User talk:Quadell/Archive 46

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. This archive page covers comments 2251-2300, from roughly June 19, 2009 to July 27, 2009.

Thank you for the WikiGnome! I've been so busy in meatspace that I've found I don't have time to do big things, but whenever I look up something in Wikipedia (several times a day at least), I often find myself doing a quick copyedit. Of course, all too often, I start finding more and more things that could use improvement, until I wind up updating and checking references, rewriting passages, and all manner of editorial functions I hadn't planned! ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also a big thanks for the Gnome from me! Cheers. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They host a PDF scan of the book , and it clearly says 'COPYRIGHT 1938 BY MISSISSIPPI ADVERTISING COMMISSION' just before the forward." Simply disgusting. And to think I trusted you... shameful. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 16:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Scans) ... (Scans again) Wait, what? (Scans a third time) The comma before the "and"? (Scratches head) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For 4 points: "It clearly says 'COPYRIGHT 1938 BY MISSISSIPPI ADVERTISING COMMISSION' just before the forward." - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 16:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreword"? PamD (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for points two PamD their four that. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! – Quadell ^(talk) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And related... – Quadell ^(talk) 16:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for transferring File:Keswick, Ontario map.png to commons. Believe it or not, I originally uploaded it to commons over four years ago and the assholery I encountered there over http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/04#Images_uploaded_by_User:DoubleBlue, its ridiculous deletion by a mixture of small number of incompetent self-important fools who did oversee things and the lack of oversight by anyone with common sense and thought, made me completely abandon commons for three years. I now upload there but still begrudgingly. I appreciate its intent, its use for other projects, and hope its administration has improved. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think it has. :) It can still be more bureaucratic and less consistent than here, but it's not bad. Thanks for being willing to give it another chance. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know you often hang out at PUI anyway, but there is a rather complicated PUI case. I encouraged the contributor with concerns to take the matter there if those concerns persisted, and it may need some teasing out to find the actual copyright status. If you have an opportunity to see if you can help, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 20#File:Diam1.jpg? I became of the situation because I have the contributor's talk page on my watchlist as there was some question of his overuse of quotations under NFC. That one has been resolved, but his talk page has been hitting on my watchlist like crazy over this one. :) The uploader indicated at his talk page that he had received some kind of "word from legal", but though he was encouraged to send it to OTRS, I don't see any sign that he has done so. I can't access the journal in question; not sure if that's necessary. If you can help puzzle this one out at PUI, it would be appreciated! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is tricky. I commented there, thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) By the way, that image turned out to be PD, but the article is a mess and is listed at COIN. If you have interest, Mlauba is proposing an alteration to the nothanks template that would clarify when other issues exist. (Not that it would have helped here, but the connected problem makes me think of it.) His (or her) proposal is at WT:COPYCLEAN. (If that link doesn't work, I'm about to make it.) Meanwhile, the Billboard question has, as expected, spilled over into other articles, and I've written to Mike just to be on the safe side, since it's likely to expand rapidly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell. I've been uploading some Geograph images, e.g. this one which I uploaded to Commons as File:Brigshaw High School by donkeykong.jpg. Geograph asks for a commons 2.0 licence, but when you upload you only get the choice of 2.5 or 3.0 licence for a share-alike image that's not your own work. So I've been uploading them as 2.5, thinking at first that maybe 2.0 had been updated to 2.5. Now I'm not so sure. Should I go back and replace them all with cc-by-sa 2.0 templates, or should I leave well alone? Please notify me of any reply on my talk page. --Storye book (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you're supposed to replace the template, since the current one is technically inaccurate, but it's such a minor point that you might not bother. The technical language of cc-by-sa-2.0 is extremely similar to that of cc-by-sa-2.5, and makes no difference in this case. v2.0 says "You must... give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied...", but v2.5 expands it to say "You must... provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties;" That's really the only difference. So if the copyright-holder wants credit given to his pseudonym "Donkeykong", and not some designated third party, then the choice of license makes no difference. All the best. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yay, thanks Quadell. I'll leave well alone then. One less thing to worry about. If I understand your information correctly, it looks as if it might be safe to continue to load them up with version 2.5, as it carries slightly stricter rules than 2.0. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell, would you have a look at this thread on my talk page, and the deletion logs of those other files. I haven't really used these new buttons too much yet, and I want to make sure I'm doing it right. I noticed that you got the last one, so I thought I'd ask you. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  18:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ched. As ww2censor pointed out here, "Source indicates this image comes from a site that claims copyright to all its content but uploader claims it is a freely licenced (cc) image." A user named Laz (User:Paravis) says on his user page "Recently, I have begun cataloging photographs of medical procedures, thanks to a great opportunity offered to me by Michael S. Schwartz, M.D." He also claims "I am the owner of this image", but it is not clear if he is the copyright-holder of the image. One can own a photograph and not hold the copyright. In order for us to use the image, either here or on Commons, one of two things will have to happen. Either the website of Michael S. Schwartz, M.D. will have to be changed to state that the images are available under a cc license, or the copyright-holder will have to email permissions@wikimedia.org to state that the image is indeed available under a free license.

