User talk:Quadell/archive1

This is an archive. Please don't edit it. Instead, leave me a message on my talk page. Quadell (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot flag

Hi, I think your edits are peeving, because it is useless to put all images into a category and into an article page. I will not discuss this again, because this has been discussed too often already. But: get a bot flag or do these things using a bot account. These are clear bot edits. -- aka 05:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the redundancy, but then it is not to me to say which one is better: the category or article approach. If this has discussed before, I do not know where. But if there is a consensus, take the preferred method. Anyway, continue your work, because a bot would never do this work as good as an intelligence can! --Tauʻolunga 06:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Some Wikipedias prefer to link to categories, and some prefer to link to articles. Yes, it's redundant, and I wish there were consensus, but there is not. (I personally like categories better.) Besides, Wikipedia is not paper. It doesn't hurt anything to have both. All the best, Quadell (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit speed and editing tools

Hi. You appear to be producing a steady stream of edits that is in my experience impossible to maintain by hand. You *are* using tools. You are editing at such a speed that your edit's presence in Recent Changes could be seen as disruptive. Each wiki has the possibility to add a bot bit to user accounts in case they trust the operator with the tools. I would request that you immediately drop your tooling assisted editing rate to 4 or below edits per minute and request a bot bit for a new account. For more, see Commons:Bots. Please understand the former advice is not voluntary. Cheers! Siebrand 12:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Yes, I'm using tools. :) Of course! I don't see how anyone could see my changes as disruptive, however. I've read through the bot policy on Commons, and there is no requirement to have a bot flag in order to use tools. It's purely voluntary.

I see that you're a recent admin, promoted a few months ago, and I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm -- we both want to improve Commons as much as possible. Since I became an admin here on Commons in 2004, I have worked tirelessly to make Commons as useful as possible, and I can see you've been working at this as well. I'd ask that you be a little more friendly, however. When you say that a certain piece of advice is not voluntary, especially when policy doesn't require the action, it can be seen as a threat, which isn't helpful.

Regardless, thanks for all you do on Commons! All the best, Quadell (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just get the bot account. You're bound to get more opposition to your high edit rates. I use bots on any project where I am active and I have made up to 50 edits per minute with them without any trouble. P.s. I love your categorisation. Siebrand 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have requested a bot flag. All the best, Quadell (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Botanical articles

sorry I answered someone else's talk page thought it was mine!! deleted my comments as they were related but not appropriate here WayneRay 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Removing categories

Quadell, I assume you don't know of the nature of biological names. They are not stable entities and can and do change rapidly due to taxonomical reasons on their generic and specific level. Thus categorizing species on its names is a ridiculous idea, which will cause tons of additional maintainance work, a work you probably won't do in the future after your short visit in biology now. Compared to that titanic work of maintenance you cause now, moving a gallery page is quite easy. By your system, people will simply arrive on categories then whose name is simply utterly wrong or, even worse, will be directed to a category whose name confusingly differs, because of a correct article in the Wikipedia they came from, but a wrong/unmaintained entry in the Commons. Or they might never arrive there, because the article's editor searched at the "correct" place.

I guess your intention was good, but it just causes a mess. Maybe you might think it over? Reghards, Denis Barthel 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is no more difficult to change a category than it is to change an article (and all links to that article.) I can do either very quickly, and I don't mind keeping up with this. Quadell (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe you, sorry. I will watch your work and if I find, that you maintain the thousands, tenthousands and hundredthousands of species-categories now and in the future in a satisfying manner, I will think my decision over. Until then, please do not categorize my pictures. I don't want them to show up in a mess. Denis Barthel 19:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I protest about the mess you caused in Category:Euphorbia. To produce duplicate categories of each of the anyhow more than 400 articles is free of any sense. Please revert this mess immediately. Ies 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The change I made was in line with our policy at Commons:Categories. You don't seem to like our policy, but it still calls for both organization by category and by article. Quadell (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In the end it seems you learned that there is no such policy and you misrepresented things: Thanks for your explanation. All I want to add is that I wasn't trying to misrepresent the result of the vote. I understood that the vote resulted in consensus to use both systems (since that's what the help file says the result was). Quadell (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Now immediately revert the mess you caused! Ies 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make such demands of other people. I (obviously) don't see categorization as a "mess". If you were more polite to people, you might get better responses. Quadell (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You should have learned from previous discussions as well that all users with botanical knowledge see your categorization as a true mess. If YOU were more polite to people you hadn't had caused that. So, PLEASE, revert your categorization now. Ies 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just some thoughts

Hi Quadell. I've been asked for comments on the situation here by a few other users.

I agree with you that it would be sensible to have "TOL" images categorized in lower-order categories. However, there is not a consensus on this, and Wikimedia Commons is a consensus-driven project. Whether or not the categorization you're imposing is really "a mess" (again, I personally don't think it is), it is making a mess out of our social order, if you get my meaning. The strife and frustration that your actions have been bringing about isn't an acceptable price for the limited benefits afforded by this categorization.

