Contents

User talk:Quadell: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:03, 18 August 2011

Help Needed

Hi, I am working on a draft of an article at User:KateJardiniere/draft and I would appreciate your expertise as an experienced wikipedian in helping me get it ready to be an article. Thanks!

Greetings! Sure, I can help with this. Let's discuss it at your user page. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For being willing to work out so many of our nagging copyright issues! We hope (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks! I'm glad my head full of trivia can be useful sometimes. (That's why I hang out here.) – Quadell ^(talk) 19:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kovacs 3 to get ready 1951.JPG Even Gertrude says thanks! :-) We hope (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Quadell day!!!1!!oneone!1eventy!! jorgenev 20:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow! Thanks, I'd actually forgotten, despite trying to remind myself on my userpage! I think I'll go celebrate by having a piece of cake. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For doing a lot to keep Wikipedia running, including keeping WP:MCQ from disintegrating. Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two stars in one day! This has been the best Awesome Wikipedian Day a guy could wish for. Thank you so much. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping in on that GA nom. I thought I'd have more time this week, but real-life work got crazy. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I learned a lot! I'm glad it passed. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. The paraphrasing thing is always tricky when there are very few sources. I'll try and address the issues within the next week. Frickeg (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you about the Wilcox source which hopefully will help on that front. Frickeg (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been quite busy - would you be able to hold it until the weekend? I should have some time to properly work over that passage then. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell, I'm here again to ask for your help to give another opinion to a nomination (hope I'm not being too insistent). The article needs a second opinion to determine the changes to be made, since the original reviewer has been involved pretty much on it. Thanks for your help!--GDuwenTell me! 15:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's always fair to ask. The worst I can do is say no. Okay, I'll try to review it on Monday. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the reviewer closed it as "not passing". You renominate it, though it would be best if you could first fix any of the problems found in the previous review. Once you've done so, and you renominate it, let me know and I'll review it. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll work on that and I'll call you back.--GDuwenTell me! 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's the status of an image that scanned from a book? There are two files in our Wikipedia (Image:67letter.gif & Image:67letter-1.gif) and are disputed about their copyright. These images was published in a book (about 20 years ago) for the first time. Can we use it as a Non-free content image? If yes, so we can copy two pages of any books as a non-free content? (PS: This is a hand-wrote letter of a person who was died 20 years ago and someone have published it in his book was died 2 years ago) Thanks a lot & I appreciate your help. --♥MehranVB♥ ^{☻talk | ☺mail} 08:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this looks like a complex case. The images are of Farsi text, and they are hosted on the Farsi Wikipedia... I'm I correct about that? Some Wikipedias (such as the English one) allow non-free images in certain contexts, according to our policy at WP:NFCC. Other Wikipedias allow non-free images under different rules, and most don't allow non-free images at all. (Wikimedia Commons, the central image depository for all projects, also doesn't allow any non-free images.) I can't say whether the Farsi Wikipedia allows non-free images or not.

You said that these images were first published in a book about 20 years ago. Was this book first published in Iran, or the U.S., or somewhere else? If it was first published in Iran, then we have to use Iranian copyright to determine the status. The copyright on these letters would be held by the people that wrote them originally (not by the person who republished them in a book). As I understand it, Iran would protect this copyright for 30 years after the death of the author. If the person died only 20 years ago, the letters would still be under copyright.

According to WP:NFCC, a non-free image can only be used on the English Wikipedia if seeing the image itself provided a substantially better understanding of the topic than reading text about the image would supply. Because of this, non-free images of written text (such as letters) are not allowed on the English Wikipedia; we prefer to simply have translations of the relevant parts in the text of the article. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, here are some info that may help: 1. Yes this is Farsi on Persian Wikipedia. 2. Basically Non-Free content are allowed to use in Persian Wiki except the ones that published in Iran (because Iran doesn't have any exact rules about that) 3. This book was published first in the Internet (and not any other countries) unofficially. 4. This book is the only source which prove that this letter is real or fake. 5. you said "non-free images of written text (such as letters) are not allowed on the English Wikipedia" can you please denote this policy exactly? 6. And my unanswered question: Is this right to use an image which includes two pages of text in Wikipedia? (because copying of a long text in Wikipedia is not allowed and break the free-content laws whether it's be a quote or not, two pages is very long, and we can do that, so we can scan the books and use their texts in Wiki) Again Thanks you for devoting your time for us. --Mhr.mgmz (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I used my second account. --Mhr.mgmz (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Regarding your point #3, books are never legally published "on the Internet". They are always published in a specific country -- either the country where the user submitted the data, or the country where the website server resides. Regardless, a letter first published 20 years ago, from an author who died 20 years ago, is going to still be under copyright anywhere in the world. So we have to accept that this is a non-free image.

