User talk:Quadell/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. This archive page covers comments 1651-1700, from roughly August 25, 2007 to September 13, 2007.

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Not sure what, if anything, to do about this. Just thought I'd point it out to you as an interesting case of attempting to avoid WP:NFCC by posing copyvio on Commons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what to do about that. I suspect that the whole "single login" think will make coordination easier, but I'm not sure. It takes Commons a long time to delete images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Oneill.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kenosis 18:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been overturned before I had a chance to respond. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I know you handled some of my requests before, Category:All images on Wikimedia Commons ready for deletion seems backlogged, if you have some time, could you visit there? — Moe ε 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Quadell, I'm stopping by your talk page with this message to state that I agree with you 100% on the matter that Christina Aguilera should not be listed on the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A...unless it is either truly evident (not her just liking to kiss women) that she is of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual or unless she has identified her sexual orientation as something other than heterosexual. You can read my further comments at the talk page that this discussion was moved to, of course. Flyer22 07:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about Mathewignash (talk · contribs). He has a long page full of image upload warnings, but he continues to upload scads of Transformer-related images. He's been informed over and over but continues to upload images that are replaceable, have bad sources or licenses, and he's filling up the articles with large numbers of non-free images that are in many cases violations of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. In at least one case (now-deleted Image:Bonecrusher-umicromaster.jpg), he changed the license from non-free to GFDL when the image was marked as replaceable. I would engage with him more directly but the huge number of warnings I've given him (I went through several Transformers articles and categories a while back) has probably poisoned the well. I'm thinking that his upload log is going to probably have to be audited. What do you recommend that I do? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well over 1000 image uploads and counting... Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a response on my page. Please also see Template:PD-Pre1964. We apparently are both presently thinking about the inevitable future needs of WP. ... Kenosis 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's rich, coming from someone whose idea of functioning in a community is to treat community norms with contempt. It's an abuse of your admin tools to threaten to block someone you are in a dispute with, just as it is an abuse of your admin tools to delete an image (against all consensus) when you are deeply involved in the deletion debate.

Try to get some perspective on things. Maybe you need to take a break from your crusade. Guettarda 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't treat community norms with contempt, and I'm not on any kind of a crusade. If you feel I have abused my admin tools, I encourage you to bring this up at WP:ANI or start an RFC to get further input from the community. I am confident that the community at large would conclude that I am using my administrative abilities responsibly and to the benefit of the encyclopedia. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an image when you are involved in the debate is an expression of contempt for community norms. Doing so when most of the participants in the discussion disagree with deletion is an expression of contempt for the process of consensus. It would be different if you actually understood the matter, but it's clear from both your comments and your actions that your understanding is woefully inadequate. Now you went further and threatened to block someone in the midst of a dispute. Once again, community norms forbid that sort of bullying abuse of admin tools.

You're right - I can't tell whether you are on a crusade, a power trip, or just acting with contempt for the community for the sheer joy of it. Regardless of the cause of your misuse of the trust the community put in you, it's your behaviour that's at issue.

• Do you really believe that it's ok to close an IfD and delete the image after you have participated in the deletion debate?
• Do you really think you should close a deletion debate when you don't understand the applicable copyright law?
• Do you really think that it's ok to threaten someone with a block when you are engaged in a dispute with them?

Think about your behaviour thus far. I am not issuing a threat. I am asking you to think. Is it really appropriate to reply "take it to ANI or file an RFC"? Do you really enjoy the sort of battlefield Wikipedia has become? Guettarda 22:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I'm curious. To which IfD debate(s) are you two referring? --Iamunknown 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Guettarda is referring to Image:Bjlata1.jpg, which I deleted when closing the IFD debate here, and which is currently up for deletion review here. The "threat to block" he refers to is presumably my note at User_talk:Jim62sch#Civility. I note that I have never quarreled with Jim62sch, unless quarreling can be done without a partner. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought he was referring to the O'Neil image, discussed here on this page, with links, in the section Who appointed you judge, jury and prosecution? but obviously only Guettarda can be certain, so perhaps it is better to wait for him to respond than to speculate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(taken off-line to private discussion)

The above discussion raises far more questions than it answers, and I notice that I, the accused, have yet to be contacted. Very strange.

Nonetheless, I'd still appreciate a response...[1] •Jim62sch• 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

in picture Image:Infernal promotional pic.JPG there are mentioned that it's picture of album. but from webside [2] I can't find this album. Are there some unknown situation in this picture.--Musamies 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe this is a picture from the inside of the CD art. Or maybe it was tagged incorrectly. I'm not sure. You should probably ask the uploader. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- you recently updated this image to say it was public domain as the copyright had expired. The online database you link to is a terrific way to find out if material from 1950 on is public domain; thank you for putting the details in. I've already marked a couple of others as PD, having checked that site.

However, I was wondering if you happen to know any more about pre-1950 copyrights. For example, I have some magazines that go back to the late 20s. If a 1930 magazine were to have had its copyright renewed in 1957, presumably it would have had to have it renewed again in 1984, because 1957 predates 1964. Is that correct? So if I search 1984's entries for copyright renewals, and don't find them, can I assume that the copyrights have expired for 1930 publications?

Thanks for any help. And if you can't help, thanks for updating that image with the details of that site -- I'll certainly be using that. Mike Christie (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was delighted to find that search as well. Thank User:Kenosis; he's the one who brought it to my attention.

I don't think a 1957 renewal of a 1930 1929 copyright would have had to be re-renewed, but I'm not sure. I do know that it would have to be on record in 1957, though. For pre-1978 renewals (pre-1950 copyrights), the renewals are all online in two different database lookups. (Book copyright renewals can be found in one search, and all others can be found by searching through long text files of transcriptions of copyright forms at a different site. All the details are at User:Quadell/copyright, and I can help you with lookups if you have questions.)

There are a few caveats to consider: A magazine cover might use a photo that had been previously copyrighted (in a book, say), and that copyright could have been renewed even if the magazine's copyright was not. Usually a magazine used its own photographs, for obvious reasons, but it's safest to look for a "cover image used by permission of. . ." note somewhere in the magazine's first few pages if you have doubts. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Images probably in the public domain.

