redirects otherwise. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The IUCN don't follow any particular taxonomy: they just use whatever names their contributers feel are appropriate at the time. So, using those names is likely going to get you into trouble. Similarly, using common names to create those articles instead is just as risky, since so many of them are ambiguous. I've already corrected the problems, but I'd rather you didn't use Polbot to create any more viper articles. --Jwinius 03:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Monotypic taxa on Plants

Hi Quadell, sorry, but there are errors, the most genera (Biscutella, Wedelia, etc) are NON monotypic genera. Please stop the Polbot and check these. Berton 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. The genera Biscutella and Wedelia only have one species (each) listed at IUCN, and only have one species (each) with articles on Wikipedia. What other species are in these genera? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they only have one species (each) listed at IUCN, but there are much more species described (see refs), and articles in Wikipedia are not only on IUCN red list. Berton 20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, from WP:PLANTS: "Where a genus is monospecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect. If a family contains only one genus, the article should still be at the genus name, as that is more likely to be commonly recognised." Please correct all those. Berton 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As for the first problem, Polbot doesn't have any way of knowing whether a genus is truly monotypic, or whether it just appears monotypic. I've reverted those Polbot changes on those species.
As for the second problem, that's interesting. Animals recommend having the article at the species. I can correct those for plants. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Blepharispermum, Brachylaena, Cheirolophus, Chevreulia, Chuquiraga, Critonia, Crossothamnus, Cuatrecasanthus, Cylindrocline, etc, etc, etc, are ALL NON monotypic genera. I think that is better to set the Polbot to revert all those edits (considering those monotypics) and after that, we'll check each genus manually to see wether they are monotypic or not.Berton 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hm, yeah, that's disappointing. I'll revert all Polbot's edits that changed (supposedly monotypic) plant genera to rds. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.Berton 23:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I had already commented there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Questionable pics

A user has recently added some pics to the F-35 Lightning II page (since removed). The pics claim PD, but they look like company promotional pics, which are generally copyrighted. I don't know the exact tags opr proceedures to question thes pics, and I was wondering if you could check them out for me. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

THe images are: Image:EOTS1.JPG Image:EOTSF35.jpg Image:EOTS2.jpg

The images are definitely copyright violations. The uploader had previously uploaded other known copyright violations. But the user uploaded the images to the Commons, not to Wikipedia, so there's really nothing we can do here (except remove the images from articles when we see them there.) Thanks for noticing this and being diligent! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll try to add some tags to the pic's commons pages to question their status there. - BillCJ 20:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent IUCN Red List articles

Hi. You seem to be autogenerating a bunch of articles from the IUCN Red List. However, a number of the common names of the various species are properly written capitalized, e.g., the Rio Grande darter, not the "rio grande darter". Your script seems to be generating them in all-lowercase. I've fixed a few manually (e.g., the Rio Grande darter), both in the article itself, and in the title (where necessary), but it's hopeless to keep up with a bot. Could you tweak your script to not generate such articles in the first place? There's no point in blindly importing known-deficient data into Wikipedia. Thanks, Hqb 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way for Polbot to know whether a word is a proper name, and should be capitalized, or is a regular word, and should be in lowercase. It's unfortunate, but there's no way around it -- these will have to be manually fixed. I do think, however, that having a nice stub with a well-formed taxobox, conservation information, and reference, but with a capitalization error, is much better than not having the article in the first place. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, the data source you use may have already smashed the case information irretrievably, and some human intelligence may be required to recover it. My point is, though, that fixing the data while it's still in list/table form takes just a fraction of the work needed to edit each individual article, move it, fix up redirects, etc. -- especially if that latter task must be performed without bot assistance. So I was hoping that you could either do a quick pass through each batch of data yourself (not to catch all proper-name problems, just the most egregious ones), or post it to WP as a list/table (for a month, say), to allow other editors to clean it up, before you create the individual articles.
Arguably, however, this data would probably be better presented in tabular form in the first place. Statistically, the vast majority of the auto-extracted species are so obscure, that it's almost certain that their articles will never get edited, or probably even read. I think it would actually be more useful to generate, say, one article per genus, with sections for the individual species; then the particularly interesting ones can get their own articles if and when there's something substantial to say about them. Hqb 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Haplochromis sp. nov. 'Amboseli'

