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 3 (again)

I see Polbot3 has been approved for a trial run of 50 edits. I'll restart discussion over there so we can work out how to do this. If you don't mind, I'd like to review the edits from the trial period and discuss those before going any further. Carcharoth 14:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. --ST47Talk 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yee-haw! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. --ST47Talk 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cowabunga! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad edit by Polbot

[1] - there should be only one s in theorems. --Zundark 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, this is troubling. I'm not sure if this function will improve articles, all in all. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you not somehow (yeah, that's the difficult bit) detect when the "new text" has introduced "ss" or rather "s]]s"? Or are you going off the idea of a bot changing piped dablinks altogether? I did a bit of work on dab pages, and I was often piping links. Maybe there are turning out to be more exceptions to this 'rule' than you thought? Carcharoth 15:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the trouble is, Polbot can reliably find dab pages with bad pipelinking. But she can't reliably fix them. About half the time, she just changes it from a non-standard format to another non-standard format. I'm not sure whether I'll run this function or not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Category on Commons

Hi Quadell,
I really don't like the fight that is going on on wikicommons arround species articles vs species categories.
You bot is making theses categories and articles symetric.
What a strange idea. We should all take a big decision if we want species articles or species categories. Once the decision made, launch the bot to kill one of those.
In the mean while, your bot the duplicating information. And you risk a fight with those that do the contrary.
Also, your species articles are not under the species category, but under the genus category. That part I really do not like. That means that genuses have duplicated entries: species articles AND species category (See commons:Category:Taxodium)

I have a personal favor to ask: could you also duplicate the taxonavigation? Because the species article taxonavigation provides a link to the species category that sometimes (at least when created by your bot) has no taxonavigation.

Sample of the problem: commons:Category:Taxodium_distichum has no taxonavigation, when Taxodium_distichum has.

Cheers, fr:User:Liné1 or commons:User:Liné1 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer running this bot. It is clear that there is no consensus for its functionality, so I stopped this function. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Species stubs

I'm not great with categories myself- try looking to other bat articles. Category:Bats would be a nice start, and then there should be categories based upon where they can be found, I would imagine. As I say, I'm not great on categories myself, otherwise I would add the categories instead of tagging the articles as uncategorised! J Milburn 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Piped links on disambiguations

I undid this Polbot edit. Piping to add quotation marks or italics to a title is quite common and within the WP:MOSDAB guidelines. I do not know the bot programming, but perhaps it can be modified to recognize such pipelinks and not "fix" them. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Polbot shouldn't have done that. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the quote marks to italics, but now I see that songs use quote marks. Looks like I need to re-read the MoS... Regardless, this is a case where I, personally, prefer to have the description call the item a song, and drop the "(song)" bit by using piping. Carcharoth 09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Species

Hello and thank you for nice work in operating Polbot :). I moved these articles based on lists such as: List of mammals in Sudan which are based also on IUCN data. As for the double-redirects, well it's a tough work for human Wikipedian :), I think there are some bots who check them and fix them. Anyway, thanks for your work. Would it be possible to also categorize those species articles? - Darwinek 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sure! How do you think they should be categorized? I'm not an expert at categorizing species. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • When creating articles about bats, just add Cat:Bats. In future, you can always ask experts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life. - Darwinek 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • After thinking it through, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The {{bat-stub}} template adds Category:Bat stubs, which is a sub-category of Category:Bats. So this would be placing an article in both a more specific and less specific category, which our guideline recommends against. Instead, whenever someone expands one of the articles to non-stub status, they can add Category:Bats. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ernestmartinmurderer.png

This image was incorrectly tagged with non-commercial use only. Please undelete it to allow me to write a proper fair use rationale for it. It is the mugshot of an executed man, irreplaceable as he will never be arrested again and is now dead. It is perfectly reasonable fair use to use in the article describing his crimes and execution. -N 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is now restored. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I struggled with NFCC#8 and I ended up making a very grandiose and poetic rationale. While it is probably true, can you look at it and suggest anything that needs fixing? Thank you so very much. -N 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I made an additional #8, more prosaic. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:SanchiTachi

You posted some questions or statements about fair use images on User talk:SanchiTachi. I haven't read what you exactly said, but I do know that SanchiTachi is under an indefinete block, so won't be responding (if that's what required). And please don't contact me about them - I tried to upload images, but really don't understand the fair use stuff etc. (it's not written in clear English). Cheers, Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V unprotection

