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

Magnet Lab images

More info is now on tags at Image:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab02.jpg and Image:National_High_Magnetic_Field_Lab00.png explaining that due to uniqueness of image or security issues, one cannot obtain a photo. Need further explanation? I can provide details. Thanks. Noles1984 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For the photograph, you may have a point. (It would be good if you could provide evidence that the subject is not available to the public, however.) But for the diagram, anyone could create a new diagram based on the information in the image, so I still believe that image is replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

Has created this page, and I assume will be creating other similar ones: Luneti�Re De Rotg�S

Oh dear... 195.137.30.238 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm testing it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

She's still failing her tests, but I'm cleaning up after her. (It's like she's not house-trained yet.) My source is encoded in ISO-8859-1, but Wikipedia uses UTF-8. I never thought I'd have to dig this deep into character encoding to run a bot, but life's full of surprizes. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Area 51

Please don't tag the image for deletion, it is used to illustrate area 51, and is currently the highest resolution image available of the area, so it can't really be replaced with another free image.Rodrigue 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, a free replacement could be made, and the image is therefore replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:SingaporeStone-bwphoto.jpg

Hi, I just received a standard notice from you about Image:SingaporeStone-bwphoto.jpg. I did state the reason why I believe the image is not replaceable on the "image" page – did you read it before tagging the image with {{di-replaceable fair use}}? If so, what are your reasons for disagreeing with the explanation? It is rather dispiriting to receive a standard notice when I did take the time to explain why I believe the image to be non-replaceable. Cheers, Jacklee 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. You said that photographs probably aren't allowed in the museum, but without evidence of that, we have to assume that the image is replaceable (since the subject still exists). If you can provide evidence that the image is not replaceable (e.g. a link to the museum's policy of not allowing photography), then dispute it and I'm sure it won't be deleted. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The points that you made prompted me to look at the website of the National Museum of Singapore (go to http://www.nationalmuseum.sg, select "Facilities" and click on "Photography and filming"). It states: "Still photography for private, non-commercial use as a visitor to the Museum is allowed. The use of a flash and tripod is prohibited." Photography for the purpose of Wikipedia is probably not private and non-commercial, because Wikipedia is accessible to the public, and photographs uploaded under the GFDL may be used for commercial purposes. Is this sufficient justification for non-free fair use of the photograph? I look forward to your views. Cheers, Jacklee 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's complex. Deciding whether to allow or bar photography is an internal museum rule, not a part of copyright law, so I don't think the museum has any legal right to say what you can do with your photographs after you take them (though they can tell you whether you can take photographs or not). In order to use a photo on Wikipedia, it has to be licensed by the copyright-holder to allow non-commercial use, but I think that would be up to the photographer, not the museum. It looks to be like if you tell the museum "I'm taking this photo for personal use", then they'll let you photograph it, and then they can't legally stop you from licensing the image under the GFDL and uploading it to Wikipedia (or using it commercially, for that matter). But it sounds like you would have to lie, at least implicitly, to do so. I'm not sure where that puts us in terms of Wikipedia policy, so I asked for further input at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#13_July_2007. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be interesting to find out the answer. Of course it would be difficult for the museum to control what people do with photographs they have taken at the Museum, but then taking the line that images of artefacts at the Museum are replaceable implicitly encourages people to breach the contractual terms of their entry into the Museum. Cheers, Jacklee 05:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't smell very good

That wasn't very nice. There's no harm in studing. It's very important, it keeps your house from falling down. --Kbdank71 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, people dropping by my talk page are going to have no idea what you're talking about. :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Snap Server Photo

I have recieved a response from Adapetec regarding the snapserver photo granting permission and I have sent it to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org Do I need to do anything else regarding this photo? Image:SnapServer-NA.jpg

Cisco has replied, that the permission rquest is in progress for all the Cisco and Linksys images. Do you think you can hold off on deleting any of them for another week? It seems that have a maze that needs to go through to grant permission.

Also could you undelete image: Linksys48portswitch.jpg

I have asked for permission for all the photos and Cisco owns linksys.