Just wondering Polbot should be making articles like this. I rather doubt anyone would type this in. Particularly with the singular quotations. Or am I incorrect? I'm no expert on plants so I'm not sure. :) -WarthogDemon 21:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering that myself. I don't even know what that means. It should probably be moved to a better name, but I have no idea what. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image help

You seem to have a much better handle on Wikipedia's Image policies and guidelines than I do. But even I know that scanning or taking a picture of a copyrighted work doesn't transfer the copyright to the person doing the scanning or picture taking. User talk:Edwardx doesn't seem to understand that, so I was hoping you could take a look at his image uploads and give him some guidance. I imagine most, if not all, of the outdoor monument-type ones are probably OK, but I suspect most, if not all, of the passports are copyrighted by their respective governments. Thanks. Seattlenow 00:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Gah - I started tagging 'em - there's tons of them! I'm going to hold off on the rest for now and watch this page - Quadell, if you think the rest should be tagged for WP:PUI, just say so and I'll take care of it. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that all the photos he says he took himself are legit. I don't see any evidence he has been deceptive or tried to cover anything up -- he just doesn't understand the concept of derivative works. So I don't see any need to tag the photos of monuments.
As for the passports, a year or two ago there was a big discussion about whether passport were copyrightable "creative content" or not. I don't remember what came of it though. I'll bet User:Lupo would know -- you might try asking him. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to feedback

Hi Quadell, Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera for feedback to Polbot. Awaiting your response. Regards, AshLin 03:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll get back to you for help later. AshLin 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead image on Barefoot

Hi there. I am on your side of the argument on which image should be used as a lead on Barefoot. I am going to get permission fron the user to use it in wikipedia.0reteki 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So now that we're finally getting official copyright advice from the WMF attorney (like here), we need a place to keep track of his opinions, so he will be less inundated with inquiries and so we can use them as precedent. I'm thinking a subpage of WP:C makes sense. What do you think? Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll let him know! -- But|seriously|folks  00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Taxa listings

Good job. Thanks. I'm going to edit the pages where I've moved taxa already from common names to scientific names, if there are just a few. KP Botany 19:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Refractor

Did you remove my insertion of a picture in the article Shtreimel? If you did, kindly put it back. I gave complete details of the origin of the picture, and I gave chapter and verse of the copyright holder and the permission I have from him to insert the picture.Fkarno 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

When you uploaded this photo, you indicated that it is available under a non-commercial-use-only license. We can't use such images on Wikipedia. If the copyright-holder is willing to allow anyone to use the image, even for commercial purposes, then we can use it. If so, I'll restore it. But if only non-commercial entities can use it, then we'll have to find a free content image to use instead. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This was my first contribution to Wikipedia, anxious as I am to improve its reliability and usefulness. I should have known better. I gave full details of where the picture came from, and I mentioned that I have the copyright owner's consent on file. That is as far as I can take it because the copyright requirements posted on Wikipedia are so dense that they are completely unintelligible - and I am a lawyer, used to deciphering unintelligible language. The self-appointed picture weeders would do everyone a favour by writing clear instructions, with a simple tick list which can be followed by those who want to contribute pictures. I am not about to waste more of my time.

Boerboel

Quadell I had to remove your picture of the Bitch, in my opinion the other picture is much nicer, not a personal issue, but the one you are using is not a very well put together Boerboel. The hind is far to weak, not enough second thigh or muscle in general going on there, same with the top line and neck. Also the picture is a bit bleached giving the dog a rather insipid look. Possibly the dog in question is in fact a good one, but the picture is not. The picture should try and represent as good an example as possible, to give the public a better overall view and understanding about what the breed should represent. I think the one used already does this nicely. Perhaps you have another bitch photo you wish to put in there instead?

I am not getting embroiled in the AKC issue as it has no bearing on the Boerboel as yet, as 99% of Boerboel owners in America have decided not to register their dogs there. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as free advertising or promotion. If you wish to mention that there is some kind of very minimally used development register for the breed at the AKC, you can do so under the AKC Wikipedia entry.

