User talk:Quadell/Archive 25

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

Non-free images of dead people

You have recently deleted an image from the Georges Garvarentz article without a reason. For one it would be nice if you could list the reason in the comment, for the benefit of the new users, unexperienced in the intricacies of the wikipedia copyright policies. Secondly the person whose article the image was illustrating has died in 1993, so the chance of finding his free image is extremely small. I believe the fair use rationale would be served by the following tag I found on your user page: {{subst:User:Quadell/dpfur}}. I couldn't find anything appropriate in the Licensing selection, when uploading the image, so I used (apparently incorrectly) 'Fair use image of a living person'. It would be extremely helpful if we had a 'Fair use image of a dead person' licensing category at the upload page. Ebeili 18:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the Georges Garvarentz image. I have restored the image, and improved the licensing information so that it shouldn't get nominated for deletion again. I apologize for the trouble, and I thank you for looking into this. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. How about a 'Fair use image of a dead person' licensing category at the upload page? Ebeili 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have permissions to change the upload page. You might ask at the village pump. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Dodgeball League

Hi there, I created this page and noticed that you deleted 4 images that was granted to be placed on the wiki page. Please restore these. My user name is Baosers. Thanks, Keith

Greetings. These images seem to come from http://www.vdldodgeball.ca which says at the bottom "VDL logo and content is copyright © 2005. Vancouver Dodgeball League. All Rights Reserved." If VDL owns the copyright to these images, we can not use them unless VDL releases them under a free license (such as the GFDL). I don't know of any evidence that they have been. Do you have any more information about the images, such as who the photographers were, who owns the copyright, etc? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the pictures I took.

I believe when I posted the images up, I put who the photographers are. As for the copyright, I am the director of Marketing and Technology for VDL and give permission to post these. Others can use for non-for commercial purposes. If you add the images back on, I can add additional information so that the details are more clear.

My email is keith@vdldodgeball.ca

Take care, and thank you for keeping wikipedia clean. Keith

That coin

That coin was definitely replaceable. In fact, Commons already had a free coin with the image of that king (not the same coin, but you know, what will be the difference between a George Washington quarter and a $1 bill in 2000 years?) It wasn't just a slavish duplication (to quote Bridgeman) of the coin, as I've noted at WP:PUI, which means we can't even argue the picture is ineligible for copyright. Image is now orphaned, I suggest quietly deleting it under G12. -N 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Higgs picture

I don't understand why the picture I got from the imdb site was deleted. Those pictures are free to get, so why can't I put it on here? In the text I even wrote where I got it from.

Greetings. That's a common misconception about free images. Yes, those images are "free", in the sense that you didn't have to pay for them. But they're not "copyright free", which is what we care about. The media companies still own the copyright to these images, and they still have the right to sue us for using the images without their permission. See free content for more info. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment requested

Hi, Quadell. Since you have been previously involved with this, could you comment on this ifd discussion. Thanks! --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg

I noticed that you added a fair use rationale for Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg. Could maybe specify for which article(s) the image would qualify as fair use? Thanks, Ilse@ 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you could, try to write more specific claims. For instance, instead of simply saying "It depicts a non-repeatable, historic event.", explain which event is depicted, why it's historic and why it's unrepeatable. Instead of simply claiming the the image is irreplaceable, explain why is the image necessary in the articles it's used in and why a free alternative (text or another image) couldn't do the job. Instead of claiming it doesn't competes with the copyright holder, explain how the copyright holder uses this image and how why it's not affected by our (specific) use. Instead of saying that it's "no larger than required for its use in articles", explain what was the criteria used to determine how small this image could be.

For examples of what I consider good rationales (coincidentally written by me ;) ), see Image:Life9enero.jpg and Image:PalestinianChildren.jpg.

I understand that you didn't uploaded this image and it wasn't your obligation to write a fair use rationale, but nevertheless you voluntarily wrote one. And I understand that you usually write a lot of rationales when cleaning up image logs, and boilerplate rationales are sometimes the way to go. I'm sure you understand that my suggestions are not to imply that you did a poor job at all.