The admin involved was Jossi, who was not involved in the dispute in any way. I contacted them on their talk page and asked their advice on how to proceed. Link. I do not understand this reversion and re-protection by SlimVirgin as Jossi was not part of the edit conflict that led to protection. Tim Vickers 21:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to do here? The consensus on the talk page here and here is clear, but SlimVirgin appears to me to be determined to block this addition in any way possible. Perhaps that is an uncharitable interpretation, but adding indefinite protection seems extreme. Tim Vickers 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's on a time-limited 2 week protection. It's silly to think you have consensus after 2 days. Be patient. These things work themselves out eventually. It's just best not to give the fire more fuel when the editing is hot. Let's let it cool down a bit before unprotecting. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We have been discussing this change for about two weeks, and there is strong consensus on the talk page for this wording Link. Unfortunately the protection isn't time-limited any more, as SlimVirgin has added indefinite-protection to the page. As this is a pretty important page, I've raised this at ANI. Tim Vickers 22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a good move. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The page has now been unprotected by User:John Reaves, who was not involved in the dispute. I'll wait to see people's advice at ANI before I do anything. Tim Vickers 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use?

I totally disagree with you. Fair use says: if a photo might reasonably be found. These photos you are disputing are not resonably findable or I would have used them. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid our policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content forbids us from using a non-free image if a free image could be "found or created". It may be impossible for you, sitting at your computer, to create a new image of a celebrity. But someone could. I'm afraid it's pretty well established in our policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cary Bass ^demandez 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

see [2] Cary Bass ^demandez 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

fair use for deletion categories

I notice you are adding NOGALLERY to the fair use for deletion categories. Please note these are specifically exempted from the policy for the very plain reason that people need to see which images are being deleted (Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Exemptions). Cheers. -N 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I only do it for my convenience as I delete them. Feel free to take NOGALLERY out whenever you feel like it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta. -N 00:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Bot

I have made a few more improvements. Can you see anything I need to further improve? I am still working, but I was wondering if you had any more ideas. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, thanks for your post on the infoboxes talk. You said you wanted to keep up to date with the syntax, so I'll inform you that there are two more parameters - "other" (other information) and "Excl. comp." (Exlusion compliant?). You may want to add them. Also, saying "yes" (lower case y) on the Excl. comp. variable will add a cat to the bot. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot

Your bot is adding a bunch of rat pages with the sentence "It it found..." instead of "It is found..." I fixed a few of them, but when I looked at the bot's contributions, I figured it would be easier for you to have the bot fix all of them.--Old Hoss 01:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for finding this. *Hangs head in shame* – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot source code

Hi, I hope you don't mind, I've just fixed up the source code for Polbot so it can be viewed in wiki, feel free to revert me if don't like it. Happy editing/coding. --Chris ^g 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's great! Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted ALL images i uploaded

Im getting sick and tired of people deleting images i upload, when i say i've made them myself, please make an effort to READ the comments associated with them. I cant even COUNT how many images of my personal property were deleted off wikipedia, when they were clearly made by myself personally and released under the GFDL, it isnt 1 or 2, or 3..it's about 40 different images that I MADE. Zlatko 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to tag your images properly, and they won't be deleted. For more information, see Wikipedia:Image tagging. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon investigation, it appears that these images were copyright violations. Even if you scanned these images from a book, you don't own the copyright, and can't release them under the GFDL. You have to have created the original photographs yourself in order to do that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot problems with unicode characters?

Hi there!

Just spotted a couple of article creations from Polbot that seem to have problems with non-ascii characters in the title.

• CÓBana Negra
• CÓBana Polisandro is a redirect to the above that hasn't worked at all

Looks like it might have gotten confused trying to convert the name from the all caps CÓBANA NEGRA on the source page [3]?

