User talk:Quadell/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Tyson Cane.JPG

Please reconsider your deletion of Tyson Cane.JPG. You deleted the image without discussion, at the suggestion of an editor who claimed it was merely "decorative." However, the cover in question is discussed in the article. I am trying to create documentation on important ethnic gay porn stars on Wikipedia, and the deletion of this image greatly reduces the value of the article. (In a few years, no one may remember what this gay looked like.) Thanks.GBataille (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What "merely decorative" means in this context is that the image is not needed to fully understand the article. Certainly the article deserves a photo of the person, but any photo of the guy will do, and a new free photo should be able to be created. That particular video cover might be needed in an article about the video itself, but in an article on the actor it's only "decorative" in that it looks nice but isn't needed in order to understand the article. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding File:Pop carnival1.JPG

I note you marked File:Pop carnival1.JPG for WP:FFD as part of a group nomination for various images created by MRDU08. However you never added that particular image to your nomination, and consequently it didn't get deleted. Thought I'd give you a heads up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_?'s/ 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the transfering of files to Commons.

Hi Quadell, I have been transfering quite a few files to commons and one user there has asked me about missing source files on a couple of files,see [this comment] from Themightyquill could you have a look at that and help clear it up as I don't want to mess files up! I have also started to or fallen into the pit of file renameing and have requested trusted user status to do this... [[1]] please have a little look at what I have been doing and let me know it is ok or if I can correct anything, ta. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

I commented on your talk page at Commons. I think you're doing fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for looking. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

Happy Quadell's Day!

Quadell has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Quadell's day! For your excellent work with bot approval, enjoy being the Star of the day, Quadell! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

(cheers from the sidelines) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! You've made my day, literally! – Quadell ^(talk) 12:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your day. :) Question

UK issue: http://lakdiva.org/codrington/. Life + 70? I'm afraid I'm not at my strong point either outside the US or with stuff in this age group. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. I was hoping this book had been published in the U.S. within 30 days of its first publishing, which would make it a U.S. publication in the eyes of U.S. law, and would have required registration. But it appears the book was a London publication falling under British law, so 70 years p.m.a. is correct. 2013 it is. Bummer. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks. :/ (I should have told you the article involved. Can't believe I forgot to do that! It's Dharmapala of Sri Lanka. I'll process accordingly.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For you...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For going through the repetitive and laborious task of transferring all those photos. The history page speaks for itself. Nicely done and thank you. wadester16 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! – Quadell ^(talk) 12:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

re A light! From the dark!

Thank you, very much. :) Cirt (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:A BorisA Berlin1948.jpg from Alexandrov Ensemble 1 June 09

Hi Quadell. The disputed image of the 1948 peace concert in Berlin has suddenly been deleted, but without any prompting from the deletion discussion page and without any explanation from User:Carnildo who operates User:ImageRemovalBot. I'm not at this point trying to dispute the deletion, but I do think it deserves an explanation. Before I ask User:Carnildo his reasons, please could you kindly let me know the usual procedure for image files under dispute, where no consensus has been reached? I'm particularly puzzled as no explanation has been given on the deletion discussion page. If the bot has made an error, will I be permitted to reinstate the image? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the truth is, I deleted the image. Carnildo's bot merely removed the (deleted) image from the article it was in, so he probably wouldn't be able to help. I deleted the image because the discussion had stopped, and it appeared that the image is almost certainly non-free. All other images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 4 had already been deleted or judged as free images weeks ago. That said, if you feel the deletion is in error you can appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but honestly it isn't likely to be overturned unless you have new evidence that the image is actually free. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough - thanks for kindly letting me know. I have replaced the image with an external link to its sourcepage, so I guess that's OK now. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed task.

I have another possible job for Polbot. I've made a list at User:BD2412/JP1 of articles on Judgepedia that should be imported to Wikipedia. I've trimmed out all the stuff that is clearly non-Wikipedia material. Can Polbot copy over the Judgepedia articles for which we have no articles, with an edit summary and a note on the bottom (like the one I put on Zoran Popovich) acknowledging the source (per the GFDL)? Cheers! bd2412 T 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know that Judgepedia is free content. I can't find anywhere where they say their material may be copied under any free license, so it seems to me that any imports would be a copyright violation. :( – Quadell ^(talk) 21:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Judgepedia:Copyrights - GFDL, hence the source acknowledgment. :-) bd2412 T 00:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'd missed that. Okay, I'll look through your subpage and get back with you. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore the blue links on the page, I just haven't gotten around to dealing with them. I'm not sure how to address the disambig pages, but that's a question for another day. Probably a good number of what gets copied over will be redirects, which need no attribution, of course. bd2412 T 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Having gone through Judgepedia some more, I'm beginning to doubt my above proposal. They have an awful lot of extremely stubby articles on people of borderline notability. Could Polbot pick through categories in their category system and pluck out, for example, articles that we are missing which can be found in their "Category:State Supreme Court justices"? bd2412 T 07:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's very doable. Do you want to examine any more and make more recommendations, or do you think it's ready for me to make a bot request? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good to go. Just have any templates stripped out of the articles, as those that JP uses are different from those that WP uses. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 14. Feel free to comment there if you like. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - is there usually a need for input like that? I thought bot approvals for tasks like this are fairly routine. bd2412 T 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Routine, yes... but it still has to be approved by the BAG. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, commented. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that GFDL-only content can't be transwikied here because of the CC migration. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:DatabaseBot

