User talk:Quadell/Archive 52

Hi Quadell,

Following on from our chat about next projects a little while ago - I've taken Speech generating device from [1] to it's current state - I'm going to sort out the rest of the references over the next few days - but my question is - do you think it's of a standard that I could reasonably put it forward for GA after a bit of polish? Failedwizard (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The article looks to be in great condition. The only thing it clearly needs is a tightening of the source formatting: refs like "B&M,p30" aren't quite ready for prime time yet, and other parts could use tidying as well. But it seems comprehensive, well-written, and well-organized. I'd say it's just about ready. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks dude - I spent this morning on the references and have just thrown it on to the GA nominations pile, will let you know how it goes :) Failedwizard (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 Template:Non-free currency has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MGA73 (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

When I made this template, 7 years ago, it was clearly needed. Now, I'm not so sure. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering if you would be able to fix the references for Giraffe so that they would have a consistant formating (but in a different format than you did for Tiger Shark). I'm thinking of making another try at a FA status and referencing seems to be a major thing.

Thank you

LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what format you're hoping to use. I would recommend you first make sure that all citations use the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}} templates correctly. The article uses them sometimes, but not other times, and sometime uses "cite web" for a journal article, sometimes includes double-commas or other errors, etc. Just go through each reference and make sure they're consistent, in whatever format you prefer. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We have the chance to get some free use Howdy Doody images which were originally used as give-aways from a show sponsor, Poll Parrot Shoes. The front of the items had a photo of the character and the back had a replica of sheet music from the program. The clue to these being Poll Parrot promotional items is the Poll Parrot shoes song on the back of this one. No copyright mark on the shoe song, but there is one here for It's Howdy Doody Time.

Since I initially upload both sides of a photo to prove there aren't copyright marks, what's an answer to this without copying the copyrighted music--blanking everything except the title? Since the program had a 1970s revival, I'd believe the theme copyright was renewed. These do date back to circa late 1940s-early to mid 1950s. Thanks! We hope (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would simply keep the image of the front of the card, and leave a note in the image description saying "I have examined both sides of the card and there was no copyright notice for the image." – Quadell ^(talk) 15:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, my thanks! We hope (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, can you check the copyright status of File:Ester Dean in "Pitch Perfect" movie set.jpg? I've previously had an image by the same uploader deleted as a derivative work of a copyrighted image, and fear s/he is doing the same thing. However, I haven't found anything using Google Images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find it online using any of my usual tricks. (I note that the official site, http://esterdean.com/, seems to be down at the moment.) I agree that it's most likely a copyvio, given the uploader's other activity, but it _could_ be legit, I don't know. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree... especially with a movie set image. Does commons have a duck clause? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dunno... List it at WP:PUF, maybe? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll try something like that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to peer review the giraffe article? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not able to do that right now, but if you list it at Wikipedia:Peer review you may find someone who can. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, I need some help once again. The article is currently being reviewed, but on hold until thursday 10th. The main problem I have is related to copy-edits, so if you could do some corrections that would help a lot. Thanks for your time!--GDuwenTell me! 02:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'll have time, but if I can I'll look at it before the 10th. No promises though, I'm afraid. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, any help is welcome.--GDuwenTell me! 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't had near as much time this week as I would like. I hope the review goes well. Perhaps I'll have more time to look at it in the coming weeks. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've thought of leaving you a note, since I was wondering whether you needed some assistance with steward tasks - I realize it may seem intimidating as a new steward, especially since there's not much guidance after the elections. Well, if you ever have any queries I'd be willing to help. :-) -- Mentifisto 22:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I'm actually in e-mail correspondence with a long-time steward, trying to learn the ropes. If I have further questions, I won't hesitate to ask you, though. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, Quaddell. I've recently been working on the ontological argument, with a goal of eventually reaching GA status, and was wondering if you could give me any feedback. If you can, that would be really helpful. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't had near as much time this week as I would like. I'd like to look it over, if I get a chance. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. If you can't look at it, then don't worry. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Aware you're very busy, so wanted to ping your talk in case you missed [[2]] - I'm positing that we go back for FA (and I'm happy to lead the charge) but wanted a nod of approval before I did. Failedwizard (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll stay out of the nominating process this time, and see if I can act as a reviewer instead. Whenever anyone nominates it, just let me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's cool, Poule wanted to add two bits, but I'll nominate straight after. Hope you are okay :) Failedwizard (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, Could I trouble you again for a quick look at another article I'm looking at getting up to strength? In the Actors section of the James Bond (character) page there is a montage image of the six Bond actors. Is this allowable at all, or should this be deleted / replaced? Many thanks - again! - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is borderline and debatable, but I personally would avoid this sort of montage of six non-free images. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's great - thanks. I'm going to start editing the article soon for a major overhaul, so I'll drop it along the way. Thanks again for your help! - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am giving out awards to people who help clear the backlog of F8 tagged files. I thought you may be interested cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 06:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks right up my alley, but I'm afraid I'm a bit busy off-wiki at the moment. I suppose I should make it official and go on wikibreak... – Quadell ^(talk) 13:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Quadell. I hope you're having a good time with your family celebrating Christimas (or at least the holiday). Best wishes. --Lecen (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Lecen! Christmas was eventful and satisfying for me. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As you made the {{non-free historic image}} template, interested in your opinion on File:Lho-133A.jpg. Free or non-free? If non-free, it seems this would fit the criteria of the template, as the photo itself has been the subject of endless commentary (I saw JFK). Kelly ^hi! 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented there. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Quadell-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. As a member of BAG and the bot community, I would very much like to interview you for the project at a time and in a method that is most convenient for you (Gchat, another IM client, Skype, email, telephone, etc.). I am completely flexible and can work with your schedule. The interview will take approximately 30-45 minutes.