Finally, note the specific copyright tags {{PD-Pre1978}}, {{PD-Pre1964}}, and {{PD-US-not renewed}}, which may be useful in these cases. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded an image for a congressional candidate for district 22 in Texas named James D. Squier. You deleted it even though the licensing text field stated clearly that the image is a "campaign photo released to the media by Judge Squier's "Squier for Congress campaign". Please excercise caution in the future before deleting anything or follow proceduce exactly according to Wiki policy. Frivilous misuse of Wiki administration policy can be grounds for removal from the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcn0209 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid our policy doesn't allow us to use non-free portraits of living people on Wikipedia. Even though this campaign photo was released to the media, there is no evidence that the copyright-holder has waived the copyright or explicitly released the image under a free license (such as the GFDL). Instead, we can only use "free" photos of such people. If you'd like, you could write to Squier's campaign, asking if they would release an image under the terms of the GFDL; some users have had a very good response from trying this. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why have you just deleted an image despite the specification of exact, specific details of its origin, the terms specifically laid out for that collection of images by the website source ( via email ) , and that it comes under exactly the same terms as the previous photo on that page ( as it comes from the same explicitly allowed source page) ? There is absolutely 100% certainty that this image has been permitted for use on wikipedia - please read the details. this is the earlier image , with the source details ( and permission) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IannisXenakis1975.jpg

and this is the source for both images, not only the same website but the same page!

http://www.iannis-xenakis.org/photofilm.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lr667d (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I don't know what picture you're referring to, but all the images I've deleted in the past hour or so have been tagged as "non-commercial-only" images. Image:IannisXenakis1975.jpg says that anyone may use the image (even for commercial purposes) so long as the source is credited, but I suspect the image you're referring to had a tag saying that only non-commercial use was allowed. If anyone can use an image, even for commercial purposes, then give it the same image tag as the other image and there shouldn't be a problem. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you deleted my image for Sohodolls and I was wondering your reasoning for doing that. Thanks, Rockinfreakapotomi 22:53, 29 August 2007

Hello, Rockin. Thanks for contacting me. Wikipedia's image policy is very strict about non-free images. (A "non-free" is one that's copyrighted, and hasn't been explicitly released under a free license. Most publicity shots are non-free.) According to the first criterion at our policy, we can't use a non-free image if it would be possible for someone to create a free one to replace it. In practice, this means that if a band is still together and still touring, then we can't use a non-free publicity shot. Sorry. We can use photos that someone takes at a concert, for instance, if that photo is released under a free license. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying everyone has treated you perfectly... - And yet, not a breath of a hint of a whisper of a suggestion to User:VigilancePrime, whose rudeness touched this off. I'm supposed to take you seriously why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 01:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, can you help me find the correct licensing tag for this issue. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Quaddell. I'm sorry to bother you, but I saw you put a NPA template on Jim62Sch's page. If you don't mind being asked, what was that about? I hope you don't think I'm being offensively inquisitive. I've interested myself in this "templating the regulars" business. Frankly my first thought was it was some mistake or accident. Did you mean to post something else? Mind you, I don't know if Jim has committed personal attacks. We don't edit in the same areas, so I wouldn't. I'd be grateful if you'd let me know what this is about, and give an example or two of the attacks themselves. If not as diffs, then at least descriptively and by quote: on what page, and what part of that page? Reading the dialogue that follows the warning on Jim's page, he seems quite upset about it (I would be, too, I guess) and he doesn't seem to be aware of having attacked anybody. (Did you see that?) That's where I got nonplussed. Surely he should be told? I can't believe you'd intend to post an enigma on him. Best, Bishonen | talk 08:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC).

Look further up this page at #Who appointed you judge, jury and prosecution?. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Harsh criticism is not a personal attack. It is harsh criticism, and rather than respond to the criticism with his reasoning, Quadell has chosen (in the same section to which you refer) to tell Jim he must escalate the situation before he, Quadell, will deign to discuss. This is bad enough. But if that's why he templated Jim, then Quadell has compounded the error of not discussing controversial actions with concerned parties, and escalating the situation, with threatening someone with whom he is in a dispute with blocking - the template he pasted contained a block warning. I fail to see how this improves Wikipedia or promotes collaboration or mutual respect and consensus-building. Of course, you could be completely wrong about what Quadell was referring to as a "personal attack" because so far he has failed to clarify in spite of multiple good-faith requests from several parties. Without that, no one actually knows what Quadell was talking about. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely positive that the above post was the post (or the only post) to which Quadell was referring. But in my opinion, blatantly accusing someone of "admin" abuse", "wikilawyering", (or, incidentally, referring to them as a "dick") is at the very least not particularly civil and doesn't do much to encourage thoughtful collaboration - it only encourages escalation. I've been working with Quadell for a few months now, and, with the possible exception of Phaedriel, he's probably one of the most civil people on Wikipedia (and certainly one of its most long-standing and prolific contributors). Harsh language such as has been used in this conversation definitely isn't warranted, I encourage all to consider the impact of their words. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How fortunate for me that I never called anyone a dick. Clearly, you are delighted as well that I AGF'd and told Quadell that I thought he was not trying to be a dick, and gave him the chance to explain his otherwise inexplicable templating of someone highly productive and respected, with whom he was in a dispute. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what outcome you are looking for here. The deletion in question was apparently overturned at deletion review. In my opinion, the whole issue was made into a personal one when it didn't need to be. What further outcome is needed? Are you looking for some kind of apology? Is Jim going to apologize for his harsh language? I doubt that either is going to happen, and is it really a worthy use of time and effort to push the issue? In any event, I don't see continuing the conversation on user talk pages as productive. Please, if anyone needs any further action on this, take it to dispute resolution. Otherwise, just drop it, please. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Videmus about Quadell. I disagree with his use of a template on Jim's page, and never do it myself. However, Jim does do it, so either he doesn't think it's offensive to do it, or he is deliberately offensive himself when he does it. (I make no judgments here as to which is the case, though I may have a private opinion on the issue.) I was not on Jimbo's side in his disagreement with Guettarda over WP:ATT. Nevertheless, I did gasp when I saw Jim leaving a message for him which started with "Welcome to Wikipedia".[3] And more recently, this showed up on my watchlist. There are several people who think it's rude, insulting, patronising, provocative, and unhelpful to use templates which inform experienced editors of policies which they certainly know to exist. But someone who does it himself can not complain if it's done to him.