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe a non-free image needs a unique purpose of use description for every use on Wikipedia. Although Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg is an interesting image that shows us what the Microsoft staff looked like in the late 1970s, the image has only a very general purpose of use description and doesn't specify any article in particular. I think the image should be removed from the eleven individual biographies, because in my opinion the decoration there is not necessary. I don't believe the image is discussed in Microsoft or History of Microsoft as is claimed in the purpose of use description. Do you agree with my conclusion from these observations, that the image should also be deleted from these two articles? – Ilse@ 09:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple points: The rationale doesn't describe how the image is used; it describes how it could legitimately be used. To be honest, I didn't even look at the articles it is in; I just wrote that if the image is used in these limited ways, then (I believe) the use of the image is justified. I think that, frequently, a separate rationale should be written for each use. But if the image's use serves the same exact purpose in multiple articles (or could only be justified if it serves the same exact purpos in multiple articles), then there's no point in copying-and-pasting. For instance, if the Microsoft image is acceptable in one person's biography, it should (in theory) be acceptable in all of their biographies -- so long as it is truly used in the manner described in the rationale. We may just differ in how we view rationales. Either way, if you don't think the image is being used in a given article in the way explained by the rationale, you would be justified either in changing the way the image is used by editing the article, or in removing the image from the article entirely.

I think I answered your question. I just woke up -- if I was unclear, let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One last point: you may at times find an image that could legitimately be used in an article, but only if it's used in a certain way, which it's not. In these cases, if the image is clearly useful and could solidly pass our criteria, it's much better to change the article so that it's correctly using the image (of course). But if the image isn't all that useful anyway, or if it might not really pass our criteria even if the use is changed, then it's probably better to remove it. I leave that up to your judgment in the case of the Microsoft Staffing pic. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sullivan Correctional Picture

I took the time to post two photos that I myself took from that Prison and it was removed. Why? When I uploaded them I specifically accepted that these photos are mine.

Is this fair?

(Medic18 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Greetings. I'm glad to hear that you created these photos yourself. The reason they were deleted was that (at the time) they did not have any information on who created them or how they were licensed. Please read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for information on how to tag your images to make sure they don't get deleted in the future.

I restored the images, Image:Sullivan Main.JPG and Image:Sullivan Annex.JPG, and tagged them as released under the GFDL. If this is incorrect, and you would prefer to release the images under a different free license, feel free to change the tag. I also put the images back in Sullivan Correctional Facility. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot! I have some more photos I want to put up. I hope I do it correct this time around...

(Medic18 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

If you need any help, just let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

HermesBot has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For the motor oil! HermesBot 04:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Seedbot says it was delicious! ;-)

Thanks for the award. Much appreciated. :) --S ^up? 10:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Your point in reminding me to be civil on a thread that hadn't been added to for seven months was...............? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PageantUpdater (talk • contribs)

The page had been commented on earlier today. The point is that calling someone "pigheaded" is a personal attack. Please try to keep a cool head, even when disagreeing with someone. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out the edit history... it was just someone adding in a missing tag... no new comments since December 2006.[2] I made that comment seven months ago... perhaps if you were going to respond you should have done it then, but doing it now is fairly redundant. PageantUpdater 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

NFCC #8

What's with the one-liners? El_C 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand. What one-liners? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's twice now you've NFCC#8-totally-ignored-me, why are you doing that? El_C 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you. I do think it's appropriate to reference specific points of Wikipedia policy when discussing how Wikipedia applies in a particular situation, and using a shorthand like NFCC#8 is quite standard. I'm sorry to hear that it bothers you, though. Is there something in particular you'd like me to respond to? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's start with what's wrong with invoking fair use for those images. I'd like the non-speaking-in-code answer, please. El_C 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Our non-free content policy requires that all non-free images pass all ten criteria in order to be used on Wikipedia. It's a tough hurdle to pass. Criterion #8 (called NFCC #8, or "non-free content criterion #8") says:

Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot.

Many good, useful images do not pass this criterion, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia as a result. Any image that I commented on saying "NFCC #8" is one that I feel doesn't pass this criterion. For instance, an image of text cannot possibly increase readers' understanding in a way that words alone cannot. Similarly, an image that shows what the text describes but does not convey any additional information does not pass this criterion. Hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a key document that's been recently declassified, can you address that? El_C 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That means that the image is legally and historically important. It still doesn't pass NFCC #8, though, and a non-free image has to pass all ten criteria to be used here. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. El_C 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It does, however, seem clear to me that you and your image-editor friends are out to delete these for purely ideological reasons. El_C 19:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your suspicions are unfounded. I'm not out to get you, I promise. :-) Actually, I disagree with the other image-editors as often as I agree with them. We'd make a really lousy cabal. Some of them, I don't even particularly like. The only thing we have in common is we all understand our image policy and we all want to see it enforced consistently. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather, I am yet another victim of your ideological fairuse battle, where notions of consistency amount to inflexibility and work toward restricting knowledge, epsecially from countries whose governments do not have a public domain policy. El_C 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm far from the only one. This fairuse crusade has reached the realm of the absurd long ago. El_C 20:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But since the only admins to review IfD are from the same ideological camp, it's a catch-22 and I'm wasting my breath. I'm unsure what satisfaction there is to gain from having people not know what these key documents said, or that they existed. El_C 19:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We're hardly in the same ideological camp. I'm no more in cahoots with, say, Abu badali or Howcheng, than I am in cahoots with you. I agree with each of them sometimes. I agree with you sometimes -- when you're right. ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So, if it was a US govt. document, it would be fine. This is your view of knowledge? El_C 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If it were a free image, it wouldn't have to pass our non-free content criteria. That's why we call them non-free content criteria. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well obviously. That wasn't the question, even literally. El_C 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

