User talk:Quadell

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

Quadell's talk archives

Sociable

I realise I am at fault regarding the image I uploaded at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociable Could you let me know where I went wrong and give me some advice so I can avoid this in the future? Many thanks Jason7825 03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Thanks for contacting me. I see that the photograph Image:Sociable 1.jpg has been released under a free license, specifically the cc-by-sa-2.0 license. It was deleted because you indicated that only Wikipedia has permission to use the image, and Wikipedia chooses to only use images that re-users can also use. However, the cc-by-sa-2.0 license says that anyone can use the image (so long as they credit the photographer and release any derivative works under a free license). It was the "Wikipedia-only" choice that caused the image to be deleted, but I see that the "Wikipedia-only" notice wasn't really accurate. I have now restored the image (with just the cc-by-sa-2.0 tag) and placed it back in the article. If you need any further help with uploading images, just let me know. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your explanation and effort regarding this image, it is much appreciated. Jason7825 01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more thing, I came across this image: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/06/06/australians-ride-side-by-side-on-bicycle-built-for-two/

I would like to add it to the sociable article, so I contacted the guy who made the page and he had this to say:

"Jason, I scanned that image from the august 1934 issue of the (now defunct) magazine Modern Mechanix."

What would the copyright status on this be? Could I upload it to Wikipedia?

This one's iffy. If this image's copyright has expired, then yes, you can upload it and tag it {{PD-US}}. If it's still copyrighted, then we can't use it, since it wouldn't pass all our non-free content requirements.

Is it still copyrighted? I dunno. Since it was first published in 1934, it would only still be copyrighted if (1) it was published with a copyright notice, and (b) the copyright was subsequently renewed. I don't see a copyright notice on the magazine page or on the cover, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. And I don't know if the copyright was renewed -- according to the Mechanix Illustrated article, the magazine was reincarnated under various names until 2001. So it's iffy. If you really want to use it, you could upload it and tag it {{PD-US}}, explaining why you think it's public domain. I can't promise it wouldn't be deleted though. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance. I uploaded it along with an explanation. Jason7825 01:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also another question - it is the only reference I have seen that says that Hubert Opperman is the inventor of the sociable. How would/can I reference that info? Jason7825 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. I'll reference it in the article, and you can see how I did it. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Jason7825 01:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete File:HUPPENTHAL.gif

Huppenthal is an elected politician who's image was released as a press kit. It is copyrighted but it is fair use to use the image in a biography just as it is used in his official biography. I have read the policy and a free image does not exist and security precludes obtaining one. Please restore it. --Tbeatty 05:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that security would make it impossible to obtain a free image of this politician. Politicians are public figures, and frequently appear at events where they are photographed. I will not restore the image, but you can contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel my deletion was incorrect. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a few words

I appreciate your words of support on the block. I've been doing a lot of thinking, and it's probably best for me to get out of the image business, since I really don't like getting blocked, and Ryulong has not apologized nor withdrawn his threat of blocking me yet again if I tag images. It's been interesting, but this is just too contentious - Wikipedia is something I do to relax from my real job. But I appreciate your help and mentorship all the same. Best of luck. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

Polbot doesn't seem to realize that there are two places in the world named Georgia. Please teach it to link to Georgia (country) instead of to the disambiguation page. Thanks. --Russ (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. I'll fix that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative

Hello, I have a question about one of your edit long time ago. It appears to me that you just slapped the article with a GA tag without any reviews or checklists posted on the talk page. It is important to have such messages left in talk page so that others can vertify if the article really satisify the criteria outlined. Please explain your reasons to me. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2005, the "Good article" concept was brand new. It was encouraged at the time to simply find articles that you thought were "good", and slap the article with it (as you put it) to get the idea up and running. The instructions at the time simply read "The process by which articles are designated as 'good' should be much simpler and quicker than that by which articles become featured. Simply add any articles here that match the criteria, and add {{GA}} to the top of the articles' talk pages." The criteria have been more formalized since then. I see you've only been around about a year; stick around, and you'll see lots of new projects change their criteria. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Riverboarding articles

Hi. Please see Robert Carlson's reply on my talk page. User_talk:Shawn_in_Montreal#Image_of_riverboarding_uploading_question. He explains that: "The images I would upload are of me, but not taken by me. They are souvenier photos you can buy from photo services that sell photos of your river trip as mementos. When I buy the photo I assume I get the copyright to publish as I wish. What do you think? Is there a tag category for this type of ownershipthat would satisfy Quadell?" I've checked the free use tags on the image upload page and I don't know what to tell him. Perhaps you could reply on the Riverboarding talk page? thanks, Shawn in Montreal 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boerboel

Thanks for the advice. I won't be the only one stewarding the article now, as it has been brought to the attention of several others. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Poundstone picture deletion

hello, i am writing to inquire if someone from this profile had deleted the photo from the William Poundstone wikipedia entry. I had requested an received express permission from the author himself to use the photo of him on his wikipedia. What more authorization or documentation might I need to leave it posted on that page? --Frenkmelk talk 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, the first paragraph states:

To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. That's because Wikipedia itself states all its material may be used by anyone, for any purpose. So we have to be sure all material is in fact licenced for that purpose, whoever provided it.