Kind regards Frikkers

Polbot's taxonomy

I notice that Polbot does better on plant taxonomy than on animal taxa. In general the world of biology is very animal oriented, so it's nice to see something that is plant biased. You're really doing a great job adding useful species stubs to Wikipedia, imo. KP Botany 03:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I need to finish up some things with animals, but I'll probably start back on the plants next week. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bot

Wow I'm amazed at the difficulty you've been facing!!!! I think the Bot is ingenius and if utilized correctly is of enormous benefit to the encyclopedia as it sets a foundation for other editors to try to expand. I really really!!! appreciate any work you do in this area and strongly support you in continuing your work. I just want you to remember that when you have an criticism from users who clearly are so far gone they can't recognize the benefit of your work that I think you are doing a superb job and to never give up. I know there are many other editors who are extremely appreciative of your work. All the best and keep the articles coming! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 14:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But problems with plants aren't done!

Hi Quadell,

You said that you would revert the mistakes considering several monotypic genera that were in the IUCN red list with only a species listed, but you didn't still make this. This error is considered serious, it is not as the one of the convention WP:PLANTS that doesn't have importance. Then as J. W. said: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information".

I believe that in general Polbot has been making a great contribution, mainly for bringing to Wikipedia this list of IUCN, helping in the urgent preservation of the species that are in serious extinction danger.

But unhappily the mistake was yours (Quadell) that concluded that when there would be only one species listed, the genus it would be monotypic, what is not true, there are certain genus with more than 100 species, like Wedelia!

I could make the correction, but I don't find correct to put a robot to make mistakes and to push POVs and later a human to correct everything manually!

Thanks. Berton 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been working on the problem today. It's only been a few days since the problem was brought to my attention -- please have a little patience. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
See also User:Polbot/taxa listing/non-monotypic, which I just created based on a search Polbot was doing this morning. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, actually how can you tell whether a genus is monotypic in IUCN, does it say it is? It certainly should never be tagged monotypic symple because there is only one species in the genus on IUCN. KP Botany 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The bird list at IUCN is complete, as is the amphibian list and certain groups of mammals (such as rodents and bats). Members of those Wikiprojects had asked (repeatedly, vociferously) that I make the pages for monotypic genera into redirects to the species pages. The plants are not at all complete, and I shouldn't have run that process on the plants. I'm still in the process of undoing that. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

All the plants falsely tagged as "monotypic" have now been fixed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work! Continue so in your great goal! Everything for the correct information. Thank you very much! Berton 20:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gajdusek.jpg

I've mostly been away from Wikipedia for a while, and I've returned to find that Image:Gajdusek.jpg was deleted. Now, of course, that leaves me with no idea what the image was; why it was considered "replaceable"; or on which articles it was used. Do you have access to any of these details, and/or can you tell me where I can gain access to them? I've contributed many images over the years, and am not entirely sure which one this is... though it seems unlikely that I would have uploaded an image that wasn't in-line with the criteria (at least the criteria at the time). -Harmil 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that seems to be from Daniel Carleton Gajdusek, in which the caption had been: Daniel Carleton Gajdusek in 1976 when he won the Nobel Prize in Medicine. We have no replacement image there, and certainly there's no free image of him at the ceremony that I'm aware of, so why was this deleted? -Harmil 21:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. Yes, our non-free content policy has changed over time. We are now (according to our first content-criterion) not allowed to use a non-free image if a free image could be created that could replace it (even if it would be very difficult to create such an image). The Wikimedia Foundation helpfully clarified: "That would include nearly all non-free portraits of notable living people." In the article on Mr. Gajdusek, any new photograph of him would illustrate the article adequately, so there's no need to use a non-free image. Because of this change, a significant fraction of non-free images on Wikipedia's servers have had to be deleted.
I don't doubt at all that your image uploads were all inline with policy at the time, but policy has gotten strict. By the way, I have personally written to the Nobel Foundation to ask if they could release their images under a free license, but they declined. If you know of a way to contact Mr. Gajdusek, I could try e-mailing him personally. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the photo of Dave Winfield at the Baseball Hall of Fame, I took it. I'm Mr. Winfield's personal assistant, and he wanted this photo on his Wiki page. I think I did the copyright tag correctly, but if not, please let me know how to do it. Thanks Hotcop2