My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to hearing from you to set up a time to chat. Thank you very much.

Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon

UOJComm (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm willing to answer any questions, I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help. I haven't been an active member of the Bot Approvals Group for several years. I wish you luck in your dissertation, however, and I hope many active BAG members are willing to assist you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quadell...Thank you very much for the response. I am interested in talking to BAG and bot community members past and present, so if you're willing, I'd definitely like to send you some interview questions regarding your experiences, or set up a time to chat online. At your convenience, please let me know if you'd like to participate, and thank you in advance! Randall UOJComm (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I have replied on your user talk page. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Saw you were back, thought you could do with a beverage .... Failedwizard (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Failedwizard! Good to see you again. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget about the January Move to Commons drive. ~~Ebe123~~ ? report on my contribs. 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get right to it. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I wonder if you could give some advice again? I'm trying to get List of James Bond novels and stories through the FL process at the moment (the review is taking place here) and one of the reviewers has put up two media related comments. Would you be able to have a look and comment on these two points please?

• Can we get an image expert to verify that the fair-use rationale for the lead image is okay? I remember what happened at the last Bond-related FLC and would like to avoid such a long debate if possible.
• I may not be an image expert, but I doubt that two non-free images in a list can be found to pass muster. The second image perhaps could pass the criteria for Ian Fleming's article, but not for a list like this.

Many thanks indeed for any input you could provide! - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have commented there, though I fear my input may be disappointing. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, although I was afraid you'd say something like that! There's a photo I'd like to use which I think will be okay on one level (but possibly not on others) which is at the bottom of this page, titled "An Exemplary Set of Ian Fleming First Editions". Firstly would something like this be OK and secondly is this image as it stands OK? Many thanks once again! - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