I have a quick question for you (since you are a BAG member). A couple of months ago, I left the above user a note about his username. S/he mentioned they were in the process of getting approval to run their bot. OK, I figured that was legit. Today, however, I noticed two things. One, the bot was never approved (the request expired). Two, the account has continued to edit, including !voting at AfDs. Should this account be blocked as a username violation? TNXMan 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure. You should probably ask at the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! TNXMan 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Could you take a look at User_talk:Drilnoth#Speedy.3F? I'm just concerned if my closure of the linked discussion was incorrect, and you have more experience with image deletion than I do so I thought I'd ask you for a third opinion. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For all you do to keep Wikipedia clean of infringements and for your support of others who are trying to do the same. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I owe this one to you. :) Thanks for your burst of activity contributor checks today, which have made me feel like maybe it isn't an insurmountable, hopeless task. Thanks also for your generous feedback on copyright issues at various points. You rock. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much! Believe me, you're just as inspirational. Glad we're taking out the backlog one chunk at a time. :D – Quadell ^(talk) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 11

This bot was approved at the same time an unfinished discussion was underway at Headline hierarchies started by the bot owner Jarry1250 on May 24 at the Village Pump, also an RFC started by Jarry1250 on his own user page User:Jarry1250/RFC. None of theses discussions have been linked/mutually disclosed by Jarry1250. Changing headline levels, a bot operation involving page layout style and appearance, is controversial. Is there a procedure for cancelling approval? I'd be grateful if you could advise me. --Kleinzach 01:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there isn't a standard way of de-approving a bot -- it's always done on an ad hoc basis. Usually someone complains and the bot is stopped (voluntary or by blocking) until consensus forms. In most cases it's easy to tell whether there's consensus or not fairly quickly. Centralized discussion is good, and as you say, there's semi-centralized discussion in two places. In my opinion, the RFC is a good place, and if consensus is going to form it's likely to do so there. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho

Hi. Just noticed your question about the ContributionSurveyor. Yes, I'll be running that today. It's time-consuming with contributions as extensive as his are. I've had to write Dcoetzee to ask for a modification to the program to accommodate rollbackers; otherwise, we'll be looking at a ton of vandalism reversions. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that given subsequent events, I have reblocked him with a request that admins who consider unblocking first review the history of the talk and the thread about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright input request. I hope that this doesn't come off as in any way questioning your judgment with respect to the initial block, which was sound. Please excuse me if I've stepped on your toes in any way in doing so, because I certainly wouldn't want to. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, but thanks for notifying me. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Praise

Praise indeed but I am not always right, or if I am not sure I just keep quiet. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to Marcd30319's cover art violations, I placed a request at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Ice Station Zebra, 'cause I thought it a better place for the specific question, relative to some of his non-free image uses. Perhaps you would comment as I am not very knowledgeable on the overuse of non-free images. TIA ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

A deletion issue

Actually I seem to have placed three image on the wrong page for deletion because I did not understand the "Possibly unfree file" checkbox in the Twinkle entry window, so File:Yellowrose02.jpg, File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG and File:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg are listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 5 when I now see they should probably be listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 5 instead where I just listed File:Fujikawa BabyAnimals.jpg. Am I correct? If in error, what to do? Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. At WP:PUF, a bot will come along soon and close the nomination saying "Wrong venue, since this is clearly a non-free image." You'll have to remove the nominations from there and list them at WP:FFD instead, just as you suspected. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually someone else already closed them and I have renominated them properly. See you around. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Local copies of files

Regarding the deletion of File:Bridged-T delay equaliser.svg, do you ignore the KeepLocal templates, or was this simply a mistake? SpinningSpark 22:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, no, that was an accident. I have restored the local copy. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. SpinningSpark 11:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru files

Hello, I have left comments on your comments here and here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Review request

Hi there! You've probably never seen my edits on Wikipedia, but that's exactly why I sought you out. I'm trying to get some fresh eyes on my FAC for Yukon Quest, and if you've got a bit of extra time, I'd appreciate any comments, questions, or anything else you'd care to add to the review going on right now. I'm trying to get editors unfamiliar with mushing so I can ensure the article is clear to the widest possible audience. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed task.

