User talk:Quadell/Archive 24

• 10
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• Archive 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 40
• 50

Whitespace

I noticed you sometimes forget to remove the blank line at the beginning of an article, when you remove a deleted image. – Ilse@ 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'll try to watch that, thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better now! :-) – Ilse@ 22:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use

I've answered your comment on my user talk page. I've posted a few questions as well. Maybe I should have posted here, I don't know... Anyway, please take a look when you find the time :) Fenrisulfr talk 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response :) Made it all much clearer. One last question though: You mentioned I could try Flickr. Am I to understand that Flickr is all free content? Fenrisulfr talk 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Sorry if I was confusing. Next to each image on Flickr, you can see copyright information. Some say "All rights reserved". These, of course, are not free. Some say "no rights reserved", or say that they're in the public domain, or that anyone can use them for any purpose. These are free. Others say they are licensed under a "Creative Commons license". These may or may not be free -- it depends on the specific license. If the image is released under the Creative Commons Attribution license (cc-by} or the Creative Commons Share-Alike license (cc-by-sa), then it's free. But if it's released under a Creative Commons "no derivatives" (-nd) or "non-commercial" (-nc) license, then it's not free. Complicated, isn't it? If you have questions about a particular photo, I can help. Also, sometimes if I find a good photo on Flickr that isn't under a free license, I try e-mailing the photographer. More often than not, the photographer is honored that I want to use the photo on Wikipedia, and is willing to release it under a free license. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe... sort of complicated, yes. Glad I didn't become a lawyer ;) Anyway, thanks for all the help, I understand a lot more now. You'll probably hear form me again if I find other images that need attention. Se you around... Fenrisulfr talk 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:PlanViewPascuaLama.jpg

Could you head to the image's discussion page and help me work out a solution? Thanks, Earthsound 14:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied here. Thanks. Earthsound 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a PD USGS satellite image from which to create a replacement. I thought you may be interested to know. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PascuaLamaPlanMap.png

image deleted

(cur) (last) 18:41, 17 June 2007 Quadell (Talk | contribs) (8,971 bytes) (-deleted image) Segmented regression
What is the reason?
R.J.Oosterbaan 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I removed the image, Image:SegReg1.gif, from the article because it had been deleted. Leaving it in the article would have just left an ugly unformatted red link in the place where the image used to be.

The image was deleted because it did not have a valid copyright tag. If you made the image yourself and wish to release it under a free license, let me know and I can restore it and help you tag it appropriately. All the best. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. First time I uploaded the figure, I did not put a copyright tag out of ignorance (am new to Wikipedia). I tried to upload again with the "Attribution" tag several times overwriting the previous uploads but it did not work. Something escapes me here, and if you could help me out I would be much obliged. (With later uploads i had no more trouble)
R.J.Oosterbaan 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great! I restored the image for you, and tagged it {{attribution}}. I did this by clicking "edit this page" at the top, and adding the template. (As you figured out the hardway, reuploading over an existing image won't change the description.) I'll put the image back in the article too. If you need any more help, let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Historic event" images

Hi, Quadell. As I believe you may be interested, I just want to let you know that I'm nominating for deletion the images of "Misses being crowned" we once discussed. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy, this can of worms doesn't want to stay shut. Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer calling it a Pandora's Box. Look closer, those images were never nominated for deletion before. The Pandora's Box was opened when it was accepted that one image uploaded to illustrate a (living) model could be though to be illustrating the "historic event of her crowing". After that, dozens of images of "crowing" were uploaded to fill the gap left after removing hundreds of images of models (in the hope to create a gap to be filled by free alternatives). --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In related news, I'm sincerely saddened to see this. My strongest motivation in this whole dispute was to try to side with enthusiastic newcomers whenever there is grey area, in the hopes that we can encourage them people to become full-fledged Wikiholics. I mean, when someone doesn't care about our policies, I don't waste time on them; but when a newcomer wants to understand and follow Wikipedia policies, and sincerely wants to contribute, I try to do what I can to make this a rewarding place for them to be. In this case, however, it looks like I was wasting my time. Sigh. I suppose she wasn't as stable a contributer as I had hoped. Ah well.

In either case, wouldn't you say that this particular dispute is grey area? I mean, we frequently reproduce non-free photos of important events in people's lives in their articles. Looking through the featured articles, I find John Brooke-Little, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, George VI of the United Kingdom, Princess Alice of Battenberg, Margaret Thatcher, etc., that have similar sorts of images. (Image:Princess Alice of Battenberg coronation.PNG is a particularly close parallel.) Would you say that none of these image uses fulfills our non-free use policy? I'm genuinely curious. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unless I overlooked something, I believe that images like Image:Thatcher kaunda.jpg or Image:Sir Colin Cole and John Brooke-Little.jpg shouldn't be used (and indeed, that our policy doesn't allow their use). I like to summarize our whole policy on unfree content as "we use unfree material when it's necessary, not when it's useful". Not all events are historic significant events, and not all historic significant events need to be illustrated (although they need to be mentioned).

About the "related news", don't feel bad about the time you spent. Every line you write to help some user is logged and is still useful to be read by any other user.

I may have mentioned that to you (or in some open forum) before... but I see we (Wikipedia) are doing a very poor job in the path transforming newcomers in full-fledged Wikiholics. Not in the sense that we don't have enough "full-fledged Wikiholics" (we have plenty of them), but in the sense that we don't get the full-fledged Wikiholics to become free content evangelists. It's not hard at all to run across full-fledged Wikiholics that don't understand what free content is about. Or even worse, lots of them understand but don't value it.

I wanted to see people who come here to write about their favorite tv-series or hip-hop-bands to become free contents evangelists in one year. But it doesn't seem to happen at all. User's who are openly against free content multiply in the community, many of them even become admins.

Well, when addressing newcomers, always try to talk about free content. Never let them believe this project is something else (even though many here would like it to be something else).

