User talk:Quadell/Archive 16

• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• Archive 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 30
• 40
• 50

Image:DeclarationOfTheTie.jpg

It's been a year now, I don't think this issue has really been resolved. Should this image be deleted? Matt 04:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Top 1000 Scientists

I was disappointed to note that you have deleted TOP 1000 SCIENTISTS page.I thought the issue of copyright was yet to be resolved. Jagdish 22nd February

Processing copyvios

Actually, if you check out Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Advice_for_admins, the last step in resolving a possible copyvio issue is to remove its listing from the page. Otherwise anyone working on it later has to go back and double-check things that may have been resolved already. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that's a bit unclear; I guess I had always been following the lead of others who'd been processing them before. Happy editing :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you're doing a great job over there. Chapeau! I did this a long time ago, too, and found it a drag. Huge backlog, and it takes so much time to verify copyvio claims :-( Anyway, besides expressing admiration for your diligent work, I also have one minor question: is there some reason you don't delete /Temp after having moved it over? I always used to do that unless they were linked from other pages as these leftover redirects don't really serve any purpose and have an empty history anyway. Lupo 20:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

lovely

So, Quadell, we agree on every point, with minor differences (which, as you said, don't impair our ability to agree with the whole thing in spirit). So let me pose to you another question. If we make this policy, how do we ensure it is "imposed" fairly? The problem lately, I think, has not been so much the policies themselves. Most people seem rather complacent about the userbox thing. What they're more concerned with is people saying things like "fuck process," and acting unilaterally. If we had discussions about these sorts of things, and they were in individual, removed discussions, rather than giant conglomerates of dissent (user iraq war for instance), I think while there might be discussion, and even heated discussion, there might not be (abnormal) factionalism.

This is to say that I trust your judgement, from what you've said, and your overall character on the project. But what of people who have an axe to grind, who seek to enforce such (proposed) policies, quickly, and without discussion? If we can't curb than, then we will be faced with only two options: another unilateral decree from jimbo (to quote Guanaco, if he wants to formulate policy, he's got to be willing to discuss it), or an incessant backlog of DRV with "no consensus reached."

How do we reduce the tensions we have, ensure that they do not further escalate by actions which have gotten us into this mess (either by pedophilia userboxes, or "rouge" users going on a rommelesque campaign)?

If we could ensure that, we might be able to institute a policy such as yours, and hash it over for a few weeks. I just don't see how we can get to that point from where we are today.

... aa:talk 21:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

you're on fire

:-) Chick Bowen 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association

What happened? Just as I assumed that this was in no way copyvio and everyone agreed with me, the whole page just vanished without a trace. Speedy deletion? I have no clue what happened there....Binarypower 01:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Has since been taken care of. Thanks. Binarypower 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates

It may be out of character, but I'm fed up with people so obsessed on stylistic crusades that they even drag me back into wikipolitics when I try to retreat into my most keen interests. There is no reason to delink years en masse, and particularly no consensus to do so. I've tried to convince Bobblewik to stop until he is sure that he has even majority support for his edits, but he has bluntly refused, and simply restarts his bot without discussion. As such, short of an arbitration case, I see no alternative. Ambi 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bounties

Greetings! You recently did fantastic work on the Battle of Badr article, leading to it being featured. Thanks! I wanted to make you aware that I have bounties out on several other articles pertinent to Muslim history: Al-Nahda, Akbar, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Mohammed Mossadegh, and, tangentially, Bank of Credit and Commerce International. All these articles are in relatively good condition, but just need a little push to get them featured. A total of $130 is on the line. Are you up for it? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Tempting, but I unfortunately must decline. I've got at least two articles I want to finish before then, Starship Troopers and Ran (film), and in several weeks I will probably be doing push-ups on Parris Island. I just don't see how I would have the time. Thanks for letting me know, though, and if I get a little more free time I'll definitely take a look. Palm_Dogg 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bounties