Polbot edit rate

It's currently running at 12 edits per minute, twice the advertised rate. Please adjust. Alai 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because she was (temporarily) running two different tasks at once, both of which were approved at 6 edits per minute. (Consider: if I used two bot accounts instead of one for the two tasks, it wouldn't be a problem to run both at the same time at 6 edits per minute, so I reason that it isn't a problem to run both tasks from the same account.) She's done with one of the tasks, so she shouldn't run at more than 6 now. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CINCINNATI

Thanks for joining the project! There is a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/August#.7B.7BCincinnati-stub.7D.7D concerning a request for a {{Cincinnati-stub}} for our project that you may be interested in adding your vote or ideas at. Also, there are new tasks added to the Open tasks section of the project page that may be of interest. I look forward to working with you as the project grows! (Mind meal 04:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Another request. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_11#Category:Physicians_from_Cincinnati that if implemented will make way for the deletion of all profession-based entires at Category:People from Cincinnati. Your input would be appreciated. (Mind meal 16:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Wodonga TAFE Radio Article

I am the last person to edit the Wodonga TAFE Radio article and I thought I would contribute some discussions regarding it.

You were the last person to remove entries to the Logo that was placed on wikipedia so it was best to choose you.

I am a student studying at Wodonga TAFE and I gained permission from the department that runs the station to place the logo online. I had used the right licensing descriptors in uploading the picture and someone seemed to have removed it.

I have re-uploaded it this time with Logo licensing in the hope that no-one removes it again.

User:Stabora again

Once again adding copyvio image] to Jewel Mische. You've already warned and blocked once. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy

We may kill you along the way with the work we require you to do to deal with this, but we're going to make a taxonomist out of you yet. Just wait until we get to higher level taxa, or algae taxonomies. KP Botany 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Luckily for me, the IUCN only lists plants and animals! :-) I'll leave Archaea and Firmicutes to someone braver than me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you Gallus gallus. KP Botany 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Riverboarding images

Hi. Robert Carlson has replied to you on my talk page, regarding the origins of the Riverboarding images. Please see Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 18:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin backlog...

I know your normal beat is replaceable fair use images, but if you get bored with that, Category:Rescaled fairuse images is building a backlog. It's easy because you don't have to remove the images from articles. :) Videmus Omnia Talk 22:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Euconulidae

It looks like Polbot forgot to create this category somehow, but I'm not sure what its parent category should be. Would you mind taking a look at it? Valentinian T / C 09:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that the same applies to Category:Hydrobiidae. Keep up the great work. Valentinian T / C 09:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Polbot creates genus categories, but not family categories. Some users had talked with me before about this, and they decided it would be best to let humans make the family articles (since they may already exist at other names). – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy-mongering

Don't know if this is your beat or not, but I am having a back-and-forth with another user on the entry for William Greer. The other user insists on putting an outlandish conspiracy theory (for which he has a footnote, of course) about Greer shooting Kennedy into the article. Can he be stopped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnej (talk • contribs)

One man's "outlandish conspiracy-theory" is another man's "reasonable interpretation". Please don't insult someone else's POV. On the other hand, the article shouldn't go beyond sourcing, and should not leave out other sourced POVs. I'll look it over. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a look. Thanks.

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. 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S: Please remember always to run only stable versions of your bot at the toolserver.