If you read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, it should tell you everything you need to know. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, so i have the email requesting the author allow the picture and then i have his affirmation it is okay to post it. but now i am confused as to how to send this permissions request. i mean, it says to send it to: "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org"; but is that supposed to be an @ and a "." in there and sent via my personal email or what? the language is confusing to me as this is not something with which i am familiar, but one day hope to be. i just need to be prodded in the right direction, all i want to do i assist in affixing one of my favourite author's pix to his wiki. thanks, colin --Frenkmelk talk 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the address to mail it to is permissions-en@wikimedia.org

It's a little confusing. They write it in that cryptic way to avoid getting too much spam. If you send the permission to that address, you shouldn't have any further problems. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the image "yuksel.jpg" removed from the "Edip Yuksel" article user:jonnyk1982

I'm afraid the image is copyrighted. The page you got it from says "© All the materials,books, articles and essays on this website, www.yuksel.org, are COPYRIGHTED." We are a free content encyclopedia, and we can only use images of living people if they are not copyrighted, or if they have been released under a free license, such as the GFDL. You tagged the images as "GFDL", but that would only be true if the copyright-holder agreed to license the picture under the GFDL, and I don't think they have. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boerboel

Yes hello Quadell, Greetings. Concerning the Boerboel entry, no you have got it the wrong way around. It is in fact the user van Tucky that keeps changing the entry with out discussion, and changing it completely. Not once but countless times, and never have they approached me with a proper proposal or argument before they do this, furthermore their changes are completely subjective and incorrect, following a particular line of personal agenda, nothing to do with the proper breed facts. I would ask you to take this into consideration before leaping to the wrong conclusions. It is important I feel that the public are not miss-led by one persons personal agenda. Have a good one, Frikkers

I replied on your talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tina Turner non-free media king strikes again

I notice you just deleted that file. Could you take a look at User_talk:ElinorD#User:Salmoria and advise? -Nard 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Springs masscre

This article was promoted to FA yesterday, thanks for your work on the references.

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Brilliant! Bestowed upon thee for your assistance with Rock Springs massacre and its references and notes sections. The article was promoted to featured article status yesterday. Thanks Quadell, I suspect that part of the reason the references were not an issue is because of the work you did separating them. IvoShandor 13:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoorah! I'm glad to have done my small part on such a great article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Henthorn image

Hi. Can you check out the CEO mug shot that keeps getting reposted to Barry Henthorn by a pesky spammer? Canuckle 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Thanks for helping to clarify on the assorted Transformers -boxart images. There are still a bunch of -boxart images that would fall under the same rationale for deletion. Would it be best to apply the disputed FU tag and link to the onslaught talk page, or is there a better place/way to nuke them? --EEMeltonIV 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA?

You opposed my candidacy for adminship in my RfA that closed on April 6, 2007. As you're probably aware, I opened an RfC on myself to address the concerns raised during the RfA. In addition, since that time, I've resumed editing articles (detailed on my talk page) and participating in peer, A-class, and Good Article reviews. I was considering accepting a re-nomination for admin and was wondering if you still had any concerns of questions that I could try to address in advance? Cla68 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of File:Ashley Maher-pub.jpg

I must object to your process. The image had a description of where it was taken from, justifying its fair-use, and your notification is worthless when it's simply a message on the User page. How many casual contributors to Wikipedia do you think log on every week, let alone every 48 hours! Send an e-mail before you delete the content! Such bot-like behaviour from Wikipedians will only alienate people who write an article or two, or fix a paragraph here and there, like me. Yours disgustedly, Kjetilho 21:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's our established process to notify users on their talk page, not to e-mail them. If you think our process should be changed, it would be more effective to suggest the change at the appropriate policy, instead of blaming those who correctly apply our policy. (Consistently following policy is not necessarily bot-like.) That said, if an image is deleted in error, it's trivially easy to restore it. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Quadell...

I've been watching at MauronZ talk page and an user called Soda-POP let him a disgusting message descriving his eggs(I don't know if you know, but in Spanish the translation off eggs(huevos) is also use as testicle). Having in count that MauronZ and Soda-POP can speak Spanish better than English, I think that bougth understood perfectly the message.

Please, do something respect this,

Yours, LeAngeGardien 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm sorry about my gramatical or ortografic mistakes, my English isn't good at all.

More biographical stuff

Thought you might be interested in an update. I've been working on the template approach to tracking the non-bio and listas parameters. See Template talk:WPBiography#Proposed change. I'm hoping the "with listas" category will show the benefits of a people super-category that is correctly sorted, as opposed to the ones at the moment that are generally mixed (eg. Category:Living people. I'll keep you updated on what happens. On Polbot matters, do you have any idea yet when you might be able to do the trial run 3a discussed at the bottom of User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run? Thanks. Carcharoth 03:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oldcollege.jpg

Can you please undelete this image. It's not replaceable fair use. Thanks ExtraDry 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the building still exists. Why do you think it would be impossible for someone to photograph it? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boerboel

Quadell you have still got it wrong, it is not me changing the page. It is van tucky changing the page, I am afraid you have to go further back into the history of this entry to be fully informed. And no van tucky has never discussed making any changes, they have just made them, and not small ones but basically the entire page? I think you will find this is not acceptable practise. Informing someone, never mind me, of the changes is not discussing them, and changing whole pages is not contributing. As I am South African and have intimate knowledge of this breed it is the least they could do. I repeat this is not an American breed. happy editing Luud

Malborne.jpg

Please undelete this pic as it is one I have taken myself. Unfortuanely I think I gave it the wrong copyright status when uploading, which should be free use but I did put a message on it saying it was my own photograph. It would have been good of you to have left me a message saying why you had deleted this picture or asking me to clarify its status.