An image like that would be perfect, I'd say... but not this image specifically. You'd need a freely licensed photograph (of copyrighted book covers), and not a copyrighted photograph of the same. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that would be the case! Thanks for that - I'll see what I can dig up from somewhere! If I can't find a decent licence free copy I'll take a pic of the pan paperback editions I've got, which should be copyright free as the spines are a fairly plain text. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the new image should be ok - it's copies of the books, but the spines only, showing only a common typeface and little in the way of original design. If you think it'sOK, would you mind dropping a note on the review page again? Sorry to be a pain - and many, many thanks once again! - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it needs a copyright tag. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! (Can you tell I'm entirely ignorant when it comes to the picture side of things!) I think I've put the right one in there now. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Once again I find myself bowing to a font of copyright knowledge! Thanks so much for yet more help and advice! SchroCat (^ • @) 20:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! – Quadell ^(talk) 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As you are my go-to guy for this sort of question, would you checking my working on something? I reviewed the Catenary article for GA as part of the backlog elimination drive and because it was over christmas and new year have been very flexible about the timescale for improving the article (it is gradually improving in a pleasant way and the nominator appears lovely). My questions are a) do any development points jump out at you for things I should handle better in the review and b) should I be a little more firm on timings and start poking for action? Failedwizard (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a very thorough review, and I think it covers all of the article's shortcomings adequately. (To be honest, I shy away from math-related articles, since I honestly am not sure how many equations are appropriate or how best to incorporate them into prose. Congratulations on having the courage to review it!)

I don't think you can pass it until the citations are up to snuff and the lede is adequate, at a minimum. It was good to be patient over the holidays, but that is no longer relevant. If it were me, I would gently let the reader know that if all concerns are fully addressed within the next week, then it will pass, but if not it will have to fail this go-around. I always say something like "If you address these issues at a later date, feel free to resubmit the article then." But the timeline is completely up to you.

Thanks for reviewing GA noms! – Quadell ^(talk) 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Not sure if you remember but you originally reviewed the GA nomination for Yarborough v. Alvarado. Unfortunately because of real life stuff I wasn't able to implement your suggestions at the time. However, recently I have implemented the purposed changes and renominated the article. Just wanted to see if there was any interesting from you in checking out the second nomination! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look it over. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember... this was a fascinating case! It looks like you have improved all the areas I mentioned in my review. The only problem that jumps out at me is the lede. It's still a little short, and though it describes the case itself fully, it does not summarize many sections of the article (such as Subsequent developments). If it were me, I would modify the lede as follows: I would leave the first sentence as it is, and then I would add two or three sentences about why the case was important and how it was received. Then I would begin a second paragraph with "Michael Alvarado helped his friend". I think that would improve the flow of the lede, while expanding it enough to fulfill the requirements of WP:LEAD. But of course it's up to you and the actual reviewer.

Thanks for going back and improving this article! It's an important case, and I'm glad it's covered so well on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a lot for all your feedback! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Q, a bunch of mammal articles created by your Polbot have inappropriately capitalized titles (e.g. Aztec Mouse). Do you have a way to semi-automatically fix this? Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

When Polbot created these articles (back in 2007), I talked with all the various wikiprojects about what the best naming conventions were. The consensus at the time was that mammal species should have the first letters capitalized in all words in the common name. I don't know if the consensus has changed since then or not; either way, Polbot is no longer in operation, and I would have no way of mass-changing the names of these articles. Perhaps you could try Wikipedia:Bot requests? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, much appreciated.--GDuwenTell me! 19:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I recently made this edit about a surname disambiguation effort made in 2008 from a database dump at a page where you do similar work. Would you be able to comment on the feasibility of the proposals I've suggested and what the current state of name disambiguation pages are like, or suggest the best place to ask? Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll comment there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention; it sounds interesting. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I reposted my proposal here, as it got collapsed at the template discussion. You might want to repost your comment at the TfD over at that village pump. I can think of several places to try and get interest going in this. What I really want to see is a way to get a single category (probably a hidden one) on all biography articles, so that the dynamic category listing can be used to inspect all the articles we have on Smiths (say). Though maybe you think that bot-lists or database reports are better. Anyway, probably best discussed at that Village Pump. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Quaddell. I know that you're no longer a Wikimedia steward, but since you've had experience on that front I'm wondering if you could give me some advice. I would like to change my global account username to User:DCI, and am not sure how to go about this without having to change my username tediously on each wiki. The other problem is that there are two dormant accounts out there called "DCI", and I'm not sure how I could get those two. If you have any ideas on where I should go, that'd be great. Thanks, dci | TALK 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your best course of action would be, but I have contacted an active steward on your behalf. We'll see what he says. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quadell and DCI. You have to know that the process of global renaming is something really boring, since stewards only have the rights to rename you on wikis without active local bureaucrats. But in your case, you don't have contributed to a lot of projects and that won't be so hard to do : just request a renaming on every projects you have at least one edit, being renamed on projects where you don't have any edit does not worth it. Feel free to ask me if you need some help. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commoncat. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commoncat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This seems like a useful simplification to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Have run across some things recently I'd appreciate your opinion on re: PD-pre 1978 or not.

