User talk:Quadell

Stop: Are you here to ask about an image I deleted? Please click here first.

Quadell's talk archives

The full archive

Just the most recent

WP:FUR expedited request

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

Gokturk Flag

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

Yeah, that's fine to do. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jobing.com

Why do you keep deleting the files I am using to write an article about Jobing.com? I have an email from thier PR director giving me permission to use all of the logos/photos I am posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanavan (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough for you to have permission to use the images. We can only use images if they are released under a free license, such as the GFDL. These images are released under a non-comercial-only license, and we cannot use these images unless they are free for anyone to use, even commercially. If the copyright-holder is willing to release these under a license that allows commercial use, please forward an e-mail from him or her to permissions@wikimedia.com – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Does PD-Self Apply?

Here? -WarthogDemon 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If he took the photo himself, then yes, it applies. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Images speedily deleted per WP:CSD#I6

The following images were speedily deleted under WP:CSD#I6: Image:YandtheT.PNG, Image:Three_Little_Words_VHS_cover.jpg, Image:The_Story_of_Vernon_and_Irene_Castle_movie_poster.jpg, Image:The_Sky's_the_Limit_VHS_cover.jpg, Image:The_Belle_of_New_York_movie_poster.jpg, Image:Broadway_Melody_of_1940_DVD_cover.jpg, Image:A_Damsel_in_Distress_VHS_cover.jpg

Had the image caption been tagged as per the template's advice I would have caught these and would have tried to provide a fair use rationale. Perhaps you would consider undeleting them so that I could do this. However, I'm unsure what the rules are regarding the use of Movie posters, DVD covers and VHS covers for identification purposes within film infoboxes. I suspect some, perhaps all, don't qualify.

As always, your forensic analysis and advice would be welcome.D7240 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I have restored these images. Since these movie posters were first published without a copyright notice before 1978, they are in the public domain. Hurrah! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude.. but not all are movie posters, some are VHS and DVD covers. While a statement of copyright / copyright symbol is not visible on the front, I imagine it is on the back, which I assume applies to the front. Also, I am fairly certain that the VHS and DVD ones were certainly not published prior to 1976, as VHS was invented in 1976 (and thereafter subject to the videotape wars with Betamax). --Iamunknown 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've corrected the licensing on the video and DVD covers and provided a rationale for them - even though I suspect some of these covers are reusing public domain movie posters. I'm assuming it's ok to use such material in film infoboxes. D7240 10:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just realized that if movie posters of such films are public domain, then the VHS and DVD covers are replaceable since such posters are extant and could be uploaded. Oops. Looks like they'll have to go, right? D7240 10:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to lead you wrong about the VHS covers -- those aren't PD afterall, and, as you figured, they're replaceable (with the original posters). Or trailers -- it turns out that the original trailers, shown in theaters, were separate "works" and were never, in actual practice, copyrighted. So if you can get a still from the original trailer, you can use it.

By the way, a good essay on how to write the perfect fair-use-rationale is at User:Ilse@/fairuse. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Request copyright check

...on Image:Flight sergeant.gif. More uniforminsignia.net stuff. Is this replaceable if, for instance, the Sri Lankan government copyrights its military rank insignia (the uploader believes it does). In that case, it would not only be copyrighted by that government, but also by the commercial website that created this version of it. I'm not sure what to do with these. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

These issues get thorny and confusing. I find it impossible to keep track of what governments claim copyright on what official symbols. (Many governments don't say, and some contradict themselves.) In general, in situations where an underlying design is copyrighted by party A, and a particular representation of that design is copyrighted by party B, then it's better for us to create our own representation and only claim "fair use" on party A's copyright. That way we don't unnecessarily involve party B. But this can get thorny when either of those parties have shaky claims. Sorry I can't be more specific. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lille Comics Festival pics...

Hello Quadell,

Just one or two questions, please: - Why were the pics of the Lille Comics Festival deleted? ..and If I have to do something...what? Thanks for the answers.

Dorajor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorajor (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm afraid these images were deleted because they are non-free. Wikipedia prefers to use "free" images whenever possible, meaning images that are either legally in the public domain, or images where the copyright holder (the photographer) has explicitly released them under a free license, such as the GFDL. Did you take these photos yourself? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA Warning

I actually overreacted, but when the person you talked about and I were debating over a barnstar for convicted wikistalker Abu Badali, he told me to "grow up" and AGF. AGF has limits, and in this case, my belief that AGF can't apply to Badali made me immature? That person, at that time, deserved the NPA warning. Arbiteroftruth 04:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack to say "grow up". It might be somewhat incivil, but it's also incivil to accuse someone of stalking, or to complain that one person gave another person a barnstar. In these cases, it's much better not to template people you're having a conflict with. Instead, bring the matter to a neutral third party (perhaps WP:ANI, if you think administrator action may be warranted), and they may be able to deal with it in a more level-headed way. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_October_10#Image:Waleed_alshehri_pic2.jpg, FYI Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dollar Value Chart Image