...That was just a small rant. Not completely related to the discussion above. Thanks for your time! ;) --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Turkic flag

Hi Quadell, thank you for the notice. I left a reply to your question at the same place. Here is a quick link for you. Atilim Gunes Baydin 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You chose to keep this image despite the fact that it is entirely the invention of an editor of "Flags of the World" who did not cite his work to any source. What possible justification can there be for allowing this fabricated flag to appear on Wikipedia? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of fictional creations have entries at Wikipedia. Star Wars is entirely the creation of George Lucas, who did not cite any source. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That is very different, and I am frankly shocked that you don't think so. Star Wars really exists- as a work of fiction. The Gokturks were a historical people. Attributing a flag that never existed and claiming it was their flag (albeit tentatively and citing it as "alleged") is fraud. At any rate, the image is totally unencyclopedic for inclusion in the Gokturk article or any other relating to them, so what use is it in an encyclopedia? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling it an "alleged" flag is not fraud. It's sourced information. I don't agree that it's unencyclopedic. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not fraud on the part of the WP uploader, but fraud on the part of whoever placed it on FOTW. If you take even a cursory look at that website you will see that it is FULL of unsourced, unreferenced "alleged flags" - along the lines of "I was in such-and-such a place and saw a flag that looked like this". That does not mean that WP should allow an image for each of these fanciful inventions- and in fact a large number of flags were deleted from Nordic Cross Flag for that very reason. See here. These flags were ALL attested to on the same website from which Atilim got the "alleged" Gokturk flag.

Following your reasoning, I could say "the flag of the United States is a solid red flag" and that would have to be included because it is "alleged". That makes no sense. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian, take it easy. The image is not used in any article. There is no denying it is crappy, but I don't think it is going to ruin Wikipedia. I will ask for input on Wikipedia talk:No original research. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Panzerfaust soldier.jpg

Hey Quadell! The file mentioned above is a clear copyvio, we (I am sysop on Commons and on de.wp) delete files like that from Commons day by day. It is a German soldier, likely photographed by a German photographer. Copyright law in the European Union/Germany: The file is in the public domain 70 years after the artist’s death. No author is mentioned here, but maybe the guy still lives in an old people’s home. Whoever it was, it can’t be in the public domain, since it was done during world war II (no 70 years). There is no legal basis for PD-Italy (no source mentions an Italian artist) or PD-US. It was never in the public domain in Italy. Even if it was a photo by an Italien artist, it was no „simple, documentary photograph without creative input“. Regards, --Polarlys 00:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I knew what „simple, documentary photograph without creative input“ means, legally. Anyway, it's irrelevant here if there's no indication the image was created by an Italian national in Italy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I’d say: Photos taken by machines, cartographic aerial photos, reproductions of two dimensional works. Here in Germany we speak of „Lichtbilder“, normal photos are „Lichtbildwerke“ (longer term of protection). According to courts, nearly every photo is a „Lichtbildwerk“. Regards, --Polarlys 01:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review Image:Adrenaline Deftones.jpg

Hello again... would you please take the time to review this image? Fenrisulfr talk 02:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tnx :) Fenrisulfr talk 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Southazerbaijan-cartoonprotest.jpg

please review this case [1] I updated information about this image and cleared copyrights. Upon my request the author placed on the website with explicit permission to use this image--Dacy69 04:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I wish we could use this image, I really do. But permission to use an image on Wikipedia isn't enough -- because Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia, we can only use "free" images (except in limited circumstances). It's counter-intuitive, but it's true -- we need for anyone to be able to use an image in order for us to be able to use it. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they put explicit disclaimer in their website upon my request.--Dacy69 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this disclaimer only allows reuse in "humanitarian, educational and personal purposes". As I said above, we need for anyone to be able to use an image, even commercially, in order for us to be able to use it. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I wonder is it any other way to use this image in Wiki under other tag because I've seen images used in Wiki for educational purposes. And this image [2] has doubtful lisence as well but was preserved in the text.

If there is no other option I am going to email to the author of my uploaded image image and ask to give permission for full lisencing. Where I should submit this email.--Dacy69 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read through Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, it'll tell you everything you want to know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:PN Chalmers 300.JPG

As an expert on image replaceability and the creator of the rfu tag, do you mind checking this image out? Discussion is at the image's talk page and at Wikipedia:Fair use review#12 June 2007. Thanks, nadav (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't want to say this on the public discussion page for fear of being accused of making a personal attack, but I've filed a sockpuppet case on Rogerfgay. Sadly I don't think I have enough for a checkuser. -N 13:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much for your help. If only passionate pleas alone were enough to make images acceptable... nadav (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Polbot3

I saw what you wrote at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3 - does this mean you have written the code? :-) I'm quite excited about this, so keep me informed and let me know if you need any help with anything. How long do you think it will be before the approval process gets moving again? Also, I've made a request for Template talk:WPBiography/Missing to be processed. What will your bot do when it encounters pages with no talk page? Also, will it distinguish between talk pages with no WPBiography template and those with a WPBiography template and no "listas" parameter? Carcharoth 15:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Some answers: I actually haven't finished the code, but I'm working on it. The BAG has been rather slow lately, so I'm not sure when it'll get approved. I hope soon! You asked what my bot will do for articles without talk pages. The way it'll work is, the bot will run through all articles with a WPBio template on the talk page -- if the article doesn't have a talk page, it can't have a WPBio template, so my bot won't see it. (I'm not running the bot for all pages with persondata -- I'll be running it for all pages with WPBio.) And as to your last question, the bot will look at all WPBio templates whether they have listas or not, and it will be able to tell the difference. Off to work with me. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot that the first step was the transclusion list of WPBiography. Silly question. Just one final subtle point, which I'm sure you are already aware of - don't let the existence of "listas" on the talk pages fool the bot. Sometimes it is there without any parameter entered yet, though that might default to something silly. Happy coding! :-) Carcharoth 17:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've found a minor setback. I can't seem to deal with articles that have non-standard-ASCII characters in the titles (e.g. Tomáš Čermák). That takes out significant fraction of bios. Oh well. Still, plodding ahead. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that 26,984 out of the 387,970 biographies have special characters and won't be processed by my bot. 93% isn't bad. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you talk to others about how to deal with special characters? I agree, 93% isn't bad, but it would be better if those could be included. BTW, due to computer problems, wil only be able to edit sporadically, if at all, for the next week or so. Will be putting a notice on my talk and user pages, but wanted to directly notify those I'm working with at the moment. Carcharoth 09:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I have, trust me. It's a problem with Perlwikipedia (the Perl package I use to edit Wikipedia), and I've submitted several bug requests about it. Sorry to hear about your computer problems. Hope to see you full-time again soon. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fire water tower image

Hi there, i'm getting quite good at the article editing side, but just getting to grips with the uploading of media. You deleted the above image, and i'm just trying to understand why. From what i read, i understood that it would be under fair use, and thought i'd given relevant information to support this. Can you give me some pointers so i know what to avoid in future? Owain.davies 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. The image "Image:Fire water tower.gif" had been automatically tagged {{AutoReplaceable fair use buildings}} from the time you uploaded it. (Another example of an image currently tagged this way is Image:Centralservices.jpg.) You did give good source and license information for the picture, but our non-free content policy is very strict. According to criterion #1, we can only use a non-free image of a subject (the fire appliance) if no free image of the subject exists or could be created. In this case, assuming that a water-tower like this one still exists somewhere (in a museum perhaps?), someone could still take a photograph of the subject and release that new photo under a free license. That makes the image "replaceable", and it can't be used on Wikipedia.