I'm not keen on leaving "warnings" anyway, even without the templates, as I think they often inflame situations, and are unlikely to lead to someone becoming more civil. It's probably better to ignore instances of incivility, in my view. However, since the issue has come up, and someone is now getting criticised as if his warning was utterly unjust and hurtful (not just for the fact of having used a template), I'd point out that in when I (appropriately) use a template warning on an IP, say for vandalism, I don't normally specify which act of vandalism I'm referring to, if it has occurred across multiple pages. In addition to the post above #Who appointed you judge, jury and prosecution?, there's also "Excuse me your highness, but who the hell are you? I'm afraid I don't recognise either your pedigree or your authority."[4] It's not a big deal and I'm sure Quadell can deal with it. (But I'm also sure Jim can deal with having a template left on his page!) And if calling Abu badali "Abu baba" was done on purpose, and was not a slip of the fingers, [5] then I'd say Quadell (who was involved in that discussion) probably wasn't very impressed with that either. I certainly wasn't. Though I'd rather he hadn't used a template, I do feel that Quadell has dealt rather calmly with some unnecessarily provocative posts, and his use of a template is a rather minor peccadillo, which doesn't need to be treated as an act of gross incivility to someone who, himself, finds the use of a template very hurtful. Sorry to disagree with Bishonen and Puppy. I have the highest respect for both of you! ElinorD (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Videmus: As you have apparently missed this highly important point, we are in dispute resolution - the first step is always to attempt to work things out directly with the user - who in this case has so far declined to participate in any productive fashion, but we are still trying. You are also conflating several separate issues, and I point to you that the image deletion is one issue, which Quadell has declined to discuss, stating very clearly he prefers instead to escalate the situation; and the templating issue, which combines accusing someone of NPA, threatening to block them, etc., without offering any specifics of what he thinks is the problem - also stating, at least to Guettarda, that he'd prefer to escalate. Now you've jumped on the bandwagon and you have also advised us to escalate the situation. Are you saying that although Quadell has apparently made this a personal issue and escalated by his template with block warning which he so far has refused to clarify, you don't think there is any chance at all he will ever explain what he was talking about unless forced to? Because I have re-read your post several times, and that is the only meaning I can get from it. If that's what you meant, then I should state I have a higher opinion of Quadell than that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) ElinorD: The template on Jimbo's page was clearly a joke. The issue is not using templates. The issue is templating the regulars, using a template with a block warning, no less, all while in a content dispute (and no it doesn't matter who is right in the dispute, as you well know) + Quadell not saying what he's talking about. I've templated IPs and newbies too, and if they ask "what are you talking about?" I give a diff, as do you - I've seen you do it. Quadell has responded to "what are you talking about" by telling people to take it to rfc or an/i. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(Answering Bishonen:) Greetings. I don't mind being asked at all.

I first ran into Jim62sch at this edit, in a debate on whether a certain image was known to be in the public domain or not. Several users had offered their opinions and reasoning of why the image was PD, and had done so civilly and without casting aspersions on the nominator. Jim wrote in agreement, but was more personal, dismissive, and accusatory: "Abu needs to look a little more closely into these matters before wasting eveyone's time. The image is PD, get over it". His comment on another image was similar: "Enough with this nonsense. Learn about copyright law before you nom every damned picture on Wikipedia." IFD lends itself to unfriendliness and overstatement, unfortunately, so I didn't think much of it -- but these statements were, in my opinion, unhelpful (in that they offered no new information or argument), but seemed intended primarily to disparage the nominator. When someone responded, asking him to "Please provide a reason to keep the image rather than commenting on the nominator's motives", he indicated that he wouldn't unless there was a specific policy requirement to do so. He next responded to an argument I had made by saying "Excuse me your highness, but who the hell are you?" This seems patently uncivil to me. His characterization of another argument as "pompous, unexplained peroration" was similarly a description that seemed mildly insulting and designed to cause defensiveness.

Now I'm a big boy, and I've been subject to much worse. None of his statements were on the blatant level of calling someone a pedophile or cussing someone out. But there was an obvious pattern of sarcasm and insult that makes Wikipedia a less effective and inviting place to help out. That's the whole point of our NPA and AGF and CIVIL policies -- not that we should all be nice because we're all happy-sunshine people, but that it helps make this encyclopedia function better when we're free to discuss complex issues with a minimum of defensiveness and personal issues getting in the way. If someone is blatantly abusing other editors, then he's blocked, and the problem usually goes away fairly quickly; but if someone has a habit of continually making low-level personal attacks, insulting others in a more ambiguous way, or being sarcastically uncivil without being egregiously offensive, it's more difficult for the community to deal with. In my opinion, Jim's recent comments such as this ("As for the rest of your rather odd musings, I'd suggest that you seek help. I'm very concerned: whenever I see someone in obvious mental torment and disarray I can but hope they seek proper treatment.") or this (where he says that another editor's comments seemed "stupid"), or this (where he argues why he should not assume good faith, and refers to others as "mental homunculi"), fall into this category.

In these cases, the way the system is supposed to work is that an editor who sees such incivility leaves a note on the user's talk page, reminding him to remain civil and keep cool and refrain from personal attacks. If enough people feel that there's a problem, an RFC is filed, noting situations where different users tried and failed to resolve the situation. If the behavior is indeed a problem and doesn't change, eventually mediation or arbitration is used. (I know, I'm not telling you anything you don't know.) But the process doesn't work if no one is willing to tell the user he perceives the behavior as uncivil. That was my intent by leaving the {{Uw-npa2}} note on Jim's talk page. Not to put him on trial, or get into a debate with him about whether a given statement was improper or not, but just to let him know that I've perceived several of his recent comments as uncivil, and I'd like to ask him to tone down the rhetoric. Some people believe standardized templates are the best way to do this, while others disagree in good faith. I note that I did not threaten to block Jim, and I would not personally make that block. The warning does state that such behavior can result in a block, and indeed some administrator might choose to block Jim62sch for incivility -- but I am not volunteering, since he could quite reasonably see a block from me as being a personal vendetta.