Regarding your point #5, see Wikipedia:Non-free content, especially the section on unacceptable uses of text. It lists, as an unacceptable use, "An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source." So therefore, your answer to question #6 is no, we cannot host these pictures on the English Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It gives me great pleasure to see your accurate answers, I wish you luck. --♥MehranVB♥ ^{☻talk | ☺mail} 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quadell. I don't think we've ever interacted on WP. I'm involved with a rather difficult dispute over an interpretation of NPOV. Two editors are now claiming that there is already consensus for their position and say that they are unwilling to even discuss the issue any further. I don't think there is any consensus, but none of us are able to assess that with the objectivity of an uninvolved person, so I'm looking to find an uninvolved admin. Would you be willing to lend your assistance? Thanks, Jakew (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm willing to look at it. I'm afraid you're probably talking about Female genital mutilation, right? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm afraid you're right. There was a requested move that led to the current title (I initially opposed but withdrew that opposition as it was clear that consensus favoured a strict common-name approach). Since then there's been a lengthy debate over what term to use within the article itself. Some editors favour a "always use the term used by the majority of sources" interpretation of NPOV, leading to "female genital mutilation"; three others (including myself) favour a more nuanced interpretation, preferring "female genital cutting". Myself and one editor negotiated a compromise that would involve using a term used by several UN bodies ("female genital mutilation/cutting"), but this has been rejected by several of the others who favour the term "FGM".

The problem is how to move onwards from here. If I'm wrong, and there is a consensus, I need to drop it. On the other hand, if there is no consensus, then we need to keep searching for an acceptable compromise, however tedious it may be. Hence my request. The whole discussion is at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Terminology, but there's a huge amount of it. Talk:Female genital mutilation#Compromise is probably a good place to see the current status. Jakew (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: the discussion on just this topic (not on related topics) is over 22,000 words. That's several times longer than the article itself. I read only the "compromise" section, but I still don't understand what the major POVs are, or what terminology choice are being considered. This is intensely uninviting for outsiders to comment on. The natural result is that only those users who already have extremely strong opinions on the matter will care enough to wade through the debate.

It seems to me that this situation is exactly why the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process was set up. I would advise you to start an RFC, perhaps using the posting tool. Be sure that your summary explains the specific issue under debate. This will require some background information for those who are not already involved, but do your level best to keep the description as neutral and brief as possible. Avoid acronyms, unless that's a necessary part of the debate. For example, it might go something like this: "There is a medical procedure most often called 'blah blah blah' in the reliable sources(footnote), but also referred to as 'something else' or 'yadda yadda' in other sources.(footnote) Consensus determined that the article should be at 'blah blah blah', but debate has continued as to how the (I'm not really sure what the debate is about, so explain it.) Some editors feel that consensus has already been determined, that (something). Others feel (something else). The questions at issue, even after lengthy debate, are (questions one and two). I'm hoping that outside opinions will help us reach consensus." Or, you know, something like that. If you'll create this RFC, and it's comprehensible to an outsider, I'll certainly comment. Deal? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your suggestion, Quadell. I think an RfC might be a good idea, but I'm slightly hesitant to do so as I don't want to appear to be beating a dead horse. I've proposed another temporary compromise, and I want to see the reaction to that before doing anything else, I think. Jakew (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still very uninviting. There's a suggested compromise, somewhere in the middle of the third major section from the bottom. It suggest a 3:1 ration of terminology used... as opposed to what? Would some people be happier with 1:1, and others all:none, I'm guesssing? Is FGC "female genital circumcision" or "female genital cutting"? An outsider wouldn't know. It seems to me that none of the terms used are inherently wrong, and no proportion (such as 3:1) is impossible... depending on the bulk of opinion. And right now the "bulk" of opinion is pretty internecine. It seems like using whatever the source used for that statement would lead to a lot of consistency problems, but I'm still not sure what problems that solution is trying to fix. You're still using the talk page as a way to talk only to people who are already extremely familiar with the issue, in a way that inherently discourages outside opinion. If there were a 1- or 2-paragraph summary, I could respond intelligently, but it would have to be neutral... and the best way to do that is with an RFC. Let's face it, you're already beating a pretty old horse... but is it a dead horse? That's the whole question. There never has been an RFC on the topic, has there? Just a requested move?