All images and documents produced by the U.S. government are not subject to copyright and are thus in the public domain. So if the U.S. government produced a similar document, it would be a free image. That's what I meant -- sorry if I wasn't clear. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The IDF only alows fairuse. Have you read the content enclosed in the images you favour deleting? El_C 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Hebrew, but I read your English translation. They're quite interesting, and I hope someone publishes them. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to learn how you weigh the cost-benefit of retaining the information (knowledge-wise) versus strict adherence to (what you, I should stress, percieve) fairuse. El_C 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The ends don't justify the means. Just because I like an image, just because I'd like for it to stay, I won't vote to keep it if using it violates our policy. Consider this analogy: if someone was involved in an edit war, and I agreed with him, but he violated the 3RR, I'd have to block him. It's the same here. I'm a fan of Michael Moore, and I hate the image Image:Manufacturing dissent.PNG. I would like to see it removed from Wikipedia. But it clearly passes all ten of our non-free content criteria, so voted to keep it when it was up for deletion. On the other hand, I really like the image Image:Litvinenko1 858 1164855320.jpg. I find it historically important and compelling. But it fails to satisfy NFCC #2 (that it's use not compete with the copyright holder), so I had to vote to delete. It's not about whether I like images or not. And "fair use" has nothing to do with it. It's about whether they conform to our policy or not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine there are grey areas in that vision whereby "following orders" (or policy) reaches its logical limits for you. How, then, do you draw the line? For example, did I waste my time translating those documents? If you were me, would you have bothered, knowing that they'd be used in fairuse capacity, meaning they'd be deleted eventually (those criteria didn't exist at the time, but I suspected someone were to make up some criteria to facilitate their deletion, and all fairuse images for that matter, none of are safe). El_C 20:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's critical to have the documents posted online, wouldn't it be better to post them at some other site that is not so concerned about non-free content? You could put them up at your own website. Videmus Omnia 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was an unexpected, though sadly not particularly useful, interjection. If. I don't have my own website. Anything else? El_C 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the documents are already on several external sites, including Ynet and, the Hebrew Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with an English transaltion. Can I hear back from Quadell, or a non-image editor, though? El_C 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what, you don't need to bother. Nice award, by the way. El_C 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question about gray area is a fair one, although the way you put your questions has been consistently provocative and unpleasant. Accusing me of being on a "fair use crusade", calling my position "absurd", and saying that my answers "make no sense", makes it particularly unpleasant to talk with you about these subjects. Sarcasm is especially unhelpful. I'm really not interested in spending my time on Wikipedia talking with you if you're going to speak to me in this way. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As said, you don't need to bother. There's a limit to the abuse I'm willing to be subjected to. El_C 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And here was me fantasizing that El C welcomed unlimited abuse. When I think of all the fun I had in store for us .... SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah! Quit that, you're making me hot. ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're another one in need of a good spanking; it's not for nothing that Wikipedia Review has called me the Lady of Pain. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be having pleasant dreams tonight! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem uploaders

By the way, you probably, in your image work, run into users who mistag non-free images as being released by them (under the GFDL or whatever). Please bring these to my (or another admin's) attention. Users who do this need to be warned and, if the behavior doesn't stop, blocked. Also, if a user repeatedly uploads images without sources or tags even after being asked to supply these, let me know about these too. Finally, if you come across a user re-uploading images that were deleted in-process (and not supplying additional information in the re-upload), let me know this as well. I'm not ban-happy by any means, but if a user should be blocked I have no qualms about being the one to do it. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure! --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

+tags

I think those +tags would only apply if the fair use +tags do not apply, which is not the case. I have provided adequate justification. PianoKeys 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just to say you thanks for the award. :) --Angelo 03:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See you at the next award ceremony, which should be, what, five minutes from now? El_C 04:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't like to see other users getting awards? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear so and so, thanks for toeing the party line! This award is intended to inflame an ongoing dispute by telling you how much I approve of your side versus the other side! Best of luck to you in the fight, where I support your side. Yours truly, NFCC#88888888888 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the award! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't an award, that was an illustration of how your award/s was seen. El_C 04:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To Angelo? You must see awards differently than I do. I intend them as polite notes, which is generally how the recipients see them. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll ^format any page however I see fit. I'll note the comments you removed for reference. As for your tag team handing out self-serving awards in the midst of a dispute, well, clearly I advise against it. El_C 04:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, El C, it's been fun, but I'm really not interested in talking with you any further. Please do not leave me any further messages on my talk page. Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the image from the wasp article?