(I had assumed, incorrectly, that Jim62sch was relatively new on Wikipedia when I left him that note. He's actually been around for years and done a lot of great work in that time. I should have checked.)

Now some users are able to forestall incivility warnings by overreacting to any criticism, demanding proof of incivility, asking friends to confront the person, and generally making life as difficult as possible for anyone who questions their behavior. An uninvolved admin who witnesses incivility from such a person is likely to think "this person deserves a NPA warning, but I'm not going to bother issuing one myself, since I don't want to have to put up with the headache that will inevitably follow." I wish this weren't true, but it is. For this reason, people in the category I mention above tend to be warned only by those they have been in a personal conflict with, or by especially resilient uninvolved admins who don't mind the backlash. I myself have been accused of incivility and "dickishness" merely for placing a NPA notice on Jim's talk page; but as someone once correctly noted, "an awful lot of Wikipedians are stretching the concept of civility to include a prohibition on criticism." It isn't uncivil for Jim (or anyone else) to criticize me, but criticism can be leveled uncivilly, as I believe Jim has done frequently.

It was not my original intention to go through diffs and provide an exhaustive listing of where Jim has been rude in various occasions (but several people have requested, so I provide.) It was rather my intention to say "Many of your comments have seemed uncivil to me lately. I'd like to ask that you assume good faith, and refrain from being rude even when you disagree with people." (I wish, in retrospect, that I'd said that, rather than leave a template.) If I'm completely off base, and Jim has merely criticized and disagreed with others without being rude or offensive, then my note indicates nothing except that I have a perception problem. But if he repeatedly gets requests to be more civil, then the problem might lie with him. I don't apologize for leaving a note, even though I do regret having used a template. I hope this answers your question. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate an explanation of "Now some users are able to forestall incivility warnings by overreacting to any criticism, demanding proof of incivility, asking friends to confront the person, and generally making life as difficult as possible for anyone who questions their behavior." Are you implying that is what has happened here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that he's implied that, he made a general statement. KillerChihuahua, please, what outcome are you looking for in this conversation? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I'd like a straight simple answer to a straight simple question. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Jim has overreacted to criticism, demanded proof of incivility, and attempted to make my life difficult for leaving him a message. Your interpretation may vary. I have no idea whether he has asked any of his friends to confront me or not -- you may be in a better position to answer that than me. I'm certainly not accusing you. My point was that this does happen, whether it has happened in this case or not, and that makes some administrators less likely to leave messages than they might otherwise be. Does this answer your question? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee, you template him with NPA/block warning, he says What? Where? and you characterize this as "demanding proof of incivility"? Any administrator should be able to furnish diffs for NPA if they template someone for NPA. I do; every admin I know does. Somehow you're immune to that, and it is an unfair "demand"? And no, it doesn't answer my question, which was Did you mean to imply that happened? Well, did you??? Its a Yes or No question, no need to offer commentary on whether you think he overreacted or not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My, this is a lively discussion! I want to respond to something KillerChihuahua said. I did not say that I prefer to escalate the situation, and that's not my position. In the well-discussed "Who appointed. . ." post above, Jim disagreed with my decision, stated that he thought I was engaged in admin abuse, and threatened to escalate the situation to "if necessary, arbcom". I simply responded by saying he was free to do so. Which he still is, if he feels it would be productive. I, myself, do not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you have not ever said the precise words "I prefer to escalate the situation." OTOH, if a guy goes on a spree of beating people senseless with a baseball bat, it is unnecessary for him to say "I have violent tendencies" for him to have made it clear that he does, indeed, have violent tendencies. If a guy takes in every stray he sees, taking them to the vet and working diligently to find homes for them, and volunteers at the local animal shelter, and gives all his spare money to the Humane society, he does not have to say "I care for the plight of homeless animals" to have made it clear that, in fact, he cares for the plight of homeless animals. I fail to see your point. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that I haven't escalated the situation, threatened to escalate the situation, or shown any inclination to escalate the situation. Jim has. So when you accuse me of "prefer[ring] instead to escalate the situation", it isn't founded. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? You told Guettarda you "encourage you to bring this up at WP:ANI or start an RFC"[6] without even bothering to answer his concerns. You declined to discuss things with Jim when he asked (regardless of how he asked) and told him basically 'go ahead, I'm not working this out'. And you know what you wrote me in your email. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any comment to make on Jim's actions? Or is Quadell the only one who should be required to provide an explanation for a (pretty minor) perceived infraction? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, since you've asked. Jim was rude. This has no bearing on how Quadell has acted since, or his refusal to explain what he was calling a personal attack until Bishonen asked. Why did he blow off everyone else? Why did he blow of Jim? If I tell someone they've made a personal attack, and they ask for a diff, they get one. They need to get one. They cannot possibly discuss improving their behavior, or how their posts appear to others, without knowing what it is which offended. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, it seems like you've gotten everything you've asked for. You asked for diffs and links, you got them. You asked for explanations, you got them also. Would you perhaps also like a shrubbery? :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a good shrubbery. I like the laurels particularly,... but there is one small problem. I am still waiting for an answer to the question I asked above. There are one or two other minor points, but this has become so convoluted I'm not sure they'd be worth pursuing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more drama than I would ordinarily expect from a user-warning (involving at least four administrators), and feels to me like it's gotten out of hand. I've asked for outside opinions at WP:AN/I, and I hope that this situation can be diffused amicably with outside assistance. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to your reply to me above.) Wow... dear me. I see what you mean, Quadell. No, I don't think you have a perception problem. I hope Jim62sch won't think it condescending if I say some of those diffs you provide look to me like plain wikiburnout on his part. I guess your note on his page wasn't an enigma to people who've been following those debates closely, then... though it sure was to me. Thanks for your detailed answer. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC).

I would like specific information on why the nasser photo was deleted. Jean M. Temple, MBA (Ms.) Pan Arab Union For Peace Jean M. Temple, MBA (Ms.) 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which Nasser photo you're referring to. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your memory is as selective as a politician. The image I emailed you about.