By deleting the local image here you ended the debate at PUF here, but it's still an issue, just on Commons now. The image will have to be deleted on Commons unless the issue is resolved. You can help by letting Laz know, if you like. Thanks for contacting me about this. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously I too noticed the upload of the duplicate images on the commons and was first going to give the uploader an opportunity to prove the images' copyright by arranging an OTRS permission before I nominate them for deletion for the same reason as I nominated them here, i.e., unproved copyright of images from a copyright website. ww2censor (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now left him a message on his commons talk page to deal with the copyright status of the images. ww2censor (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! P|^|C (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell did u just help me on my commons .anyway thanks i hope this is now final and reviewed by the admin.If not can u please help me..

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KRIS3.JPG

This is my own image..I know the girl actress she is my neighbor —Preceding unsigned comment added by KRIsbernal (talk • contribs) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine now. Thanks for your contribution! – Quadell ^(talk) 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MondalorBot, how broad is that "rename categories and articles" approval? It looks like it could be read as "anything Mondalor thinks there's consensus for". Anomie? 23:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he said he was ready to give up that function, and he promised to only rename things when there was consensus for it. I'll be sure to keep an eye on it. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited that article. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:JR Fun Big.gif. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

It was for a template on my user page, and I want you to leave my user page alone.--MahaPanta (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not to edit your user page, or your user talk page. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That template directly effects my userpage.--MahaPanta (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user talk page. Yes, it does. And I won't edit your user talk page again. Now if you don't want to talk with me, you can simply stop editing my user talk page and our dialog will end. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jees, I'm crackin' up here Quadell, 'cos my RFA just passed at 77/2/1 and I have you to thank for the nice paragraph that everybody reads at the top. Now, how much did I say I'd pay you? :) Let me know if there's anything I can help with! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Um... I guess I'll feel rewarded enough if you do a little on the admin backlogs and refrain from deleting the main page. Which the software won't let you do anyway. (Note: That's a joke. Don't try this at home, or anywhere else!) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get this image? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm an OTRS volunteer, and we received an e-mail from the photographer, Derrick James, verifying that he created the photograph and is willing to license it under a free license. The image is separately available on the web at http://img44.imageshack.us/i/blondambition.png/. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot buddy. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be most welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Proposed renaming of List of judicial appointments made by Barack Obama. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell,

The link to the red list at Grey-hooded Attila came up as 'does not exist'. If this is the case, perhaps there is more. I thought this info might be helpful, in case there was a glitch somewhere or you wanted to do a Polbot update. Regards, cygnis insignis 08:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Yeah, that's a problem. It looks like the Red List changed the links for all its species, without providing redirects. This breaks all our links. :( – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was investigating this a little yesterday by chance. I can find no logic in the new numbers in the urls vs. the old ones. Which means we'll have to draw up a list and do it all manually. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I've added a bot request. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Searching should work, I guess. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth contacting the IUCN webmaster to ask if they can offer any formula to go from organism name to web address, or old web address to new, then creating a template? (As recommended at Wikipedia:EL#Linking_to_databases.) It worked for me for the UK Charity Commission ({{EW charity}}) - in fact the chap I contacted was a WikiPedia reader and was pleased to be able to help, and delighted when I gave him a credit in the documentation! PamD (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read about AutoEd thru your userboxes and I have a few questions:

1. Is it only for admins?
2. If not, how can I install it, I cannot find a link to installing it anywhere..

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just for admins–anyone can use it! To install it, edit your monobook.js page and add the following line:

        importScript('Wikipedia:AutoEd/complete.js');