Hi. usually when people remove a photo or content, they give an explanation; you removed a photo (a very nice photo) that someone had added to the page, but did not explain why - was there a specific reason? Dyanega 07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Image:WaspHR.jpg because the image had been deleted, so it was just a red-link. I had deleted the image because it is only available under a non-commercial-only license. Even though Wikipedia is non-commercial, we are a free content encyclopedia, and we only use material that can be freely reused by anyone, even for commerci'al purposes. According to our deletion policy, such images should be deleted by any administrator as soon as possible. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Award

Most people don't notice us bots quietly going about our tasks. Thanks for the drink. :) --AMbot 10:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Random stuff

Do you think this will forever disqualify me from running a bot? :-) I also saw some of the image discussion up above (the stuff about 10 criteria), and wondered what your thoughts were on the fair use rationales I wrote for the images in Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park? (I'm editing from an internet cafe IP address, but it should be obvious who I am - I'll try and remember to sign all these posts tomorrow...) 193.82.16.42 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a terrifying picture. Your code is great. :-) I have no idea who you are.

Regarding the rationale, it looks solid to me. I find it useful to use the {{Non-free fair use rationale}} template. I converted your rationale to use this template, just so it's nice and solid. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Award

Thanks for the award! To think, over 8 hours of untangling dab pages, and I am almost done the Johns! Burzmali 01:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image case

I'm unclear on how to deal with ancient images that have no fair use rationale and whose uploaders are gone or here infrequently. The speedy criterion explains that images without rationales uploaded after a point can be deleted after asking for a rationale, but we should ask for a fair use rationale from uploaders of old images. I don't even understand what the real difference is; we ask for a fair use rationale in either case. I hope that makes sense. Anyway, the example I am looking at is Image:Vukovar.jpg. It was uploaded in 2003 by someone who is rarely here. The image is copyrighted, but probably can have a valid fair use claim. Any advice? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to speak for Quadell, but I typically use the "dated dfu" template on the article image with my concern (i.e. no rationale). If the uploader is absent and the image is used, I put a caption on the picture in its article with the problem. That way anyone interested in the article/image can fix the problem. If nobody cares enough to fix it, the image gets deleted after a week or so. Videmus Omnia 02:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If I want to try to save the image, I add a rationale myself using the {{Non-free fair use rationale}} template. An example of use would be Image:Childwithhandgrenadedianearbus.jpg. It's the responsibility of the uploader to add a rationale, but if the uploader doesn't do it, anyone can. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Quadell's is the better way. Only use my way if you think the image is not really necessary or you don't really care. :-) Videmus Omnia 02:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

attempt to reinsert deleted image

pls. see this edit [3] user tries to link to the image previously deleted in Wikipedia and now uploaded to personal images database--Dacy69 13:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, that is perfectly acceptable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to a webpage where anyone, including me can upload image?!!! It does not withdstand Wikipedia guidance - [4] and falls under category of self-published sources at least--Dacy69 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don't know a lot about the details of our Wikipedia:Verifiability possibility, I'm afraid. You might find an admin who deals frequently with these issues and ask their assistance. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. —METS501 (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of image

Hi there. I noticed that you deleted, citing CSD 7, File:Ezio and booga.jpg but cannot see that at any stage I was given the required 48 hours notice as being the uploading editor? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the log, when you uploaded the image on June 27, the Wikipedia software automatically warned you that the image could be deleted for being "replaceable", and the image was automatically tagged as such. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As I know this is your passion...

