User talk:Quadell/Archive 40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

102030313233343536373839Archive 40414243444546474849


In your recent edit of the article, last para of the intro, you changed "comandos" to "commandos." That wasn't a misspelling, but the Spanish spelling. Page protection is not going to expire for a couple more days, so I can't change it back right now. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll fix it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Converting bare URLs[edit]

I compliment you on your efforts to eliminate URLS as inbedded references, but be aware that bare URLs are normally given a title for listing in the references section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC).

Thank you, and yes, you're right. I'm currently working on a bot to auto-produce titles for bare external links, much like way DumZiBoT does. (It'll also convert bare URLs to refs, the way I've been doing with AWB.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, AWB seems to mess up external links inside references in a rather ugly way. --Tgr (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, ugh. I've put in safeguards to try to prevent that from happening, but they're not foolproof. Thanks for cleaning up after me. I plan to make my bot much more careful about that sort of thing. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to make a request, should you get the bot up and running: have it add both page title and domain name to the references it generates. DumZiBoT only does page titles, which doesn't tell you nearly as much about the source as page + source would. Using {{cite web}}'s formatting would probably be best (even if you don't use cite web itself):

Page title.

--Father Goose (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So you would convert something like

...? Or, with the template,

...? Or I could get the title from the base url and use it, as

...Of course, that would look silly with the longer titles, such as

The previous certainly looks cleaner as

What do you think? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Either of the first two would probably be best. Using the page title from the base URL will probably get you a lot of "front page"s and other oddities. (What the heck is "Porkopolis"?) Sticking to the page title and the site it's from should give the most predictable and useful-at-a-glance results.--Father Goose (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears you've chosen to use "<page title> at <domain name>". That looks good to me.--Father Goose (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Can you undelete the original version please? :) I'm pretty sure Commons will nuke it since it's pd-us but not in country of origin. -Nard 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think it's PD in the U.S. either. If it was first published in the U.S., then it's probably PD, but I don't see any evidence of that. It was probably first published in Czechoslovakia or Austria, so PD-1964 would not apply. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Darn URAA. -Nard 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I know, right? I wish they'd fix that. But I suspect any "fixes" Congress would do would only make it worse. :-( – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your help the other day. Im still having problems, with solving problems im running into. I understand the script now thanks to your help If you can't remember what i was trying to do, see Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Find_and_replace_feature

Ive discovered that there is a different type of rating system that is somtimes used.

instead of the (mark/10) its {{rating-10|mark/}}

so for example a rating of 2 is


I've managed to work out the regular expression for it and it works fine but we run into a problem. Heres the regular expression .*\* *\[\[Mark Prindle\]\]\ {{rating-10|1\}}.*

and i repeat it for every single posible rating so for example 2/10 would be

.*\* *\[\[Mark Prindle\]\]\ {{rating-10|2\}}.*

The problem is if there is another rating on the article that uses the '10|(mark)' format. and it then reacts to that line aswell as the line i want it to.

so say there is this line before i run the script. *[[All Music Guide]] {{rating-5|2}} [ link] once i run it, it does this to it.

*[[All Music Guide]] {{rating-5|

So the script see's the |2 and because its in my regular expression it acts on the rest of the line. I just want it to ignore the line unless the text Mark Prindle is in it.

Do you understand what i mean??

If it's too much for you just let me know, but if you can help i'd really appreciate it. I think it must just be a character or 2 that i cant figure out. Thanks so much for your time

Cheers Printer222 (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, it's useful to know that \d means any digit, 0 through 9. So instead of saying
.*\* *\[\[Mark Prindle\]\] \(6/10\).*
...and such for each number, 1 through 9, you could just do
.*\* *\[\[Mark Prindle\]\] \(\d/10\).*
...with a \d instead of the number. That won't work for 10, though, since 10 is two digits. But you could do
.*\* *\[\[Mark Prindle\]\] \(\d+/10\).*
...since \d+ means one or more digits. That ought to save you some time.
Now, about your question, your problem is that the characters {, }, and | have special meanings in regular expressions. If you want to look for those actual characters, you have to use \{, \}, and \|. So your search term should be:
.*\* *\[\[Mark Prindle\]\]\ \{\{rating-10\|\d+\}\}.*
That should fix it for you. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I see that JD554 mentioned the {{rating|*|10}} format. For this, you'd want to use:
.*\* *\[\[Mark Prindle\]\]\ \{\{rating\|\d+\|10\}\}.*
Make sense? – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that all made sense, thanks. But as i was just running the bot manually to enusure that it would run smothly automaticly i've come accross yet another issue. I don't know why i took this task on. I didn't realise it was going to be this difficult and then when i discovered i had to use regular expressions i thought that i could get my head around it. I understand every thing your doing, but cant seem to solve my own problems.