The Measuring Worth site says "OK for educational use" but apparently my last upload was deleted when I put that as the license - there is a table with data from that source already on the United_States_dollar page; if the table is OK, my chart should be too (right?). I re-uploaded it once already saying I made it myself and that was deleted too. Please contact me at dluber1 at berkeley dot edu if I'm being a complete idiot here. Thanks ---DLuber1 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe you can also help me figure out why it looks like sh8 and the thumb doesn't show up - yes I'll read the help some more, but frankly it's been of little help so far. First time posting an image, sorry. --DLuber1 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. There are several issues here. First off, "data" (like the changing value of the dollar) cannot be copyrighted. Only "creative content" can be copyrighted. So in an individual chart or graph, things like the colors and thickness of the lines could be copyrighted, but the actual numbers themselves are always free. That's why it's okay for us to use the same numbers, formatted our own way, whether as a chart as a graph. But it would not be okay to copy-and-paste their chart or graph if that included graphics or other creative stuff. So did you create the graph yourself, in Excel or something?

The graphic doesn't show up because the lines are too thin. It looks fine when the image is large, but when it's shrunk the lines are too thin to be visible. I'll try recreating it, and uploading a new version. That should solve both problems. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and helpful reply. Yes, I did make the graph in Excel, and thanks for re-formatting it already, although I preferred my original graph starting at $1.00, I think it shows visually and viscerally how the value of the dollar held relatively steady for the first 150 years then has gone dramatically DOWN from its 1776 value in the last thirty years. Not sure what you meant by "corrected inaccuracy"? It looks like you've simply taken the data from the existing table; what I said was "data from the same source as the table" i.e. the Measuring Worth calculator. But I used it to generate dollar values holding 1776 dollars constant, not 1980, and plotted the inverse to show how today's dollar compares to 1776; it's now worth four cents. Here's my data table: Year Value of 1776 dollar in current dollars Current dollar value in 1776 dollars 1776 1 1.00 1786 1.09 0.92 1796 1.51 0.66 1806 1.4 0.71 1816 1.61 0.62 1826 1.13 0.88 1836 1.07 0.93 1846 0.88 1.14 1856 0.97 1.03 1866 1.82 0.55 1876 1.23 0.81 1886 1.08 0.93 1896 0.96 1.04 1906 1.03 0.97 1916 1.26 0.79 1926 2.09 0.48 1936 1.64 0.61 1946 2.31 0.43 1956 3.21 0.31 1966 3.84 0.26 1976 6.73 0.15 1986 12.96 0.08 1996 18.55 0.05 2006 23.83 0.04

If you can incorporate those easily into the format you have already, please do so; otherwise I'll be happy to re-format my Excel chart to look better. Thanks! --DLuber1 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

By "corrected inaccuracy", I didn't mean I had corrected your inaccuracy. I uploaded one version that had an error, and then uploaded another version that corrected my own inaccuracy.

I'm analyzing your data now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

HM The Queen

A tag has been placed on HM The Queen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bsherr 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Return of blocked user

Sorry to bother you, but I'm wondering If I can get your help again with a blocked user (User:Fox53) who has returned under a new identity (User:Kay Körner 20.12.1983). He's been back about a month and had been generally behaving himself until recently. He's resumed his POV practises, is placing inproperly sourced images and incorrect translations against advice and warnings, has started spamming peripherally related articles once more, and is refusing new entreaties to behave (in English and his native German). He was blocked again just five hours after re-appearing at de:Wikipedia in early September. I basically ignored his sock for a few weeks, but I've spent more time than I want to cleaning up after him over the past few days and I would appreciate it if you could block his most recent incarnation before he gets way out of hand (again). He's showing no signs of having mended his ways in any meaningful way. Thanks. Wiggy! 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I got him. Thanks for keeping on top of this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thx! Wiggy! 00:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

?

Oh, well, thanks for nothing..... Jim, K7JEB 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, you're welcome? Have we met? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted for lack of proper tag issue

Two files I recently uploaded Image:HOT_Subs.jpg and Image:HOT_title.jpg were both deleted for not having a proper tag. HOWEVER; no proper tag exists. These were screen shots of NON copyrighted material. Either the proper tag needs to be added to wikipedia or how else does one place a proper, non-existent tag to such images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinlodos (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid all material produced after 1989 is considered copyrighted in the U.S., and lots of material published before that is copyrighted as well. There is no such thing as "abandonment of copyright". (Trademarks can be abandoned, but not copyrights.) This film is considered copyrighted in the U.S., regardless of its status in its home country. The correct tag would be {{Non-free film screenshot}}. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)