Award

...actually the bot has been alot more helpful than a problem...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Articles for Creation Barnstar
To Quadell for all his new birdies...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel and Frikkers, again

So once again, Frikkers has violated the 3RR on this article. Except this time, they parroted the exact same reason they have been placing everywhere onto the article's talk. They failed to address all of the issues, but this is no longer clear 3RR vandalism. Do we bring this to ANI or simply perform another WP:AN3 case, even if we can't revert him again currently? VanTucky (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

ANI can never hurt. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have created an ANI case here. VanTucky (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Jordan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Brian Jordan.JPG. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Geni 22:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help

Brother, you know anyone with OTRS access that might be able to help me out with an issue? Trying to work with PETA for free content release of some of their publicity materials (which they have done before) but am getting inconsistent responses from them. I'm hoping to find the terms they have previously released materials under, and a point of contact from previous releases. Appreciate anything you can do to point me toward the right person. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I was pretty happy to get Cindy Margolis - she made the Guinness Book of World Records as "the most downloaded woman on the Internet", but we curiously did not have a picture of her. Now people can download her from Wikipedia. :-) Videmus Omnia Talk 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well these people claim to be, via a userbox. I suspect the contacts listed here are members, but they don't seem too forthcoming about listing members. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Favor on Commons

Could you please delete Image:Meredith Jung-En Woo.JPG? The article subject has had a change of heart about usage of the image, and I'd like to respect that. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, hold off a bit - I'm talking with the subject, who is worried about a COI perception. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and delete it whenever you happen to be on Commons - I haven't heard back from her, but I can always re-upload the image if she has (another) change of heart later. Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 13:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Quadell's Day!

Quadell has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Quadell's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Quadell!

Love,
Phaedriel
00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.
This little gift was kindly suggested by Videmus Omnia.

Dude. I'm floored. Thanks so much! – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

NCPD

I want to repost the NCPD image that got taken down earlier. It's a publicity photo they put out with the intent it should be published. What should I do?

I don't know what NCPD stands for, but we generally cannot use non-free publicity photos on Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot Inactivity

Hi, I'm sorry but why did Polbot stop again? I hope to see 2,000,000 before the end of this month. --75.18.15.45 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the same guy as above, and who was --170.133. I just got back home earlier tonight. How is Polbot doing and why has he stopped? There hasn't been another block on him, so when will he resume? I hope to see him work again soon. :) --70.179.175.240 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You said you had to re-code Polbot to auto-generate plants. How far along are you and how soon will the recoding finish? I can't wait to see her start up again! :-) Besides, we're passed halfway through the month and we still have <46,000 articles to go. --70.179.175.240 22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Barry Henthorn image revisited

Hello. Image:Barry22.jpg has been added again to Barry Henthorn. User:Schaury now claims to be the copyright holder. This after you and others queried the previous claims of fair use. I'm always concerned about his/her contributions given the history shown on User talk:Schaury. Could you look into it again, please? Canuckle 20:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-font}}

Could you see the comment I made on my talk page and perhaps tweak the wording of PD-font? It's current wording is misleading. SVG versions of fonts are NOT INFRINGEMENTS... the only thing copyrightable in a vector font is the programming, and reproducing the programming in a different manner is not infringement (See Phoenix BIOS, Clean room design and IBM v Phoenix on the net generally for the legality of clean room reverse engineering, that is producing identical results using different programming code. -Nard 22:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CC licences

Are we accepting version 3.0 CC licences? Got a question from a photographer I contacted. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this tip to the Signpost, we now do: [2]. This is interesting news. nadav (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm - the Commons license drop down only has the CC 3.0 Attribution license, not the ShareAlike. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, the ShareAlike is there now (or I didn't see it before). Videmus Omnia Talk 23:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

I volunteered to be a Commons Flickr review here, if you'd like to support, I'd appreciate it! Videmus Omnia Talk 05:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CorenSeachBot

Good block, beat me to it by a minute. Thanks for that, going through these conflicts with Polbot is going to take a few minutes. Keegantalk 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Star

The Original Barnstar
For clearing out Category:Replaceable fair use images. Garion96 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned my watchlist and saw that almost all the images I tagged as replaceable were deleted by you. Made me feel quilty that I do the easy work (tagging), and you the harder work. (deleting) :) Garion96 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! My pleasure, really. I don't have cable, so this is what I do for mildly-entertaining, mindless fun. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad you are enjoying yourself. :) On a bit related topic, what do you think of NOGALLERY on the daily image deletion categories. It has been removed and added a few times from the template starters (currently nogallery is on). I prefer having the galleries when I work on those categories but that might just be me. See Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion#NOGALLERY on image categories. Garion96 (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quadell/Archive_32&oldid=1248960570"