You know how the script is .*\* *\[\[Mark Prindle\]\]\, because i thought that Mark Prindle was always going to be like [[Mark Prindle]] but ive realised its not and there are some cases where its simply Mark Prindle. ive tried all sorts of things using the testing function but just cant figure it out. I have a felling that you completly take out the [] and place it within {} instead. and then have a \ between Mark and prindle. But im probably completly wrong So i thought that instead of wasting my time, trying to figure it out, i'd ask you since you seem to be an expert!

I've learnt a lesson. Never assume a bot task is simple, and then never take on a task that you *think* you should be able to figure out, especially if it includes regex (it reminds me of doing complicated maths problems, trying to figure out what to do next).

Thanks so much for your help. Printer222 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is exactly like a complicated math problem. :-) That's why I love regular expressions.
Okay, so basically the square brackets are optional. A questionmark ? means that the previous character is optional. So instead of
.*\* *\[\[Mark Prindle\]\]
You can use
.*\* *\[?\[?Mark Prindle\]?\]?
...which means that each square bracket is optional. Of course this will match for [[Mark Prindle or [Mark Prindle] as well, but this probably won't ever happen, so you don't have to worry about it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help with these regular expressions. The bot has just finished its trial and i can't see how there is any way that any more issues can come up. If it wasn't for your expert knowledge i wouldnt have been able to do it. Thanks again, have a great day :). Printer222 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You've made my day! – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My problems still aren't over[edit]

Just when i thought that i had every thing covered i discover somthing new.

I ran the bot and then realised there were a heap of articles which the review wasn't removed. And it's because the name mark prindle is in the middle of the line. I thought my code (its pretty much your code) would have covered it but now i realise it doesn't. Once again ive spent ages rearanging the code and adding new things based on my very limited knowledge, but i just cant get it. So once again i need to rely on you, the expert!

Ok. *[ Mark Prindle] {{rating-10|8}} the problem is that the words "Mark Prindle" are combined into the link and so it has no square brackets or anything and because of this the script can't tackle it.

Is it possible to fix it??

Im so sorry that i keep bugging you, ive really done nothing to write this bot and it's all your work. More issues keep poping up. Who would have thought that a task that seems so simple could have so many variable and problems. Once again im so sorry. Printer222 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's no problem, really. I enjoy doing this kind of thing. For me it's like doing a crossword puzzle.
Wow, it's like Prindle intentionally made it difficult to remove his reviews! Okay, so it sounds like you want to remove an entire line if it contains an external link to and a rating. If I'm correct in this interpretation, then you're looking for an open square bracket, and then some characters, and then "", and some more characters, and a close square bracket... and then a rating thing. I guess it would be easiest to search for this:
That will cover any link to, followed by {{rating|2|10}} or {{rating-10|2}} or whatever. It would hypothetically match something like "hello [ Brussels Sprouts] is a rating", but that's never going to occur. This regular expression also won't cover "(2/10)", without a rating template, but I think you have those covered already, right? – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, i had already dealt with all the (*/10)'s. I've finally completed the run, so hopfully i wont have to bother you again, but knowing my luck someone will find some variation that i havn't covered. Once again, thanks so much for your time.
Cheers Printer222 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Welcome back! And with a vengeance, I see. :-) Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But, eh, vengeance is the LORD's, as they say. I'll settle for just having fun. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image question[edit]