• City News Bureau photos. At times you find them and since they're distributed to about anyone who asks, free or not if not copyright marked as this one?

• Photo services' photos without copyright marks, as in this example?

• Clearly the property of the television network it aired on but has "scanned to AP" on it, like this?

Thanks! We hope (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. In all these cases, we need to be sure they were first published before 1978 without a © notice. "Publication" is a tricky word to define, but if a City News Bureau photo is distributed openly to anyone who asks (not just to a select group of confidants) then it has certainly been published. If it had been previously published (before being so distributed) with a © symbol, then it's a copyrighted work; otherwise, it is ineligible for copyright protection. This is also true for photo services' photos: if it was never made available to random members of the public (either for free or for purchase), then it may not have been published and it could be copyrighted... and if it was first published with a © notice, and only later distributed without one, then it might be under copyright... but otherwise it's in the public domain. Finally, "scanned to AP" is not a legal copyright notice. Before 1978, a work had to be first published with either a © sign or the word "Copyright", and a year. If either of these was missing on first publication (even if it was an oversight), the work was not published according to legal conventions and is not eligible for protection. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For being the kind of guy you can talk it over with over coffee. As always, many thanks! We hope (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delighted! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Quadell,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

Thank you. I have sent you an e-mail regarding this. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to upload an image of "Guru Gopinath", saw a message File deleted, I found an image from www.thehindu.com, what if it uploaded under "Non-free use rationale".Thank you. -- Raghith 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears I deleted this image five years ago for not having a license tag. If there is a "public domain" photograph of Guru Gopinath, then we can use that photo. "Public domain" is a specific legal term -- it means that the photo is not legally covered by copyright law. The image you mention above is not likely to be "public domain", even if it is commonly reproduced on the internet. Any photograph published first in India before 1952 will be "public domain", however, so your best bet is to find a photograph from before 1952. This page seems to have several photos of him from this era, and you may be able to find higher-quality "public domain" pictures as well. Since "public domain" pictures of him exist, we cannot upload non-free images of him to Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you, I uploaded commons:File:Art77c.jpg from the page. Please confirm that my upload is in correct form, and have correct licence. -- Raghith 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you-- Raghith 08:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have commented there. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, I was wondering if you'd review an article for me. I am thinking that I will nominate Augustinian theodicy as a featured article soon, but am looking for feedback before I do so; would you be able to give me your thoughts? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. First, a word of warning, as I see you have not nominated an article for Featured Status yet. It's not a pleasant process. While the GA process tends to involve guiding an article through improvement, the FA process is in practice more a matter of intelligent people trying to find reasons it should not be featured, and the nominator scrambling to improve the article quickly enough. And that's if you're luck enough to get FA reviewers to actually read it; if not, it times out after a month due to inactivity, which can be frustrating. I've seen many people (including myself) discouraged by the process. So if you do submit, brace yourself, and accept at the outset that a first-time nomination is not likely to succeed. If you're prepared for that, then go for it!

Right away I'd say the footnotes need to be tightened a bit. Augustine's "Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean" is also available at Wikisource and should be linked, and both it and "City of God" should probably be linked in the bibliography, not the footnotes. In fact, all links to works should be in the bibliography (not footnotes) whenever possible. Tooley's "Problem of Evil" is referenced twice, with different formats; both should just be "Tooley, 2009." in the footnotes, it seems to me, and should be done in the bibliography like Zaccaria is done. You'll need to clean up spacing, dash formatting, and punctuation in the footnotes.

