This editor is a Complete and Perfect Tutnum of the Encyclopedia, and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge.

Contents 1 Andrew Peach 2 Thanks! 3 Copy-paste 4 Dual licensing 5 Half image, half text 6 Going back to the FJC well. 7 Re: File:Pakoras 2.jpg listed for deletion 8 Advice needed 9 Wikipedia:CiterSquad 10 Category:Articles to be merged 11 Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo 12 Re: Chevy pre-1976 image 13 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insite Security (2nd nomination) 14 Carolinas Medical 15 2 source 16 File:Grosz-Metropolis.jpg 17 Alt text to Gordon Brown. 18 ImageQ 19 Tony Blair 20 Proposed deletion of Andrew Peach 21 Fair fair use? 22 Compatibility: the Shared Experience License & GFDL 23 User:Xenobot Mk V 24 Off to take the bar examination; back on August 1. 25 FAR 26 Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States FA-drive 27 Going straight to the guy who will probably figure it out... 28 MSF FAR 29 GA reassessment of Lancia Flaminia 30 File:Church Army Chapel pews 1965.jpg 31 Level 3 Vital articles 32 Can Polbot fix it? 33 Thanks for ... 34 WP:Suggestions for disambiguation repair 35 Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Bridgenote 36 File:Atta atm.jpg listed for deletion 37 NowCommons: File:RICHARDBOONE.jpg 38 Some bogus polbot created redirects 39 Your assistance please 40 Image question 41 Celebrity image copyright question 42 Locally stored and protected high-risk images 43 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Standardization of table formats for district court pages 44 AfD nomination of List of things described as painted 45 Misleading Commons Category:Flora of Saint Pierre and Miquelon

[edit] Andrew Peach

Hi Quadell - is there any chance you could unprotect the article relating to UK radio broadcaster Andrew Peach which has been replaced with a redirect to the radio station information after edit warrring. I would like to add some info and would be happy for it to be protected again if need be. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.121 (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hi Quadell, just wanted to thank you for reviewing the images used in the Lindbergh kidnapping article. Moonriddengirl mentioned that she was going to ask you for some help and I just wanted to add my thanks as well. Shinerunner (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! – Quadell ^(talk) 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-paste

Please give me a reliable examples to sustain your opinion about me. Thanks! TouLouse (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mihăileşti explosion was an example just discovered today, with many sentences copied verbatim from the source. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dual licensing

I've already spammed MRG and WP:CC this week, so I'm directing this one to you, but you can pass it on. :) {{Csb-pageincluded}} (and probably other CSB templates) need to be updated to reflect the need for CC-BY-SA as well. Set to it! Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed that one. I checked the others that start with "template:csb", and they all seem fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Half image, half text

Sort of. This one combines elements of both: Duration of Copyright. I've got to run, but I wanted to give you a heads up specifically because this looks to be up your alley. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Going back to the FJC well.

Hi, how's it going?

I had this disconcerting thought that the info we plumbed from the FJC will go out of date in time (at least, for current judges). Could Polbot run through the judge listings again and note only those that show something happening in 2009 (e.g. retirement, senior status, becoming chief judge - just anything where 2009 appears)? I figure if we generate a report like that every six months, we'll be current enough - my main concern is old Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton judges taking senior status, since even court-watchers might not note that.

Also, on a somewhat related and even more exciting matter, you may know that the FJC also has a database of historic courthouses - complete with images! I want those entries and the images (which are all from U.S. government sources, hence in the public domain, so they can go to Commons). Can you scrape 'em? bd2412 T 03:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, never mind about the courthouses, that's being done over at Commons. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: File:Pakoras 2.jpg listed for deletion

Thank you for the notice. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Advice needed

Per User talk:Vianello#As for some advices (permalink), an admin from the Vietnamese Wikipedia could use some advice about dealing with page-move vandals. Since the admin that was asked doesn't know what to do to combat this vandalism, I've contacted you to see if you can give him some advice. If you can help, please reply at User talk:Vinhtantran#Re: Mass vandalism (to keep discussion centralized since I've posted this message at the talk pages of several admins). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:CiterSquad