I have another possible job for Polbot. I've made a list at User:BD2412/JP1 of articles on Judgepedia that should be imported to Wikipedia. I've trimmed out all the stuff that is clearly non-Wikipedia material. Can Polbot copy over the Judgepedia articles for which we have no articles, with an edit summary and a note on the bottom (like the one I put on Zoran Popovich) acknowledging the source (per the GFDL)? Cheers! bd2412 T 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know that Judgepedia is free content. I can't find anywhere where they say their material may be copied under any free license, so it seems to me that any imports would be a copyright violation. :( – Quadell ^(talk) 21:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Judgepedia:Copyrights - GFDL, hence the source acknowledgment. :-) bd2412 T 00:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'd missed that. Okay, I'll look through your subpage and get back with you. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore the blue links on the page, I just haven't gotten around to dealing with them. I'm not sure how to address the disambig pages, but that's a question for another day. Probably a good number of what gets copied over will be redirects, which need no attribution, of course. bd2412 T 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Having gone through Judgepedia some more, I'm beginning to doubt my above proposal. They have an awful lot of extremely stubby articles on people of borderline notability. Could Polbot pick through categories in their category system and pluck out, for example, articles that we are missing which can be found in their "Category:State Supreme Court justices"? bd2412 T 07:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's very doable. Do you want to examine any more and make more recommendations, or do you think it's ready for me to make a bot request? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good to go. Just have any templates stripped out of the articles, as those that JP uses are different from those that WP uses. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 14. Feel free to comment there if you like. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - is there usually a need for input like that? I thought bot approvals for tasks like this are fairly routine. bd2412 T 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Routine, yes... but it still has to be approved by the BAG. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, commented. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that GFDL-only content can't be transwikied here because of the CC migration. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For all you do to keep Wikipedia clean of infringements and for your support of others who are trying to do the same. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I owe this one to you. :) Thanks for your burst of activity contributor checks today, which have made me feel like maybe it isn't an insurmountable, hopeless task. Thanks also for your generous feedback on copyright issues at various points. You rock. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much! Believe me, you're just as inspirational. Glad we're taking out the backlog one chunk at a time. :D – Quadell ^(talk) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 11

This bot was approved at the same time an unfinished discussion was underway at Headline hierarchies started by the bot owner Jarry1250 on May 24 at the Village Pump, also an RFC started by Jarry1250 on his own user page User:Jarry1250/RFC. None of theses discussions have been linked/mutually disclosed by Jarry1250. Changing headline levels, a bot operation involving page layout style and appearance, is controversial. Is there a procedure for cancelling approval? I'd be grateful if you could advise me. --Kleinzach 01:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there isn't a standard way of de-approving a bot -- it's always done on an ad hoc basis. Usually someone complains and the bot is stopped (voluntary or by blocking) until consensus forms. In most cases it's easy to tell whether there's consensus or not fairly quickly. Centralized discussion is good, and as you say, there's semi-centralized discussion in two places. In my opinion, the RFC is a good place, and if consensus is going to form it's likely to do so there. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Praise

Praise indeed but I am not always right, or if I am not sure I just keep quiet. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to Marcd30319's cover art violations, I placed a request at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Ice Station Zebra, 'cause I thought it a better place for the specific question, relative to some of his non-free image uses. Perhaps you would comment as I am not very knowledgeable on the overuse of non-free images. TIA ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Erik9bot 9

Obviously, you were going to be careful with it, but just thought I'd remind you what happened last time a bot for auto-tagging articles was approved, and the sort of criticism that the approvals process came in for that time. You knew that already, right? Sure. Just... be careful. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, what bot are you referring to? – Quadell ^(talk) 11:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean last time round? Must have been before you became active again. Addbot 16 and then rampant discussion at pretty much every applicable forum. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Egmontbot

Thanks for the approval, I won't let you down! :)--Egmontaz? ^talk 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have, I'm afraid I cannot understand how can somebody else use my bot. I just use solve_disambiguation.py from pywikipedia as I already said! --Egmontaz? ^talk 23:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

About Template:Italictitle

Seeing how you're planning to run a bot to use this template, I think Wikispecies will benefit from the usage of this template. The template itself looks complicated, but for us, we don't have to worry about titles with brackets to un-italic upon reaching first bracket because for our project, items remain to be italicized within the bracket. Can you help us? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sure, I could help you with that. I haven't really looked at WikiSpecies, but I'll check it out. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to get {{italictitle}} to work at all on Wikispecies, but it employs some staggeringly intricate syntax. It depends, for instance, on {{Namespace detect}}, {{nowrap}}, {{str find}}, {{str find/logic}}, {{str left}}, {{str len}}, {{str len/core}}, and maybe more. I've copied all those over, but I still can't get it to work. Maybe it's a problem with the MediaWiki:Common.js on WikiSpecies? Or different MediaWiki abilities installed? I'm really over my head here. Perhaps someone who understands {{italictitle}} better than me can get it to work there. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a good try though. I am passing this part over to Template talk:Italictitle#Getting this to work at Wikispecies and see whether someone's got a clue about transwiki implementation. It's plausible that our Common.js is outdated, since we don't have tech-savy people working there. (Comp sci people all think taxonomy is too bio for them, and general public thinks it's too scientific for them to contribute). While I brought this discussion up, have you considered to run this task again, only in Wikispecies? In fact, it should be simpler than Wikipedia since we follow a guideline that is quite strict (because we're all scientists). What do you think? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing, but my plate's a bit full at the moment. I have two bot requests open here, plus and older task I'm improving. Bring it up again in a few weeks and I'll look at it. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think for Wikispecies, it should be done directly in the css for all mainspace names and then add templates for the pages that don't need it. A lot less work. Rocket000 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be a way so that only genus and below are targeted. All it needs is some clever thinking and a good programming that executes correctly. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot to mark unreferenced biographies

Do you think it's possible to use the code that LaraBot is using to mark articles with {{BLP unsourced}}?