Dear Quadell, I am trying to contact you about the image you posted called Image:Lynching-of-lige-daniels.jpg. I am designing a book jacket and would like if possible to get a higher resolution scan. Are you able to help? Sorry – I'm not an experienced Wiki-person! NickEvans82 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Quadell, many thanks for replying quickly and being so helpful. All the best, Nick (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you examine the article "Independent National Socialism" for bias?[edit]

I am asking a number of administrators at random to review Independent National Socialism which is sourced completely from a white nationalist webpage called Stormfront, which has anti-Semitic and other xenophobic material on it. A user is claiming that this website is acceptable for use. I believe that this source is not reliable and could be original research, but you you believe that this website can or should this source be relied upon for the article? Please post your determination on the talk page of Independent National Socialism. Thank you for reading this.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Can you undelete this and move it to the space of user User:UBX? There is no rule against multi-licensing your contributions (and once it is undeleted I intend to fix the wording to make this clearer). -Nard 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. It's now at User:UBX/User bsdl. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Tanx! -Nard 07:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Date Wikiformating[edit]

I think that auto-formating preferences work without a year, as per this table: Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Date_autoformatting. The manual states that [d]ate elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked, but the section gives plenty of examples of days+months without years. Are you sure that days and months should not be wikilinked? Plasticup T/C 13:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. When last I checked (admittedly it was a while ago), the MediaWiki date trick only worked with full dates, including years. When that was the case, it was best not to overlink partial dates, since there was no advantage to it. (Similarly, it's best not to compulsively link 1999, unless there's a reason for it in the article. The 1999 in music article should certainly link to 1999, but in most cases it isn't a useful link for the reader.) But for non-yeared dates, it appears you're right -- now there is an advantage to it. So nevermind. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Your recent edit[2] implies that "byproduct" is a incorrect spelling. However, some dictionaries [3] [4] imply that "byproduct" is correctly spelled. Someone at Talk:By-product thought that "byproduct" was the preferred form. I hope this doesn't become a repeat of the "email vs. e-mail" controversy (Talk:E-mail#E-mail_vs._email). -- (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I was using AutoWiki Browser, an automated tool that make several changes automatically. One of them is correcting "byproduct" to "by-product". If the issue is important to you, you might want to suggest that it not do this at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I left a note at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#byproduct_and_by-product. -- (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

you have mail![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Quadell. You have new messages at Printer222's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Garvey[edit]

Thanks for the alert. Hope all okay now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your confession[edit]

Thanks for that! It was fun reading it, and informative as well. Good point about collaboration as well. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 8[edit]

Hi, Quadell! I saw the above request, particularly the feature about converting IMDb links to the imdb template. Would it be possible to also convert MySpace links to the {{MySpace}} template? Kelly hi! 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's doable. I wasn't aware of that template. I'll look into the details. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done. See this example. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! Kelly hi! 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:CUC Regions Map.jpg[edit]

Hi. It seems that you deleted Image:CUC Regions Map.jpg from in favour of the Commons copy without verifying that all the information had been correctly transfered. Could you please go through the the original info at Special:Undelete/Image:CUC Regions Map.jpg and transfer the missing info to the Commons image page. Unless the info is added the image will probably have to be deleted as missing essential source and/or author information. Thanks /Lokal_Profil 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There is no additional information in the deleted image description page on en:Wiki, besides that which is already on Commons. It was reviewed by myself, Bagster, and Metsbot.
Additionally, there isn't missing source information on the image at Commons. The image was released into the public domain by its creator, User:Nived 90. I'm not sure what more source information could be provided. – Quadell (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. The image is currently marked as missing source info because it soesn't clarify who created the image. It specifies that User:Nived 90 uploaded the image and that the author released the image to the public domain. It doesn't clarify if User:Nived 90 is said author though. If the deleted description page states that User:Nived 90 is the creator then give me a shout and I'll fix the info. If the deleted description page doesn't clarify this then the image have always been missing the necessary info. /Lokal_Profil 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Just popping in from vacation. Okay, so when Nived 90 (real name: Devin Murphey) uploaded the image in 2006, he first used the edit summary "By: Devin Murphy". When Orphanbot informed him that it needed a tag, he changed the image description page to {{No rights reserved}}. Back in 2006 there were fewer copyright tags, and folks were less strict. There really wasn't a (commonly-used) distinction between "I, the copyright holder, release this into the public domain" and "I, a Wikipedian, certify that this image I uploaded is in the public domain" until mid-2007 or so. But in this case, since he had previously said he created it, the case is solved. :-) I'll go fix the description on Commons. – Quadell (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Bot request[edit]