You have a couple of options here. If you can find an image of a similar piece of equipment where the photo was taken before 1923, then the copyright will have expired and the picture will be in the public domain. (Then "replaceability" isn't an issue.) Alternately, if you can find a picture of that equipment and can convince the copyright-holder (the photographer) to release it under the GFDL or another free license, then the image will be considered "free", and we can use it. (Or perhaps you or another Wikipedian could photograph one?) Lastly, if you can show (through a news article or something) that none of these devices survive, then the image isn't "replaceable" and we can use a non-free image.

I hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Owain.davies 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by User:Arvindvenkat

I probably should have gone back and clarified that. When I came across those images, one of the first summaries I reviewed suggested that the uploader was the musician pictured. After reviewing and tagging more of his images, I learned that the uploader claimed to be a student of the musician and that the images were supposedly from the musician's personal collection. Either way, they're tagged with the GFDL tag that begins "I, the creator of this work," but that's no good because the uploader is clearly not the photographer. Neither is the musician, as he is in all of the photos. The uploader may be operating under the assumption that possession of a copy of the photo empowers him to license its use, but we know that's not correct. This appears to be a case of "I don't know who took the picture, but it's kind of old, and I have a copy, so I can use it", i.e., unfree image. I'll add that fair use might be an option, except most (if not all) of them would be replaceable and therefore unfit for WP. Let me know if I can help out further and thanks for attacking that image deletion backlog! --Butseriouslyfolks 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1Gouranga1 image

Hello Quadell - I'm supprised this image was deleted without any discussion ([Image:1Gouranga1.jpg]). It had been given a fair-use tag in 2005 after talks with a number of editors. After seeing it as a deletion candidate I had added a [Replaceable fair use disputed] tag to the page a number of days ago and some additional arguments on the talk page. There were no replies and no-one removed the tag I had added, yet now I see it has been erased? Did I miss something? Gouranga(UK) 19:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Image talk:1Gouranga1.jpg. Anyone could create a new drawing or painting of this figure and release that image under a free license. Therefore the image is replaceable and is not acceptable for use at Wikipedia. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Peter Nordin

I don't think I could add anything that hasn't already been said. Be seeing you. Megapixie 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Schwebel.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ExpendableAsset 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I feel "expendable asset" means "throwaway account". -N 07:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're such a suspicious person! ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Image:The Sign next to the Rochdal Canal.JPG

I pretty much created the Castleton, Greater Manchester page and I am rather annoyed that you and other people have torn it apart without consulting me. If you had referred to the history of this page you would see its main editer as me. I would also like to know why you deemed it necessary to delete my own image without consulting me first. Yes, I should have explained that it was my image and I didn't, but I would have appreciated a message. I am going to upload alot of images in and around Castleton and upload them, and I hope to see that they remain. Also, alot of sources yourself and other people placed have false links and citation is needed. 11:05. Michael D. Atkinson, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I thankyou for your swift reply and the return of the picture. I apologise if I appeared rather snappy at first, I didn't want to create any friction. I hope we and others can work together on the Castleton article, and I thankyou for bringing it up to speed.

Image copyright

Since you seem to be the "go-to" guy on image questions, could you take a look at my proposed solution to the copyright problem of Image:Churchill on HMS Kelvin June 1944.JPG and Image:HMS Kelvin.JPG at WP:PUI? -N 12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

In dealing with Image:Core_01.jpg. However, just to let you know, you put it on the wrong WTHS. New Jersey has 6 Washinton Townships, so its a common mistake. No need to worry, as i have reverted Robbinsville High School back, and added the restored image to Washington Township High School (New Jersey).

Also, just so the distinction is clear, I have split the core section of the article into to phases (one of which being construction), and added more info on the construction itself (such as cost, architects, what was built, ect) Hopefully this will keep it within WP guidelines.

As for the other images, I'm gonna try and drive out there tommorow after work. If I do, I should have the new images of the building in its current state up sometime tommorow night. Feel free to check it out.

Again, thanks for your help with this issue. Rawboard 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Webb RFAR

I noticed your contribution to this request for arbitration. The statements you make cross a line from observations to personal attacks. You present your opinions as if they are facts, and lack even a basic assumption of good faith. Would you consider moving them elsewhere or rewording them to mitigate the damaging accusations? Thanks, --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think are personal attacks? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"I strongly suspect that the account-holder has no further interest in editing as CharlotteWeb because the account was designed solely to be a sockpuppet admin. Her defensiveness and evasiveness are telling." Although you qualify this with a mention of strong suspicion, ending this statement with "defensiveness and evasiveness are telling" invokes the idea of this being an established fact. "In all likelihood, Jayjg's actions prevented another sockpuppet-admin, like User:Runcorn" is also problematic. On what grounds is this likely? The comparison to Runcorn is obviously not designed to paint CharlotteWebb in good light.

In any case, I respect your right to a personal opinion. However, in an exhortation to the artbitration committee not to accept this case, these statements are unnecessary and potentially hurtful. The remainder of your statement should be able to stand on its own. Please consider other possibilities, such as CharlotteWebb feeling the need to stop responding due to a real or percieved fear for their personal safety. Coming to the conclusion that the only possibility was intent to harm Wikipedia is a rather negative and disappointing result.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I feel my statement is useful and appropriate as-is. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I appreciate your response. Completely aside from this thread, I would like to mention that I think that User:polbot has made an excellent contribution to the field of disambiguation in Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation. As a backlog junkie, something like this warms my heart!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete requested - author changed his copyright

Hello. You recently deleted three images I had uploaded.

• Image:Britomart Denis Wilford 02.jpg,
• Image:Britomart Denis Wilford 02.jpg,
• Image:Ports Of Auckland Jellicoe.jpg.

I have contacted the creator of the images, and he has assented to change his copyright to Creative Commons without the noncommercial restriction. Please undelete and change the copyright tag, I will take care of reintroducing them into the articles. Please leave a note on my page when you have done so. Thank you.