It would take a list like this:

Pages with 0 non-en.wikipedia.org external links

1. Silviu_Balace
2. Doris_Mae_Oulton
3. Branimir_Petrovic
4. Bruce_Williamson
5. Robert_Millar_(musician)
6. Roland_Sussex
7. Manfred_Germar
8. José_Luis_Mendilibar
9. Dominique_Kivuvu
10. Luc_Van_Lierde
11. Lorenzo_Stovini
12. Vladislav_Zlatinov
13. Valeri_Popovitch
14. Robby_Steinhardt
15. Jürgen_Röber
16. Michael_Simms_(publisher)
17. Gesine_Meißner
18. Mats_Odell
19. Stephanie_Kulp_Seymour
20. Sean_Compton
21. Bob_Litherland
22. Roya_Arab
23. Frode_Glesnes
24. Themis_Tolis
25. Kenneth_Whyte
26. Marko_Lomic
27. Jonathan_O'Callaghan
28. Heinz_Dürr
29. John_Leventhal
30. Cornel_Frasineanu

Then it would check for certain headers, <ref, http://, etc. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 6. Is that what you mean? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. I wonder where he's getting his lists.... --MZMcBride (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup

Thanks, and thank you too. I hope to get at least a good portion of these done before my real life "busy season" kicks in.radek (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

Can you take a look at File talk:Susanrice.jpg? It was uploaded by an editor whose talk page I've watchlisted for previous problem images. This one is trickier; I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  12:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I commented there. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why we love commas!

Tell me again how vitally important the issue of comma placement is.

Gladly! Comma placement is important because even though most people don't know all the ins and outs of proper punctuation, they still notice the overall effect. A person who reads a sloppily punctuated document will get a general impression that it is low-quality or amateurish even if they cannot pinpoint exactly why they feel this way. Though, as you may have noticed, my accusers and I have some very big differences of opinion regarding what comma placement policy would be best for Wikipedia, we all seem to be committed to good punctuation in general.

Comma placement is a contentious issue on Wikipedia because Wikipedia's official MoS expresses a preference for what's called logical style, which differs significantly from both standard American and standard British punctuation, though many American Wikipedians have mistaken it for British. According to Finell and the others, every couple of months, someone shows up on the MoS talk page asking, "Why are we using British punctuation?" or "Why are we using wrong punctuation?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, actually, for your well-worded and cogent explanation. But have you ever considered adding {{user sar-0}} to your profile? ;) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Why? :) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use stamp sweep

I am continuing my sweep of improperly used copyright stamps under fair use criteria. Perhaps you would like to review a bunch I nominated today at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 10. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good calls. I'm commenting there now. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest but there are loads more. Perhaps you would have a look at my review of "potentially" good uses on User:Ww2censor/Fair use stamps when you get some time. As far as I am concerned everything not listed there fails the NFCC but has links to the category pages with out useful links. This issue has raised its ugly head on other occasions but more stamps get added, so it is an ongoing issue. Perhaps the NFC should be rewritten to be more explicit. Anything you can do to help is appreciated. I started by just deleting the stamps from articles and then speedying then as orphans but a few editors just reverted, so I think WP:IfD is the better way to go. If there are no objections, it goes smoothly and if there is opposition more than just me will chime in. Do you agree with that approach?. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like the best strategy. How many stamp images do you think will need to go? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, wow, you're very organized! My compliments. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Including those nominated but still existing, I estimate about 170 more for sure though some of the marginal ones listed might still need to go to. The review just seemed like a good idea as this issue needed to be done with some sort of organisation instead of just bulling at it piecemeal. ww2censor (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are fast commenting on some of the stamp I listed, and nominating some too! Lots more to do but I an not going to do them all immediately. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I need to go to bed but you are still following on, good job. 20 mainly Canada and India are enough for tonight. I am sure there will be some objectors! ww2censor (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Two non-free stamp questions

Nature of America contains the following 9 non-free images which fail WP:NFCC#3a. How can I nominate them all together? I do suggest retaining one image to illustrate the article which is about the stamps.

• File:1999 Sonoran Desert stamp sheet.jpg
• File:2000 Pacific Coast Rain Forest stamp sheet.jpg
• File:2001 Great Plains Prairie stamp sheet.jpg
• File:2002 Longleaf Pine Forest stamp sheet.jpg
• File:2003 Arctic Tundra stamp sheet.jpg
• File:2004 Pacific Coral Reef stamp sheet.jpg
• File:2005 Northeast Deciduous Forest stamp sheet.jpg
• File:2006 Southern Florida Wetland stamp sheet.jpg
• File:2007 Alpine Tundra stamp sheet.jpg

The other curious situation concerns these UK tax discs used in Velology which are using the wrong template {{Non-free stamp}}. What do you suggest doing with them? They too would seem to fail WP:NFCC#3a if they really are still in copyright and I assume that the 50-year crown copyright applies so the first three might be improperly licenced when they are actually in the public domain.