Cheers! --Stormie 06:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Polbot has real problems with extended ASCII. Two problems, as you correctly found. One is that Perl's built-in lower-case functions don't convert Ó to ó. The other is that, within articles (not titles), any special character becomes an unprintable character. I'll see if I can fix that. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then Polbot will have problems with that list of biographical articles. I specifically included articles with special characters to see how Polbot will handle this. Carcharoth 10:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed the second problem (which I think is the only one which would affect Function #3). The first problem is still a bugger, though. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed all the obvious problems back to 02:48UTC today. Kevin 12:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I love the wiki. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes image sourcing problems are solved in the weirdest of manners

See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_July_7#Image:Trevor_Blackwell.jpg for what may give you a small chuckle. -N 10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, good for him. Good sleuthing, by the way! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Boss

Hi,

>>Tatyaa, please don't upload photos of living people, unless you created them yourself.

Ok Boss...

Rgds, --Tatyaa 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow Rocketman

my photo that I own has been deleted from Canadian Arrow page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow Rocketman (talk • contribs)

Did you take this photo yourself? If not, who is the photographer? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

2000 presidential election map

Hello. I noticed that you deleted the maps for the other presidential election map years (1988, 1992, etc.) awhile back so that they would link directly to the Wikimedia version of the map. It appears that there is still one for 2000 though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png ...on Wikipedia (as opposed to linking directly to the Wikimedia version like all the others). Here is the 1992 one for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png As you can see, it links directly to the Commons one. Anyway, I don't have the power to fix it, but since you had fixed the others I was going to see if you might be down for fixing that one too. Thanks mate, later. (Cardsplayer4life 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm afraid I can't. The GFDL requires that the edit-history for an image be kept. There is a long edit history for the image you mentioned, with color-swapping and brightening, etc. All intermediate images and edit histories would have to uploaded to Commons before I can delete the Wikipedia version. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bionicle Image Fair Use

You recently notified me that images of Bionicle characters made by Lego would have to be replaced with homemade photographs of sets. While I understand your concern; I believe that since such pictures would still depict characters that are under Lego's copyright, they would not be viable as non-free alternatives. Drakhan 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true that any new photograph of Bionicle figurines would be a derivative work of Lego's creations, and we would have to claim "fair use" for the use of the underlying characters. However, we would not have to claim fair use on the photographs themselves -- the photographs would be available under a free license. It's the difference between making one fair use claim (character-only) or two (character and photograph). One of those uses is replaceable. Even though we can't help but make use of Lego's copyright on the image, we don't have to use Lego's copyrighted photographs. So that's an unnecessary use of non-free material. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

polbot run

I'm a little unhappy with some of the consequences of last night's extensive run of polbot--it really messed up new page patrol. Just a comment. 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Wait, so I get authorization to run a bot, and I run it, and I create thousands of new and useful articles. . . and you're unhappy because it fills up your new page patrol? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ON the contrary I am extremely!!!!! impressed by the bot. How on earth does it do it??? I logged in expecting 1,872,000 articles and I see 1,877,000+ -remarkable -don;t worry I too have had complaints about "clogging up the new pages" with new German municipality stubs. -Silly isn't it. You contribute significantly and all you get is complaints -never a hearty congratulations. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Its quite phenonomal!!! You'll have to tell me the secret later - but I won't stop you in your run until you have finished!!!!! It would be superb if it covered birds and insects too!!!! It would save all of us several years work!! Great!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell vs Polbot

You seem to be fighting against your own bot at System of a Down and List of theoretical physicists. Any reason why?! Polbot categorised both articles as possibly living, despite not being individuals. Pontificake 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

<grin>. Yes, there's something funny going on, as you could tell. I'm testing a system whereby I will add information to articles about individuals with {{WPBiography}} templates on the talk pages, making sure the information there and in the categories matches. I've been running some, checking, reverting, changing code, repeating, a lot. (SOAD shouldn't really have the WPBio template on the talk page, since it's not a person. That's the root of the problem.) See the details at User:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run and its talk page. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No probs! I've removed Possibly Living People from the two pages where it had been added. At the moment I'm trying to work through that category clearing out as many entries as possible... Pontificake 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bksiyengar.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bksiyengar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please delete. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ParkerBros-Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ParkerBros-Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer needed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

running the bot

why are you doing a large run on the ICUN redlist in the middle of the day? DGG (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I want to create articles for Wikipedia. I'm not creating articles at a pace faster than what was approved by community consensus at my request for bot approval. And it's always the middle of the day somewhere.