Thanks for the note on my talk page, and especially for pointing me in the direction of that bounty page--it looks quite interesting, and I can think of a number of fascinating historical figures who no one's written on in a while. As far as Akbar, I'm tempted to take a swing at him--I found him very interesting when I took an Indian history class last semester--but I'm a little reluctant to stray too far from the areas I'm most familiar with, out of fear that I'd overlook something that would be glaringly obvious to a specialist. Thanks a lot for the heads up on the bounty thing, though. I don't believe anyone's written on Demosthenes (general) recently... Robth^Talk 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Royal Navy images

Hi. I notice you removed the copyvio notices from several RN images and summarised the edits "Removed copyvio notice: dealt with" (e.g. Image:988808256m.jpg & Image:Albionclass.jpg). I'm not doubting you, I would just like to know in what sense they have been dealt with so that I know what to do with similar images in the future. Regards Mark83 12:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem with the CC template, it appears to provide a clear rationale for image use, when in fact it does not. Each government website has its own conditions of use, for example:

• The Royal Navy notice (which has moved since I listed these for deletion) said "Please note all RN images are protected by Crown Copyright and cannot be used without permission from the MOD."
• The "useable" CC sites all have something like "The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission."

However I believe the template should be edited in such a way to make this clear — I think it is understandable that people have assumed all CC material is useable because of the way the template is worded. (I can't change it because its protected). Regards Mark83 16:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Straza

The content seemed to be copied from part of Google's automatic translation of the German text on that page. The earlier content on that page actually seems to be some kind of scanned image that wouldn't normally be processed by a automatic translation tool. --Big_Iron 10:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of comment at TV naming convention

Can you clarify this comment so that some consensus can arrive on the convention? The best thing might be to write your impression at the main convention page. Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that "TV program" should be used only for shows that are clearly programs, and "TV series" should be used only for shows that are clearly series, and "TV show" should be used for shows that are not clearly series or programs. Any way we do it, we'll have to do lots of rds. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Lumber Company

I was bored so I decided to do one on your wish list. Hope you like. Binarypower 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

nosource template

on the {{nosource}} template, would you please add the <div class="NavFrame" style="padding:0;border-style:none;"> to it, to hide the warning template. It looks better, and since experienced wikipedians and admins only bother to warn ppl anyway, we'll know where to find it. This is very common with other templates.

You were the last editor on the no source template, so I thought you might know some wikimarkup to hide/show the maintenace message, a la {{afd}}, or {{cfd}} and others. I'm not totally experienced with it, since most of such templates that have this feature are admin protected (a job I don't desire). Anyway that's what I meant.--Esprit15d 14:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

شكرا

Thanks, belatedly, for your anatomically correct Valentine's greetings. I hope you had a good day of not-just-wikilove yourself! Palmiro | Talk 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say Thanks! for the barnstar received. It's nice to know what you're doing is being appreciated. :D I gravitated towards the "Others" category because a lot of the articles were computer-related, so it was actually fun. Almost done with the X category now, by the way, which also had a lot of computer abbreviations and stuff. Maybe I'll take you up on a couple of bounties later... the concept sounds interesting. Marcos Juárez 15:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

SPBW

You deleted this for being listed on WP:CP more than seven days. It had been released under the GFDL by the copyright holder (confirmed by email and I thought I had deleted it from CP [1]), so I've restored it and tagged it with {prod} instead. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the award, Quadell, and the kind and welcome words. I hope I continue to earn your trust in the trust in the future. -- Cecropia 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jalaseh_Majles.jpg

[2]Perhaps you were unaware, but Jimbo has issued an edict that we are to respect the copyrighted of Iranian works. Wikipedia is available world wide, and it's certantly possible that Iran could become a Berne signator next week and the copyright on these works would gain teeth in the US. If you've tagged other such images like this, please remove the claim that these are PD as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to this edict? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright on paintings: what is "publication"?