Hi Quadell! Thanks for the response. The four pages are: User:Gonzo fan2007/1, User:Gonzo fan2007/2, User:Gonzo fan2007/3, User:Gonzo fan2007/4. If you want to put the list at User:Gonzo fan2007/5 that would be great. If possible, it would be great to have a numbered list. Thanks a lot!!! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ? contribs) @ 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! – Quadell (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
Thank you so much for your work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ? contribs) @ 22:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TinucherianBot 4[edit]

I have replied for your query. Thank you -- TinuCherian (Chat?) - 14:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DOIs etc[edit]

Hi, I've not got access to the code at the second, but a little from memory:

  • Google scholar don't offer an API and don't allow machines to scrape results
  • Pubmed offer an API which allows you to expand citations given a PMID or pubmed url (which are common), often producing a DOI too. See ; I'll let you look through my source code to see how I've implemented it (in PHP) if that's helpful.
  • CrossRef require you to get an application key before you can query their DOI database automatically. Apply here.

Would it be easiest for me to e-mail you some source files so you can have a poke about? I'll try to extract the key answers too!


Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrific! I've e-mailed you a response. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't receive the e-mail, and it's not even in my spam. Perhaps you could try e-mailing me directly at my gmail address (martins).
The DOI regexp I use is
; be aware that this will often pick up trailing tags (br, hr, td) and punctuation, which can be removed - the symbols
don't appear at the end of any DOIs I've come across. In some cases the first DOI that appears is not the DOI of an article, but the DOI of a linked reference - I've still not come up with a satisfactory way of discriminating between the two, although a few of my stabs have been quite reasonable.
To find the details of a DOI, use the URL$doi&noredirect=true
To find a DOI from details, see crossRef. When a page doesn't link a DOI, you can often use metadata to extract information to feed crossRef, who will oblige you with a DOI.
I think that's your two pressing questions answered but please do get in touch for more info/code/help!
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. have you seen my plaintext - to - citation wasjig here? (Field on the right). I wonder whether there's scope for automating this process, or whether it could be useful? (The regexps are all in a rather early stage, granted). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm working on a semi-manual extension to the WP:REFTOOL, to format all links within a given article correctly. It would be great if I could use Polbot's functionality, especially to generate cite web links - ideally I would like to pass the article's text through Polbot before it hits my PHP code. However, I'm not sure how I'd go about this, as I have no familiarity with cross-language programming - are you able to offer any suggestions? Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no experience integrating perl with other languages. But then again, my code doesn't actually use the {{cite web}} template, so it may be moot. If you would like, and if you give me details on what Polbot functionality is useful to you, I can separate out that code snip and comment it well enough to make it easy to translate into PHP. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be wonderful, thank you! Basically I am interested to know what data you can reliably extract from a web page, and how you validate it - e.g. making sure that the page title is an accurate reflection of its content and not just "Untitled document". Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look at the code when I get a moment. What are you trying to extract from the PMC page? I suspect that you'll find a link on the eutils page that will allow you to extract the relevant data from any PMC id with less scraping involved, although let me know if that's not possible. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, basically I look at a link like [5] and want to know the DOI. I pull the rest of the information from CrossRef once I have the DOI, but I'm not able to get anything but "NCBI/ipmc1 - The requested page has restricted access [Error 403]" from the URL. – Quadell (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

PD-US licenses[edit]

Hi, Quadell - I was researching a copyright issue and ran across the following licenses which seem to duplicate each other: {{PD-Pre1964}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}, and {{PD-Pre1978}} and {{PD-US-no notice}}. Is there any reason you can think of that the "Pre" templates shouldn't be redirected to the other ones? I wanted to check with someone before I just did it (plus at least one of them is protected and I can't redirect it anyway). Kelly hi! 13:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Each pair mean identical things and should be merged. I suppose the more detailed versions, and the ones that match the Commons template-names, should be the kept version. – Quadell (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar[edit]