Updated copyright tags would be found at [3] and [4], though I believe the links were also provide on the image description pages.

Cheers MadMaxDog 06:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great! I love hearing that another copyright-holder has chosen to release his images under a free license. I have restored the images and updated the licensing information. I don't have a record of what articles they used to be in, though, so they're currently orphans. Could you put them in appropriate articles for me? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation

Great idea! How can it be kept up to date though? Did you ever see List of people by name before it got nuked? That had several lists that help with disambiguation. Are your suggestions comprehensive (looking through the whole database), or would the bot have misssed some examples? Carcharoth 09:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, it's not comprehensive at all. It just lists the ones I happen to have found while creating redirects for U.S. representatives (Polbot's "Function #2"). I'm sure it isn't even 1% of the total. In fact, I have a list of 1000 more, and when enough of the current ones get done I'll add the next thousand or so. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is where the DEFAULTSORTing comes in! Once all the biographical articles have been DEFAULTSORTed (and the majority will need checking by humans, due to Asian name conventions and oddities such as "Prince John..."), then you can stick them all in one category and browse using a system similar to the one I set up for Category:Living people. See User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index. At random, I clicked on "Pr" and found five people called "Prado", but only two of them are listed at Prado. Incidentially, one of the people on the list at Prado was Edward C. Prado who doesn't have any birth categories, persondata, or WPBiography template - finding all the articles like that will be difficult. I've now added the birth category and WPBiography template and a DEFAULTSORT key. I 'forgot' to add listas, so your bot should catch that. :-) Guilherme Raymundo do Prado is sorted under Raymundo do Prado, so appears here in the Living People category. So in that case, the DEFAULTSORTing doesn't help the disambiguation, but it would seem to be a step in the right direction. Carcharoth 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons fro deletion of image

Hi Can you please specify the reason why you deleted the Arya_logo.jpg image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Balagopal.k (talk • contribs)

Certainly. When you uploaded Image:Image-Aryalogo.jpg, you forgot to give any information about its source or copyright status. As Wikipedia:Image use policy explains, we can only use images on Wikipedia if you give the source (where the image came from, and who owns the copyright), and you give the image a valid copyright tag. Since the image didn't have either of these pieces of information, it was deleted.

If you can tell me where the image came from, I can restore the image and help you list the source and give the correct copyright tag. Just let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Illusions image

I have already given details about the images source, so the tagging is not needed. I f you need more information, then use the urls supplied.

I have removed tags. Dewarw 14:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did give adequate information about the image source, but the image does not have any information about its license. (It was previously tagged as a web-screenshot, but it's clearly not a web screenshot.) Is the image available under a free license? If not, how does the image fulfill out non-free content criteria? This information must be provided, or the image can't stay on Wikipedia. The other tag, "replaceable fair use", clearly says "Do not remove this tag." If you think that the image cannot be replaced by a free image (which seems doubtful to me, personally) then add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} as the tag instructs. This is why I re-inserted the tags. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What does "replaceable fair use" mean? Anyway, I though that I had to replace the tag with the new one. That is why I took the tag off- maybe I should not have. I removed it with reason. I did not, like a vandal, just remove the tag purely for enjoyment. Thank you.Dewarw 07:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Image:Duke Ellington with Sathima Bea Benjamin.JPG

The photo is a personal photo from Sathima's collection, has no copyright, and was ok'd by her for use on the Wikipedia page, as well as on several websites, including her own. I am uncertain why you decided to delete the image without mentioning this to me first. (Edit - Sorry for writing that above entry without having signed in first!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mrhotpocket (talk • contribs)

I deleted File:Sathima and Duke.jpg because it did not have a valid copyright tag. You may not know this, but all photographs taken since 1923 are automatically copyrighted, and cannot used on Wikipedia unless they are released under a free license by the copyright-holder (usually the photographer). This is all very complicated, and I don't want to make it difficult for people to upload free pictures.

Basically, if the legal copyright-holder is willing to release it under a free license, then we can use it. That would mean that anyone can use the image, though, and not just Wikipedia. If so, I can restore the image. It'll have to be give a valid copyright tag -- I can help with that too. Just let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Magnus VII

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Magnus VII, by Rursus (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Magnus VII fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

no pages link here, numbered king of undefined nation is very ambiguous

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Magnus VII, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Magnus VII itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jock m sommese

Take a look at this article. It teeters on the brink of being libelous, I think, but I'm looking for another opinion. It has a source, but the article seems to be more "definite" than the article it cites. Joyous! | Talk 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem. I brought it up to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It would be nice for Wikipedia not to get sued. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable deletion.

Why did you delete the publicity image on the Type O Negative page? Logical Defense 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• He's re-uploaded it as Image:Type_O_Negative_Dot_Net_Pub_Shot.jpg. -N 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. Because the © is now more relative to the image's nature now, which is the only reason I could imagine it being deleted before. Logical Defense 05:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:FischerTim.jpg

Please cease reverting edits to this image. Your last two reverts restored superceded information which applied to another image which has been replaced with the current image. The current image is from the Australian Parliamentary Handbook. AUSPIC has given written permission for photographs of Members, Senators and Governors-General appearing in current and past editions of the Parliamentary Handbook to be used on Wikipedia. The Replaceable fair use tag was removed when the disputed image was replaced. This is the licenced replacement. Reverting that edit and threats to block editing are inappropriate. Any further threats of this nature will be referred to WP:RFC/ADMIN. Dbromage 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I strive to only use my administrator abilities appropriately and responsibly. If you feel I have misused these abilities, I invite you to report any questionable actions either to WP:RFC/ADMIN or WP:AN/I.

Regarding the image you referenced, I believe the {{Replaceable fair use}} template applies equally well to both versions of the image, for the same reason. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

RFU questions from Lindell005

Questions:

1. If the picture which was uploaded came from a specific event which could not be replaced by a free image, it should be allowed to stay correct? So screenshots of live television events should be allowed to stay?
2. Screen shots from DVD movies should be allowed to stay as well because they identify the movie and specific parts of the movie they are representing?
3. Television screenshots too??? They should be free. Cause they are available to everyone!! So you should remove those tags.