Could you please explain why this image was deleted? It was made very plain on the talk page that there was no possible alternative image, and nobody made any contrary argument. Since the stated basis for the deletion was that another image could be used instead, repeated and substantiated statements that this was the one and only such image should at least have been addressed, not high-handedly ignored. (Maddeningly, I don't even know that it was you who deleted it - not only the image but the whole history has disappeared without trace. If it wasn't you who deleted it - though it was you who tagged it for deletion - I'd be pleased if you could forward this comment to whoever was responsible.) Vilĉjo 23:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. If the tiara still exists, then it could still be photographed, and the new photograph could be released under a free license. That's why the photo is replaceable. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Di-replaceable fair use}} states the criterion as "… a free image might reasonably be found or created …" (my emphasis). "Reasonably" is not at all the same as "conceivably" or "just possibly". The now-deleted image talk page documented the fact that this was the sole image ever released of the tiara in its 104-year history, and there is no reason to suppose that any other image will be released in the future. It's hard to believe that anyone could read those facts and still hold that "a free image might reasonably be found or created". Vilĉjo 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a section "Determine significance" to User:Ilse@/fairuse, I thought you might be interested. – Ilse@ 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Very useful, thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a note to my home page explaining why an image I uploaded was deleted. When I uploaded the image (a photo of football coach Jim Hanifan, I was under the impression that publicity shots could be used, but now I understand the policy. I appreciate your taking the time to let me know, rather than simply deleting it with no explanation. Anson2995 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you have another look at the articles your bot created and tagged with {{Cichlidae-stub}}? I've fixed another 168 of these on a taxon-by-taxon basis, but it looks like there's about another 100 or so that are at least questionable. (i.e., anything with a taxobox "familia" field of something other than some variant on "[Cc]ichlid(ae)".) I don't want to mass-retag lest there be something going on I'm missing, or to hit articles that have nothing to do with Polbot; and looking at individual taxons is getting to the point of diminishing returns. I notice a large number of the ones I've already fixed are either genus articles, or species that've been moved to other titles, so perhaps the intervening edits are what were thwarting your earlier re-run of the bot on these. Alai 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you left me a note about an image I uploaded asking me to write out a rationale to prevent you from deleting it. I don't think that's effective use of the ever-diminishing time I spend on Wikipedia. I disagree with the copyright paranoia that's engulfed Wikipedia and I think it's really starting to bite with a majority of images which have a fair use argument being removed. Perhaps your time would be better spent adding rather than taking away. However you choose to behave, I simply won't be wasting my time justifying fair use as I tagged it as fair use when I originally uploaded it, and I'm also not going to discuss it beyond what I've said. Thanks for your time. Sanguinus 11:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you disagree with the Wikimedia Foundation's official statement requiring that each non-free image have a fair use rationale. I'm sorry to hear that you're not willing to add rationales to the images you have uploaded. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your changes to Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg. I am not an expert in US copyright law, but this seems unlikely if not debatable. One could argue the way the security camera is set up is creative. See also the template deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 23. Do you know of any legal opinion/commentary which confirms this? Garion96 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Who would claim copyright? (I don't know of any case law, but I'm under the impression that works created by machines, without human input in the actual content, can't be copyrighted.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could remember where I saw it, but someone showed a ref somewhere that this was law in the EU (or that copyright expired after a short period - 5 years? - on this type of material). I don't remember seeing anything on U.S. law regarding this, though. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I bet Durin would know, but unfortunately . . . :-( ElinorD (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't has to claim copyright of course, one simply has it or not. Also, is this image totally without human input? A human decided where to put the camera. True, this is nitpicking but I just don't think without any reference the US law (case law or commentary) we can use this argument. Garion96 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As of 2002, the question was apparently still unsettled. See the brief discussion of security cameras and web-cams in [7]. nadav (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For now I changed it back to a non-free image tag. Interesting case actually, I looked for more info on this but the only article I found was this [8] article from New Zealand which had a link to the following court case.[9] One of the Diana/Fayed cases. It does look that, in UK law anyway, footage from security cameras is copyrighed. Garion96 (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced that existing U.S. Supreme Court rulings preclude unstaged security camera footage from being copyrighted. A security person does decide where the camera is installed, but this is a practical decision and not a "creative act". The intention is to record unscripted action, and not a performance or work in a fixed content. It fully lacks the "creative spark" (as the court described it) to qualify for copyright protection. There would undoubtedly be commercial pressure on the courts to grant protection to these uncreative works, but I don't see any way that a court could rule that way without blatantly ignoring precedent and contradicting the very constitutional definitions that allow copyright in the first place. However, I can't find any clear court cases on this, and I concede that it is possible that, hypothetically, a court could (wrongly) rule that such footage is copyrighted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is getting hit with lots of vandalism, I added it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but a bot deleted my addition in a matter of minutes. I thought I'd put something here as a backup.Xpanzion 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This image has been deleted; under which of your three "questions" for image deletions did was it classified? I believe I had specified a copyright inclusive enough to allow most any uses. If you think it cannot be re-uploaded on with any copyright tag (and, if so, how / which one?), can you provide me a way to at least recover the image for my own purposes? (I don't think I've a copy anywhere on my network). Thank you in advance for helping me! --LoganK 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. The original image was uploaded by User:NraButtons, and you added licensing information. On Wikipedia, we can only use "free" images for these types of cases, which means images where anyone is free to reuse the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without pre-authorization. You stated that the image could be used so long as "the user of the image obtains explicit permission from Kira-blue-eyes (on DA) / Rachel Steinman as to the use of the image, the user of the image links back to the creator, and the user of the image does not tamper with the image in any way (i.e., signature removal or color tampering). Altering of the image will result in a removal of this image from free-use copyright, and possibly removal of the image from Wikipedia." Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot use images with such restrictive licensing, and it was deleted according to an "Images For Deletion" process here.