Best Regards,

Al --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cisco has responded as well. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Keiko Nakazawa.jpg

Your comment would be appreciated at User_talk:Rettetast#Fair_use_rationale_on_Keiko_Nakazawa_picture. Rettetast 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and attention on this matter, Quadell. I'm going to pursue your suggestion and see if I can contact the publishing company that originally put out that Keiko Nakazawa photobook. I don't know how successful I'll be, however, because I suspect that that publisher has not been in business for some time. This is important enough to me, however, that I feel compelled ot try. User:Buried Alien 14:33, 14 July 2007, (PDT)

ogre image

hello, you asked for a reason why that image is unreplaceable... i am confident that a free use image could be found, but is it possible to keep the image until a fair use is found. perhaps put a note under the image in the article or something. please resond on my talk page. Naufana : talk 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey that's fine, I know a lot of users on Wikipedia are try to rid it of copyrighted images for fear of future lawsuits and i think thats great. go ahead and delete the image at your leisure. I'll do my best to find someone who has a photo of the artist in question and is willing to release it under GNU or copyleft.Naufana : talk 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Free Image for Area 51

According to the policy you used, only an "acceptable quality" image can be used to replace the non-free Area 51 image.But the one from Google Earth is in much greater detail than any other available imagery of the area, and judging from the one I was replacing it with, only that image can suffice for an encyclopedia. Rodrigue 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. But the point is, a photograph of similar quality could be created, even if one isn't available at the moment. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help tagging the photos

I have the emails from Cisco and Adaptec. Basically Cisco has a URL that outlines everything that can be done with any photo. So that solves the all the Cisco and Linksys photos issue. But I do not know how to tag the photo. The url lets you do anything you want with the photo so long as it is stated it is Copyrighted by them and it is not altered with the exception of resizing or cropping.

Adaptec states that the photo can be viewed. copied, resized, anything we want, but may not be altered other than resizing or cropping, and must state it is copyrighted by them. So could you tell me which tag to use and how to use it?

The Adaptec photo is: Image:SnapServer-NA.jpg and if you could tell me how to do it for Cisco for example: Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg that would be great. I tried to do it but I do not think I did it properly.

Please advise me since I want to do this properly. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you did it right to me. Good job! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please restore image Image:Linksys befsr8.jpg

Could you please undelete this image for me. I have this image covered as well.

Thanks!

Al --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's undeleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please restore image Image:Kira and Nrabuttons by Kira Blue eyes.jpg

Er, drawn by a friend of mine, not Disney by any means. Definitely a free-use image, cleared for use on my User Page. Please undelete, and I'll fix up the licensing statement so that it makes better sense. Thanks! NraButtons 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored Image:Kira and Nrabuttons by Kira Blue eyes.jpg, but it doesn't currently have a license. Please pick an image licensing tag for the image. Wikipedia:Image licensing tags has all the info you need. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Delay Mugshot.jpg

I guess you forgot to really deleted this one. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't want it deleted, but I can't defend it's use. I can't claim that it shouldn't be deleted, but I'm not really motivated to delete it myself either. Call it the non-participation vote. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I though that your comment was actually an closing-statement. And I completely misunderstood this diff where you added July 9 to the "old discussions": I though you were removing it. I forgot my pills today. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We got you covered. ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Licensing question

If someone sends me an image with a GFDL license, can I put it on my Flickr account with a CC-by or CC-by-SA license, or do I have to mark it as 'all rights reserved', since I didn't create the content myself? I'm still trying to learn about downstream use and license compatibility. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the CC licenses aren't compatible with the GFDL. This sucks. If it's GFDL, you can't mark it as being under a creative commons license. Just say "All rights reserved", and mention that it's released under the GFDL in the image's text.

For a while, there was some movement towards making these licenses compatible. See this archived Signpost article, along with related info here and here from the CC folks. Unfortunately, it seems to have gone nowhere. I haven't seen any mentions of this anywhere since late 2005. Sigh. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. I think I'll change my permission requests to CC as opposed to GFDL to simplify things. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Pech -- why was the image deleted?

I fully admit to being very ignorant on this topic, and all the terms "fair use" and "nearly replaceable" are a mystery to me.

