User talk:Quadell

This editor is a Most Pluperfect Labutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, Sticky Note, and Bookmark.

Smith McPherson

User:Polbot/fjc/Smith McPherson has now been merged into Smith McPherson, and thus can be deleted. (And is there a way we can make this easier for you?)Wikijsmak (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You bring up a good point... I hadn't thought about a way for non-administrators to indicate that a subpage could be deleted. So I created the {{Delete FJC}} template, and changed the {{Merge FJC}} template to explain it. Basically, you simply replace the {{Merge FJC|Judge name}} tag with a {{Delete FJC|Judge name}} tag, and that puts the page into a category for administrators to see it and delete it. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Biography barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This is for the great work you are doing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/biographies. I'll get back over there to help you shortly! Jokestress (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Memo to myself

Remember Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination, just in case. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncategorized GA

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in uncategorized Good Articles spring 2009 elimination drive. We value your assistance to ensure that the talk pages of GA are of good quality. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison judicial appointments is done.

No need for another table - small enough a task to be done by hand. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

I haven't a lot of time at the moment, but I have looked at this again and it looks a lot more solid. With the expanded prose the list of judges appears less dominant, but still might be considered, at FAC, to unbalance the article. One possible solution might be to hive off the full list to a separate page and retain a shorter list of the currently active judges with this article. My advice would be to keep the article on PR for a bit longer; in a few days' I will read it again with FAC firmly in mind and let you know my further thoughts. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

James Lawrence Fly

That is a great article! I just nominated it for Did You Know. Jokestress (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, very exciting! And thanks also for adding early history and death info -- I couldn't find that anywhere. Well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging Gustavo Gelpí

Please see my discussion of your idea re merging Gustavo Gelpí. Thanks, Pr4ever (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging Edward Nottingham

I will do the merge later today. It's obvious they are the same person, and Edward Nottingham is the most commonly used name in third party references. Risker (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Substub judges.

I have come across a few mainspace entries on federal judges that are really substubs - as with this pre-merge version Denise Cote. That particular entry was a mere 387 characters, including templates and category links, whereas Polbot's autogenerated page was about five times as long (and obviously a lot more informative, even if much formatting is still required). Would it be possible to generate a list of mainspace articles on federal judges which are fewer than, say, a thousand characters? Or, better yet if possible, to ignore text in headers, templates, and category links (which make up the bulk of many of these substubs), and list pages with fewer than 500 characters of actual article text? In most such cases, the article will be so stubby that we'll be better off just moving the page in Polbot's userspace over it. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 Working – Quadell ^(talk) 17:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, they're listed at User:Polbot/fjc/substubs. There are only a handful, even though I list all with 650 or fewer bytes after categories and templates are removed. Some are worthless, but some have a sentence or two that should be added to the merged article. Feel free to delete that page when you're done. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's done. Those with other info have had the other info incorporated (which in most cases was a note that the judge had sent some famous person to jail). I went ahead and deleted the subpage, too. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

File:40349013 1279eae246.jpg

This is one of my files under my old name. How does one go about renaming a file? Is there a protocol, a button to hit? Or just upload the photo under a different name? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 4, 2009 @ 05:10

As of right now, the only way to rename an image is to re-upload it at the new name, and delete it at the old name (changing all links to the image as well). This is time-consuming. However, very soon there will be a change to the Wikipedia software that will allow moving images easily. So I wouldn't worry about moving it yet; I'm just tagging these images in preparation for when it's easy to move them. If you like, you can replace {{ifr}} with {{ifr|New Name.jpg}} (for whatever you think would be a better name), and then later a bot will move the image for you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 05:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is only used on that one page and to be honest, I can't remember exactly where I go the image. It was one of the first I uploaded. I know it was from Flickr :) I will at that "ifr" tag to the page with the new name and let the bot do the work. Thanks for your help. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 4, 2009 @ 05:38

Why not, eh?

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thanks for tagging dozens of images with {{ifr}} just because I had the inkling it would be a good idea. Seegoon (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! What a great birthday present! (I've been a Wikipedian five years today.) Keep spreading around the wikilove. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday

I stumbled across your userpage and noticed that today is your 5th WikiBirthday. So congratulations. TillsTalk 15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tills beat me to it! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good people! I had a great Wiki-birthday. Here's to another five! – Quadell ^(talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Terrorism

I have nominated Category:Terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Political violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for James Lawrence Fly

On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Lawrence Fly, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

Hey thanks. :) I didn't have much to do with that article, other than helping to nudge it towards a GA, but that userbox is priceless!  :) BOZ (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FFD noms

I'd recommend using this tool, which provides a link to users' contributions right after they uploaded an image (for use with orphan images), when going through orphan images. That way you can figure out what they are before nominating them. A few of your nominations look like encyclopedic photos that could be moved to commons if we took a bit more effort to determine what they're of. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm actually using that tool (based on your recommendation at another forum). I couldn't determine their use by doing a quick once-over, but if they can be shown to be useful then great! (I'm also moving to Commons about as many as I'm nominating for deletion, when I can determine what they are.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Great job in identifying some of these! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your Happy Wiki-Birthday wishes! Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Husein Gradaščević

How does Husein Gradaščević.jpg fail WP:NFCC#1 when no free equivalent exists? I give the source, the copyright holder and there's a consensus to keep yet it still gets deleted? PRODUCER (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

NFCC#1 requires that no free image exist or could be created. A new drawing can be made by anyone with that talent. I'm sorry that this is distressing for you, but it has been well-established Wikipedia policy for a long time that we can't use non-free illustrations here if it would be possible to create a free illustration that would serve the same purpose. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yorick image deletion