Thanks!! :-) Lindell005 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Answers:

1. It depends on how the image is being used. If the image is being used to depict a specific, non-repeatable event, then the image may not be replaceable. (For example, this image is not replaceable.) But if an image is primarily being used in the article merely to show what the person looks like, like this, then the image is replaceable even if the image also shows the person at a specific event. Also, remember that according to criterion #8, the image needs to show something that words alone cannot convey. So if the image only shows that a person was at an event, it may not be usable. It has to primarily be used to show the event, not the person; and it has to show information that is necessary in the article. I know, this is very strict, but Wikipedia really doesn't want to use non-free images at all unless it's absolutely necessary to do so in an article.
2. Well, screenshots of movies are not usually replaceable, unless they're only being used to show what a person looks like. But they may still fail criterion #8, if they aren't strictly necessary, or they don't show something that words alone could not convey. For example, this image is not replaceable, but it may not pass criterion #8.
3. Maybe TV screenshots should be free, but they're definitely not free under U.S. law. Broadcasters can and do sue people for showing screenshots of TV programs. It's a shame, but that's the way it is.

The bottom line is, we can't use a non-free image just because it improves an article. It has to also fulfill all 10 of our non-free content criteria, and very few images do. It's hard being a totally free encyclopedia, but it's worth it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. thank you. Lindell005 18:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Advise regarding photograph of Stephen M. Schwebel

Dear Sir, It seems we have gotten off on the wrong foot and I appologise for that. However, I would very much appreciate if you could help me to complete the article of Judge Schwebel with his photograph. The photograph which was included therein before on April 27, 2006 by user:VonWoland and which you deleted twice (second time on June 19, 2007), was uploaded to Wikipedia from Judge Schwebel's Official ICJ Bibliography, which was before at the Court's website Like most other photographs of the ICJ Judges, this photograph was made by Mr Max Koot, The Hague and it was reprinted in all articles and other works, including in the Jubilee Album by Arthur Eyffinger, The International Court of Justice 1946-1996 (Kluwer Law International 1996), page 323: Bibliography of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel. It has been in accordance with the Court's practice annotated as: "Photograph courtesy Max Koot" which we could also state while re-instating it in the Wikipedia article of Stephen Schwebel. Please kindly provide me with your advice and guidance what would you like me to do with a view of proper fulfilling of your requirements - including that of "free image" you mentioned in the DRV - to re-instate this specific photograph. My best regards and thanks for your trouble. Sincerely, ExpendableAsset

Greetings. We would love for the Stephen M. Schwebel article to be illustrated with an image. Because we are a "free content" encyclopedia, we can only use a photograph on that page if it is released under a "free license". This means that the image's copyright-holder would have to explicitly allow anyone to use it for an purpose, including commercial use and modification. If the copyright-holder is willing to license the photograph in this way, then great! We can use the image. Simply have the copyright-holder e-mail the Communications Committee (permissions@wikimedia.org) saying that the image may be used by anyone for any purpose. If not, then perhaps someone can photograph Mr. Schwebel and release that photograph under a free license. I hope this helps. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you for your message of June 22. I asked copyright-holder of Judge Schwebel's image (which you deleted) to email his permission - as you specified - to the Communications Committee (permissions@wikimedia.org) and I do hope that the matter will soon be resolved. Sincerely yours, ExpendableAsset

Dear Sir, In accordance with your kind advice, the copyright holder of Judge Schwebel's image sent to the Communications Committee today the following message:

Van: Max Koot Studio

Verzonden: vrijdag 29 juni 2007 11:53

Aan: permissions@wikimedia.org

Onderwerp: FW: E-mail to permissions@wikimedia.org: Judge Schwebel's Photograph

"Dear Communications Committee Members,

As the copyright-holder of photograph of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, which you deleted on 19 June 2007 from his biography at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_M._Schwebel, I hereby agree to allow anyone to use it for any purpose, including commercial use and modification. I will, therefore, appreciate that you kindly re-upload Judge Schwebel's photograph at the above website as soon as possible.

With kind regards and thanks for your cooperation."

I would greatly appreciate your support and cooperation in ensuring that Judge Schwebel's image is reinstated as soon as possible. Yours sincerely, --ExpendableAsset 18:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A complex copyright situation

Hello Abu badali. I ran into this page today: Robbie Williams. It has a ton of non-free images in it (and a few free ones). It seems to me that a few could be justified, but I'm not sure -- I'm quite sure that the current article is in violation of NFCC#3. But I don't know anything about the subject, so it's difficult to tell which ones are important enough to pass criterion #8 (if any). And what's the best way to handle the situation? IFD? I run into this situation a lot, where I know there are too many non-free images to be justifiable, but I'm not sure that any one (taken individually) fails criteria #1, #3, or #8. I've been listing the whole page on IFD with a description of the problem (as in the Continuum (album) listing), but it doesn't feel like quite the right place for it. What's your take on the best way to handle these situations? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, What a mess! Unfortunately, I don't see a better approach than reading through the article and noticing which images are necessary.

I see a lot of video-clips screenshots, for instance. These should usually only be used to illustrate a (sourced) discussion about the videoclip visual style. I haven't read the article, but my guess (based solely on my experience with other articles) is that theses images are the more likely to be the most unnecessary (as very few videoclips are visually ground-breaking to the point of deserving commentary).

There's also a ton of album covers. If the corresponding album have articles for themselves, any discussion relative to the cover should be there (and not on the artist's bio). We don't have to show an album's cover everytime we mention the album.

I'll carefully look at the article later. For now... good luck with it ;) --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Michael Hofmann's portrait?

Would you care to explain why you deleted the portrait of Michael Hofmann? It's clearly part of a media kit, i.e. intended for publication. And since I haven't been able to find a free image of Hofmann, I think a good case of fair use can be made. Anyway, I am rather ticked off by someone deleting stuff without extending the courtesy to explain why. You may not know this, but it is a rather time-consuming affair to research and edit images, let alone jump through all the hoops Wikipedia has put in place. Autoterm 02:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Wikipedia is not just any old encyclopedia -- it's a free content encyclopedia. This means that we try not to use any images unless they are legally in the public domain (not copyrighted at all), or else they have been released under a free license such as the GFDL. There are a few cases where we use non-free images, but these are rare. Those hoops are there for a very good reason. According to our non-free content policy, we can only use a non-free image if that image can never be replaced by a free image. Michael Hofmann is still alive and still a public figure; therefore it should be possible for someone to photograph him and release that image under a free license. It might be difficult, and it might take time, but it is certainly possible. Therefore the image is "replaceable" as well as non-free, and it is against Wikipedia policy to use the image. Many other websites might use this image, but those websites aren't as dedicated to free content as we are. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia policy IS quite clear: see {{Non-free promotional}}