Hmm, I remember you once giving me a barnstar for a conscience attack. I do believe that I have neither watered it nor let it grow. Thanks for the reminder; I will have to do so in the future. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. For someone with such an evil and unyielding username, you may not be glad to hear that you warmed my heart. But nevertheless... Zmobie.svgQuadell (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello. I wanted to add a portrait of William Molyneux to his article. An etching from the early nineteenth century is reproduced in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in a biographical survey published in 1965 by Theodore Hoppen. Here is the etching extracted from the pdf file for the page on jstor. Is it permissible to use this print on wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems at all. The etching is in the public domain (not copyrighted), and the reproduction creates no new creative content. Which is to say, the image is free and clear. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


I would have thought it quite ridiculous, but a user has already agreed with the nominator to delete, so I thought perhaps I'd better alert you as someone who created, or significantly edited the article, about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed al-Nami. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was bizarre. – Quadell (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello, it looks as though you changed the URL of the image page for the sound file 0.999....ogg from Image: to Media:. Can I ask you to reverse this or tell me how to reverse it? The guidelines for such files say that they should be "given the Image: prefix... even if they are not images", and at the moment the page concerned seems to have a kind of half-existence. I discovered this when I was looking for a talk page for the file, which it doesn't seem to have.

Tommy Herbert (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't actually move it from Image: to Media:. ("Media" is really just another name for "Image", so far as the Wikimedia software is concerned.) What happened was, someone moved it to Wikimedia Commons so that other projects could see it, and I deleted the duplicate local copy. Nowadays we like to host nearly all free media (images and sounds) on Commons. The sound file can best be seen at Commons:Image:0.999....ogg. Accessing it directly through Wikipedia works just as well, like Image:0.999....ogg.
It's in good company. If you click on any of the images from the Main Page, you'll see they are actually hosted on Commons as well. Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, YOU![edit]

I've nominated you for BAG membership. And, bjweeks has co-nominated you. Would you please take a moment to read over our nom, and, indicate your acceptance (or not), then one of us can transclude it (or not). SQLQuery me! 07:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did what? I really need to stop editing while intoxicated. BJTalk 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Emblem-fun.svg I've accepted. – Quadell (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
And, transcluded! :) Sorry bout the delay SQLQuery me! 06:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Best of luck for your BAG membership -- Tinu Cherian - 05:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User Page and logos[edit]

Conserning this sentences in WP:LOGO;

  1. It is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using their logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with or endorses Wikipedia or the article it appears in, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner. The purpose of the specific guidelines above is to meet these conditions.
  2. In the event that the owner objects to the use made of a logo, the suggested action is for the owner to remove the logo themselves, and identify themselves and their reasons for removing it on the associated talk page.

Has there been any consensus established with regards of using logos in user pages. For example, is it possible to use this logo [6] in my user page? Thanks in advance.--ZentukBir Papyrus 12:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but the general consensus (last I checked) is that logos are "non-free images", and non-free images are not allowed outside of article-space. Pretty much all logos are trademarked, but some are copyrighted as well. Non-free, copyrighted images are not allowed in user space, and that's pretty much set in stone. As for non-copyrighted, trademarked images, there are still good reasons not to allow them in userspace. Using a company's logo implies affiliation or endorsement; the main purpose of trademark law is to prevent the holder from being associated with things he doesn't want to be associated with. The IBM logo may be too simple to be copyrighted, but if you put that logo on your userpage and do something unethical, it would reflect badly on IBM. IBM gets to choose who their logo is associated with, and that's why it's not allowed. (And the image you linked to is probably complex enough to be copyrighted as well as trademarked, so it would be doubly-disallowed.) Sorry to bring bad news, – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm realy disapointed. This are bad news. Nevertheless, I want to send my deepest respect to you. Peace be with and around you.--ZentukBir Papyrus 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:CUC Regions Map.jpg[edit]

Thanks for sorting the issues with Image:CUC Regions Map.jpg and sorry for the late reply =) /Lokal_Profil 22:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

your bot and the reflist template[edit]

Recently, your bot changed <references/> to {{reflist}} here. I looked at your bot requests for the related task and saw:

  • As the Template:reflist documentation says, there is no consensus to use it in place of <references/> in all occasions. See [7].
    • I have it only replace divs if they match up on either side of the references tag, with nothing else in there. So that bug shouldn't be a problem. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Was this a bug?--Rockfang (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. This is how it's supposed to work. Everybody agrees that {{reflist}} is preferable to <references/> -- the only concern people had was whether it would honor <div> tags around it (which is tricky). My bot does this fine. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you please show me a Wikipedia wide consensus that demonstrates {{reflist}} is always preferred over <references/>? The reason I ask is because if you check out the documentation for {{reflist}}, it states there is no such consensus.--Rockfang (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Most Wikipedians don't even know {{reflist}} even exists, so it'd be hard to get a good poll on it. But the only thing on that page that suggests it might not always be good to use {{reflist}} has to do with font issues. "Note that there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references; when normal-sized font is more appropriate on an article, use <references /> instead." I keep any intentional fonts that a person has added -- the only font changing would be if the original article creator used the default size, and for some reason wanted that instead. But how often does that happen? (AutoWikiBrowser makes the exact same change that Polbot makes here, and for the exact same reason.)
If you or anyone else ever doesn't like a change Polbot has made, I'm not at all possessive about the changes. As I say in the FAQ "Feel free to revert; it won't hurt Polbot's feelings." I can't imagine why someone would find <references /> preferable, but like I said, I'd be the last person to edit war over it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BAG Membership[edit]

Congratulations on your successful request for BAG membership -- Tinu Cherian - 03:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, congrats! I've put together some rough instructions on how to close a BRFA that you might find helpful (I know I wish we had them when I started). Let me know if you need anything :) SQLQuery me! 03:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You guys made my day! SMirC-shy.svg Thank you for the honor, and I will do my best to live up to it. I especially appreciate the notes of support from those I've had disagreements with in the past -- it means I must be doing something right. I'll study your helpful instructions, SQL, and I'll make sure I'm up on Wikipedia:Bot policy. – Quadell (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Price Hill map[edit]

Thanks! Yes, I'm also wholtone on commons. I know, I couldn't find a satisfying (and free) neighborhood map either, so I spent the last few days working on one. I would be happy to make it the basis for other Cincinnati related maps! J.H (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! Basically everything in Commons:Category:Locator Maps of Cincinnati, Ohio is no longer needed. I see you found Category:Neighborhoods in Cincinnati and List of Cincinnati neighborhoods. There are a lot of redlinks, and I could create stubs for neighborhoods if you have maps for them; this site is very useful, and this one is usually very useful but it seems to be down at the moment. Thanks for helping Wikipedia with your drafting skills! All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, check this out. It's the same picture of the price hill incline that you've uploaded here, except the quality is stunning! Price Hill Incline at New York Public Library. It appears to be free too. J.H (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! – Quadell (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot Problems[edit]

Your Polbot has been making a number of errors, namely, by turning all links into references, including ones in the bibliography sections of many articles which are not supposed to be references (for example, you have the name of a book followed by a link in brackets to the work on the Internet Archive, this is not supposed to be turned into a reference). I've reverted about 5 such edits. Please fix your bot or just disable it. Algabal (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. If you could link to an example, that would help.Quadell (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I found the examples in your recent changes. I have to say, I disagree with you here. I believe changes like this, this, and this are positive changes. It avoids unnamed, numbered links, which can conflict with the numbering for standard references (when those are used). It shows that the links come from the Internet Archive, without the user having to click to find out. In addition those changes had made other improvements (e.g. the use of full {{cite book}} referencing), which you also reverted along with the changes you didn't like.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) says that "you should add a descriptive title when an external link is offered in the References, Further reading, or External links section", and "When placed in the References and External links sections, these links should be expanded with link text, and preferably a full citation". And Wikipedia:Embedded citations states "However, because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full references, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not particularly recommended as a method of best practice."
Polbot will not re-introduce changes when you revert her, and I'm certainly not going to edit-war with anyone. However, I'm confident that these changes you mention are in line with our guidelines, so I don't expect to change the bots functionality (unless there's clear community consensus that I should do so.) – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, these are not citations. These are links which do not serve as citations. Fix your bot. [8] Algabal (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mammal template output[edit]

Hello, Quadell! Again thanks for the output from the bot. I thought of a couple of things:

  1. Can the abnormal output (i.e., the results other than "nothing unusual" or "redlink") be bolded?
  2. Can each report be timestamped when it last ran?
  3. Can a report be auto-ran each 30 days or so? OR Can a link be added to each report that would allow a report to be ran on demand?
  4. Can a link be added that would add or remove a template from the bot list (in situations where a template is created/merged/re-named/deleted/etc.)?