Hi, Quadell. I see that you closed the FfD discussion of Image:Tennant_and_Tchaikowsky_as_Hamlet_and_Yorick.jpg as delete, saying "This is is a BBC news image, and our use fails NFCC#2." I showed in the discussion that although this particular copy was sourced to the BBC, it was not a BBC image, but an image copyright to the Royal Shakespeare Company. (See here, image #15.) And, although I recognize that FfD is a discussion rather than a vote, it may be relevant that three of five commenting editors did not think that our use failed NFCC#2. I'd like you to reconsider the deletion. If you still feel that the deletion was appropriate, I may want to take it to deletion review. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the copyright holder. After looking back over the discussion, I still feel that the image violates NFCC#2 and #8. I respect your right to take it to WP:DR, of course; nothing personal. Just drop me a link. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Deletion review for Image:Tennant and Tchaikowsky as Hamlet and Yorick.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Tennant and Tchaikowsky as Hamlet and Yorick.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: King Abdullah hospital

First of all thank you for your care, I have always wondered about this issue, and here comes my answer, about File:KAUH1.jpeg, its a usual picture I took it from one of the university buildings near the hospital, for File:KAUH3.jpeg I created it using wikimapia, and for File:KAUH2.jpeg it was on the site of the university, and I asked for permission in person -as I am a student at JUST where the hospital is- and took it on my USB Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your approval here

Thanks for that. Just curious though: If I wanted to make the bot available for general deliveries, would I need to file a second request for approval? Sorry, I'm pretty clueless on these processes :) Thanks in advance.  GARDEN  15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you would file it as a new task for an existing bot. Assuming you'd run Robotic Garden for a while with no major problems, it would likely be approved rather quickly. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Yes, I think I have a pretty good understanding of copyright law. I haven't taken any copyright-specific classes, but I have done a general IP class and have learned a fair amt here on Wikipedia. In truth, copyright classes in law school don't really focus on what old content is PD or not, because that's not really the most interesting intellectually or the most important practically. (A lot more focus on the contours of fair use, etc., which isn't so important here.) But yes, if you have any questions, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, and thanks! An issue that's been plaguing me lately concerns unpublished works, or works that were first published long after they were created. Let me try to break this down into a number of scenarios. Please correct me if any of my assumptions are incorrect.

• Suppose Joe Blow created an image in 1922 and published it that same year. The image is now in the public domain.

• Correct. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suppose Joe Blow created an image in 1965 and published it that same year. The image is currently copyrighted (assuming it was published with a clear notice and filed with the USCO, etc.)

• Correct. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suppose Joe Blow created the image in 1922, but didn't publish it until 1965. I believe the rules would be the same as if he had created it in 1965, yes?

• Correct. Both the 1909 and 1976 acts deal with dates of publication, not dates of creation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suppose Joe Blow created an image in 1922, and the image was not published until 2003 or later. According to Cornell's factsheet, it would be considered an "unpublished work", and the copyright would last until 70 years after Joe's death. But who holds the copyright? Is the copyright on unpublished works passed down in a will like tangible property? If this isn't specified in the will, (and I assume it usually wouldn't be), how would one know who holds it?

• Copyrights (all copyrights, not just for unpublished works) are passed down like tangible property. If it's not specified in the will, I'm sure it's treated just like other property not specified in the will. I know next to nothing about trusts and estates, though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suppose Joe Blow created the image in 1922 and later died, and Jane Jingleson first published the image in 1965. If Jane did not have the permission of the copyright holder, I assume it would still be an "unpublished work", in the sense that it had never been reproduced and distributed with the consent of the copyright holder. (Cornell's factsheet says "'Publication' was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority." This factsheet doesn't tell me how "publication" was defined after 1976.)

• Authorization is required for publication under both the 1909 and 1976 acts. Law of Copyright (2008), Howard B. Abrams, sections 8:15, 8:27. I don't immediately see anything about unauthorized publications before 1909, but I assume this scenario is rather infrequent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• If, in the previous situation, we suppose Jane did have the permission of the copyright holders to publish the image, then I assume the situation (in terms of copyright duration) would be the same as if Joe Blow himself had first published the image in 1965.

• Yes, any authorized publication will do. (Most works are published by publishers in any event, not self-published.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• If all this is true, then how long ago can Joe Blow have created the image and it still be in under copyright? If Mr. Blow created the image back in 1790, or 790, but it wasn't published until 1965, would the image still be under copyright?

• I'll have to think about this a bit more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this is all horrifically complicated, and it may seem academic, but it's quite relevant. We have many thousands of old images on Wikipedia that we assume are public domain because they were created long ago, but where we have no idea when they were first published. Thanks for your time and expertise! – Quadell ^(talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfA

The second one, not the first. Thanks, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Quadell. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

date delinking

Hi Quadell, it is great to see you back! I noticed because you came up on my watchlist, delinking dates. In case you are not aware, there is an Arbcom injunction which affects mass linking or delinking dates. See the "Inj" link beside the date delinking case on WP:RFAR. (sorry I cant easily give a direct link; I'm on a very slow connection this weekend and it would take half an hour to find the link; ask a clerk if you need help finding it) I would hate to see you dragged into this mess! Regards, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, good to see you! I knew the case was going on, but I hadn't seen the injunction. "All editors", not just involved parties? That's pretty broad. Hm, I'm not sure what counts as "mass delinking", but I won't push it. Great to run into you! – Quadell ^(talk) 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)