Image:Bodies of victims of the massacre in the Sabra and the Shatila refugee camp.jpg has lost its source information, and appears to have come from a broken link. It represents a fairly controversial event and is quite crummy quality. --Knulclunk 12:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

PNG bot

I love your bot! I'd like to auto-upload some things via a bot, and I use perl. In your Request for Bot Authorization, you mentioned perl code for this. Where can I find it? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The PNG crusade bot is actually written in VB .NET. For a perl upload script, Mets501 recommended taking a look at Commons:File upload service/Script or contacting Tsca. If there's anything else I can do for you, please let me know. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot

In this recent edit to Isaac Stevens, the bot made some OK changes, but also made a few mistakes: 1) it altered the title inside a {{cite web}} template, 2) made a link around text that was already the page title in a link (in Fort Stevens (Washington, D.C.) it tried to make a new link around the "Washington, D.C." text), and 3) tried to make a link around text inside a category name, and 4) when replace the biohome template with the CongBio template, it removed the leading asterisk to indicate it was part of a list. Just thought you'd like to know :-) I've reverted those four things. Carl Lindberg 04:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to fix those. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 06:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Quadell, thank you for categorization of my pictures on Commons! That's really nice!!! Doronenko 08:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! My pleasure. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Abdulaziz al-omari alive.jpg

This image does not list whom the copyright holder is, but a random website source. Blah blah deleted in 7 days. Kotepho 12:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish I had a better source. :-( – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Gavriel Lipkind

Hi, You have removed three images I added to the entry Gavriel Lipkind. The images are free to be used by ANYBODY. It was approved by Gavriel Lipkind himself (who is a good friend of mine). Gavriel owns the images (and the label which sells the CDs). What needs to be done in order to be able to add those images to the entry? I have tried very hard to explain all that in the details of each image when uploading...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikibow (talk • contribs)

Greetings. When you originally uploaded the images, you indicated that Wikipedia only had permission to use them. I'm glad to hear that anyone can use them. The best thing for you to do would be to re-upload the images and give them a {{attribution}} tag (if that's correct). Also, be sure to specify a source. They shouldn't be deleted if you do that. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The images can definitely be used by anyone. But the copyright is still in the hands of Gavriel Lipkind, and there is no permission to change any part of the image in any way - only to copy it. So for example, anyone may upload these images to their website. They even may print them into a catalog or into a book while mentioning the photographer, designer as well as noting the copyright.

I hope that still means that I may upload the images to Wikipedia.

Also, what does "source" mean exactly in Wikipedia?

Thanks for your help!!

Kikibow.

I'm afraid that isn't compatible with the GFDL. All of Wikipedia is released under the GFDL, so any images we use have to be released under a compatible license. This means they must be free to modify by anyone.

"Source", by the way, is where the image came from -- whether it was found on a website, or scanned from a book (and if so, which book), etc. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thank you very much for your help!

Image

what does uncontested rfu (CSD I7) mean? Ctjf83 15:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"RFU" stands for "replaceable fair use". It means that the image is non-free, but that someone could create a free image to replace it. "CSD I7" stands for "Criteria for Speedy Deletion: Image 7". This means if you go to WP:CSD and look at criterion #7 under Images, it will explain the policy by which the image was deleted. It's cryptic, I know. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fuller Baptist Church Picture?

You removed a plain photograph of Fuller Baptist Church (don't know why, but this is getting silly now).

All I want is a picture of the church on the church page! Please let me know how this can be done. I posted the picture as a "fair use" picture of a buliding or something like that as I thought that's what it was!? Obviously not.

Yours getting every so slightly frustrated,

SS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soapshredder (talk • contribs)

Greetings. It was a "fair use" (non-free) picture, as you suspected. The trouble is, we can't use a non-free picture of a church on Wikipedia. Here's why:

An image is "non-free" ("fair use") if it's copyrighted and not explicitly released under a free license. Almost all the images you find on the Web are non-free. We can only use non-free images under a strict set of criteria. The first of these is, if a free image exists or could be created that could replace this image, then we can't use the non-free image. So a non-free photo of a church is replaceable, since the subject of the photo still exists and could be photographed by a Wikipedian. These images wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. If you would like to have a photo of the church, your best bet is to photograph the building yourself and upload it. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of image

Image Crave12.jpg

The image was deleted. This image was seen at SSW and is in many soap mags and was won at an raffle. Also the image was relased as a Media Image from ABC. I do not understand why this image is deleted and another image under the Evangeline Williamson page that comes from the same source is still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dede261 (talk • contribs)

Greetings. Yes this image is seen far and wide, but it's still copyrighted. Even if you own this copy of the photo, ABC still owns the copyright. We can't use it on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. The Evangeline Williamson image is also against policy, and I have tagged it for deletion. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Policiy?