You deleted the image of Lawrence Pech from his listing. That image is the property of the Lawrence Pech Dance Company, of which I am the administrator. I give full permission for this image to appear. Please tell me exactly what I need to do or say or attest in order to get the image restored.

Thanks,

Michael Temlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltemlin (talk • contribs)

Thanks for contacting me. I'm glad you want to improve Wikipedia by adding information and an image, Image:Lawrence Pech.jpg, to the Lawrence Pech page. We're an entirely free content encyclopedia, which means that anyone can copy all Wikipedia material and use it however they like, including modifying it or making money off of it, without asking anyone for permission first. For this reason we only use images that are "free content" as well. I see that you have given permission for Wikipedia to use the image, but that's not enough for it to be "free content". We need to have permission for anyone to use it, even for commercial gain. If you are willing to license the image in this way, then great! We can use the image. Just let me know and I'll restore the image and add the correct licensing information for you. But if you don't wish to license the image as "free content", then I'm afraid we can't use it. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image of

Hi the image found at Linda Bradford Raschke, Image:L bradraschke.jpg

I have emailed WP with the permission request and the response from the image owner. She said it was ok to use the image !

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trade2tradewell (talk • contribs)

Greetings. Did the image owner say that it was okay for just Wikipedia to use the image? Or did she say that it was okay for anyone to use it? This matters because we're an entirely free content encyclopedia. This means that anyone can copy all Wikipedia material and use it however they like, including modifying it or making money off of it, without asking anyone for permission first. For this reason we only use images that are "free content" as well. If only Wikipedia can use the image, that's not enough for it to be "free content". We need to have permission for anyone to use it, even for commercial gain. If the copyright-holder is willing to license the image in this way, then great! We certainly won't delete it, and I'll help add the correct licensing information for you. But if the image is not "free content", then I'm afraid we can't use it. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:SPL_trophy.jpg

I strongly disagree with your tagging of Image:SPL_trophy.jpg. You assert that a freely licensed image could reasonably be found. Having previously searched for such an image I beg to differ, unless you have performed a similar search and have a replacement image up your sleeve? I would also like to know why Image:SPL_trophy.jpg is being tagged for deletion while fundamentally identical images such as Image:DBU-trophy.jpg or Image:Lennartjohanssonspokal.jpg are apparently acceptable. The latter having been uploaded by an administrator! Thank you. Kanaye 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I assert that a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. There may not exist a freely licensed image of this trophy yet, but since the trophy still exists, someone could take a photograph of it and release that photograph under a free license. That's all that's required by our first non-free content criterion in order for it to be deemed "replaceable".

Thanks for pointing out those other images, which are also in violation. I have tagged them as well. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

At least you're consistent.

The point is that a free image of "Acceptable quality" (WP:NFCC) can not reasonably be created. The trophy is kept under lock and key in a restricted area and is only brought out of that area on a limited number of occasions (including the actual presentation of the trophy) which severely limits any opportunities to create an image of equal effect. Kanaye 19:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally disagree. I think that if the trophy is on display (in a locked cabinet, behind glass), then a photo could be taken of it, and that photo could be freely licensed. It might not be as good of a photo, but, in my opinion, it would have the same encyclopedic content. If you disagree, though, you should place {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, and say on the image talk page why you think the image is not replaceable. Some time after Saturday, the 21st, an admin will examine the case and decide whether the image should be deleted or not. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot edit suggestion

In this edit to Bailey (surname), your bot applied MOS:DAB rules to a surname page. Quite a few surname pages are incorrectly tagged with {{hndis}} or {{disambig}}, although they should have used {{surname}} instead (for which MOS:DAB does not apply). Could you make your bot skip pages that are called "Xxy (surname)"? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure whether I'll ever run this disambiguation-fix function or not (I only ran a test run of 50 pages to see how it worked), but if I do, I'll make sure to avoid these. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough

Delete away then, comrade. NraButtons 17:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Permission is not enough?

I do not understand. I thought you told me if I received permission, no one would challange this photos. The image Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg has been tagged for deletion. The reason being the permission is revokable. Could you please explain exactly what permissions are needed by Wiki? Cisco will not put the picture in public domain or relinquish rights to it..