It is a shame you also deleted the Marjane Satrapi image, also from a press kit. ...sigh... --Knulclunk 05:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the {{Non-free promotional}} tag, it specifies that it should only be used "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it". – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My primary objection in this case is not so much that the image was deleted, but how. No communication, no transparency, no respect. The image simply disappeared. I don't think the dozens of people who experience your edits every day with you will feel enlightend and encouraged, let alone empowered after you are done with them. Once again, I don't question the fact that there may be a good reason for removing those images. It's the spirit of censorship with which you seem to approach your job that I take issue with. I urge you to leave at least some semblance of an explanation at the site of each of your edits so that the people who work hard to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia will be able to do a better job in the future. Anything else is just arrogant, exclusive and counterproductive. Autoterm 11:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I delete an image, I leave a deletion description explaining why the image was deleted. If there was a discussion about the image on the image talk page, I leave an explanation there as well, and I preserve that page.

When you upload an image, it is explained in detail what images can be used an what images can not. It says "Note that images of a living person or extant building may not be uploaded under a claim of fair use if an equivalent image under a free license exists or could be created with reasonable effort." If you choose to upload a non-free, replaceable image, regardless of this information, then our speedy deletion policy recommends that the image be deleted without the need for further discussion.

I do not operate with "no communication, no transparency, no respect". I always provide information when asked, and I always leave polite messages on user talk pages when I tag an image for deletion. I certainly don't have a "spirit of censorship"; instead, I love the fact that Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia, and I am willing to work hard to help it stay that way.

If you still feel that I am acting against the interests of Wikipedia, I urge you to request comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If there is consensus in the community that I should change my behavior in some way, I certainly will. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The only comment you left on Michael Hofmann's page was (-deleted image), no explanation whatsoever. If Wikipedia is a community project, I think all members should be volunteering the information another member may need to comply with any policies they may have involuntarily violated. So in the spirit of sharing, providing information only when asked to do so is not enough. I'm sure other contributors feel as violated as I do when all a custodian does is go in, nullify their hard work, and respond only when challenged. Autoterm 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there are literally hundreds of these images uploaded every day. In practical terms, the only options are to delete unauthorized images as quickly as possible to keep up with the backlog, leaving message only when there's some dispute -- or allow Wikipedia to be overrun be unfree images. When the {{replaceable fair use}} tag was made and the policy was solidified, the community spoke pretty overwhelmingly that we need to get rid of unnecessary free images, even if that means people's feelings might get hurt. I try to be as tactful as I can, though, but the uploader is told right there when he uploads an image that unfree images that don't conform to our policies can be deleted without further notice. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is, your time might be better spent actually going to events and photographing famous people, cajoling other Wikipedians in doing the same, or writing to the famous and their handlers begging for CC images. All these things would be more useful than deleting others' work. Why not instead leave the promo image until a free one is located?--Knulclunk 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have uploaded thousands of free images that I photographed myself. I'm afraid it's against our policy to leave an unfree image until a free one is found. The reason is, free ones never replace unfree ones when that happens. Think about it: if the Michael Hofmann page already had a non-free image that was allowed to stay, why would anyone take a free photo to replace it? But what happens all the time is that we'll get rid of a non-free image that had been on a page, unreplaced for a year, and before long someone will upload a free one to fill the gap. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

okay. --Knulclunk 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion removal

Your edit to the archive page Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4 removed every entry except for the one that was still being debated then. Was that intentional? If so, now that the last debate is finished, should the rest of the entries be restored? -- kenb215 talk 03:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It was intentional, just so that it would be easy to find the debate in question. If you like, you could restore the others. I don't suppose it matters much. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Octacube

You gave no reason for deleting the image of the octacube, despite my comments on the discussion page of the image. I have asked Adrian Ocneanu, currently on a visit here, to give me as a present this afternoon another image of the octacube from his own computer. --Mathsci 11:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. We can only use "free images" of sculptures on Wikipedia. If Adrian Ocneanu is the copyright-holder of the photograph (which he is if he was the photographer), and if he is willing to release the photograph under a "free license" such as the GFDL, then we can use the image. If not, then perhaps someone will photograph the sculpture and release that photograph under a free license. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for this explanation - it was the first time I had inserted an image on a wikipedia page and Adrian was pleased to help me (despite transfer difficulties between macos and kubuntu). I have noticed that on occasion WP editors copy text and images (possibly slightly modified) from pages without a free license onto WP pages, claiming the images are their own original work. This seems to me to contravene the WP policy on images. Please could you comment? Cheers, Mathsci 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely against policy to do so. We have groups of Wikipedians who look for such falsely-tagged images and list them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Usually, users who upload such images and claim to own the copyright get blocked from editing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I found 9 images on this archived page of the WP article on the Sine-Gordon equation. They seem to be computer-manipulated versions of the images appearing here. The colours and time direction have been adjusted. The wikipedia editor Danko Georgiev MD reveals on the talk page that this is where the orginal images came from but says nothing about this in the image files. I removed this material from the WP article but should the image files also be deleted and, if so, should the editor Danko Georgiev MD be advised about this? Thanks in advance and I'm sorry if I did not use the correct WP channels for this query, Mathsci 14:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I listed the images here to determine whether the images are copyright violations or not. If you could comment there, explaining why you think the images are copyright violations, that would help. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence appears in the paragraph by Georgiev on the talk page of the Sine-Gordon equation, if you read it carefully. Danko Georgiev claims that his image was generated using the maple files of Miroshnichenko which he confesses he is unable to modify. Thus he himself tells us where the original image came from, but he has not explained in detail on the image file why and how he has received permission from Miroshnichenko to use the images or the original maple files. He even suggests that other wikipedia editors may modify Miroshnichenko's maple files, wherever they are. Without further clarification, this still looks very fishy. Best wishes,Mathsci 02:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oho, User:Mathsci is doing some extra job! I understand the User:Mathsci post as relevant to the claim done by Quadell "Usually, users who upload such images and claim to own the copyright get blocked from editing". GOOD JOB User:Mathsci. Your GAMES NEVER END, right? If you continue your parody against my work, I will possibly voluntarily stop contributing to Wikipedia. UNLESS, the policy is changed, and there are stricter rules against anonymous editors like you that vandalize or do malicious things in Wikipedia. Danko Georgiev MD 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

YouTube license?