Are you the creator of the image? If so, then you are free to license the image any way you want. If you're willing to license the image under a free license (which gives anyone permission to copy, modify, or even sell this image, so long as they credit you as the author), then we can use it. If not, then I'm afraid Wikipedia can't use it. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it seems you are pretty well versed in the non-free images area of Wikipedia. Could I please request your comment at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion for the images AnneRobinson.JPG and SimonCowell.JPG that I nominated. I withdraw my nomination for Simon Cowell, but the Anne Robinson one seems to be a publicity photo, and not sure what is the official status on those. I also request your intervention with the edits user Tratare has made on that page, blanking the discussions from the page, and blanking the image tags from the images as well, regardless of the status of the images' nominations. And the edits to my user page as well, using the vulgarity and being upset that I didn't immediately answer him and upset that I didnt blank the items in question myself. Thanks for you valuable assistance! :) Ejfetters 09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why'd you delete my Image? This was uploded, by me, to show how I look like. If I didn't what good would that be. I do not think you really do the right thing deleting images, users complain you deleted it with no very good reason. User:Mr.Radzilla the one with no PICTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8:52 (UTC)

was belong to me .Please protect it .-- 3210  ^(T) 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

These images were deleted because they did not have an image copyright tag to indicate whether the image is copyrighted or not, and if so, whether the image is released under a free license. (Common free copyright tags include {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL}}, and {{cc-by}}.) If you reupload the image with an accurate tag, it shouldn't be deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir my English is not very well. It is PD-self material. Could you give it back.

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-06 Linda Hamilton. This is why I've avoided images used on two pages up to now; if it was just used on the Linda Hamilton page it could be RFU'd but it's also used, appropriately, on the Sarah Connor page. This was a trial balloon and naturally it gets bumped up to arbitration right away. Anyway, thought you'd be interested.—Chowbok ☠ 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. I've been working my way through Category:Disputed non-free images as of 28 August 2007, and have just Image:Sam Clark.jpg left now. It's tagged as FU disputed, but in fact, the uploader tagged it as PD-self. I have some doubts about the PD-self. Some of his other uploads are tagged as PD-self, but he gives an URL of the website where he found it. Should I go ahead and delete? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It apparently comes from Neighbors, if the caption is accurate, and cannot be PD-self. Since it would fail NFCC#1, it's fine to delete. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have spotted that. I didn't look at the caption. Not sure what to do about the other uploads. I think I'll leave it for tomorrow. Actually, I often come across images with which are tagged with {{nsd}} and find that the uploader had in fact tagged them with {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. I'm never sure whether the image patroller doubted that the uploader really was the copyright holder, or whether they just didn't see the tag, and were looking for an explicit statement saying "I took this photo with my Sony camera on 14 June 2007". Some of them are obviously not PD-self, as they're often screenshots, etc. But when I'm in doubt, I tend to leave the decision for a more experienced admin. In the case of a genuine PD-self, is it sufficient just to use that tag, or are you expected also to insert a sentence saying that you took the photo? ElinorD (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If the uploader says "{{PD-self}}", that's good enough, unless there's evidence the tag is incorrect. (Sometimes it's worth looking at the history though. In the Sam Clark image, for example, the uploader originally tagged it as "SomeWebsite", and then changed it to PD-self, which is a little suspicious. So sometimes the editor adds a tag after it was marked as disputed.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to take a look at this for me: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_September_6#Image:Pavarotti_as_Rodolfo.jpg My understanding is that such images are acceptable fair use if they portray the artist in one of his most notable roles and are located next to the relevant article commentary. I believe it boils down to this: "If fair use images are acceptable for movie actors in notable roles which are subjected to critical commentary in an article, is there any reason why images of opera stars in notable roles would not also be acceptable". Thanks for your time .D7240 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you rapid response. D7240 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about your opinion on the appropriateness of the licensing for Image:CardoS.jpg. I understand what Gilabrand means (he took the picture of the mural), but does that give him the right to attach his own license to the image, which entirely of the mural? (By the way, are you still the Image policy guru or am I imagining things?). -- tariqabjotu 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the licensing is incorrect. This photo is a derivative work of the original painting, and it is therefore a non-free image. (I'm sure it was an honest mistake on Gilabrand's part.) If the photo contained many other things other than just the mural, then freedom of panorama would apply -- but as it is, the photo's whole purpose is to reproduce the mural. (And yes, I'm available to answer any copyright question you may have.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright; thanks. I'm sure Gilabrand didn't do it on purpose. -- tariqabjotu 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I took the photo and don't understand what the problem is in using it as an illustration on Wikipedia. It is a wall mural in a public place near the entrance to the Western Wall. I cropped it in order to focus on the mural. If it is OK under freedom of panorama, then why should be it deleted? Maybe people in America are paranoid about these issues, but in Israel I believe there are more important things to worry about. I would think that illustrating an article on the country is the best use the image could be put to. If you are the guru, as Tariq says, maybe you can enlighten me. --Gilabrand 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here's an official Jerusalem Foundation website that touts this mural as a "photo op." http://www.jerusalemfoundation.org/english/article.php?id=192--Gilabrand 21:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem of different laws in different countries. Under Israeli law, that picture is perfectly fine. But under U.S. law, it isn't. See commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama (for both countries). For U.S. law, it doesn't matter in this case that the mural is in Israel; this foreign work gets the same copyright in the U.S. as a U.S. mural would. The English Wikipedia functions exclusively under U.S. law... therefore, you'll have to make a "fair use" claim (if you can) or have the image removed. If the image included the mural as a non-central part of some larger scene, we could argue that its inclusion in the picture was just incidental, and the photo didn't infringe the mural's copyright in the U.S. Lupo 21:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lupo, am I to understand that the phrase "artistic craftsmanship" in Israeli law here refers to paintings as well as architecture? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, paintings and works of architecture are mentioned separately. An example of works of artistic craftsmanship would be jewellery. See for instance [10] (Australia), or [11] (UK). The Israeli copyright law evolved out of the British law. Lupo 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, it's great to see you here again!) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:-) I've always been around... but I stick to PD questions and stay away from "fair use" issues, which you apparently have gotten deeply involved in. And I spend more time over at Commons these days. Cheers, Lupo 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could help me understand the policy enforced to delete the publicity images of TV characters from the pages. I have nominated quite a few of them from past discussions, but others seem to get upset about it, and would like to have a better understanding of where policy can be quoted. I try to explain it sometimes, but when I don't come across with exact wording from policy they kinda get upset, and I think I can be more effective with this information. Much appreciated, thank you! :) Ejfetters 00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This one's really tricky. The major concern is NFCC#2, which says that we have to be very careful not to undercut potential the market value of an image by our use of it. From a legal standpoint, this is the most important criterion, since if Wikipedia is going to get sued over images it will probably be this subject that causes the problem. The Associated Press, for instance, holds the copyright to many news images, and charges news sites a fee to reprint those pictures. That's why we usually can't use AP images.