Both image captions have problems. In the first one I'm not sure what it's saying, and I would reword it entirely. If it's a complete sentence, it needs a period. In the second, it isn't obvious how the caption relates to the image. Perhaps "...the Augustinian concept of Hell, vividly depicted in this 12th-century painting by Herrad von Landsberg." or something.

I'll get to the content sometime this week, I hope. Thanks for thinking of me, and congratulations on your continued improvements to this important topic! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. I have started to look at some of the sources; my only problem with the Tooley source is that it is a website, rather than a book, and the two references have slightly different URLs (linking to different sections on the page). Should I still put him in the bibliography; if so, how shall I link to the different places?

Thanks again, I'll start to look at the rest (a little pushed for time right now). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tooley is a website, but the second link is to the page in general, while the first is to a specific section. The references also have different information and different retrieval dates. Should the second link be to a specific section that supports it, rather than to the document as a whole? In any case, I would definitely have it listed fully in the references with the general link, and the footnote should look something like "Tooley 2009, section 3.2" or "Tooley 2009, passim." Similarly, if you wanted to, a footnote like 15 could link to the actual section as well. I would also put Beebe and Mendelson in the bibliography as well, perhaps renamed to "Sources". This is just my opinion, and feel free to nominate with a different format if you like, that may work fine. But at the very least, you should not have Tooley with different formats in the two places. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the dashes; I wasn't quite sure what you mean about punctuation and spacing in the footnotes. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Some have "p.41" with no space. Others have "p. 18" with a space. I don't see any other punctuation problems now. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll fix that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Having read the entire article again, I can't see any other obvious problems, but I'm no expert on the topic. Here are a few things to look out for. (1) Would an expert feel that this article fully covers all important aspects of the topic? Are there important repercussions, descendant ideas, or other aspects that might be missing? (2) Do the sources fully cover the material presented? In other words, if I had a copy of Birnbaum, would I find all the article's assertions supported by footnote 6 in the book itself? (3) It is probable you will find it hard to get enough reviews. Few FAC reviewers are at all familiar with the topic, and most will simply ignore the nomination, which could lead to it "expiring" and failing due to lack of support. To prevent this, it might be a good idea to let all related Wikiprojects and portals know that the article has been nominated, and that FAC reviewers are needed. (Just don't canvass.) Best of luck! – Quadell ^(talk) 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, and also for that advice, I really appreciate it. I'll have a final look through the article as you recommend, then nominate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in my understanding that there being no copyright notice on a movie poster published in the United States before 1977 makes that poster PD? I've been having a discussion with Aditya Kabir over Promises! Promises!, which is currently using a FU file despite the poster being on Commons (and sans notice). Crisco 1492 (talk)

The only way a pre-1977 U.S. movie poster could be copyrighted is if (1) it has a © notice, and they really never did, or (2) if it was a derivative work of a previously published work... and since the poster was pretty much always published before the film, that would only apply in very rare cases. In this case, the poster is clearly in the public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly what I though, minus the rarely (finding these things has been my hobby for the past few months, and I must say that the major studios wised up eventually. The posters for all of the top grossing films in 1955 had a copyright notice). I'll ping Aditya. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it's me again (GDuwen). I just wanted to ask you if you could review my current nomination of Waylon Jennings, since you did a great job with Hank Williams. I'm currently trying to finish some of my articles because I might be inactive for a while. If you can't do it, would you know another user that could give me a hand? Thanks again for your time!--GDuwenTell me! 21:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have much time right now, but I see you've nominated it for GA status. I'm sure someone will see it eventually and review it. Thanks for working on this! – Quadell ^(talk) 20:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you check out the propriety of this edit and let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It's clearly agenda-driven, but it sourced. I haven't checked the individual sites to see whether they back up the statements though. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, what I am saying is that it will remain in the article unless someone like you thinks it is appropriate to take action.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like MadmanBot to stop slapping users for copying single declaratory sentences as copyright violations while the user is creating an article. While killing time on this mindless task, I noticed that PolBot creates articles and does not attribute the source.[3]