Could you maybe help me understand this? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Art, and also Michael Snow's and my own talk pages. Lupo 16:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you the Original barnstar for your tireless efforts in improving and adding to articles relating to Kentucky culture! Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just got started with the Cleanup Taskforce. I'm hoping that it will turn out for the best. I am going to Louisville later this weekend, maybe I can get some good images. Are you a native of Louisville, or Kentucky, rather? Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find Louisville to be a great city, I have been there about 2-4 times now, and I plan going at least once a year now on. But to answer your question, no, I've never heard of the "Bounty Board." Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Iraq casualties

Thanks for removing the POV on the chart. I'm against the war, but the statistics chart wasn't the place for it.

Czolgolz 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Nadine strossen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Nadine strossen.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Babe Ruth photo from Curse of the Bambino

There is permission from the owners to use the photo, on the article's Talk page and in the caption itself. Could you resurrect the photo, please, so permission can be placed on the photo page? - DavidWBrooks 18:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

LASER

It was originally tagged promotional , but I changed it because I thought the rights would be gone since the Plymouth brand is 6 years dead. --Karrmann

• Yeah, but I'm not saying that the copyright expired, i'm saying that Chrysler Corp released all the rights to it.

Hotlist/others

Hi, I've been busy writing (good) stubs for Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/others. I thought you'd like to do the honors of closing that one :-) --Magnus Manske 09:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ivaraasen.jpg

You are wrong. This image is public domain, not GFDL, so you can delete it. Anyway, you can just list names of people contributing to this page to image description at Commons. --User:Derbeth ^talk 12:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! Ryanjunk 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Timna

I added a new article at the temp Timna page. Sorry, I didn't realize that content was copyrighted. Joey 21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Royalty free, no restrictions"

I just came across Image:Lips in photo.jpg and saw the description said "There are no usage restrictions for this photo". But also there was a template saying it was in the public domain. So I checked the source, and saw that this was in fact the exact wording (no restrictions). Since no mention of PD or releasing copyright is made, I can only assume it is still copyrighted, so I have changed the copyright template there to {{No rights reserved}}.

Please be aware that "copyrighted with no rights reserved" is not the same as public domain status (i.e. lack of copyright), even though the effect may be similar. Furthermore, since you were not the creator of the image, {{PD-self}} was not appropriate - you should only use this if you created it. If someone else created it and released it as PD, you should use {{PD-release}} or {{PD-link}} instead.

Hairy Dude 02:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page - Hairy Dude) Greetings. I didn't tag that photo as PD-self; I tagged it as PD. This was in 2004. Back then, the tags PD-self and PD-link didn't exist, and neither did the NoRightsReserved tag. Another user incorrectly changed the tag to PD-self, as you can see in the file history.

As to whether NoRightsReserved is the same as PD, this is disputed. See Template talk:No rights reserved for more. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for misrepresenting you, I should have checked the image description's history. Thanks for bringing that conversation to my attention. Hairy Dude 16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

favor

Quadell, I'm going on an indefinite wikibreak, and I was wondering if you could do me a favor. Freakofnurture has been running a bot-created list of images uploaded by blocked users at my request at User:Catapult/Images. A couple of other admins have been working on it--mostly Mushroom--but I've done most of it and I feel bad leaving it without reinforcements. It's pretty self-explanatory--check them and strike them, and if they're no good and uploaded by an indefinitely blocked or banned user, delete them and remove them. There's more information on the talk page there. I'll ask a couple others to chip in, too, and you can as well if you'd like. We've done through R, alphabetically, and the bot is currently at T, so there isn't too far to go. I'd appreciate it--thanks. Chick Bowen 00:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Image fair use question

Hi! I recently uploaded Image:SquirrelHillHistory-manor.jpg to History of Squirrel Hill. Since you seem to know a bit about the fair use recognition process, I wanted to know if there was something I was missing. I tagged the article with {{fairusereview}} but I've watched as newer images are being reviewed before mine. I certainly don't mind if I just simply need to be patient, I just wanted to know if I should have tagged something else on the image. I didn't want it to auto-delete after 7 days if there was nothing wrong with it. Thanks! ClarkBHM 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Do you mind elaborating on what Wikipedia needs for fair use which is not provided for in copyright and use section of the page at [3]? I would think that this falls under "non-commercial, personal, or research use"; I'm trying to understand so that I'll have a better idea of what's acceptable in the future. Thanks for your assistance! ClarkBHM 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)]