On your user page in section 1.3 you have misspelled policy policiy. Just letting you know. --Al.Glitch 00:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image

You have deleted the same 1927 image of Wrigley Field from a Library of Congress source twice. What is so significant about this particular picture? --User:Zevonsky 2 July 2007

Greetings. Even though this image comes from the Library of Congress, it is copyrighted Chicago Daily News. (All photos taken before 1923 are in the public domain, but most photos taken in 1923 or after are copyrighted. We can't use a non-free photo of a stadium on Wikipedia. See the first criterion at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for further info. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed the non-free content criteria. I do not see a blanket restriction on the use of images of stadia. Rather, there are a set of specifically enumerated criteria, each of which the photograph I have used is or can easily be made in compliance with:

1. No free equivalent. There is nothing in the public domain with regard to that which is depicted on the photograph, because the change did not take place prior to 1923. Furthermore, there is no other photograph that has been made available on the internet or in any other publicly available way of any quality, acceptable or otherwise, the depicts the Cubs Park/Wrigley Field grandstand configuration as it existed between 1923 and 1927. Although Wrigley Field is still an extant structure, no current photograph can possibly depict what is shown in the photograph, which is exactly why it is being presented in the article in the first place.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. The original copyrighted material was in the possession of the Chicago Daily News, which is a defuct publication which donated its photographic negatives to the Library of Congress. It is doubtful that the use of a photograph from such a collection would replace the commercial purpose of the original, when the original has been made available for historical, non-commercial purposes.
3. (a) Minimal use. The photograph is merely used to visually depict an architectural feature which would otherwise take an excessively long amount of space to describe.
4. (b) Resolution/fidelity. This is not a particularly high-resolution picture in comparison with that available from the negative.
5. Previous publication. It is likely that the picture was published in an ephemeral issue of the Chicago Daily News in 1927. Other than that, there is no evidence it has since been republished in any book.
6. Content. The photograph meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is "encyclopedic".
7. Media-specific policy. All aspects of media-specific policy have been met.
8. One-article minimum. Photograph is used in one article, that of Wrigley Field.
9. Significance. The photograph significantly aids the understanding of the changes rendered to the park during 1922-23 as they remained prior to the major 1927-28 upgrade of the park. To describe this in words alone makes for an unnecessarily long dissertation.
10. Restrictions on location. The photograph is not located on any template or user page.
11. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following.

    (a) Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source. I can add the attribution of Chicago Daily News as the copyright holder, and thus this requirement would be easily met.

    (b) An appropriate fair-use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. I have added a fair use tag in accordance with this requirement.

    (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. I did not add this, but this can be added with no trouble.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevonsky (talk • contribs)

Points 2 through 11 are not disputed, so far as I can tell. The only concern with the image is NFCC #1, and perhaps how it interacts with NFCC #8. As you said, a new (modern) photo of the park could be created, but it would not show exactly what is in the 1927 photo. But is that information (what is unique to the 1927 image) significant in the article? Does the non-replaceable aspect of the photo pass NFCC #8? This is a difficult question.

I have restored the photo at Image:Wrigley Field Right Field Side 1927.jpg for now, but it still has a "replaceable fair use" tag. If you think the image should pass NFCC #1, follow the tag's instructions and add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image page, and then we can discuss on the image's talk page whether the image passes our criteria or not. (I deleted the image as "uncontested rfu", because the disputed tag was not put there.) All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. All of this also applies to Image:Wrigley Field 1929 World Series.jpg as well, which is also tagged as replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Kobzon article - image name "Kobzon with mic"

Quadell, you deleted this image but I am not certain why? I thought I made all the necessary tags when uploading it! This was a photo that I took. I am not claiming any copyright or anything like that. Frankly I don't care if anyone else uses it or any of the legal stuff, I just want the image back where I put it. The problem is that I am on holiday and don't have that file with me. Can you please put it back for me?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeko (talk • contribs)

Thanks for taking this photo, Image:Kobzon with mic.JPG, and releasing it under a free license! It wasn't clear at first that you had made the image. I have restored the image in the article. If you use image-tags with your uploads, you can avoid their deletion. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more details. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:CadetEnduro.jpg

Hi,

Why was this image deleted? What does (uncontested rfu (CSD I7)) mean?

Thanks ExtraDry 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. "RFU" stands for "replaceable fair use", and "CSD I7" refers to the policy (Image criterion #7) at WP:CSD which calls for "replaceable fair use" images to be deleted. I'll explain.