I don't know how much of your time or of the server's power this entails, so forgive my ignorance if these requests are overboard. Again, I really appreciate this. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. Sure. You might also find it useful to sort on that field (by clicking the arrow on the table's header), so that all problems are grouped together.
  2. Yes, that's no problem.
  3. Not really. I don't have a reliable way of running jobs on a schedule -- I applied for a toolserver account a month ago for just this sort of reason, but so far I haven't heard anything back. I guess you'd have to simply request on my talkpage that I rerun it.
  4. Sort of. I got my list of templates from User:Polbot/templatelist, and if you removed a template from there then Polbot wouldn't check it next time she runs. If we're going to running this frequently, you might want to place that list of templates somewhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Article templates/stats -- perhaps in its own section at the top. (Feel free to format it however you like.) Then Polbot could just read from there.
All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Whoops, forgot one: When producing "subspecies" or "extinct" output, does Polbot use IUCN or MSW3? If not MSW3, can it be changed to MSW3? Again, if it is too time consuming to do that, NBD -- just curious. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
She just looks for "| subspecies = ..." and "| status = EX" in the taxobox. – Quadell (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the suggestion; I posted a bot request here. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. Face-smile-big.svg ~giggle~Quadell (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for all your helpfulness with User:Danielfolsom2's bot approval. You were incredibly quick in all of your responses, and I really appreciate all the responses you gave. Thanks so much, --danielfolsom 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

SMirC-beam.svg Glad to help. Gratitude makes my day. – Quadell (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot errors[edit]

Hi. Your bot seems to be making many errors, see [9] and [10]. I think you need to switch it off. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


We are ready. -- Cat chi? 08:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot Problems Continue[edit]

Every day, I log on and have to make another round of corrections to your bot's errors (I've made nearly 15 so far). It has continually switched non-referential links into citations. I have politely asked you to fix it, but you have failed to do so.

I am going to lodge a formal complaint if this doesn't stop. Algabal (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I support Algabal. I've been making a series of corrections - mainly turning foreign accents and scripts into alphabet soup. --Kleinzach 09:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll be looking into the errors you both mention. Until then, I have stopped running the bot. – Quadell (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Surprise, you're on BOWN! Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Polbot problems. Your check fine will arrive in 4-6 business days. BJTalk 10:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheese -> Infobox Cheese[edit]

"I've translated all but 12 instances." Did you get those, too? I noticed the old template has no more article transclusions. --Geniac (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, someone else must have done it. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Un, please help unblock my bot account.[edit]

According previous discussion in talkpage, my account is blocked by unapproved test work. Now I want to request these works.(included DR fix).--Alex S.H. Lin 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 DoneQuadell (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


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

 DoneQuadell (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes to myself.

Bot errors[edit]

Polbot appears to be deciding when to place punctuation before references. E.g. [11] 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)

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) BJTalk 09:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
CMOS is the "preferred" version according to WP:MOS and is used on the majority of pages. BJTalk 10:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
Uh, exactly? "The bot should be checking to see if the article is unstandardized". BJTalk 08:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

George Bush is a terrible President —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glamorous1612 (talkcontribs) 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Image:Athabaskan DDH 282.jpg"[edit]

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. RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Polbot error[edit]

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)

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

Tullio Levi-Civita[edit]

Hello. On the St Andrews University website this group photo [12] 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. [13] 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)

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)
Help me, I've disappeared!!
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)
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:
at 170 px
at 171 px

Bot and external links[edit]

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)

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)

Category based Bot Tagging[edit]

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)


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.[14] 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)

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)

Comment bug?[edit]

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)