Then purge your cache by following the instructions on that page. The script should then be installed and ready for use! All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you closed this as delete? I saw no reason to assume bad faith with this image, and there was certainly no consensus for deletion. Just a heads up that I'll probably take it to DRV if you don't undelete--or point me towards some evidence of it actually being a copyright violation. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence indicated it was likely a copyright violation, but made it impossible to tell for certain. The image was unused, and it had no description and no information about what/where it was depicting, so I couldn't see how it could be useful in an encyclopedia. There's a copy on Commons anyway, so I didn't figure it was a big deal. If you want to take it to DRV, though, go ahead. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, didn't know it was on Commons. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why.
Thanks. ÷seresin 20:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The debate was whether the image violated NFCC#8 in the article. You and two others contended that the image was used merely decoratively, and that's certainly a defensible position, but it's not unambiguous. Three-and-a-half others argued that the image showed important things that were discussed and weren't portrayed by the other pictures (and couldn't be conveyed by text alone). It is the only image in the article that shows any character recognizably, so it's also a defensible position. Since there was no consensus to delete, I did not delete the image. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the important part of the film that the image illustrates? What information does the image impart that is critical to understanding the subject? Where is the critical commentary of this image? ÷seresin 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is the only image in the article that shows any character recognizably. Others opined that the style of film-making is shown -- you can read their opinions if you're curious. The reason I closed it as "keep" is not that I personally had an opinion that the image passed NFCC#8; the reason I closed it as "keep" is because it wasn't an unambiguous case, and there was no consensus to delete. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've not decided if it's worth the effort to send to DRV yet, but I'll let you know if I do. ÷seresin 20:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing it; I thought that it was starting to get overlooked. I do have one question though... is it approved just to do the redundant/needs-review tagging, or the work with {{GFDL-self}} and related tags? I don't mind either way, just wondering. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is approved to do the GFDL-self stuff as well, if you trust it to do well and are willing to fix any problems with that. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; thanks for the clarification. If that becomes problematic I will shut off the function or fix the RegEx. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this then need to be marked as revoked? –xeno^talk 12:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at that page. Not sure if there's more that needs to be done on the bureaucratic side of things. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I could use your support on trying to change an article's title.Inline-four.Vegavairbob (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I need two votes to Support anyone you know? ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Question about compatibility of GPL to CC-By-SA here. I believe they're probably incompatible, but since I have 0 experience with GPL wanted to check. :) Thoughts? (There's also a question whether the text actually is licensed under GPL). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) If you're not tired of answering my questions, can you also take a look at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Need some help? If you are, let me know, and I'll pester somebody else. And, by the way, do you know anybody that has a chart that would help me fill out this? I'm having trouble finding information on non-CC licenses that may be CC-By-SA compatible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a specific source, probably because there are so few "free content" licenses. There are lots for software, but very few that were designed for text, and when you claim text is released under a license designed for software, it may or may not be enforceable. As you know, the GFDL (and GPL) are not compatible with cc-by-sa. In principle, any license that puts no restriction on use is compatible; examples include works released into the public domain, or under the WTFPL. Also, any license that only requires attribution, such as an unambiguous ad-hoc {{attribution}} statement, is compatible. Very little else is. BSD licenses require a specific licensing statement be attached, which is an incompatible requirement. The Creative Archive Licence forbids commercial reproduction, which is incompatible. The Artistic License only allows modification under strange terms, which is incompatible. I'm unclear about the Free Art license, the FreeBSD Documentation License, and the Design Science License; I read them, and they may be compatible, but I'm not sure.