Oh, and sorry about putting the full image down instead of putting a : before it. My mistake! ClarkBHM 14:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed answer. The site actually has multiple images depicting the history of the city of Pittsburgh; this one was the best one for Squirrel Hill. I wanted to run this one through its paces before I started updating other areas of Pittsburgh's history. I'll direct my future questions to Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Thanks for your assistance! ClarkBHM 20:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. --Bhadani 17:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another date links proposal

Sorry to disturb you again but in case you haven't seen it, there is another date link proposal. This time at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Please feel free to support or oppose it. Thanks. bobblewik 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kent State

I'm at my 3RR for the day, I'd appreciate if you could keep an eye on Bandagani, I don't really understand why he's being so uncooperative and refusing to discuss things on the talk page - some things we've hashed out and compromised on, and now he just seems to be stubbornly reverting to his own version because...why, he doesn't like unnecessary text about Neil Young's citizenship removed from the article? Then there's The shootings were also the catalyst for the theory of "Devolution," as constituted by the members of the new wave rock band Devo who attended Kent State University in the early 1970s. which I can't help but feel not only isn't relevent (The theory of devolution wasn't invented by a rock band, per se, muchless one that never wrote a song about Kent State), but is likely just an attempt to get more wikipublicity for the group. Anyways, appreciate your work thusfar, let me know if you think I'm out of line on anything. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 08:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Number24165

Thanks for checking in! Yes, I'm done - there weren't too many. I tagged the logos with {{logo}} and put some of the others up on WP:IFD. Then I left a nice (?) note on his talk page [4] which he immediately blanked. :-S Probably worth checking on his future uploads from time to time. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:bullet_diagram.PNG

I've made a svg version of the above diagram, it is listed under GFDL, would you give me permission to release vector mod. as PD? Mobius 01:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SCOTW: Chronospecies finally makes it!

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Week, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Chronospecies. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

These are the comments on the nomination, which may be helpful in improving the article:

• Lots of potential for this little article like examples, causes, and general elaboration. Neum 04:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• A great fact to include would be the shortest time over which speciation of a sexual organism is known to have occurred. —James S. 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In other news:

• SCOTW needs a new maintainer, and could to with a maintenance bot. If you know of anybody who may be interested in either task, please let them know!

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Plot of the Rue Saint-Nicaise

I refer to your recent tagging of Plot of the Rue Saint-Nicaise. I do not believe you have indicated in the tag the correct version of the article. I came to the article as a copyvio. I was not able to find any internet based evidence that it was a copyvio (and I tried a significant number of permutations. Neither has any other editor, and several have tried. The original uploader has not answered the question about the source. I have no in principal objection to the tag, but I do object to a version which has been edited with clearly non-plagiarising edits, being so tagged. There are now significant variations from the original version and it is now three months since people suspected it was a copyvio and have not been able to establish a source for the violation, thus when do you propose to untag?--A Y Arktos 00:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it was an essay for uni or something, it is not quite well enough written for publication and the themes are a little unusual - for example, the strong emphasis on Freud.--A Y Arktos 00:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

CNS

CNS sucks 132.241.245.49 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

De linking years

Quadell, I'd love to.... But you should see the grief poor old User:Bobblewik has been getting for trying to do this. I think I can do without that for the moment! However I do unlink a lot of date fragments using Bobblewik's javascript, at User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/datestest.js. And there are a coterie of people who might be able to move this forward. Rich Farmbrough 18:26 23 March 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for your bug report on datestest.js; both Bobblewik and I are working on it right now. I've already identified the troublesome regex so it shouldn't be too hard to fix. --Cyde Weys 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion that a large element of this is ad hominem. So I am very pleased that you guys are around.

