User talk:Quadell

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

Quadell's talk archives

The full archive

Just the most recent

Polbot hiccuped

Hope you haven't been letting her drink and edit ;-) Found a couple of articles that had talk pages but no article. Database must have been locked. Just wanted to let you know so you can throw them back in the queue.

• Aegiphila lopez-palacii (talk)
• Amesiella monticola (talk)
• Anisophyllea cabole (talk)
• Anthurium orientale (talk)
• Ardisia colonensis (talk)
• Calceolaria ferruginea (talk)
• Canthium impressinervium (talk)
• Canthium rondoense (talk)
• Celtis jamaicensis (talk)
• Ceratocentron fesselii (talk)
• Eucryphia glutinosa (talk)
• Eugenia excisa (talk)
• Eugenia inasensis (talk)
• Euphorbia annamarieae (talk)
• Euphorbia hajhirensis (talk)
• Euphorbia pervilleana (talk)
• Freziera friedrichsthailana (talk)
• Froelichia juncea (talk)
• Gardenia vitiensis (talk)
• Goniothalamus tenuifolius (talk)

And that's all I can retrieve from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality log - the log was too large for it to continue past G! Amazing how many articles you've created. Our assessment logs note there are now over 21,000 plant articles on Wikipedia (at least those tagged with the WP:PLANTS banner, which is nearly most of them). Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll definitely throw those back in. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: Quercus hinckleyi

Another one:

• Rapanea gilliana talk) --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Hey, I just wanted to say that the amount of new species pages you have created through your bot (how does that work btw?) is amazing. I am in awe, haha. Cheers! Viperphantom 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot is blushing! Thanks so much for the positive feedback. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who appointed you judge, jury and prosecution?

This Deleted, evidently not a free image at [1] is admin abuse, pathetic wiki-lawyering and preposterous. Precisely what gives you the right to override concensus and draw your own conclusions based on an extremely limited (almost to the point of non-existence) knowledge of copyright law? It is obvious that you are becoming quite tendentious in your crusade to rid Wikipedia of all images. The nonsense needs to stop, and it will, one way or the other. You can choose to slow down and think, or we can leave it up to the community, and if necessary arbcom, to resolve the issue. The choice is yours. •Jim62sch• 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I welcome any examination of my actions. Feel free to report this issue, or any other issue that concerns you, to WP:ANI, WP:DRV, WP:RFAR, or anywhere else you think would be useful. I am confident I acted appropriately and in line with our policies. But please, try to be civil and refrain form personal attacks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A DRV is in the process of being addressed. The real problem here is that you made an assumption that is not supported by facts. As for civility, as I told one of your friends, civility is not limited to words, it includes actions. In my eyes, an unwarranted assumption, such as that which you made re trhe image in question is uncivil. •Jim62sch• 22:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Every administrator can and should override consensus in order to comply with our image policy. Quadell is one of the most respected of the administrators involved with image work, and is very knowledgeable, patient, and fair. By the way, Quadell, I don't want to make you blush, but I recently emailed a wiki-friend saying that I often complain to myself that some of the people who are most active in upholding image policy are a little weak on respect and courtesy and the will not to annoy others unnecessarily, and I added, "In getting more involved with this work, I've run into Quadell several times, and think he's one of the exceptions." This person wrote back, "Yeah Quadell's a good egg." So, if you don't find this a bit patronising coming from someone with much less experience than yourself: keep it up! ElinorD (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• To be fair, in that case you could have explained your decision a bit better, at least saying into your closing note "referring to what I said above". I also don't buy the "we should believe the Nobel Foundation, that they hold the copyright". If there is any doubt about a copyright, the default is for people to claim they hold it. And the copyright notice probably was meant to apply to the text, not the photo. As a side note, I'm having trouble working out what the image was of. Presumably someone called oneill who won a Nobel (Eugene O'Neill), but I think it might be an idea to remind people nominating IfDs to state what the picture is of, and to link to at least one of the articles it is used in. After a debate has closed delete, it is hard to trace back to the articles if those mentions are not there. Anyway, I often wonder why people don't simply try and find an alternative, instead of defending an image to the death either way. Surely this sort of website would give some pointers towards PD pics? Carcharoth 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• For example. This says at the bottom "© Copyright 1999-2007 eOneill.com", but that is the standard copyright tag at the bottom of all the pages on that website. Obviously the copyright for picture is something else, most likely from the Hammerman archive. While looking through that, I found this, which seems to be a portrait based on the Nobel photo. Anyway, I think I mentioned in some of the other IfDs that it would be nice if people started searching more, instead of shouting at each other. Carcharoth 02:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot using generic citation

During newpages patrol I noticed a few plant species articles posted by Polbot. I was wondering why the bot is not using the standard for citations we use for all good articles, i.e., inline citations? Not only would it lay a foundation for future editors, but would solve the repetitive task of placing the markup for them. I don't know your familiarity with citation formats (or whether you've considered this but there is a technical limitation) but I would suggest the following format (if this is at all possible), using Syzygium guehoi as an example:

(article text)<ref name="IUCN">{{IUCN2006 | assessors=Florens, D. | year=2000 | id=39449 | title=Syzygium guehoi | downloaded=22 August 2007}}</ref>

==References==

{{Reflist}}

I am actually betting that there is a technical limitation and I'm just spinning my wheels but what the hell, thought I'd inquire.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond. Polbot has finished now, so I guess it's moot. There's no technical reason why I couldn't have done references that way, and it might have been better to. I really just did it the easiest way (being lazy). Thanks for the feedback! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Index2007_EconFreedomMAP.jpg

I have no idea if I did something contrary to policy when I uploaded the image. Most probably as it got more restrict afterwards I had uploaded it. But I am not so in sync of what is considered good standards by wikipedia. There was a previous map from the heritage foundation that I replaced with this newer one. I don't know what kind of license the heritage foundation has on the image. Maybe you could find that out. Do whatever you feel like with the image. Lord Metroid 01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion procedures

Hi Quadell. I just noticed your delete of the image Bjlata1.jpg

As you can see by my submission made only minutes before closure, I agree with the delete decision. I think you made the right call here, and I support it.

On the other hand, given that debates on these subjects are sometimes heated and have plenty of disagreement, I feel very strongly that you should try to be exceptionally careful in following the procedure fairly and without any scope for complaint. The normal procedure is for discussion to be allowed for five days. This image was nominated on 18:15, 19 August 2007. You have closed the discussion just a bit over four days later, and proceeded with the actual delete at the same time, despite the fact that the discussion was still active.

There are so many deletions being nominated at present that you should be especially careful not to give the impression that this is being railroaded through unreasonably. I cordially request you to keep carefully to the five day discussion period. Thank you —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought the delay was whenever they fall off the main project page, which is (let's see. . .) five days from the beginning of the day when they were nominated (effectively 4 days and change). Hm. That seems odd. Maybe we should bring this up on the project's talk page -- it seems it should list six days, in order to make sure all images are kept at least five full 24-hour days. I'd never really thought about it before.

Thanks for AGF-ing and all that. Some of the discussions on that page, as you know, are rather hairy, and I don't mind keeping them around until discussion dies down, or until it becomes obvious that no further discussion will be productive. Maybe I should have done so with Bjlata1, I'm not sure. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with giving a special significance to the instant of time when one day becomes another is that we are an international encyclopedia. For example, I am now fully acclimatized to it being Friday August 24. I'll be having lunch soon. But some folks in more backward parts of the world (USA :-) still have not finished dealing with Thursday. Hence, I normally read five days as meaning 120 hours. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the day switch-over time indicates that Wikipedia follows UTC-1, which is the time zone used by a tiny part of Greenland, some islands off Africa, and nowhere else. I've never understood that. Anyway, see Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#5_days._._._rounded_up.3F for more centralized discussion on this IFD issue. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrongful Deletion

You deleted only this Image:BrownUniversity-JohnHayLibrary.jpg, even though I have take about 50 other photos for List of Brown University buildings. Wouldn't it have been better to contact me first? Now I have to go back and take another photo. Thank you for wasting my time Apavlo 00:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you created this photo yourself, then I can restore it for you. Are you willing to license it under the GFDL? "

Yes, I created it. I thought I selected the "Public Domain" option like I did with all my other photos. I don't have a copy of it anymore, so if you can restore it, that would be great. Thanks Apavlo 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain image

I know you might not have had time, yet, but did you get a chance to look at the Neville Chamberlain image debate again? In particular the bit here? I really do think that arguing over the subjective criteria (NFCC#8) is distracting from the cases where people should be hunting down sources and copyright information. What do you think? I was pleased to actually be able to answer your NFCC#10 query after only a brief search. I was less pleased, of course, to find that it was in the Getty Archives, but then that's life. I do wonder as well, if that image gets deleted, whether it would be possible to bring a resolution to the NFCC#8 debate that took place there? A kind of, yes, those arguing that it passed NFCC#8 were right. It also passed NFCC#10 after sources and copyright information were found. But it failed NFCC#2. Without a clear explanation, if it is deleted, people arguing for the image to be kept might look back and think that their NFCC#8 arguments were considered wrong, which would be misleading, in my opinion, and would cause confusion. Carcharoth 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know whether the image would pass NFCC #8 or not. Luckily, it's moot, since the image fails other criteria. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Casa del puebla image

I'm wondering why the casa del puebla (actually I believe it should be pueblo) image was deleted. You indicated that it is replaceable with a free image. Now it might be true that a free image of the church building, if it still exists, could be obtained, but it would no longer have the sign "Casa del Pueblo" which gives it its historical significance. It would seem to me the historically significant photo could not be replaced with a free image. I think the image is a valid fair use. Please explain to me why you disagree. Also, doesn't the procedure for deletion of such images require that you notify the uploading party and wait a period of time? I received no notice. I would appreciate your thoughts. Mamalujo 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is requested that the person who tags an image for deletion notify the uploader, but not the admin who deletes the image. In many cases, the Wikipedia software tags an image as replaceable automatically, and the uploader is told on the upload screen that unless there is a valid reason why the image is not replaceable, it will be deleted without notice.