Could you please weigh in on this [5]? Thanks. -N 14:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rumble Strips

I'm not too up on the business regarding images, and what can be uploaded and what can't. Just wondering what was wrong with the image uploaded, and what criteria needs to be met to upload an accurate image? Sorry for any problems caused. --SteelersFan UK06 17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Lots of folks don't understand our non-free content policy on the first go. Here it is in a nutshell. On Wikipedia, all images are either considered "free" or "non-free". Free images are either legally in the public domain (i.e. not copyrighted), or else are released by the copyright-holder under a free license such as the GFDL. All other images are non-free. (Most images you find on the web are non-free.) When you upload an image, you have to give it an appropriate copyright tag, such as {{GFDL}} or {{non-free promotional}}. Read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to learn how to do this.

But even then, some non-free images just aren't allowed on Wikipedia no matter what. Because we're a free content encyclopedia, we try to use free images instead of non-free ones whenever possible. Our non-free content policy is very strict, and few images pass it. In particular, criterion #1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. . . As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture." This is why the particular image of the Rumble Strips couldn't stay on Wikipedia: the band is still active and still touring, so it should be possible for someone to photograph them and release that photo under a free license. So we can't use a non-free image of them.

If you have any more questions, or if I can help with anything else, let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think i see now - if there is a better image available (or the oppertunity of a better image, ie. a gig like you said) - then this should be used. I'll get cracking on that. Thanks! --SteelersFan UK06 18:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Columbia_University_Lion_Statue.jpg

Could you please delete Image:Columbia_University_Lion_Statue.jpg? I uploaded this picture when I did not know that a similar picture was already uploaded. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 01:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 01:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ruslana pub.jpg

Hi, Quadell - if you get a minute, would you mind explaining why the above image is not replaceable fair use? Thanks! Videmus Omnia 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this one's awfully borderline. Yes, it is an image of a living person, and most images of living people are deemed replaceable. In this case, however, the image depicts a dressed-up (or down) stage persona, and not the actual human being, at least in the interpretation of some. (In this case, you can compare this to images of actors playing specific characters, which are often acceptable in articles about the characters.) I know many would disagree with this, however. What swayed me to keep the image was (a) it didn't have any comments on the talk page arguing that it was replaceable, and it had some (long) comments arguing that it wasn't, and (b) it had been deemed non-replaceable in the past, as indicated by the {{rk}} tag. If you feel it violates our policy, you might try listing it on WP:IFD to try to get more opinions from image-policy-wonks. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think it over - I was pondering trying to reduce the fansite-dom of the Ruslana page. Later! Videmus Omnia 02:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I IfD'd it. Thanks for the advice. Videmus Omnia 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Golden Retriever picture jpg

why did you delete my golden retriever picture on the GOLDEN RETRIEVER Wikipedia History section? This was MY own picture? What do I need to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.81.75 (talk • contribs)

Oh! Sorry about that then. It's such a cute puppy! I'm glad we can use the image. I restored Image:Macbish.jpg and put it back in the article.

To prevent your images from being needlessly deleted in the future, you should make sure to add a copyright tag. You can find out how to do this at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you SOOOOOOOOOO much for placing my GoldenRetriever picture in the correct and proper FREE IMAGE copyrighting! i really appreciate it and ALL you do for WIKI!

Suranne Jones

Hi. Just curious to know why you deleted the image on the Suranne Jones article? (Please explain things like this on the talk-page of that article if you have just reasons to do such things.) Lradrama 13:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the image because it is against our non-free content policy to have non-free portraits of living people on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -N 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look at these?

Hi, Quadell. Would you take a look at the use of unfree images on Music of Hong Kong and Cinema of Hong Kong? The concern is about how those specific images help on the article's comprehension in a way that words alone can not (item#8).

I don't believe these to be difficult cases, but as one editor took my actions personally, it may be easier for someone else to try to communicate with him.

Thanks in advance! --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'm looking into it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Caprice 96 readding deleted images

See here. User:Caprice 96 is readding all the RFU images of his that you just deleted. He never contested them last time around (although he did go and delete all the RFU tags). Can you talk to him and maybe speedy the re-added images? Thanks... —Chowbok ☠ 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the images you deleted do not fall under the fair use guidlines, while others you left on the site do. If you noticed when I re-uploaded the images, I revised the fair use for all images. All of the photos used are of very hard to find vehicles, where a free image would be next to impossible to find, especially one where the car is represented correctly. Even if I were able to find a free image, most would be of vehicles that are not longer a proper representation of how the vehicle was orginally produced. This is why I tried to use original images that I scanned myself from original sales brochures, and ads that I have in my possession (this took countless hours).

I put a lot of time and effort into the Torino article, and I am very tempted to delete the entire article and revert if back to the very poorly written and inaccurate article that used to be on this site. I understand that I have to follow the wiki guidlines, however, you deleted these images without saying why they do not follow the wiki guidlines.

Caprice 96 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you're frustrated. I'm grateful for the effort you put into the Torino article, and I wish we could use the images you uploaded, but we can't. The images were deleted because they are replaceable: even if the vehicles are rare, they still exist and can still be photographed. If you can provide a reliable source that says that all such vehicles have been destroyed (or are in such poor condition that they are not representative anymore) then the image is not replaceable. But the Great Pyramid of Giza is extremely rare -- only one exists! -- but we can't use non-free images of it, since free photos can be made. (It's true that a new photo of the Pyramid will not show what it looked like in 1960, but the change in appearance is not significant and it not discussed in the article, nor should it be.) In the same way, the Torino article can't have non-free images of Torinos. I'm sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think that since the photos I uploaded were all from sales brochures and original ads from the 1960s and 1970s that they would qualify under fair use. Ford intended that these photos to be used to promote their product. Why would your guidelines allow for a brochure photo on the Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser page, but the same type of photos are not permitted on the Torino page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1972_Custom_Cruiser.jpg

The above photo is of a vehicle that is rare, but it would be possible to produce a free image of it, yet it is allowed. I am sure that almost any car produced in quantity in the last 50 years could have a free image produced of it. But just because it is possible doesn't mean that it can be done practically. For instance one of the photos I uploaded was of a 1969 Ford Torino Squire wagon. I have not once had the opportunity to photograph such vehicle, in fact I have never even seen one in person ever, at any car show or anywhere for that matter. How is one expected to find a free image of a vehicle such as this?