As far as which articles need attention is concerned: it is interesting to look at 'What links here' for month articles (e.g. January) and days of the week articles (Tuesday). They are almost all overlinked by definition. Be careful/avoid articles that deal with dates, calendars, names of gods (Wodin, Thor) etc. It is also interesting to look at mature/popular/high-traffic articles such as former/future featured articles. Those articles and the MoS should be consistent with each other. bobblewik 21:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Popes

Sir,

Why have you erased some date links in List of popes and not all the others? Švitrigaila 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the year links, such as "He was born in 1904". I did not remove the year links that were part of dates, such as "He was born on August 5, 1904". This is according to the Manual of Style. Please see WP:DATES if you have further questions. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi, i have all those pictures with the contradicting copywrite tag and stuff. Basically, i dont care if they are on here or anyone else uses them. I dont know why i wrote "Do Not Use without permission," it could have been the LSD or just lack of judgement. Anyways, i hope they can stay on, but i have no idea how to remove that sentence. Perhaps you can help, i just dont want to see them disapear :.( THankszoreos for the help!--Geppy 22:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hey I saw your wishlist. I try to thank people who written the articles on my tasklist too 8). I thought I would make a suggestion. In addition to the articles you want, make redlinks to the articles that will eventually become redirects to the article you want. For example: Pancasan/Pancasán. That way you'll know if someone makes one and not the other and neglects to make the redirects (not everyone is as thorough as they should be when making articles. BTW, Pancasán should also be on my list, although I think it was the name of a musical group. My Nicaraguan friend is coming to visit me this weekend, so I'll find out. Who knows? Maybe I'll even end up writing an article about it? PAZ,--Rockero 05:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:DATE-associated edits

Hello Quadell,

I was curious as to whether you're using a bot to effect the edits you've been making to articles regarding WP:DATE. If you are, how does it work, please? —Encephalon 17:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been using a bot, because I don't know how to set one up. I wish I did - it would be much easier! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Quadell. Does that mean you are manually going through each article, deciding which years/dates/time periods are not quite relevant, and delinking them? I seem to recall that Bobblewik (?sp) has a .js script that helps with the date thing—are you using that? The reason I ask is that I'm not sure such changes are always agreed with by editors who regularly edit/watch certain articles. I daresay these sorts of edits should probably not be made with an automated feature with little human oversight. If you're making the changes yourself, however, in line with your views on WP:DATE, that's commendable. Of course, other editors may see relevance where you do not, and may revert. So goes the wiki. Anyway, I was just seeking clarification. Thanks! —Encephalon 18:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am using a javascript to suggest changes, but I'm still going through each suggested change and manually verifying them. If you disagree with any of the delinkings, feel free to put the link back in in that instance. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My block

Blocking me was inappropriate, Talrais. I'd like to ask that you bring the block up on WP:AN/I to get some feedback from other admins. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

I just did, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Quadell_block, and I was in the process of writing a message here explaining why. Why was blocking you inappropriate? I feel that your edits were inappropriate. Preventing you from continuing to make them is accepted as part of the blocking policy. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like someone's edits is not a good enough reason to block someone. We both know you don't it when people remove links from isolated dates (e.g. "He was born in 1950.") We also both know that WP:DATES recommends that isolated years not be linked. This is a content dispute, but if you look through Wikipedia:Blocking policy, I think you'll see that that's not a blockable issue. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block you because I don't like your edits. I blocked you because you made exactly the same kind of edits which Bobblewik was blocked many times for. This is not a content dispute. This is you trying to circumvent consensus decision making by refusing to accept the disagreement clearly evident on the talk page. Please do not make these edits. Please just help debate the issue and let's try and reach a sensible compromise on the issue. If you promise not to make any more of these edits and to help in the forming of a compromise, I will unblock you. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept that there is disagreement. I hear that you don't want me to make these edits, and I respectfully decline. I think these edits are appropriate. I am quite willing to discuss this issue with you and work toward a compromise, but you had not attempted to discuss it with me at all before you blocked me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The block log says that I was unblocked by SlimVirgin. But oddly enough, when I try to edit, it still says Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Quadell". Does anyone know why? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked Quadell because there's no basis in policy for the block, and even if there is, this was premature. Quadell, it might be a good idea not to continue with the edits until they've been discussed, because date delinking seems to be a sensitive issue. I'll sort out the autoblocker for you. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you should be good to go. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarah. I understand that this is a sensitive issue, but I still intend to remove links on solitary years in accordance with the manual of style. I don't like the precedent it sets when one admin says "Don't enforce this Wikipedia policy or else I'll block you for it". If I were to cave in and cease editing in accordance with Talrais's demands, wouldn't I be allowing one person's opinion to overrule consensus? All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If he wasn't warned, he shouldn't have been blocked, especially for changes so extremely unimportant to the encyclopedia. This block is very counterproductive. I would suggest Talrias find a few articles to write. Even if Quadell was going against a guideline, it should have been submitted to WP:AN/I to wait for other comments—or are there some pressing matters related to date formatting that I am not aware of? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 19:52