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Articles to be merged

Cross posted from User talk:Polbot

Hi, Quadell. I am confused about the purpose of Polbot. This category is mostly populated by your bot's articles. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's perspective), many of the articles are less comprehensive than the existing. Additionally, the existing articles are better written. Considering your bot is pulling information from a single source, placing it into a generic article template without providing inline citation, expanding upon information or using encyclopedic prose, and all for articles that already contain most, if not all, of the information your bot is finding, plus more; why were these biographies of living people being created en masse and proposed for merger? It seems like a waste of time for all involved to do it this way. لennavecia 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought I might interject myself into this discussion. Polbot's articles contain specific bits of information that every article on a U.S. federal judge should contain. Some have it, many don't (I'd add that in addition to the thousand or so articles Polbot made in User space, it generated about twice as many new entries in Article space). We are working through them, and will eventually get all of them out of the way, and off the merge list. bd2412 T 06:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. That clarifies for me. Regards, لennavecia 19:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appeciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Chevy pre-1976 image

I'm sorry, I should have been more careful. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insite Security (2nd nomination)

Courtesy heads up since you moved it from the creator's bad caps (which he did to avoid salt) to the current title. Assume you saw some notability but this thing has been deleted so many times, time to get rid of it once and for all. StarM 02:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I didn't know. Thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

figured as much, it's done with now. Perma vacation. StarM 18:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Carolinas Medical

Where can I find the proper tag for the Image: CarolinasMedCenter.jpg You can use the Image for Informational Purposes like newsspapers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad01 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't use images under that license. The image would have to be released under a free license, that allows anyone to reuse it, even for commercial purposes. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2 source

About 5 years ago you changed the copyright on File:Two source hypothesis.png to GFDL. If you have any info can you pop over and add before this gets deleted. jbolden1517^Talk 17:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I have no idea, sorry. It should probably be recreated. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Grosz-Metropolis.jpg

Hi Quadell.

While creating this file on wikipedia which I wanted to license with the same pre-1923 license as other pictures on WP by George Grosz, there was a problem with the server. The file seemsto be there, created by me, but does not show up in my contributions and cannot be edited. Can whatever is there please be deleted so I can upload the file properly when the server is being better behaved?

Many thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alt text to Gordon Brown.

Hi there, we are trying to add this alt text and there is some problem with the edit protect template, could you have a little look at it Wikipedia_talk:Alternative_text_for_images#Infoboxes please.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

[edit] ImageQ

Does File:Led_Zeppelin.png qualify as "self made", as claimed?  Frank  |  talk  20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair

my reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vexorg#Tony_Blair_edit_wars Vexorg (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Andrew Peach

The article Andrew Peach has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no third party content about the subject, just one quote by the subject

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fair fair use?

Looking at a contributor who popped up on CP, I stumbled upon this image of a living person. Is this fair use fair? File:Michael C. Moynihan.jpg. Hope you don't mind my dropping this in your lap, but I am totally befuddled by the whole living people non-free thing. I would think this would be a case where we could not use it, but there may well be some nuance I'm missing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, since he's living and not a recluse, we can't use a non-free image of him. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 11:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Compatibility: the Shared Experience License & GFDL

Hi. In the course of exploring a question about image montages at my talk page, I found an image on Commons evidently licensed under Shared Experience License but tagged as GFDL. I have some doubts about the compatibility here, though I suspect that Shared Experience License would in itself be usable. Would you mind glancing at User talk:Moonriddengirl#CC licenses and giving an opinion?

[edit] User:Xenobot Mk V

I figured I should let you know that I've split User:Xenobot/5 into a separate bot. It's already flagged and such, so I gather no action is required by BAG. By the way, on the way here, I noticed User talk:Quaddell, an imposter from some years ago. I've gone ahead and redirected the page here and hidden the cmt noting it's not you. Hope that's ok. –xeno^talk 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Off to take the bar examination; back on August 1.

Keep an eye on the place. See you in a week! bd2412 T 02:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

I have nominated Louisville, Kentucky for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States FA-drive

Sorry for spamming you, but in light of the impending shift of the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, I'd like to get this article up to FA status within the next few weeks, and ready for the front page by the time the Court starts its fall term. Any help or advice you can provide would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Going straight to the guy who will probably figure it out...