Also, there are other cc licenses, but none are compatible: the "sampling" licenses are all non-commercial-only, and the "DevNations" and "Founders" copyrights are incompatible. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTFPL. :D Do you mind if I incorporate your notes into my little chart? I can put question marks next to those about which you're uncertain and if they come up tap Quadell. :) Free licenses are something I never had cause to encounter in my day job (any of them). I had never even heard of GFDL prior to coming to Wikipedia. One of the many things Wikipedia has forced me to learn. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can put my notes in your chart. Do whatever the @#$% you want with them. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to make me giggle like a schoolgirl? If so, well done. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and see also http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses which basically says that the CC folks don't know of any. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a test run of "importScript('User:Splarka/ajaxsendcomment.js')" :) Will it work? Can I actually message you lazily from my own monobook page? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can. I did. :O --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've tagged these two edits [1] [2] with an edit summary "identical image from Commons instead of local image". Note that the Commons file linked is in clear violation of their copyright policy. A local en-wiki image would be a better choice. Unfortunately, nearly all constructivist architecture has "suddenly" become unfree in 2008 but as I understand en-wiki is reluctant to honor copyright claimed by a foreign state on what was once PD. NVO (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close! You're right, it looks like free photos of copyrighted buildings in Russia are considered derivative works there (although they're still free images under U.S. copyright law). But Nikolai Ladovsky, the architect, died in 1941, and did not work or serve in the army during the Great Patriotic War... so according to this, the original building is PD. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Date of his death (suicide, according to the only clear source on the subject) is lost in the fog of war. Was it before or after June 22, I don't know; all public biographies just say 1941. And the name of photographer is, perhaps, lost too. I have the 1948 book with large-scale prints of the same image - no photographer credit. It's unenforceable legal limbo, still no good for commons. NVO (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if he died after June 22, he didn't work or serve in the army during the Great Patriotic War. So his works would still be PD so long as he died before 1943. I don't know about the copyright on the photograph itself, however. Since it was published in 1948 without crediting the photographer, that's clear evidence that the photographer is "unknown"; as such, if we can show that the photo was published before June 22, 1941, then the photo is PD as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so easy: other credited authors of the original structure died in 1950 (Friedman) and 1996 (Loveyko) (I admit I have no clue as to each contributor's role, one may be relevant for surface pic, another for underground etc.). That's the problem with 20th century buildings: too many people involved. 300 years ago things were far simpler :)) NVO (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. That's no good. Yes, I guess I need to restore them here and tag them with {{NoCommons}}. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Quadell ^(talk) 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In April you closed three PUFs which I started on 6 March, specifically File:Major Cineplex.JPG, File:The Mall Ngamwongwan.jpg and File:City Air Terminal.jpg as keep, due to "no evidence of copyvio". This is understandable, given the contentions raised by User:Maxl, who thought that I seemed to be relying on "a lot of superstition". I was away from editing at the time, however, and had not been able to clarify my position, which is that when all but three uploads of a user have been deleted, almost all due to them appearing to be copyright violations, I believe it wise rather than superstitious to cease assuming good faith in such cases. Few users would use a different camera for every shot they upload, and the fact that User:Rootje has never responded to a talk page inquiry isn't helping his case. File:The Mall Ngamwongwan.jpg was recently confirmed to be a copyright violation and deleted, and I believe the same to be the nature of the other two remaining files, although this has still yet to be proved beyond all doubt. What would you recommend as the proper course of action to take? Should I take this to deletion review or submit a new PUF, or is there an easier way? Thank you. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 19:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think relisting them at PUF would be your best bet. Include as much information as possible there (succinctly), which will help explain why they are being relisted. Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell - is there any chance you could unprotect the article relating to UK radio broadcaster Andrew Peach which has been replaced with a redirect to the radio station information after edit warrring. I would like to add some info and would be happy for it to be protected again if need be. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.121 (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell, just wanted to thank you for reviewing the images used in the Lindbergh kidnapping article. Moonriddengirl mentioned that she was going to ask you for some help and I just wanted to add my thanks as well. Shinerunner (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! – Quadell ^(talk) 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a reliable examples to sustain your opinion about me. Thanks! TouLouse (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mihailesti explosion was an example just discovered today, with many sentences copied verbatim from the source. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already spammed MRG and WP:CC this week, so I'm directing this one to you, but you can pass it on. :) {{Csb-pageincluded}} (and probably other CSB templates) need to be updated to reflect the need for CC-BY-SA as well. Set to it! Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've fixed that one. I checked the others that start with "template:csb", and they all seem fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. This one combines elements of both: Duration of Copyright. I've got to run, but I wanted to give you a heads up specifically because this looks to be up your alley. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how's it going?

I had this disconcerting thought that the info we plumbed from the FJC will go out of date in time (at least, for current judges). Could Polbot run through the judge listings again and note only those that show something happening in 2009 (e.g. retirement, senior status, becoming chief judge - just anything where 2009 appears)? I figure if we generate a report like that every six months, we'll be current enough - my main concern is old Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton judges taking senior status, since even court-watchers might not note that.