We're going to run out of dates on Wikipedia by tomorrow at some time in the afternoon :-O Cyde Weys 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Quadell's changes... I almost always link the birth/death years in an article, as well as years for important events in the person's life. I've written over a thousand articles and have done this in every one. So, I would disagree with Quadell simply because I don't want to go back and unlink all of those dates :) If Quadell wants to delink them, feel free. It's not important. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24

Can I ask that rather than discussing the same thing in two places, we discuss it just in one? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Quadell block is where I initially reported the block and I have responded to similar comments from others there. Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 20:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, I've proposed a compromise here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing date links for the time being

Given the ongoing debate raging about date link removal (of which you are well aware), which has not achieved any consensus or conclusion, it would be best if you stopped delinking dates for the time being. There isn't any delinking that you can do today that can't be done after the debate concludes in favor of removing solitary date links (if it does). What you are doing is, in a sense, deleting an article that clearly isn't speedy before it's AfD has concluded. You don't know what consensus is on this issue any more than I do. That the MoS supports your actions is commendable, but that portion of the MoS is currently what is in dispute and therefore it is a weak support argument until the debate has concluded. Respectfully, --Durin 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your frustration. But, if I might suggest, have some faith in m:Eventualism. This debate might rage for years. Who knows? In the meantime, there isn't any serious harm being caused by having the dates linked. It does not affect the functionality of Wikipedia and offers at worst minimal intrusion into readability. Five years from now, this will have been resolved. Maybe you, Ambi and Talrias won't be party to the solution of it. I don't know. But, it will have been resolved and at that point in time people can refer back to the solution.
• You know consensus is very important to Wikipedia. Of course, with ever larger groups building consensus is more difficult than ever. But, it's fundamental to our forward progress here. Neither you nor I can do everything here. We have to believe that somebody will eventually get around to it. So, if you don't get around to delinking every date that needs to be delinked in the project, it's no big deal. In fact, I doubt you could get around to all the 1 million articles and do it. Have faith that it will be done. In the meantime, do your best to help facilitate consensus on the issue.
• If you think Ambi and Talrias stand alone, then see if that's the case. Identify their core issues, and see if you can address them yet still delink the dates. Work towards the compromise. Please don't plow ahead with more date delinkings as it does nothing but fan the flames of the debate. In microcasm, it's kind of like the userbox war. It would have been very bad idea for someone to delete userboxes en masse during the height of that debate. Likewise here, it is not a good idea to plow ahead with more date delinkings...even if this debate takes another couple of years, given the notable lack of damage being caused to the project by having dates linked. --Durin 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For once, I entirely agree with Durin. A consensus does seem to be being reached on that talk page, and even if I don't entirely agree with it, it would seem to be going against automated mass-delinking. In the meantime, please have the courtesy to stop until that is resolved. If not, I'll have little choice but to start mass-rollbacking your edits. Ambi 04:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on seeing the articles you've been hitting, I've gone and rollbacked all the still-rollbackable edits since your block. As a courtesy, I didn't manually expunge the rest, but I will do so next time if you continue in this manner. Ambi 04:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)