Commons certainly needs a logical organizational structure. However, the structure needs to be accepted and embraced by the (sometimes less than logical) members of the community that makes commons happen. Maybe spend a bit of time discussing, rather than running your script. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. I haven't been running my script for several days, and I won't run it again unless there is consensus for me to do so. All the best, Quadell (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan :). It sometimes seems that consensus on that point might never happen though, so be patient and make your case. If it hasn't been dealt with by then, I'll bring it up again next winter (when I have time to be patient), I really just don't have time to argue policy this time of year (real life keeps me pretty busy when the weeds are growing). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abraham Jefferson Seay.jpg

Were you going to formally close Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abraham Jefferson Seay.jpg? --Iamunknown 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should see Commons talk:Licensing#PD-Old images that aren't. --Iamunknown 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to formally close that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. As I understand it, images created in the United States prior to 1923 may be tagged with {{PD-US}}, but images created elsewhere must be PD in their country of origin in order to be kept at Commons. Quadell (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That too his how I understand it. But why, then, did you close Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Liane de Pougy postcard.jpg as keep (or no consensus)? As it was likely published in France, French and United States law are relevant; per COM:L#France, "The normal duration of copyright is 70 years following the death of the author". We know no information about the death of the author, but we do know that it is entirely plausible that the author of something dated to 1886 died post-1937, making the image still in copyright in France. --Iamunknown 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I was just wrong. It's probably not copyrighted, but we don't know for sure, so I deleted it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Quadell (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Iamunknown 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Species categories you created

Hi Quadell, I was asked to take care of Category:Other speedy deletions, which contains mostly deletion requests of species categories you created. I see you've been informed of the position of the TOL project concerning the category/gallery issue. Do you oppose those speedy deletions? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. If a species category is deleted, will all images in that category be changed to remove that category? If so, that could "orphan" some images, if they are not in any other categories (other than license-based ones), and if they are not in any pages. Would the images automatically be put in a different category (e.g. biological Family)? If speedying the categories could orphanize some images, then I'd like to write and run a script before the categories are deleted. (This script would check through those categories for orphan-risks, and would put those images in the appropriate articles.) Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Quadell (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ies reverted all your edits, so all pictures are back into galleries. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits didn't take any images out of galleries. But there are images in species categories that are not in species galleries. See, for example, Image:Hindu Datura, Indian Apple, Jimson Weed, Sacred Datura, Thorn Apple (Datura inoxia).jpg. Deleting Category:Datura inoxia would orphan this image, would it not? Quadell (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread Ies' contributions history. It seems he put those pictures into galleries. Nevertheless, I will not delete categories if that means orphaning images, as the Datura inoxia one. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Both wrong, sorry, it is corrected now, actually it is Datura innoxia so I redirected inoxia to the correct spelling and fixed up the errant images and extra categories in Cat Datura WayneRay 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Per COM:C, both categories and gallery pages should exist (the image should be both on a gallery page and in a relevant category). The categories should not have been reverted, nor deleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Quadell (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree, it is just clutter and useless duplication to have identicle photos in galleries and in Categories. One or the other. I am creating new gallery articles and editing these duplicates to have the name of the species only in the Category and the photos in the gallery. Some things are better put in Categories only but not in both. My two cents worth. WayneRay 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Basically, you folks have walked right into one of the largest debates on Commons ever: images on normal pages? or on categories? Experienced Commonists probably remember, but newer ones (like me--I wasn't around for the poll) probably not. --Iamunknown 06:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where place is the image from?

Cann you to quote the desription, where state and place is the image from? Thank you. The all of the others images from Category:Hiking and footpath signs are classified by country again. --ŠJů 14:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've left a note there. Thanks for your interest! Quadell (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Freer and Sackler Gallery Art

For the love of God, man, are these the only photographs you took? If you have more, please upload them! Especially Chinese art, there is not enough on wiki.

Btw, I'm PericlesofAthens over at English Wikipedia.--72.196.253.3 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. My camera ran out of batteries. :-( All the best, Quadell (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:1914_Postcard-Alligator_Bait_01.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:1914_Postcard-Alligator_Bait_01.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

206.74.124.99 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Birds

I have created a sub page here User:SqueakBox/images. Can we just work here on the commons re this image cropping. I have figured out how to do the process now (the licencing etc was the hard bit not the cropping) and left a note on my user page saying if there are problems with my uploads please contact you. Feel free to add more images here and also it would be nice if you could speedy this page on en.wikipedia, if not I'll tag it myself when I return there tomorrow. Regards, SqueakBox 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I speedied the Wikipedia page. Thanks again for doing this! I've replaced several images in their articles already. Quadell (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image inquiry

Good to see you on this side of the fence. I had a question and was wondering if you could take a few of your precious minutes to appease me. Could you take a look at Image:Fatboy Slim in 2004.jpg. I noticed that it came from flickr and that a bot said that it was allowed. I followed the link and it seemed like the image is copyright. So I'm asking if I'm missing anything. The only thing I could think of is the flickr user has since changed the copyright after it was reviewed (or maybe the bot has an error). Anyway, just wanted to see if you had any insight. Thanks.-Andrew c 02:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. Presuming the bot didn't make a mistake (which seems unlikely), it looks like the flickr-author changed the description in the last four months. Luckily for us, the cc-by license is non-rescindable. Quadell (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Flickr

 Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iron Maiden of Nuremberg.jpg

Hey Quadell, can you still provide a source for this image? And why PD-old-50? When did the photographer die? Lupo 06:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded the image back in 2004, and I don't remember the source. I'd tagged that image {{PD-US}}, since the source had said the image was created before 1923, but I hadn't understood at the time that this only applies (on the Commons) if the image was created in the U.S. Without a source, and without reasonably good evidence that the image is PD, it should definitely be deleted. Quadell (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alfred Wegener.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:Alfred Wegener.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Polarlys 11:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:1890s_pre_civil_war_scene.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1890s_pre_civil_war_scene.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. OsamaK 12:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:1890sc_Artwork_01.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1890sc_Artwork_01.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. OsamaK 12:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:1890sc_Artwork_04.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1890sc_Artwork_04.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. OsamaK 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:1890sc_Artwork_05.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1890sc_Artwork_05.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. OsamaK 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:1890sc_Artwork_06.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1890sc_Artwork_06.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. OsamaK 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:1890sc_Artwork_07.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1890sc_Artwork_07.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. OsamaK 12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Spray_fireproofing_on_an_ibeam.jpg

Cool Pic! I wasn't sure why you put fireproofing or I-Beams as categories on there and I corrected it to the only category I could find on the subject matter on Commons, which is "Fire". If you had not noticed though, I have put in a page on fireproofing both on Wikepedia and on Commons. I put your picture up there too. I was glad someone else is contributing to that as well! Since you're an administrator, AND you seem to know about PFP, do you have any thoughts on bounding?

Best regards, --Achim Hering 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! No, I'm afraid I really don't. I was just looking for encyclopedic things to photograph, and so I snapped that picture. I hadn't even heard of bounding before I read the article (when looking for a place to put the image). Thanks for cleaning up the categories! Quadell (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem! --Achim Hering 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounding

Hello again! I'm struggling with these two guys who are tagteaming me on that page. They don't answer any specifics and then remove things that are uncomfortable. I am wondering if it would be possible to switch the term from "bounding", to "maintaining tolerances of active certification listings in practical use". For all intents and purposes, that should make their issues go away. And then, if it would be possible to have it fixed that if someone were to type in BOUNDING, it would still land at that page? Any thoughts? I really need some help here. These guys are just wrecking thing things for no good reason. In fact, if the guy who claims to be a practicing engineer were identified, the blarney he wrote would be enough to remove his license. But it's two against one here. I would appreciate any advice you may have! --Achim Hering 02:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Info

I've protected Sasha Grey (again) until the revert warring is sorted - hope this is ok - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Quadell (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Restauration_Arts_at_Willowbank

Hello!

I messed up. It should be Restoration, not Restauration. From the verb RESTORE. I tried fixing this using the MOVE button but that did not work for me. The system thought it was the same thing and disallowed it. I also tried deleting the word "THE" at the beginning of the name, but that did not work either. Any suggestions?--Achim Hering 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Eddington_5.jpeg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Eddington_5.jpeg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 09:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

categorizing species within genus

Hello Quadell,

Could you (or your robot) copy the taxonavigation and interwiki page when you create a category out of a taxon article?
Here is an exemple done by your robot. Here the result after I copied the taxonavigation and interwiki page from the original article.

Thanks in advance
Cheers Liné1 06:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Frédéric_Bastiat_drawing.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Frédéric_Bastiat_drawing.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Ρх₥α 22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Very profound

Your comment on VO's RfA is very apt. Thanks for sharing it, it's a good bit of needed perspective. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it meant something to you! I'm basking in the warm glow of your compliment. All the best, Quadell (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for taking the time to comment at my RfA, and for your words of support. You can count on the fact that I will probably continually bug you for advice at every turn. :) - Videmus Omnia 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

SVG's

I could convert the images you showed me to SVG, surely, but in Image:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg,i am not sure if the copyright status would allow such a thing. I will start doing the other one and let you know when finished :)-LadyofHats 14:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Yes, it's very important to be doubly certain about copyright concerns. I wouldn't want your work to be wasted! Quadell (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

deletion talk?

In deleting Image:Boyfriends work.jpg, you said "per consensus, details on the talk page". But Image talk:Boyfriends work.jpg was deleted by Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs): "Talkpage of non-existent file/gallery/category". — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask VO about that then. Quadell (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

sleep cycles

hi, I agree with you that it is very difficult to find a such specific information. Indeed, I think that we can not distinguish sleep needs from one year of age to another (e.g. from 6 to 7th year) because it is a very theorical data based on estimations (I don't know if a mathematical formula exist). However, you can find general estimations with more extended age groups (see the table below in this article). On the other hand, I think that means of REM duration can be found somewhere, for each age, because it can be measured. So if you find something please keep me info and thanks for advance ! :) YassineMrabet (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Woman_wearing_scarf.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Woman_wearing_scarf.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Polarlys 12:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)