On Wikipedia, an image is "non-free" if it's copyrighted and not explicitly released under a free license. (Almost all the images you find on the Web are non-free.) We can only use non-free images under a strict set of criteria. The first of these is, if a free image exists or could be created that could replace this image, then we can't use the non-free image. In this case, someone could take a photo of cadets in this sort of situation and release that photo under a free license, so we can't use this non-free image. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Could that image be undeleted? Under current Australian Defence Force Cadet policy a free image can not be created. Thanks ExtraDry 04:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any law that would prevent someone from taking a photograph of cadets in training. If you could point me to such a law or policy, then the image could be seen as non-replaceable. Otherwise, it has to be deemed replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct to both responses. HQAAC and the various Regional HQs have provided appropriate consent to display the images on appropriate media. If you intend to use photos of any cadets in any publicly available media, you must have parental consent for each and every cadet in the photos as well as HQAAC consent which is only given to photos passed though this website.

That was taken from the AAC website. ExtraDry 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. . . but that only applies to those specific photos. You could still take your own photos of cadets and release them under a free license. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, That applys to all photos displayed publicly available media so to get a photo approved it must pass though HQAAC and to further add to the problem all the camps are held on defence bases which photos are not allowed to be taken on. ExtraDry 14:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bone Thugs.jpg

Take a look at this - image keeps getting deleted and re-uploaded over and over again. Videmus Omnia 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I warned the user. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What the Hell is your problem?

Those Kappa Mikey images where marked where they came from. You have no reason to delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.33.245 (talk • contribs)

Please see /image deletion, and remember to be civil. Also, you can sign your posts by using four tildes, like ~~~~. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate template

Your bot is duplicating some templates. example Gaius Cornelius 12:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Wizy poopy.jpg

Hello, I tried to fix the copywrite info on this image by reloading it, as this is my image, please tell me what to do to get the image back on the article. Thank you. --Adio11 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I restored the image, and tagged it {{GFDL}}, so that it won't get deleted. When you upload images, you'll want to add an image tag. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I finally figured out how to do it, so there is a new image there, thanks anyway!--Adio11 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem uploader

Hi, Quadell. You once told me I could count on you for dealing with "Problem uploaders". Maybe, just maybe, Tatyaa (talk · contribs) is one of those. Would you take a look at the issue? Thanks, --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg in Operation Wrath of God

User:Joshdboz is disputing the removal of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg from the article Operation Wrath of God. If you would like to comment please do so at Talk:Operation_Wrath_of_God#Use_of_Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg_in_this_article so we can get a broader opinion of whether use of the image in this article meets WP:NFCC. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Licensing question

Quadell, what license would apply to images from this website (state government of South Dakota)? The second to last paragraph states Anyone may view, copy or distribute information found at such locations for personal or informational use without owing an obligation to the State. The State makes no warranty that the materials contained within this information are free from copyright claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Just curious on how they should be tagged. Videmus Omnia 14:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's tricky. I think that's another case of "almost free, but not quite". It looks kind of like {{norightsreserved}}, but a couple points make me doubt it. First, are images considered "information" on the site? Second, is that site "such locations", referred earlier as "certain information"? Third, does the second sentence you quoted mean the site isn't claiming to be a source, but just a conduit, resulting in an nsd tag? Fourth, does the fact that the first sentence fails to mention commercial use mean that only non-commercial use is permitted? And finally, the permission is to "view, copy or distribute" -- is modification allowed? For all these reasons, I would tag the images {{nld}} -- although it's a shame. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good read - I had considered the modification aspect but the potential downstream commercial use got by me. I think I'll drop a note about this over at WikiProject South Dakota and maybe get in touch with the state's webmaster to see if anything can be done. The historical section of the site has some good visual resources that we could use, if only the licensing aspects were straightened out. Do you know of any other state government website that is either GFDL-compatible or PD-release? (I'm just being lazy by asking you before I start looking for myself.) Thanks again! Videmus Omnia 18:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe any state releases images under a free license. People thought California did, for a while, but some lawyerly-types dug into it and decided that the images weren't compatible with the GFDL. I wish some states would. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bummer. I'm just going to advise people to stick with the stuff that is clearly PD-old. Videmus Omnia 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

BAG delay

This BAG delay is getting quite annoying. Do you think they might get round to Polbot3 soon? Carcharoth 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope so! I'm trying not to criticize, though. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you think that's bad, you should see the trouble I'm having getting bot approval on Wikimedia Commons! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Twograms.jpg