With publicity photos, this could be an issue, although it's less clear. If FOX owns some popular TV show, the FOX website could create high-quality publicity shots of the characters and put them up on their website, and they could forbid fansites from using these images. Their motivation could be that these photos were created to attract eyeballs to their site, not anyone else's, so you're undercutting the value of the images by displaying them on other sites. That would be a reasonable argument that a FOX lawyer could make. They might even charge websites a fee to use the images -- it's hard to know for sure. (On the other hand, if FOX encourages other sites to redistribute and reprint the images, then you would have to say that the images aren't being used to attract viewers to the FOX site, but to attract viewers to the show instead. They aren't likely to sue us for using an image if they allow others to use those images.)

Most publicity photos are uploaded without a clear source, or sourced to a fansite that doesn't really have permission to use them, so it's impossible to tell whether the images are likely to attract a lawsuit or not. Others are sourced to the original site, but that site says that republishing is strictly forbidden. For these, it's a risky proposition for Wikipedia to use the images. Other images are sourced to a site that says "please download and proudly display these images", which would mean we can use the images without problems. But if it's risky, it's just safer to use a screenshot. (We're a lot less likely to get sued for using a screenshot. First off, it's only one frame from a half-hour TV show, which is an insignificant portion of the entire work, unlike publicity photos, where we're using the whole thing. Secondly, Wikipedia is a website, and could be seen as competing with FOX's website -- but we're not a TV show, and it would be harder for FOX to claim that we're competing with a TV show.)

I hope this answers your question. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, this does answer my questions and provides me with a much more informed understanding of publicity images on Wikipedia. Again, thanx! :) Ejfetters 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you. I was wondering if you could take a look at a case I just examined. User:Drewcifer3000 asked User:^demon to undelete File:AnotherVersionofthePast.jpg, however demon is no longer a sysop, so couldn't comply. I looked over the file and denied the request, citing various WP:FUC issues. The user has replied and now I'm not sure what to do, besides to run for your advice ;) If you get the chance and could comment at User_talk:Drewcifer3000#re:Image:AnotherVersionofthePast.jpg, it would greatly appreciated, as always. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was my image removed? I gave permission to use that picture since it was taken with my camera by a friend. Please explain process -- Thank you Mig 05:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If your friend is willing to release the photo under a free license, we would love to use the image. I'm not sure what image you're referring to, so I don't know why it was deleted. It could be because it didn't have an image copyright tag, or it could be because the image was licensed for non-commercial use only. Hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering whether this tooth that I found on an anthropology blog but which is clearly marked AFP (associated free press) is in fact under copywrite? I have uploaded the image provisionally, but you may delete it if you think it contravenes the copywrite rules. --Mathsci 02:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm afraid the image is copyrighted, unfortunately. I wish we could use the image, but I don't think we can. Thanks for notifying me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you look at Image:Khojaly003.jpg (caution, gory image) and tell me your opinion on its qualification as fair use? The image gives a source that is certainly not the origination of the image - that is unknown. If we don't know the real source of an image, can the image ever be here under fair use? My instinct is to delete it unless the real source can be named, but I thought I'd get a second opinion since the image is hotly contested in Khojaly Massacre. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(butting in) That image has numerous problems. It has no copyright holder specified per WP:NFCC#10a, and it is illegally used in userspace per WP:NFCC#9. If it is removed from userspace (as it must be), it will then then be orphaned, which is a WP:NFCC#7 violation. Also, per WP:NFCC#6, item 12, shocking or explicit photos may not be uploaded unless there is a consensus of editors on the relevant article. Just my opinion... Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, VO, for your insights. I tend to stay away from contentious images of disputed atrocities. If the source is authentically "unknown", meaning that the original publisher doesn't know the name of the anonymous photographer (not just that you or I don't know), then it can be adequately sourced by naming the first publisher and saying it's an anonymous photo. But all VO's caveats are still important. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think an image review would be a good idea for GA/A/FA-class articles or candidates? An image review could give a pass/action needed/fail for each image used in the article on the following points:

• significance
• replaceability
• resolution
• rationale
  • description
  • source
  • purpose of use
• caption

I got the idea when I was giving a requested image review for the images in Elvis Presley. I think the form of the review shouldn't be too extensive for its purpose. – Ilse@ 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a terrific idea to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any ideas. – Ilse@ 12:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We do have an existing forum - WP:FUR. Maybe we could make a section on that page dedicated to GA/A/FAC media reviews? I'd like to also see that page's scope expanded somewhat to give it "teeth" in enforcing media usage discussions. However, I'm unsure where the discussion on the policy change would need to be...WT:NFC? Or the Pump? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the talk page of WP:FUR should be good enough, with notices in other places (WP:FAC, WP:NFC, etc.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

According to a WHOIS lookup, it is a HughesNet IP address and according to the HughesNet website, their residential IPs are all dynamic. I shortened the block to 1 month. If vandalism continues after that, it can be extended to longer times. Mr.Z-man 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't noticed that, they said "public" in the description so it it seems I got confused, delete them accordingly. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Allright, thanks for the feedback and for pointing that out, I don't want to be doing that kind of mistakes if I manage to be an admin one day. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Quadell. I owe you an email, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. It's late in my part of the world!

I've just finished emptying Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 3 September 2007. I always check that the images really don't have a rationale, as sometimes someone adds one and doesn't remove the {{nrd}} tag. I had some doubt about Image:Lebanese special forces in naher bared.jpg. And this is a problem I run into quite often. I come to an image that's tagged for deletion because it doesn't have a rationale. I look at the image, and find that it does have one. I look at the rationale, and think that it's not a very good one!