Also, on a somewhat related and even more exciting matter, you may know that the FJC also has a database of historic courthouses - complete with images! I want those entries and the images (which are all from U.S. government sources, hence in the public domain, so they can go to Commons). Can you scrape 'em? bd2412 T 03:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, never mind about the courthouses, that's being done over at Commons. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. — Knowledge Seeker ? 21:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per User talk:Vianello#As for some advices (permalink), an admin from the Vietnamese Wikipedia could use some advice about dealing with page-move vandals. Since the admin that was asked doesn't know what to do to combat this vandalism, I've contacted you to see if you can give him some advice. If you can help, please reply at User talk:Vinhtantran#Re: Mass vandalism (to keep discussion centralized since I've posted this message at the talk pages of several admins). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posted from User talk:Polbot

Hi, Quadell. I am confused about the purpose of Polbot. This category is mostly populated by your bot's articles. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's perspective), many of the articles are less comprehensive than the existing. Additionally, the existing articles are better written. Considering your bot is pulling information from a single source, placing it into a generic article template without providing inline citation, expanding upon information or using encyclopedic prose, and all for articles that already contain most, if not all, of the information your bot is finding, plus more; why were these biographies of living people being created en masse and proposed for merger? It seems like a waste of time for all involved to do it this way. ?ennavecia 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I might interject myself into this discussion. Polbot's articles contain specific bits of information that every article on a U.S. federal judge should contain. Some have it, many don't (I'd add that in addition to the thousand or so articles Polbot made in User space, it generated about twice as many new entries in Article space). We are working through them, and will eventually get all of them out of the way, and off the merge list. bd2412 T 06:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details. That clarifies for me. Regards, ?ennavecia 19:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appeciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have been more careful. Regards, ¯¯^anetode-- 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy heads up since you moved it from the creator's bad caps (which he did to avoid salt) to the current title. Assume you saw some notability but this thing has been deleted so many times, time to get rid of it once and for all. StarM 02:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I didn't know. Thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

figured as much, it's done with now. Perma vacation. StarM 18:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the proper tag for the Image: CarolinasMedCenter.jpg You can use the Image for Informational Purposes like newsspapers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad01 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we can't use images under that license. The image would have to be released under a free license, that allows anyone to reuse it, even for commercial purposes. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About 5 years ago you changed the copyright on File:Two source hypothesis.png to GFDL. If you have any info can you pop over and add before this gets deleted. jbolden1517^Talk 17:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have no idea, sorry. It should probably be recreated. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell.

While creating this file on wikipedia which I wanted to license with the same pre-1923 license as other pictures on WP by George Grosz, there was a problem with the server. The file seemsto be there, created by me, but does not show up in my contributions and cannot be edited. Can whatever is there please be deleted so I can upload the file properly when the server is being better behaved?

Many thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we are trying to add this alt text and there is some problem with the edit protect template, could you have a little look at it Wikipedia_talk:Alternative_text_for_images#Infoboxes please.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Does File:Led_Zeppelin.png qualify as "self made", as claimed?  Frank  |  talk  20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vexorg#Tony_Blair_edit_wars Vexorg (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Andrew Peach has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no third party content about the subject, just one quote by the subject

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a contributor who popped up on CP, I stumbled upon this image of a living person. Is this fair use fair? File:Michael C. Moynihan.jpg. Hope you don't mind my dropping this in your lap, but I am totally befuddled by the whole living people non-free thing. I would think this would be a case where we could not use it, but there may well be some nuance I'm missing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, since he's living and not a recluse, we can't use a non-free image of him. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 11:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the course of exploring a question about image montages at my talk page, I found an image on Commons evidently licensed under Shared Experience License but tagged as GFDL. I have some doubts about the compatibility here, though I suspect that Shared Experience License would in itself be usable. Would you mind glancing at User talk:Moonriddengirl#CC licenses and giving an opinion?

I figured I should let you know that I've split User:Xenobot/5 into a separate bot. It's already flagged and such, so I gather no action is required by BAG. By the way, on the way here, I noticed User talk:Quaddell, an imposter from some years ago. I've gone ahead and redirected the page here and hidden the cmt noting it's not you. Hope that's ok. –xeno^talk 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on the place. See you in a week! bd2412 T 02:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]