Hey, how's it going. Sorry to bug you. I noticed this ANI report, and I noticed 21:24, 2 July 2007 Quadell (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Twograms.jpg" (uncontested rfu (CSD I7)) (Restore) Not sure what to do in this situation. Just thought that you'd want to know, and perhaps I can learn from this situation. I'm not sure if this qualifies as CSD G4. In my personal opinion, this is an image of living people, and is being used, not to discuss the artistic qualities of the physical photograph, but to simply illustrate the individual subjects of the photograph, and therefore could reasonably be retaken and licensed as free. So does this doesn't have to go through another RFU and wait 48 hours, does it? It can be speedily deleted?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I redeleted the image and warned the user. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Why was it deleted? It appears to be the only photo the subjects use for promotional purposes. Pepso2 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted for being non-free and replaceable. We can't use those sorts of images on Wikipedia. An image is considered "non-free" if it's copyrighted and not explicitly released under a free license. (Almost all the images you find on the Web are non-free.) We can only use non-free images under a strict set of criteria. The first of these is, if a free image exists or could be created that could replace this image, then we can't use the non-free image. For example, a non-free photo of a living celebrity or a particular model of car would probably be replaceable, since the subject of the photo still exists and could be photographed by a Wikipedian. These images aren't allowed on Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For exceptional sanity and rationality in discussing the images on the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article - two qualities that are generally lacking in discussions about that article. Videmus Omnia 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks!

Note of thanks

Hi, Quadell, just a note to thank you for the quick action in regard to the improper re-upload of deleted File:Twograms.jpg. JGHowes ^talk - 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have replaced it with an image which is proper. Pepso2 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks to the both of you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Zekosan (talk · contribs)

Uploading images under GFDL that are indisputably copyright infringements. Videmus Omnia 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Indubitably. Looks like Deskana beat me to the punch. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah - didn't know if you were online, so reported at WP:AIV. Thanks anyway. Videmus Omnia 01:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot

Hi Quadell! Just wanted to report that your Polbot is misbehaving, at least in my opinion. For example, it took the Echis coloratus page and placed it in a new category called Category:Echis coloratus, and then added tags for that category to the article and the two images that it contains. Now the article is in its own category and the images are in both the article and the category, which seems quite redundant. Or am I missing the point? --Jwinius 00:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean on Commons or en.Wikipedia? (I run Polbot on both.) It doesn't look like Polbot put the Echis coloratus page in any categories, either on Commons or on en.wiki. I'm not sure I follow. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I got linked here from the Polbot page on the Commons system, but wasn't aware that I was back on Wikipedia! :-)) So, that would be the Echis coloratus article and category on the Commons system. Actually, I just had another look and see that my original assessment was a little off: in the Commons, the Echis coloratus article is not actually in "Category:Echis coloratus", but there is a pointer to it there. The images from the article really are in the category. Anyway, it still looks just as superfluous and I don't see the point, so perhaps you can explain. Thanks! --Jwinius 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I see what you mean now. Yes, it does seem redundant, but that's intentional. I'll explain.

Several years ago, Commons went through a major turmoil: the Great Category/Articles Schism (GC/AS). Some users liked categorizing every image, and saw no need for articles at all, since looking at Categories could fulfill this role. Other users preferred to use articles, and did not think images should have categories. There were many uncompromising partisans on both sides, and ill feeling was rampant. There were lots of votes and lots of reversions, and it looked like we could never achieve consensus on the matter. Eventually, the only consensus position we could find was "use both".

In our policy Commons:Commons:Categories, you can see the compromise position we came to. The part I like to quote says:

Some users are of the opinion that when an image is included in a gallery article, it is sufficient to categorize that article. Others believe that each individual image should be categorized too. The consensus on this issue, as determined by vote, is that both systems are equally valid and should be used concurrently. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery.

So people who like to browse via categories can use that way, and people who prefer to use articles can use that method. Honestly, I'd prefer that consensus chose one way or the other. But that's where we are. I hope this makes sense. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! This solution sounds like it's in the same category as the European Parliament moving back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg all the time (waste of resources / needless complexity). Thanks for the explanation, though. --Jwinius 10:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes there are photos for which an article would be inappropriate, and some for which no category exists. I've always just stuck my uploaded photos in a category and crossed my fingers and hoped others will find it if they need to. What is really needed on Commons is a way to keyword photos. Techniques of Information retrieval may also be of interest. Carcharoth 14:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. I don't think Commons policy will change without a software change. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell

Dear Quadell,

>>We try to only use free images here, and that does not include images you find on websites.

Pls let me know how to discover whether an image is free or not?

>>Please only upload images you actually created yourself.

Right Sir!

Anyways, henceforth I will mention the correct source of the image from where I downloaded it. I am aware that if Wiki finds the given source is acceptable, then it is fine, or else it would be deleted. However, pls do not block me from editing.

Thanks Quadell,

Bye & Take care.

Best Regards,

--Tatyaa 02:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Read through Wikipedia:Image use policy. It should tell you everything you need to know. I won't block you unless you're being intentionally deceptive. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)