The most commonly seen and collectable Torinos have free images, however, these models are special interest vehicles so they are somewhat easier to obtain photos. The photos that you deleted are all of rare variants, uncommon models, and models that are not restored due to their limited collectability. However, they are still vitally important to the article and help to demostrate what the Ford Torino actually was, which may not be how it is perceived today. Caprice 96 06:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few other examples of a brochure photos that a free image could be used in its place (in fact a free image is easier to find for all of these cars than the Torinos I had uploaded).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pacer_coupe.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AMCHornet1970.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:60dodgedartad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/DodgeDart1967.jpg

Why are these acceptable and my photos were not? Caprice 96 06:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing these images to my attention. These are absolutely not allowed under our policy, and I have tagged them for deletion.

You mentioned "fair use". Under U.S. copyright law, the use of these images probably qualifies as fair use. But our guidelines do not permit their use. Even if it would be legal, it goes against the founding principles of Wikipedia to use a non-free image when it would be possible (even if very difficult) to create a free image of the subject. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So even though it is most likely legal, these images are being deleted because they don't meet the wiki guidelines? It seems utterly ridiculous to follow a guideline so closely, especially when the photos are all of vehicles where it is next to impossible to get a free image. So, now my article will have no photographs of most of the models and variants, since I cannot find free images of all of the ones you deleted. How does this benefit those who are trying to become more educated on a subject? I am disappointed that something as new and fresh as wikipedia is run like such an old fashioned bureaucracy.

I am strongly considering reverting the article back to how it was before I rewrote it. If I do this, I will find another source that will accept the article as I wrote it.Caprice 96 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sine-Gordon

Dear Quadell, please restore my sine-Gordon images released by ME personally, and now I have released them under GFDL, as they are exported from MAPLE by me personally! And they were published in http://cogprints.org/3894/ which is my own paper. By the way there are differences which I have commented with Miroshnichenko himself, conserning the kink and antikinks - on Miroshnichenko's site the ribbon model contains some errors. ALSO I HAVE PERSONALLY PROVIDED THE LINK TO MIROSHNICHENKO'S WEB SITE, so User:Mathsci had NOT discovered anything new that I have not posted! Concerning User:Mathsci he is vandal who has personal issues with me, so please warn him to stop this personal war. If you want I can forward you MAPLE worksheets from where the gifs were exported. Danko Georgiev MD 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that you created the images yourself. Since Mathsci has provided no evidence of copyright violation, I'll take your word for it. I'm certainly aware of the bad blood between Mathsci and you, and it's unfortunate. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Quadell -- Thanks a ton for your edit. Please see detailed information on the sine-Gordon talk page. I have very good personal relations with Miroshnichenko, and even on the Miroshnichenko's home page, exactly below the link to their test examples, there are links to my papers [also provided at the sine-Gordon talk page]. Please remove all the banners on my figures, I have released them under GFDL, and they have already appeared in peer-reviewed and published works of mine. Forthcoming article is also scheduled for September 2007. Concerning User:Mathsci I don't clearly understand his motives -- he accused me for third time in plagiarism, and even did not appologized for the previous two attacks of him. If he continues to lead this war against me, I am afraid I might stop contributing to Wikipedia. I have no time to discuss my work with vandals like the anonymous User:Mathsci. He says he is math professional, however some of his posts contain simple math errors, so I am forced to conclude he is possibly self-proclaimed kid playing in the web, and making fun if he torments not anonymous users like me. I really have only limited time to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, and if I am involved in such disputes, I will prefer to stop contributing in the future. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the banners, since so far as I'm concerned, the image is resolved. I'm not sure what to suggest in regard to Mathsci, other than to ignore him whenever possible. I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia; your additions are much appreciated. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity fair use

Hi, thanks for replying. I finally received a comment from User Abu badali who claimed that I need to take a different route in finding the images. Almost all HK celebrity images are released under albums, movies, almost all of which have copyrights. I think I may manage to get help for the newer artists. If you can answer some of these questions it would at least be helpful.

1. Many older artists have not performed since the 60s, 70s, 80s. They almost have to use albums and screenshots. They are still alive, but are no longer publicized. Will album images be allowed for them?
2. An artist that is no longer alive should automatically be allowed to use album images. Does this seem fair?
3. To my understanding, news site and magazine images are not eligible. Please let me know if this is correct.
4. Also is an image of Bruce Lee really that unencyclopedic for the Cinema of Hong Kong page?

Benjwong 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

These are good questions. I reposted your questions, and supplied my answers, at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#25_June_2007. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Correlate summation template

Hi, Why did you delete my image:Sigmoid.jpg? The figure is still refered to in the text. Brian Bwestwoo 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. The image was uploaded without a valid copyright tag, so there was no way to tell if you created the image yourself or copied it from another source. When you upload images, it's important to add licensing information. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, Actually, since I have the links to sigmoidal and logistic functions, it'll work without the figure (now that I've removed the reference). I did create the image myself, but it was subsequently used in a paper. I'll check the link you sent me, if I decide to put it back. Thanks/Brian Bwestwoo 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Elliott

Hey, Quadell - sorry to bother you again. If you look at the above article, you'll see about 13 professional-quality images uploaded under GFDL, possibly by the article subject in the process of building a fansite for himself. (See this report at WP:COIN.) I'm about to burn the big gallery at the bottom of the article as inappropriate, but shouldn't the uploader verify his identity via WP:OTRS to confirm that he is the copyright holder? (I think a lot of the images will have to go anyway, per WP:NOT a webhost.} Videmus Omnia 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any requirement that he identify himself, but I'm not really familiar with OTRS policy. It's true that the gallery at the bottom doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, but I think the images belong on Wikimedia Commons. I think they should be moved there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Transformers the game image

Y r u deleting the image.whats the point of that.it let everyone know how the box looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpgarcia6 (talk • contribs)

The image Image:938118 84463 front.jpg was deleted because it did not have a valid copyright tag. When you upload an image to Wikipedia, you have to give it a copyright tag and a source so we'll know where the image came from and in what ways we can use it. For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:John Scalzi.jpg

Which license tag should be used on the above image? The subject/copyright holder has authorized its use (off-wiki permission referenced in the summary). Videmus Omnia 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

His comment "I'll open it for public use" indicates to me that he releases the image into the public domain, so I tagged it as {{PD-release}}. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Videmus Omnia 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He confirmed on his website that he was releasing into PD - good call. Videmus Omnia 00:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny. A blogger who directs us to edit his bio through his blog. We really have reached Web 2.0. -N 00:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)