Allo.
To be honest, I don't even remember the pages (on wikipedia and on commons) for listing images with bad licensing, so since you're easily the guy who figures things out most often, I'm just taking this straight to to you. :)
The problem is with this: File:Squeak.svg (and, of course, this)

They're listing the Squeak Smalltalk logo as their own work. However, um, I can't see how it could be.
It looks like the "author" has already had one of his other uploads deleted on him (did you know he created the Google Chrome logo? Me neither).
I'm sure it's an honest mistake. To be honest, I don't think most people realize that tracing someone else's work into an SVG constitutes a derivative work. but, still, it is.
So, any chance you can figure out all that complimicated stuff? :D 72.88.70.180 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MSF FAR

I have nominated Médecins Sans Frontières for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of Lancia Flaminia

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Lancia Flaminia/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. I am letting you know as you are a major contributor to this article. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Church Army Chapel pews 1965.jpg

Hi Quadell. Please could you kindly look at the above image file for me? I am the uploader.
(1) I have a letter from the copyright owner giving permission for the image on Church Army Chapel, Blackheath page only, but I don't know the Wikipedia address to send the scan of the letter.
(2) I have written a rationale for good measure, but can't find the appropriate licence template for that. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Update: I have now got the email address and sent the permissions letter to Wikipedia, but no reply as yet. I found a licence template for a rationale, and expanded the rationale, but it strikes me that the rationale template and the permissions letter contradict each other - as the template says there is no copyright permission for use on the Wiki page, when I do have permission.--Storye book (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Level 3 Vital articles

Hi! Inspired by this proposal, I decided to inspect our vital articles. I decided to add a bunch to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Technology. At the time, I thought that the number in parenthesis was the current number of articles (out of 100 allotted per topic, I presumed) and "updated" the number. When I was looking over it again, I realized my mistake, and I'd fix it myself except that the allotments don't add up to 1000. The other 9 add up to 925, leaving Technology 75 instead of 95. (There are now 83 articles in the topic). So looking through the page history, you looked like the person to contact. So can you juggle the allocations please? thanks, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(Followup post) I've gone through and tallied the number of articles in each category; it comes to 1042. I think that striving for 1000 exactly is a little OCD and excludes articles from being presented as important to work on. Thus I propose the following reworked allocation scheme, based on the lists that have developped:

• Art: 70 (+0)
• Geography: 100 (+0)
• History: 135 (+5)
• Language: 70 (+10)
• Life: 95 (-35)
• Mathematics: 35 (+5)
• Philosophy: 105 (+25)
• Science: 235 (+10)
• Society: 120 (+20)
• Technology: 80 (-15)
• Total: 1045 (+45)

I think that trying to cut more than a few articles from each section (what is there now, not what was allocated) is foolish and hurts the encyclopedia. We are not bound by the Dewey decimal system to work in powers of 10. (Finding, and asking for help on, 10,000 articles is wholly impractical.) If you like, you can distribute another 5 articles somewhere to make a "prettier" 1050. Cheers, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Even better: after organizing the lists and finding many duplicates, the total is now 991. I'll go ahead and re-shuffle the allocations since you seem to be on Wikibreak…hopefully that's okay… HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can Polbot fix it?

BirdLife International have modified their website so that all their bird pages have different names, and so this has broken all the external links on the wiki. A few external links have been fixed manually, such as by this edit on the Scarlet-chested Parrot article. There is more than one format in which the external link to BirdLife International is listed in wiki articles. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Broken_external_links_to_BirdLife_International. Can a Polbot-like script fix it? Snowman (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for ...

Thanks for wishing me a happy wiki-birthday (Sorry, it's been 4 months though,) ! Almost a month ago, it was my real birthday. Pilover819 -116.127.84.141 (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Suggestions for disambiguation repair

All the entries to be added to articles have now been done, all that's left are redirects, piping and similar and many of these are actually valid. I don't think anyone's edited any more of them in weeks, although PamD and I are both looking forward to the next batch of entries to be added (on my part, only really the hndis entries). Thanks for keeping us busy, and let us know when your next lot's ready. All the best, Boleyn3 (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Bridgenote

Template:Bridgenote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Neelix (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Atta atm.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Atta atm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ÷seresin 02:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NowCommons: File:RICHARDBOONE.jpg