I'm just not willing to dive into 22,000 words of combative and lingo-filled prose, which is what I would have to do to have an intelligent opinion at this point. But if you do open an RFC, please let me know, and I'll do my best. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take your points. I've drafted something at User:Jakew/sandbox. Could I request your feedback on it? I've condensed it as much as I can, but I'm concerned that it's still a bit long (3 paragraphs + 7 refs). Jakew (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded a sentence to make it clear that you're asking how to apply the policy, not whether to do so. You may want to tweak that sentence further, I don't know. But I think your summary is great. I don't think it's too long or complex. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Many thanks for your advice. Jakew (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again an issue concerning copyright templates

• Commons:PD-Yemen: Official documents not covered by copyright (Art. 4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antemister (talk • contribs) 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call. I added that. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to AAC talk page without logging in - could you revDelete? It's a little too easy to work out exactly where I live from the IP address... can do email if you want more particulars... is edit just before yours... :( Failedwizard (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have oversight ability, so I'm not able to do that. You could try contacting one of the users with oversight right, such as User:WizardmanorUser:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - thought it was all amdin... will head over to one of your recommendations...Failedwizard (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate! I just want to inform you that i have used your user page creation.It was really awesome,i just cant wait so i have picked your without informing! sorry may be it resemble yours and i want to go through it (possible fixes.Hope you agree! Thank you Roh^G??· 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I hope it's useful to you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!can you help me?I want you to know that my account which is used by me is also used my bro which he's reverting edits by twinkle! As i was really interested in editing wiki pages and make them up to wiki standards.I don't know what to do now!the pages are reverted but marking some of them as vandalism and Notifying the user (which is a false notification).Can you give me some suggestions? and how to protect my page being used by others??? Regards! Roh^G??· 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is against Wikipedia policy to share an account between multiple people. As our policy says, "User accounts can only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked."

You should change the password on your account to something your brother does not know. (You can do this my clicking here.) Then be sure to log out whenever you're done editing Wikipedia, if you're using a computer that your brother also has access too. That should fix your problem. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! You have saved me! Roh^G??· 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons:Template:PD-Malawi: Article 7a declares official documents as PD
• Mosambique: Official documents are PD Art. 5a, see Chapter IV for duration of copyright for all other types of work

--Antemister (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I updated Commons:Template:PD-Malawi and created Commons:Template:PD-Mozambique. I also updated Commons:Commons:Licensing to reflect this. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've added an article on Jade Alexis and have questions regarding sources. I thought I had enough reliable sources however does not appear so. Would you be able to provide some assistance? Any help is greatly appreciated. --LizGere (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Well, I'm not really an expert on what are considered reliable sources when it comes to contemporary sports figures like Jade Alexis. I know that official news sources, such as ABC and Fitness Magazine, are far preferable to self-published sources like blogs. It looks to me like there are reliable sources in the article. I do feel like the article still does read like an advertisement. For instance, trivia like "To relax, Jade travels, goes to the movies, reads and finds new and healthy places to eat in New York City" aren't really suitable for an encyclopedia biography, and things like "She does not accept the word 'impossible' or 'can't,' if there is a will there is a way" are not up to the level of professionalism we require. If you make the prose more factual and less glowing, I think you'd be justified in taking off the proposed deletion tag.

One other question, though: were you the photographer who created File:JadeAlexisWiki2.JPG? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the assistance. With your feedback I have edited the article to remove those points you mentioned. In terms of the image, I am not the photographer (Sara Forrest) however have approval to use the image on Wikipedia. Thank you again! --LizGere (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! Quadell i want you to intervene you in this article so that i can rectify my mistakes/errors that done by me hope this work wont be burden on you and please notify me that you have answered my Qn? so that i can check it.waiting for your opinion .Regards Roh^G??· 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell,thanks! Roh^G??· 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell you are really awesome , helped me a lot to be stable in wiki! hope you like this! Thanks. RohG??· 16:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I love a good falafel. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!Quadell i have started reviewing the article which you have nominated for GA,but it may take some time to review as iam sleepy . Thank you! Roh^G??·

Thanks, I commented further on your talkpage. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On18 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anneliese von Oettingen, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that ballet teacher Anneliese von Oettingen was featured in Sports Illustrated for training professional football players at her ballet school? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anneliese von Oettingen. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quadell, I just wanted to let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Trapper Nelson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Hope I have done my best.Roh^G??· 16:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]