In this case, I was anxious to finish emptying the category and delete it, so, when that image was the only one left, I decided just to remove the tag saying that it didn't have a FU rationale. I'm asking you about it because this is a fairly regular occurrence. Should I have deleted the image? Should I have added a FU disputed tag (which would give it another week before deletion)? What would you do if you found an inadequate rationale seven days after the no rationale tag had been added, and found, also, that the rationale had predated the nrd tag? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elinor. Me, personally, I'd just remove the nrd notice and move on, most of the time. But if the image has other problems, (e.g. no source, replaceable) I'll deal with those by adding the correct deletion tag. In this case, it's a non-iconic Reuters image used to identify the subject, not the photo itself. This is a major NFCC #2 red flag, so I'd list it on IFD. But in general, if it has a scanty rationale, but no other problems, I let it be. (Your mileage may vary.) All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What's with the deletion of this image? I was given no warning as the uploader. It's fair use rationale was explained in that there are no alternatives for this image free or otherwise. As far as I am aware this is the only existent image of the comedy duo "Mr Carline & Mr Walling". Itchy trigger finger or something? Please either explain why it was deleted (beyond a template answer) or undelete it please. --WebHamster 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for contacting me. When you uploaded this image, the media-wiki software automatically tagged it as "non-free replaceable", since apparently the selections you chose when uploading indicated that it might be replaceable with a free image. (We usually can't use non-free portraits of living people, for instance.) In this case, though, it's a portrait of a defunct comedy duo, so I agree that it's not replaceable. I have restored the image, and put it back in the Walling article. Also, the image did not have a detailed "non-free use rationale", which is another reason for deletion. I added a detailed rationale, so it shouldn't get deleted again. (When uploading non-free images, always be sure to add a non-free use rationale so that it doesn't get deleted.)

Anyway, no harm done. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks --WebHamster 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, There's something funny about this delete log. Especially as the reason given is Formosan blue magpie (or is this some kind of code language?) And if there was indeed a problem with the image, why are still derivate images around? Cheers, Himasaram 08:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the Cabal's code for "original research, obsoleted by Image:Flags of the Middle East2.png" :-),[12] which went uncontested for a week.[13] Lupo 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was cutting-and-pasting the deletion reason, and apparently I had copied the name of a bird, so when I hit "paste" it pasted the wrong thing. (Either that, or it's a clue! Don't ever look at the Mona Lisa in a mirror! The red bird flies at midnight!) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

		My RFA
		¡Hola! thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, no opposes, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. I will keep up with the image policy and will try to avoid any article that has any bird as a topic if working with a image deletion ;) - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Keep that sense of humor and you'll do fine, my padawan. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

These logos were tagged with the request for an admin to assist in the reviewing of which license it should be under. From the criterias I read on other photos, these two photos should be classified as non-free media, small sized and low quality. I would like to know how to reinstate these logos based on this licensing. Appreciate the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncknight (talk • contribs) 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, these should be tagged as non-free logos. We only need one though, and it's better to use the smaller one. I restored the smaller image, tagged it appropriately, and put it back in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen my additional remarks, but see {{PD-US-1996}} and {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Lupo 06:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you get a chance, could you look at Image:SDG Von Teese 1.jpg and Image:SDG Von Teese 2.jpg on Commons? Someone has flagged them for speedy deletion - maybe you can figure out why, I can't. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, and thanks for pointing out the Alyson Hau thing - we got to keep some nice photos that probably would have been deleted, and how often do you get the chance to exchange e-mail with radio DJ's in Hong Kong? I had fun straightening that out. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Do the images in Father of all bombs satisfy our "fair use" criteria? I don't think so, but I'm not well versed in our FU rules. Lupo 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. Which WP:NFCC would you think would be problematic? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Used only to illustrate, no commentary on or discussion of the image. Apparently that is no longer a criterion?! Then NFCC #8, "significance". They're not needed to understand the text. And we're in direct competition with commercial news providers regarding these images. But as I said, I'm not up to speed on "fair use". Lupo 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that my reasoning is covered by example #6 at WP:NFC#Unacceptable images, and possibly also example #11. Where are the templates to tag it as "no-fair-use"? Lupo 06:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just a small gripe about your minion. Is (s)he still slaving on creating species stubs for you? If yes, could you please instruct him/her, when listing habitat countries, to use "the Republic of Macedonia" rather than "FYROM"? This is a bit of an ideological issue, and the spelled-out form is currently accepted as better in most contexts, as per the Wikipedia Balkanian's favorite rulebook. (Yes, believe it or not, this issue must have its own style guideline, and we're still fighting over it too! But the deprecation of "FYROM" alone is currently agreed on.) Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, she's done writing articles. But doesn't the UN use FYROM? I know it's a heavily-debated issue, and I really don't have a dog in that fight. But Macedonia naming dispute says "FYROM" is "currently always used in relations when states not recognizing the constitutional name are parties". Would that include Wikipedia? And I'm having a very difficult time parsing this, from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles):

The appellations former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia should be used in articles or passages which have as subject organisations, states, events and international relationships where the subject in question uses either of these names, if the country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization and in representing the point of view of the modern Greek government and of those who agree with it.

Wait, what? That section is listed as disputed, but I'd say it's unclear. What are "subject organisations"? What does "subject in question" refer to? Should the last two "and"s actually be "or"s? My head aches. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your head is not only going to ache but to explode, once you read the talk page to that. ;-) But I thank you for confirming that the passage is confusing. I was doing an RfC about just that. In any case, what the non-controversial parts of the guideline recommends is to use "Republic of..." in general, to use "former Yugoslav..." only in some special contexts (of not quite well-defined scope), but to avoid its abbreviated version because nobody will understand it anyway.

By the way, it never occurred to me that you could parse "subject organistions" as a compound. Funny. It's supposed to mean "[have as subject] [organisations, states,...]" etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, why don't you come over to join in the fun about Balkan politics, to relax a bit from the stressful debates about image policies...? ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if a dispute has started a major World War, I tend to stay out of it. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fair use and copyright issues are much safer disputes. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that was a different dispute! my friends would eat your liver if they knew you didn't know the difference between Serbs and Macedonians...! Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, Balkans, Baltics, they all look the same to me. (Joking!) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Macedonia (region)? I have a passing interest in the Macedonian general, Hegemon, Shah and Pharaoh, who conquered the known world and marched with an army as far east as the Beas River, but I hadn't read United Macedonia before. I tend to just read, not edit these articles... Carcharoth 22:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The School of Computing (RGU), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The School of Computing (RGU). Thank you. Carlossuarez46 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of this. (explicit image) I'm not overly concerned about the image, but does Commons have a different censorship policy than en Wikipedia? I never got any notication, and I'm wondering if the deleting admin is just doing his own thing without regard to policy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)