1. File:Tax Disc (1923).jpg
2. File:Tax Disc (1952).jpg
3. File:Tax Disc (1956).jpg
4. File:Tax Disc (1967).jpg
5. File:Tax Disc (1983).jpg
6. File:Tax Disc (1985).jpg
7. File:Tax Disc (1986).jpg
8. File:Tax Disc (1987).jpg
9. File:Tax Disc (1990).jpg
10. File:Tax Disc (1992).jpg
11. File:Tax Disc (1993).jpg
12. File:Tax Disc (1994).jpg
13. File:Tax Disc (1995).jpg
14. File:Tax Disc (1996).jpg

TIA. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the Nature of America sheets and I have nominated them for deletion. If you're curious you can see how I did it. (By the way, are you using Wikipedia:Twinkle or User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to nominate these images? I hope you're not doing them manually.)

About the tax discs, I would say that they are {{PD-ineligible}}, but you might want to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not manually: I use Twinkle, otherwise I would be up all night right now. OK, with this edit I see how you merged the nominations by putting a new first heading and removing all the later individual headings. I never thought of that. For the Tax discs I will ask at WP:MCQ though both of us also hang out there so let's hope some others have some opinions. Cheers & thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Note this edit too, just to be polite. Thanks for all you do! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL!

Actually, this is a first. :D Maybe that's because I'm not Australian and nobody around here knows who she is? Surely, that must be it. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

NSCSponsors

FYI: I closed Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_May_28#File:NSCSponsors.jpg and tagged File:NSCSponsors.jpg as npd. Not sure if that was correct. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not especially correct (NPD is effectively a special case of PUF, so once a file gets there it theoretically stays there), but it'll have the right result. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Peach

I see you've rightly blocked the Andrew Peach page. This was beginning to get a little stressful, as someone (and I have a n idea who!) kept adding he was "best known" for his appearance on the Chris Evans and Jonathan Ross Show.

As an employee by the BBC, I know for a fact he is NOT the regular reader for these prresenters, and is only a freelance cover reader, along with the liks or Ricky Salmon etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.197.232 (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:(3)olurumsanacover1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:(3)olurumsanacover1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I just shrank the image, for WP:NFCC#3 compliance. Feel free to delete if it's not useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for Thomas Blatt Photo Clarification

I want to say thank you for your input regarding the PD of the photo. The issue was resolved with the original deleting admin after your valuable input regarding Polish public domain law. Since I am new (and not a copyright lawyer), I would not have been able to successfully revert the image without the link you posted on the media copyright page. I owe you one. Thanks again! Meishern (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Glad to help. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi

Would it be possible to protect the page (complete protection) for say 72 hours so that a discussion on both ANI and the article's talk page can be completed and people don't have to have multiple tabs open to keep track of Damiens.rf's tag and template additions? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be very appropriate. Unfortunately, I don't think it would appropriate for me to do it, due to my involvement. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind asking an uninvolved admin to do so, cause right now it is an all out edit war with him and I and FisherQueen are doing are best (I personally think she signed off she was so upset) to revert this mess of tags, templates, sarcasm and the like. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask around. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Quadell, I'm having a problem with Neutralhomer reverting ever single edit of mine at that page, [2][3][4][5][6] [7] [8], sometimes with offensive edit summaries.

Please, I trust you to judge the problem impartially, based on the merit of the edits. --Damiens.rf 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeps reverting[9] :( --Damiens.rf 19:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make yourself out as the victim in all this. You aren't the victim here, you are the one who has been causing the problems all morning and afternoon. If it were for a couple involved admins, you would have been blocked about 2 hours ago and saved us all ALOT of headache. Now grow up and find someone else to bother and harrass...better yet, go outside, it is a nice day. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate edit-war, and I believe both sides are acting inappropriately. There are legitimate concerns with the sourcing (and perhaps the tone) of the article, and there are also legitimate concerns with your (DRF's) motivations and tactics.

Damiens.rf, the main purpose for fact tags and COI tags, etc., is to draw attention to the issues so that interested editors can improve the article. In this case, that objective has been accomplished: there is a lot of attention on this article. Therefore tags aren't needed in the short term, unless the problems aren't fixed. I would recommend, Damiens.rf, that you voluntarily refrain from editing the article for a period of time (say, 2 weeks), and simply make recommendations on the talk page. If, after 2 weeks, you still feel there are unresolved COI problems in the article or unreferenced contentious statements, then add the tags back. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Quadell, do you understand I [ once] tried to have the article fixed solely by talk page discussion? What happened was that no attention was drawn to the article. Hence the tags. Also, notice that the tags only purpose is not to "draw attention" of editors. They are also useful to warn the occasional readers about the possible unreliability of the article. --Damiens.rf 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you made this comment 27 days ago, and then (after no response) added fact tags, making this edit on the talk page]. That's not the problem. (Actually, your fact tags were a bit overdone and heavyhanded, but it's not a big deal.) You'll note that the sourcing of the article has improved much since then, and that's a good thing. My advice remains the same. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I will say I probably acted a little hasty on some edits, but I feel most of them were in good faith (mine at least). I would like to say for the record that User:Moonriddengirl has protected the page for 31 hours, until 19:15 UTC tomorrow (16/June). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am going to leave you to this. I am running on fumes (no sleep in almost 24 hours). Please update my talk page with any new information from the ANI and talk page discussions and I will check up on them when I wake up...whenever that is :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Um, ya, thanks for praising me in the vital article thing. Anyway, I have some issues with the Arts section, it seems to me that it focuses on the same gender (males), culture (Western), and time period (the Renaissance), so I'm gonna try to diversify it by adding and removing a few things. About Metro Manila-I think I'm removing Melbourne because of the following:

1. Proximity to Sydney
2. Australia having two cities there despite having a population less than 50 million
3. Same ranking as [[Global city as Manila
4. Manila seems to be a more dynamic article

--23prootie (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Vital articles

I have some issues that should be addressed. I think too much of the same thing might not be a good idea so there should be a standard with regards to gender, culture, time period, and geographical location.--23prootie (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd say Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 is the best place to have centralized discussions about all these issues. Thanks for your interest!

More stamps

I'm not sure you follow the daily images deletion nomination pages but I was able to rescue a few stamps that were actually free before nominating a few more at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 16 in case you are interested in commenting. TIA ww2censor (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing Systems

Those who have problems using writing systems, because of the specifc structures of the different writing systems are defined as being dyslexic. And it is the failute to match nuerologicla abilitues with the structure of the writing system used by your culture which determines whether you are dyalexic or not. The problems is that none of the WIKI administrators have a clue waht dyslexia is about and how other topics can be causes of dyalexia, I wish i knew how to stop this lack of understanding of the facts by those who should be neutral and willing to learn and research all side of a debate or discussion before they pass an opinion.

dolfrog (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt those sorts of replies are going to help your cause. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No more exams

Hey Quadell. As the title suggests, I'm now going to be able to devote more of my time to one of my favourite hobbies, Wikipedia. Immediately, then, my thoughts turn to how best I could use that time - and from there to adminship. Now, I think someone once promised to nominate me, but unfortunately he knows nothing of bots (to my knowledge) and can't really comment on whether there are any transferable skills. When User:OverlordQ applied for adminship, it really helped to have someone knowledgeable to comment (I believe it was a co-nominator in fact). I would be forever indebted to you if you could fill that role for me, as an experienced and respected bot-aware admin. So, what do you say? (In order to save face, if you decide to decline this request, you might consider also deleting it from the record.) Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(comment from the sidelines): I thought you were an admin! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because Quadell stalks your talk page Drilnoth, doesn't mean you have to stalk his. :) Thanks anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright in written form

Okay, no problem. Now, on a completely different note, a random copyright question that's been bugging me for a few days. If I have written permission in front of me to release an image into the public domain, can I just say that and be done with it? Or do I have to prove somehow that I have written permission? I don't think I'll be able to get permission in digital form. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting situation! I don't think I've run into that one before. I suppose you could send an e-mail to permissions (as an OTRS ticket) saying you received this permission in writing. I don't know if that would be good enough or not. You could ask User:Moonriddengirl, who's on the OTRS team and deals a lot with permissions. I'm sure she could give you a definitive answer. Oh, and P.S., check your e-mail. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 19:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was worried for a moment there. Meantime, I'll ask Moonriddengirl. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You can snail mail and, I've been told, even FAX your permission. :) I'm looking for the address, which doesn't seem to be at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Be back soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. FAX is best, because the e-mail will take a billion years. See Wikimedia:Contact_us for the fax number and the snail mail if you prefer. I've never actually seen a faxed permission letter, but, again, I'm told it works. First, if you haven't already uploaded the image, do so. It should be on Commons, but you can upload it here if you're more familiar. After you upload it, tag it {{OTRS pending}}, whichever project it's on. Write a cover letter for your fax explaining that you have permission for an image on whichever project you've uploaded it to. Identify yourself by username, identify the image by URL, give information on the source (including where it was originally published) & provide your e-mail address for return correspondence in case there are questions. If you want to verify by snail mail and aren't sure how, let me know. I wouldn't expect an answer for three, four days at least, but sometimes you may be surprised. If you haven't heard back within about five days, you might want to try to investigate. If I'm not out of town (I'm going to be gone the bulk of next week), I'll be happy to check to see if it's been put in the queue. If I am out of town, you might ask User:Stifle, who is very active on OTRS. If the image is deleted before you get a response, don't worry. Whoever processes the permission should restore it when it's confirmed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Image bot-nominated for deletion despite having source info

Hi. I think it's relevant that I inform you that the image in question at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Image_bot-nominated_for_deletion_despite_having_source_info has been nominated for deletion despite the subject's death 11 years ago. I was wondering if I could have your neutral comment at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_16#File:Jean-Claude_Forest.gif. Thanks. --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented there, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus maps

Hi,

While I value your comment, you probably should have looked at the maps more closely.

Please see the comment on my talk page and do comapre : [10] and [11].

The only differences between the maps are :

• Missing/re-written places and other geographical names - if the second map was an orginal desgign, then the yellow dots wouldn't be on it.
• Roads on one map are red, on the other they are purple
• Sights of touristic interest were deleted off the second map
• The second map is not divided into squares.