Why does it bother you to see so many new articles on plants and animals created? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for Polbot improvements

A concern brought up was starting with plants of least concern. Can you make the bot start with species of most concern, at the higher end of the red list--there will also be more information available about these plants for augmenting articles in the future, in addition to it being more important to have their articles.

Also can the bot add links from this list,[4] (in the taxobox botanical authorities only) such as linking Friedrich Anton Wilhelm Miquel to his botanical author abbreviation Miq.? I realize this would require rewriting this line of code.

In addition plants have lightgreen taxoboxes, not pink.

We also tend to use the angiosperm family names ending in '-aceae,' rather than acceptable alternatives. It should be Fabaceae, not Leguminosae.

Looks good, though. KP Botany 21:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, these are the 8 plant families with alternative names, please use the second name in each case, the one with the '-aceae' ending, should the plant be listed under the first name:

• Compositae = Asteraceae
• Cruciferae = Brassicaceae
• Gramineae = Poaceae
• Guttiferae = Clusiaceae
• Labiatae = Lamiaceae
• Leguminosae = Fabaceae
• Palmae = Arecaceae
• Umbelliferae = Apiaceae

KP Botany 22:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is some great feedback! I'm always looking for ways to improve Polbot. I'll address your suggestions one by one.

1. As for starting with species of highest concern, I'm afraid I have to process them family by family. So I can't really do the most important species first. Don't worry though; I will get to all the species on the Red List.
2. The list of botanist abbreviations is great! Is there one for zoologists as well? I wish I'd known about this sooner. I'll change the code to use this.
3. I can't believe I messed up the taxobox color! I'll definitely fix that.
4. I've been just using whatever taxonomic names the Red List uses. I can translate those families, no problem.

If you have any other suggestions for improvement, however minor, please let me know! All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot bio functions

See my conclusions at User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run. Basically, it all looks fine to me, though the seemingly infinite variety of possible problems suggests to me that, even though Polbot is being conservative here, the function should be ramped up slowly in size over a truly random sample, to see if any further problems drop out of the woodwork, and the category function should be separated from the sortkey function. Also, I forgot to mention it, but it would help if the log put in a blank column marker, instead of just nothing when, say, ds is not there, or cp is not there. Also, it is annoying to have the record of what it did on its contributions list, and the data it found, in two separate places. Is it not possible for the log to also record the data at the articles it edited, and to mark the data it added? I'll demonstrate over there. Carcharoth 22:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe over here instead...

Alan Turing|lv=no|la=|ds=Turing, Alan|pn=Turing, Alan Mathison|cp=
Janet Baker|lv=yes|la=Baker, Janet|ds='''Baker, Janet'''|pn=|cp=Baker, Janet

Does the above make sense? The bold (or whatever flag works best) indicates data added by the bot. The blank entries are there to keep things tidy and in columns. Would this be possible? Polbot is a rather busy bot, and I'd prefer to work from log files, rather than her contributions list, though I would still refer back to that as well. Carcharoth 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you do decide to separate out the living/birth/death category thing from the sortkey stuff, then obviously the lv parameter can get dropped. If you keep them, I'd suggest adding output for bc (birth category), dc (death category) and lc (living category), and get the bot to check the categories for "XXXX births", "XXXX deaths" (though note that some birth and death categories involve decades, not years, so just check for "birth" and "death" in the categories), "Living people", "Possibly living people", "Year of birth unknown", "Year of birth missing" and "Year of birth missing (living people)", and the corresponding death categories. If all that comes up blank, you can safely assume the article needs flagging for attention. The output file, using the above examples, would be:

Alan Turing|lv=no|bc=y|dc=y|lc=n|la=|ds=Turing, Alan|pn=Turing, Alan Mathison|cp=
Janet Baker|lv=yes|bc=y|dc=n|lc=y|la=Baker, Janet|*ds=Baker, Janet|pn=|cp=Baker, Janet

(I've changed the "bot made an edit" flag from the bold wiki tags to an asterisk instead.)