Where did the bot get the information and why doesn't it say that in the article? 68.107.135.146 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." It is not contentious that Oncosperma fasciculatum is a member of the genus Oncosperma; the fact is right there in the name.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning this in conjunction with MadmanBot. These are totally separate bots. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I need you to delete the history of my talk pages. The one that sas my school Its zippy told me to ask you.

--:)- Slim hady 20:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimhady (talk • contribs)

Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Quadell,

I submitted another article stephen_hawking to for FA review, and it's kind of suffering from lack of reviews - I think you've done a couple of image reviews for FAC before, would you might having a look at the pictures? I can't think of anyone better... Fayedizard (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I understand it's frustrating to not get enough reviews, and I'd like to help. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time right now. Sorry! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem :) thought it was worth a shot. Hope you're holding together :) Fayedizard (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just nominated Ac and Eu for GA because their quality was good enough for GA. I didn't actually work on them. Materialscientist improved Ac and Stone improved Eu. Double sharp (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, thanks for doing your part! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. The only article I have improved to GA (so far) is alkali metal, and I'm trying to make it a featured article. (BTW, I used to be Lanthanum-138, but I don't edit using that account anymore.) Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! By some measures, I'd hit that milestone a while back, but by others, I've just now crossed it. It's great being a part of this for so long. – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 15:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Grats! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was talking to Tsuyoshi Kato, who wrote "Images of Colonial Cities in Early Indonesian Novels" in this book. He has told me that the scans included in his paper are from the first editions, which for some would allow use on Wikipedia ({{PD-US-1923-abroad}}).

However, I've noticed that several of the same etchings seem to have been reused in my copy of Sitti Nurbaya; my edition was published in 2008. Would the republishing extend the date of copyright or no? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If an image was first published before 1923, then it is not considered copyrighted in the U.S. (It might still be considered copyrighted its country of origin.) That the image was later republished in a copyrighted work does not affect the copyright status of the original image. Does that answer your question? – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 13:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me... now to find a good scanner... Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Great! Just be careful about one thing: any changes that the republisher made to the images could themselves be under copyright (if such changes are extensive enough to merit protection). For instance, if an image were first published in 1922 in black and white, the black and white version is in the public domain in the U.S.; but if a republisher colorized the image, the colorized version could be copyrighted due to choices made in the colorization. Simple cropping would not merit such protection, however, and simple reproduction never adds new, copyrightable content. All the best, – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 13:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• They seem the same, but thanks for the heads up. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, so the images were different. I've uploaded the pre-1923 originals here and here. As this is my first time using the pre-1923 template, could you see if I messed anything up? I'll send you or someone with an OTRS account my correspondence with Kato if it needs to be checked (I'm assuming if I want to bring the article to FAC, that will probably be necessary) Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks good to me. I don't know if an OTRS ticket is required, but it couldn't hurt; just forward the e-mail correspondence to permissions-en wikimedia.org, and tag the images with {{OTRS pending}}. Thanks! – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 14:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright, sent. Thanks for the help. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note that I have mentioned your opinion given here at a new post on the same topic here, and thus both that your opinion would be welcomed and that if your views have been misrepresented or have changed I'd be more than happy to correct them (or you can). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That was my opinion at the time, and I was proud to give it. Sadly, Golan v. Holder hit us just six months after I said that. It was a dark, dark day in the history of U.S. copyright. I think U.S. law is now, sadly, unambiguous in these cases. All the best, – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 11:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for participating in the January 2012 MTC Drive. The drive was a big success. As a result of the drive thousands of files was transferred and many files was nominated for deletion because of copyright issues or because they were not usable. For your big work transferring files to Commons you are hereby awarded this barnstar. Cloudbound (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to do my part. – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 20:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been attempting to reduce requests for photos and was looking for a way of addressing the large list of plant requests. I then see you have a bot that does something close to was I am looking for. Is there any possibility of reactivating Polbot 11? As a suggested enhancement could a heading be added to the talk, or even article, page stating there maybe an image available on commons and adding it to a category that other users could work through. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish! That sounds like a very useful bot task, but I'm afraid I don't have access to an environment anymore wherein I could run Polbot. Sorry. – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 20:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Pert bots but do use AWB bots. What is required to get these running? Wondering if I could set something up on my system if you are willing to share the code. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The source code is at User:Polbot/source/Bio.pl. Look for the part that starts "# Check for Commons media". This bot uses Perl, and assumes a very old version of the API, so I don't think it would work at all without significant modification. I don't believe the same functionality can be done through AWB. – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  Have already made coffee. Two questions re: images involving the Pioneer Zephyr.