The copyright infringement is so clear that this is a borderline speedy delete. Passportguy (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And I also might add the the same user has already admitted using a copyrighted map in another case. Passportguy (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

He admitted to using a copyrighted map in another case, to make his own map. That's different.

I have examined both images in detail. What non-factual, creative design elements were copied on any of these maps? Of course two maps of the same place are going to look extremely similar, because maps are primarily functional creations, but it's only a copyright violation if copyrightable creative content is copied. What was? U.S. courts have held several times that, even when a map creator copies errors from another map, it's not a copyright violation, since mistaken facts aren't creative works any more than actual facts. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

While you are correct that the altitude lines are not completely identical in all places, bbut look at the Green areas, e.g. at Cape Ap. Andreas. They are identical. Again this is a derivative work - but one from a non-free sourse which is not permissiable.

It's factual data derived from a non-free source. And that's permissible. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't buy that. If you have data and draw a map, the shaded areas will not be completely identical. You can see that from the altitude lines, which on the one map were not copied and now look significantly different in some places. Passportguy (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The map is data. Again, it's perfectly legal for me to copy your map, change all creative content, and publish it as my own, as several court cases have upheld. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that data is not copyrightable in all countries, howver there are countries that do have provisions for this. (I'd have to check if it is in Cyprus, where it may well be). However design is copyrightable and you may not copy or immitate a design of another coyprighted work. Passportguy (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The geographic realities of an island is not "design". It's "data". Factual data is not copyrightable in the U.S., and since Wikipedia's servers are in the U.S., that's all that matters on en.wiki. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the style of the map is cleatly similar and in many part identical. Search the internet for the scores of lawsuits of tbhings such as "MacDonalds" and similar things which are illegal. Simply changing the colour scheme is not sufficient. Again - the work must be your own. You can use data to create a work but you may not copy another persons work. And US law is not all that matters, copyright on here shopuld adhere both to US law and local law. And since Neo is based in Cyprus, Wikipedia would be ading an illegal action, something I don't think there is a consensus to do on here. Passportguy (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your McDonalds analogy has to do with trademark, not copyright. And yes, changing the color scheme (if the color scheme is the only creative content) is fine. You say "the work has to be your own", but only the creative work must be your own. Please, read Feist v. Rural. The entire decision is online, and it's very instructive.

Further, no, we don't have to follow non-U.S. copyright. Check out Wikipedia:Copyrights. We reproduce images all the time that are copyrighted in their original countries, but are PD in the U.S., and that's legal and in line with our policies. See {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, for example. I'm really trying to patiently explain all this to you, but I'm not sure if I'm getting through to you here. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you know how patient I am being. It's very easy for me to pick up the phone, call someone downtown in Nicosia and report this to the Survey. But I don't want to do that, as it would likely get Neo into a huge amount of trouble and I do realise he put substantial effort into redesigning these maps for Wikipedia. Passportguy (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do so. Perhaps they can explain to you better than I can that copying factual data (such as the shape of an island or roads) is not eligible for copyright. Cyprus' copyright is governed by Copyright, Law (Consolidation), 03/12/1976 (1993), No. 59 (No. 18(I)), as amended at Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993, if you're curious. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One more question for my personal interest : Do you really beleive that Neo created this map making no use of the other map purely using geographical data ? It would be a huge coincidence that the maps turned out so similar in style and design. And as Neo isn't replying to any questions I'm not inclined to believe in huge coincidences.

No, I believe he used an existing map as a basis, copied the factual information (boundaries, roads, elevations, etc.) from that map, and replaced all the creative content (typefaces, colors, etc.) with his own design choices. I think we both agree that this is what he did. The thing is, that's legal. Copying line shapes on a map (that represent real roads and boundaries) is copying geographical data, not design. It would be illegal for me to do that for a fictional map of Middle Earth, because J.R.R. Tolkien invented those rivers and boundaries and roads -- they're his intellectual property -- but the boundaries of Cyprus are no one's intellectual property. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong. You may use data to design your own map, but you may not copy data 1:1. This has been decided by numerous court cases. One of the more well-publicized cases in this area is that of a company which scanned published telephone directories and then used the data in works of their own. This is not permissable. While the data as such is not copyrightable (i.e. the names, phone numbers and adresses) taking all of it and using it 1:1 There is a fine but distinct difference between a person that uses a telephone book as a source and a person that copies large amounts of data and uses it in un-changed form in his own work.