I have no idea why you need other rights. Could you explain to me why they need more rights and wich ones exactly, So I can draft a request.

Could you also not have this photo deleted. I thought this was all solved.

--akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was solved too. My mistake. As you know, we're a "free content" encyclopedia, licensed under the GFDL. This means that anyone could copy all of Wikipedia modify it, publish it, and even sell it for profit, without asking anyone's permission ahead of time. We need our images to have the same permissions on them. So anyone would need to be able to copy the image, republish it, sell copies of it, modify it, etc. Cisco would retain the copyright, but they would have to give pre-emptive permission for anyone to use it under a free license. User:Videmus Omnia has had a lot of luck getting such permissions from people, and he listed his tips and tricks on this page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New Free Content that requires close examination

Quadell, I just received the following free images in response to a WP:ERP request - since you are my free content mentor, I think you should be the first to see them (besides me):

• Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg
• Image:Michele Merkin 2.jpg
• Image:Michele Merkin 3.jpg
• Image:Michele Merkin 4.jpg

Who says free content has to be crappy? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, Tim! You're amazing. Free content isn't supposed to be that sexy! If I'm your free content mentor, I hereby declare you to be fully graduated, and now pursuing an advanced degree. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bohermeen Church

Sorry for sounding so angry. What happened is simple (and it has driven hundreds of users away over the last 2 years). Wikipedia had one set of commands available when I and many others uploaded images, and we categorised them according to the commands at the time. Over time various changes occurred but those of us who had contributed vast numbers of images and articles could not physically trace back every image to recategorise them. Many users simply asked that if there was an image problem they get a polite enquiry, taking into account the fact that different rules and categories at existed when the images were put onto WP. They also pointed ouy that many people are not on every day or every week and asked that an adequate length of time be given to allow any recategorisation take place. Instead these points were ignored and instead users found there talk pages jammed with bot messages accusing them of improperly uploading images and warning them that the images were going to be removed as illegal unless an explanation was given. I was one of those heavily involved in rewriting all the Irish history and politics pages (5 of us between us wrote 90% of the major articles on Irish history and politics) and was one of a group of about 20 who turned what were notoriously embarrassing articles on royalty into a form that got written about in the British media, which described the quality of WP coverage of royalty as the best of any encyclopaedia. One guy sent months assembling images through contacting press offices worldwide and getting images released under the conditions required by WP at the time. He went away for a month and found his page jammed with bot notices telling him that all his images had been improperly loaded according to new rules. In that time all his images had been deleted, with articles left as tangled messes. He has not been back since (and if you think I am angry you should have seen his anger. His phone bill from calling press offices had been over €300, only to find himself then accused by new users and bots of having broken laws he had not broken by using categories that had not existed at the time).

Every one of the group I worked with on the Irish articles was driven away by how they were treated over images. All but two of the people I worked with on the royal articles have done the same. I left WP months ago because I spent my entire time being bombarded by bots. I am only back occasionally to check something. Every time I arrive back I find I am bombarded again. I have had images I myself licensed using GFDL removed simply because the form of GFDL licence in use at the time was different to the one used now. I am completely fed up with it and have washed my hands of WP. (I constantly get emails from others on WP who have decided that they have had enough too and are leaving.) In this case I was advised by WP when I asked to categorise that image as it was categorised, and not to use GFDL. A lot of us were told the same thing. Now we all find ourselves under seige from people accusing us of incorrectly categorising stuff. Thank you, BTW for coming back about this. Various longstanding users were complaining about this for ages, and were ignored. I have written for other encyclopaedias and can charge heavily for my work. I got fed up working for free here only then to find articles I wrote ripped to shreds by a bot screwing up images. Sorry for being so angry tonight but I am so fed up with it all. Various users I worked with have been removing images they posted, including full GFDL images, because of how they feel they have been treated. I don't even bother to correct entries any more. The last time I did that, explaining in detail why the image was fully legal, it was ignored anyway and the image removed even though it was fully legit.

You could say that I, and the others who put so much time and effort into this encyclopaedia, have just given up in frustation, and regret having done so much work for so little thanks. If others had showed the concern you had, rather than just ignored the concerns of longstanding contributors, we would not all have left. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)