File:RICHARDBOONE.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:RICHARDBOONE.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:RICHARDBOONE.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Some bogus polbot created redirects

Hi Quadell, I suppose I should mention User talk:Polbot#Sins committed, as it might have rolled off your watchlist. The first category of problem redirects (Richard O&, etc.) appear to have been caused by an error interpreting the "'" encoding for the ' character, presumably with Polbot misinterpreting the # as a fragment separator. Notice that aside from messing up the title, the text of the redirect also contains that encoding. While wikimedia handles the redirect in that form, a plain ' would be friendlier to other editors, both human and otherwise. -- ToE^T 02:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Quadell doesn't seem to be active right now... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I could certainly WP:CSD#R3 at least the first group, but I don't think there is any rush and I figure that Quadell would probably want to see them. -- ToE^T 00:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your assistance please

The record shows you deleted File:F-6 tunnel.jpg back in 2007 -- as a replaceable fair use. User:Gerd 72, the contributor who uploaded this image uploaded about one hundred images of Albanian military installations or equipment, one or two at a time, over the last two and a half years. Most of the image they uploaded were deleted, in one fell swoop, about a month ago.

I looked at User:Gerd 72's talk page. I thought they offered a very credible explanation as to how they got access to that Albanian military installations and equipment.

I called the deletions alarming because it does not appear that anyone was willing to take the time to explain our policies. In particular I am alarmed because I found no experienced user explained to Gerd 72 as to how they could use the OTRS system to confidentially verify their bona fides.

I could see that a small minority of the images Gerd 72 uploaded were scans of previously published images. Many good faith uploaders make the mistake of thinking they possess intellectual property rights to scans of PD material. And I think it is likely that File:F-6 tunnel.jpg was one of those scans. But I'd like to confirm that. Would you mind taking a look at that image, and telling me if it was a scanned image, or an ordinary photo?

FWIW I wrote to the administrator who nominated all those images on August 30th. If I understood them correctly they are justifying not extending the assumption of good faith to Gerd 72 due to Gerd 72 appearing to use too many cameras to take the images.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

These two also, if you wouldn't mind... File:US built boat Albanian Coast Guard.JPG, File:Army GAZ.JPG Geo Swan (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image question

Based on User:Quadell/copyright, I assume that File:Motor Age cover 1912.jpg is actually PD. Can you review for me please? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity image copyright question

Hi Quadell. Please could I ask your advice for a friend? My friend is not yet a member of Wikipedia but he would like to contribute to Wiki by adding a better picture of his relative, a celebrity. Of course he owns copyright to the image, but because the relative is a celebrity he does not want to allow free use of the image. The image can be put officially on the celebrity's own website by the webmaster (as source) if required, and if necessary with an appropriate statement added alongside it. I had thought that there would be a restricted-use licence somewhere on Wiki but cannot find it. Is there a solution to this problem? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Locally stored and protected high-risk images

Hi Quadell. On 9 May 2009 you deleted the high-risk File:Ambox style.png, with the deletion comment: "An identical copy exists on Wikimedia Commons". However, that doesn't work as you think, so it later caused some disruption, and potentially could have caused severe disruption. I have left a long message explaining why locally stored and protected high-risk images should not be deleted, see File talk:Ambox content.png#Problem.

I didn't notice your deletion until now, since I just like you are on a long wikibreak.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Standardization of table formats for district court pages

Thought you might like to express a preference in the great table format debate. bd2412 T 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of things described as painted

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of things described as painted. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as painted. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Commons Category:Flora of Saint Pierre and Miquelon

Hi Quadell. The pictures in this category give the impression of a subtropical paradise, whereas Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon says "The climate is damp and windy, and winters are harsh and long. Spring and early summer are foggy and cool. Late summer and early fall are sunny." I think there are about a dozen photos out of the 62 currently in the category that could be native to the islands, and therefore appropriate to the category. The rest are typical garden flora, some annual, some perennial, some summer bedding, very few of which could survive a winter in StP&M. I think the ones shown below stand a chance of being native flora. The rest should be moved, perhaps with help/advice from the original photographer, User:Neelix, as to which were taken in the wild. SiGarb | (Talk) 13:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)