The same has happend here. Neo has taken a map/and or a computerized file with data on it (databases are copyrightable as a work btw) and used it to design a modified map. That is a copyright infingement. I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. In an nutsell : We both agree that you can take data and design a map from it. You can use other maps as reference in doing so. But you may not copy any parts of the other map 1:1. That is where the copyright infringement starts. And again, unless you want to contend that the identical shape of multiple sections of the map is pure coincidence, then this is what has happend here. Passportguy (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw where do you get the idea that Neo is professional map deisgner ? His webiste states that "I live in Latsia, a Nicosia suburb, but I am currently a Junior student at the Faculty of English Studies of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens." Passportguy (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

His bio says that he was born in 1981 (he's 27), and "worked for the Maps' section of Nicosia Municipality's web page." – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

and foreign copyright does need rto be taken into account, see [[12]] . "When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account." Passportguy (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's only because in those cases, U.S. law defers to the laws of the country of origin. We still only care about U.S. law, but when a work was first published in a foreign country that the U.S. has a treaty with, U.S. law takes into account the work's copyright status in its country of origin. But in this case, U.S. law would not consider data eligible for copyright no matter where that data was first published. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again wrong. Even under US law, you may not copy a map of any parts of it 1:1. If you were correct and any parts of a map were in the public domain as long as they denoted facts thousands of cartographers would be out of a job as everyone would be copying government survey maps. Major cartography companies don't spend millions on cartography design departments just because it looks "neat". They do so because they know if they want to use parts of government maps they either have to pay for a commercial licence or design their own maps. Passportguy (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe further discussion here is likely to be useful, so I've brought the issue up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Maps based on other maps to see if we can get some more informed opinions on the issue. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin nomination

.*feigns surprise* Why thank you Quadell, I shall dutifully accept your nomination. No, really, thanks. I've already drafted answers, and I'll sort out any co-nom, then let you know when I finally transclude it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Duly transcluded. Have a nice day! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New BLP issue

Hi, Quadell. Would you help me to implement the concerns expressed in Talk:Equality Mississippi#Hate crime that was not? As the article is written now, readers may infer that that was a hate crime, although it isn't clear that it was.

I tried to implement the change[13], and invited others to fix the wording in the edit summary. But the edit was lost in subsequent edits by User:Orderinchaos (good edits, by the way)[14]. I then restored the issue, again inviting others to review it[15], but this time a was reverted by User:KoshVorlon [16].

I'm worried to deal with User:KoshVorlon, since his recent edits [17] [18] suggest me that he's more interested in reverting my edits around the wiki than with the WP:BLP issue at hand. (I just hope he'll leave my user page alone this time [19][20])

Again, I trust your wisdom here. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment on the talk page. Thanks for alerting me. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. I hope you keep following the issue. --Damiens.rf 19:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use album cover question at my talk page

Hi. Can you weigh in here? I don't think this is usable, but there have been plenty of images that have puzzled me either in the way they (a) do or (b) don't seem to meet NFC, but (a) aren't or (b) are used anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented on his talkpage. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. SpanishStroll (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another one

Having recently discovered that you know Wikisource like the back of your hand (so says John), I thought to ask if you can help out with a question at my userpage. (Yes, another one!) The question is here. The portion I'm asking for help with is determining if a book published in 1938 with copyright notice has lapsed into public domain. The people hosting the book believe it has ([21]), but they don't indicate why with any annotation that I can read. Input would be much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Archives.org page says the book contributor is the Prelinger Library. I wonder if that's the same Prelinger noted here.. I only recognized the name because of an OGG file, File:Boys beware.ogv, I uploaded on Commons yesterday from the "Prelinger Archives" which states, "Rick Prelinger and The Internet Archive hereby offer these public domain films from Prelinger Archives to all for free downloading and reuse.". So yeah, I wonder if it's the same... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 12:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Answer to my own question: Yes, it's the same according to http://www.archive.org/details/federal_writers_project so that makes the book free and clear as does this fact: To support writers, editors, researchers, and historians during the Great Depression, the United States government created a program called The Federal Writers' Project as part of the Works Project Administration, under FDR's New Deal. The most famous works coming out of this project include the state travel guides, which have been archived within the Prelinger Library.

That means it's a federal gov't work. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 12:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

According to its frontispiece, it's copyrighted by the Mississippi Advertising Commission, who sponsored it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also of relevance here, Federal Writers' Project indicates that the books were printed by the states, not the feds, which might muddy the whole federal authorship question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this neat little tool, it's still under copyright as it was renewed Feb. 22, 1977. Odd though it shows the original copyright date of July 22, 1949.. even though the book was published in 1938. Guess they just took that long to get it done. I did a search using the words: Mississippi Federal Writers if you want to see since their page doesn't give you a linkable output. Oh well... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 12:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good sleuthing! (And nice tool.) That would mean original date of publication plus 95 years, unless there are some other mitigating factors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this one's fun! Okay, the book was first published in 1938, and was copyrighted that year in that form. The Prelinger Archive says it's PD because the work had no visible copyright notice, but that's incorrect; they host a PDF scan of the book here, and it clearly says "COPYRIGHT 1938 BY MISSISSIPPI ADVERTISING COMMISSION" just before the forward. The book was republished in 1949 with "new pages of maps & minor revisions", and the new material was copyrighted that year. The copyright on this second edition was renewed in 1977, so it will not expire until 2045... but the copyright on the original first edition was never renewed. Therefore any material from the 1938 edition is in the public domain, and may be copied and used by anyone. Just be sure not to use the maps and minor revisions from the 1949 edition.

AllStarEcho, thanks for the link! I've added it to my collection of tips and tools. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Quadell. I had a feeling you could help out with this one. :) Thanks for figuring out the date discrepancy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So the 1938 copy that's being used as a source, is free and clear? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Free as the wind. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)