What do you think? Carcharoth 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is some fantastic feedback. I like the suggested change to the logfile. I hadn't considered "1880s births" or "14th century deaths". Your analysis over at your subpage was very helpful as well. I'll comment more fully tomorrow, insha'Allah. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Tanya Tucker pic

Im actually glad you deleted that picture of Tanya Tucker, it was way back from 1997! But i think it does need a picture there, i have a few i would like to use, some very recent pics of her, im not sure how to put a picture up , do you think you could help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckertough (talk • contribs)

Do you have any photographs of her that you've taken yourself? I'm afraid we can't use a non-free picture of her on Wikipedia, and most images you'll find on the web are non-free. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for details. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kung Fu Hustle

Your insistance that there's a connection between Kung Fu Hustle and the Matrix is confusing and a bit baseless. Why not contribute to the discussion page and make sense of your decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmscstl (talk • contribs)

I don't insist that there's a connection. I simply noticed that two sources claim there is, and that you keep removing sourced information. I have no opinion at all on whether there's a connection or not, which is why I'm not discussing that. I'm only commenting on your actions in that dispute, which are inappropriate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Destructive deletion

You deleted an image, Image:Almstilhs052030.jpg, even though I explained that there is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate. e have fair use policies and guidelines on Wikipedia.

1. The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
2. The contributing editor understands that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
3. The contributing editor uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate.

You posted a boilerplate, bullying statement about "replaceability," even though I already covered that issue. Wikipedia is not a place to bully people over "libre content" ideology. Either restore the image immediately or face arbitration or further action. 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosquera (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I am confident that my deletion was correct and in line with Wikipedia policies. If you feel I was out of line, you are free to report my actions to WP:AN/I, or else file an WP:RFC about the matter. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate. Again, you insist on using standard libre-content bullying tactics. You have neither consensus nor evidence that I did anything wrong. You cannot cite your own opinions, which are simple because-I-said-so boilerplate, as consensus. Apologize and retract. The standard excuses don't work with me. Mosquera 03:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm not interested in discussing this with you further. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That only shows your uncivil manner. I tried. You refuse to answer because you know you were in the wrong. I repeat, you cannot cite your own opinions as consensus. Respect policy. Mosquera 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you now are threatening my posting privileges. You seem to be bullying me again -- and perhaps trying to drive me from the site in order to prevent me from taking procedural action against you. Respect policy. Mosquera 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I expected, you are bullying me further. You are now wikistalking me by digging through my past posts. You seek to win an argument by force when you get nowhere by reason. Do not stalk me. Mosquera 04:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration? Mosquera 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that's warranted, I can't stop you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not stalk me.' You seem to be utterly unapologetic and unable gto discuss the issues. You simply insist on endlessly tossing boilerplate text at me. I'm sorry, I'm not going to sit here and you harass me, as you apparently have done to dozens of others. That you try to drive me from the site in order to prevent me from taking procedural action against you makes things even worse for you.Mosquera 04:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

You have posted numerous bogus "dispute" tags to my contributions. I asumme you have not read the 10,000+ character rationales I attached to each of them. Do not abuse Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Your actions are against the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. Stop now. Mosquera 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mosquera, I examined several of the images under dispute. I am impressed with your lengthy rationales. I, however, have one question: Are the images of living individuals living public lives (i.e. not reclusive like, say, J. D. Salinger)? --Iamunknown 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You will claim that if the person is not hiding in a spider hole in Inner Mongolia, then a fair use photo gets deleted. Let's spare ourselves this worn-out ritual. They are non-replaceable images. Period. That they are "portraits of living people" is not sufficient grounds for replaceability, nor does it give an administer carte blanche to harass me.

This image is properly used under current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" images ever become available, they may be uploaded as replacements. Such an event is highly unlikely in the next twenty years, even if it were somehow in theory possible, given the intellectual property issues involved.

The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil. Mosquera 07:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

More Wikistalking: Please Stop!!!!

Quadell, please do not try to carry your wikistalking campaign against me to other users. I ask that you apologize immediately and try to undo your destructive actions. M.

Page Burgos Ilocos Norte

Sir I saw that my images of thelighthouse and the lamps were deleted from this page. Why was this? I have the copyright to these images as I made them. Did I use wrong categories when uploading the images? Thanks for the expalanation Herman

Did you actually delete photos that this editor took himself? To a new editor? Without a note on his discussion page? Are you not concerned about driving away editors from our project? This is getting worse all the time. I ask that you please modify your behavior in this regard. We should work together with new editors, not summarily delete without making communication with them and helping them to use the correct templates. Badagnani 07:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)