In this case, the building still exists, and could be photographed. I believe that a new photograph, even without the sign, would illustrate the article just as well. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

But a picture of the Church without the sign indicating it had been turned into a "house of the people" would not serve the encyclopedic purpose. In light of this, I think the image's use here constitutes fair use.Mamalujo 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Three deleted images

Hi,

No, I'm not writing to complain about my block--though it did occur at a point when it served more as punishment than prevention. At any rate, the break did me good and I've apologized to Videmus Omnia for my inappropriate language.

I'm writing because I believe you improperly deleted three images that were nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 19. They are: File:Cher in hell on wheels.JPG, File:MHWGOphoto10.jpg, and File:Bjlata1.jpg. In each case, the image was deleted in contravention of the following primary instruction in Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In each case, two or more objections to the image's deletion were raised and there was--I believe it's more than safe to say--no consensus to delete. In the first two cases, no rationale at all was provided for overriding instruction. In the third case, only a personal opinion about the content of the debate was offered as rationale--"Many people offered spirited defenses of this image, but no one was able to explain what encyclopedic information this image conveys that could not be conveyed by text alone." Deleting on that basis obviously values an administrator's personal opinion about a subjective matter over the clear language of the instruction (and, obviously, over the opinion of most of those involved in the debate). To be clear, in none of these cases was it claimed either at the point of nomination or deletion that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction. Are you willing to reverse yourself on these three deletions? Best, Dan.—DCGeist 22:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Sorry for the delay in responding -- I've been away. Thanks for you note, and for being civil. I wish everyone were so understanding about blocks.

In each of the 3 cases you mentioned above, the image was nominated for deletion for failing NFCC #8. Yes, as you indicate, the application of NFCC #8 is frequently subjective. In the first two cases, there were "keep" comments that referenced various aspects of the images, but no comments that gave any clear reasoning of why anything shown in the image was (a) important in the article, and (b) depicting information that could not be portrayed by words alone. Several comments defended the use of screenshots in general, and I think a video screenshot could pass NFCC #8 in these articles, but the screenshots chosen do not. (Nothing in those screenshots was mentioned in the article.) Of the comments on the first two images that adequately considered NFCC #8, none argued in favor of keeping the image.

The third image was more complex. Several people urged keeping the image, and addressed NFCC #8 directly. That case was more borderline, but I still feel I made the right decision. So I respectfully decline to reverse myself.

As you probably know, you're free to take any of these cases to WP:DRV, and I won't take it personally. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll take the first and third images to WP:DRV--both to clarify the procedural issue and because I do think they are (er...were) valuable to their respective articles. (I took a look again at the article where the second image was and couldn't figure out where it had been--a pretty good indicator it wasn't so helpful after all.) Best, D—DCGeist 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(sorry to butt in) Dan, from what I recall, the second image was replaced in Celine Dion with a different and better one. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, VO. Here are the DRV links: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG, Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:Bjlata1.jpg.—DCGeist 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons question

Quadell, what's the equivalent of WP:PUI on Commons? I'm concerned about Image:Amal-hijazi.jpg, which was repeatedly uploaded and deleted (under other names that I forget) as a WP:NFCC#1 violation on en Wikipedia. I'm dubious about the GFDL claim. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out. Like my mother always says, "look with your eyes, not with your mouth." Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, she has reached the end.

It appears that Polbot was autogenerating plants in alphabetical order. (Any idea why she skipped the "Y"s?) Therefore, it looks like she has reached the end of the plant list. Oh well, she appears to have done her tasks so I'll concede that she has ended her duty already, even if it was earlier than I had hoped. (If you have future plans for Polbot to auto-generate more, hopefully you may let us know.) Thanks for providing the programming & efforts of the kind & progressive bot. --70.179.175.240 08:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the accolades! I'm deeply satisfied with her work. And now she rests. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perlwikipedia fix

After ~three months of sitting on it of of sheer procrastination, Perlwikipedia will now recognize images in categories retrieved via get_pages_in_category. This affects get_all_pages_in_category as well, because the latter uses the former function. Shadow1 (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoo-rah! Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons "sockpuppetry"

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)

Deletion review

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)

Backlog

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)

Christina Aguilera being listed on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A

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)

Potential problem uploader

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)

1978-1989

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)

Civility?

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)