• page with Zephyr shot welding souvenir The stainless steel souvenir would be the issue here. Budd patented the process and used it beginning with the Pioneer Zephyr. The stainless steel welded souvenir came from the Budd Company and would most likely date from circa 1934, when the train was new, toured the US, and was displayed at the last half of Chicago's Century of Progress. It would be very illustrative of the construction of the lightweight streamlined trains and also help out the Shot welding page which could do with a visual example of it. Can I use as PD-pre 1978?

• Pioneer Zephyr postcard The card showing route and containing background information was clearly produced by the Burlington, but seller has marked front and back with his/her copyright. Since seller is not the author of the card, can this be used as PD with the defective notice template or another PD one?

Thanks for thinking about these, We hope (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. As to your first question, the souvenir was "published" when multiple copies were made available to the public, long before 1978. There is no copyright notice, as would have been required for it to have been copyrighted, so the pre-1978 tag would be appropriate. As to the postcard, the copyright notice is entirely spurious. This is clearly PD-pre-1978, since it was first published without a valid copyright notice. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Because you're always there with the answers when I hit a bump in the copyright road. As always, many, many thanks!! We hope (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Will be uploading them both to Commons in a bit and referencing this discussion. BTW--we have no barnstars that specifically recognize those who work with various aspects of copyright--seems we should think about creating one. Thanks again! We hope (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I need some help. I need a neutral 3rd part to resolve an editing issue here with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here --> Jessicka

My point: "Art Slant,[4] Juxtapoz,[5][ Supacute,[6] Coagula Art Journal, [7] & Hi- Fructose [8] are all reputable 3rd party Art sources. Saying these articles are written by friends is purely speculation on your part. Jessicka's wiki page clearly states that she's an artist. Listing past art shows with 3rd party references is just like listing the albums she's released as a musician in her discography. Both are wiki relevant & significant"

Do you think you could point me in the right direction? I just need a 3rd party to have a look.

Thanks! (Lifespan9 (talk))

Some editors are very difficult, and some are biased. I see that he accused you of vandalism on your talk page (and it appears to have been an unwarranted accusation), but it doesn't look like anyone has discussed anything on Talk:Jessicka in over two years. It's best to discuss changes on the talk page of the article. I can't really take part as a 3rd party in a discussion if there is no discussion taking place. – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 11:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Quadell, I've been nominating for a while the article Waylon Jennings (around February). I know that sometimes you're busy, but I was just wondering if you had some free time? In case you don't, do you know any user that could help me? I'm just trying to round up some things before I go for a little while. Thanks in advance, and greetings!--GDuwenTell me! 17:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't have much wikitime. (I'm getting married next month.) I'm not sure who is active with GA reviews either. Best of luck though! – Quadell <sup>(talk)</sup> 12:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Quadell, I'll take care of this one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Quadell!--GDuwenTell me! 16:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Also Congratulations! (and curses, because I also turned up here looking for a favour… :s) Fayedizard (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations and best wishes to you both. PamD 17:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 

A wedding next month! Congrats and here's a little bubbly for the two of you. ww2censor (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)