Jump to content

User talk:Quadell/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Utilitarian

Is there a Wikipedia space page that covers images and objects being "utilitarian"?--Rockfang (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. – Quadell (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was a Wikipedia namespace page that covers "utilitarian" images like this one may be.--Rockfang (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see! No, that's just a matter of U.S. copyright law, not a matter of Wikipedia policy. Here I quote from the book "Public Domain" by attorney Stephen Fishman: "Useful articles" are items whose intrinsic function is utilitarian--for example, automobiles, boats, household appliances, furniture, work tools, and clothing. The utilitarian or mechanical aspects of useful articles are not protected by copyright". So it's just a question of whether an object's design is copyrighted or not. Unfortunately it's not a black-and-white issue. – Quadell (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Newmarket railway station

As a courtesy it would not have hurt to leave a brief message on my talk page (as the originator of the discussion) or on the talk page of the article. We KNOW these are little more than stubs, but the SET of articles hangs together, that's what we're aiming for.

Deleting the picture with no notice just took us ages to figure it out where and why it had gone. Don't really matter if it stays or goes but then we have to do layout again (or did you do layout after edting it out? NO).

01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what images you're referring to. As the logs show, I've deleted over 500 images in the last 2 days. I do try to always follow correct procedure in my deletions. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Process for contesting deletion?

I would like to contest your deletion of the images of the Jeopardy! set. I provided extensive rationale for the images and countered every (and by every, I mean both) rationales for deletion respectfully and with sound argument. All of this appears to have been ignored and the images were deleted without your providing rationale for the decision. It's worth pointing out that User:Jay32183's rationale kept shifting and finally settled on the entirely non sequitur argument that the images failed "minimal usage": "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"--such was not the case here, as I described at length; "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice"--the images were not whole shows and cannot be said to have been a copyright violation risk (that argument was never made at all). Deletion review states that the matter should be discussed with the deleting admin prior to posting the review request, so that's what I'm doing here, although I don't know what else I might do to persuade you that the images in question were hardly anything out of the ordinary. I'll just repeat my conclusion in the deletion discussion: " An article about Jeopardy! without images of the show's sets would be like an article about the Pontiac Firebird that lacked images of that automobile's stylistic evolution." Robert K S (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that the article for Wheel of Fortune (Jeopardy!'s sister show) has a similar set comparison image File:Wheelbackdrops.png. There is an apparent disconnect as to why one should be allowed but not another. Robert K S (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a process for contesting deletion: Wikipedia:Deletion review. No hard feelings, – Quadell (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes--I wonder if you even read what I wrote, above; I further wonder if you even read the deletion discussion before deciding the deletion. So I take it I should note in my deletion review posting that the deleting admin declined the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind the deletion decision? Robert K S (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I read what you wrote. You hadn't asked any questions, so I didn't answer any. There's really no need for hostility. If you're curious as to my reasoning, the consensus was to delete the images, and our policy forbids using non-free images in galleries or without substantial commentary. (Pontiac Firebird, for instance, has no non-free images at all.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What made me wonder whether you read what I wrote was the fact that you "informed" me of deletion review, whereas I explicitly pointed out that I was taking the requisite first step toward deletion review. I don't call 2 (or 3) delete votes to 1 keep "consensus", particularly in the face of the extensive rationale provided for the images vs. no valid rationale calling for the images' deletion. There is substantial commentary in the article, and that substantial commentary was replicated in the deletion discussion with each image being mated to its commentary. I believe that the substantiation I provided in the deletion discussion deserves addressing, but the images were deleted without addressing that substantiation. Robert K S (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I disagree. You're free to take the issue to WP:DRV if you like, but I'm done discussing it here. – Quadell (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Further, you deleted all of the images without any consideration that the article without any of the images greatly decreases the readers' understanding of the topic. The wholesale deletion was rather thoughtless, not in the "thoughtless" in the sentimental sense, but "thoughtless" in the sense that the deletion gave no consideration to the consequences of the action and did not appear to even examine the article content or how the images were being used, which use was in perfect conformity with guidelines for fair use images. Thanks and with the affirmation of your disagreement, I'll post to deletion review. Robert K S (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Early closure request

Hello. Is there any chance you can close this IfD early? The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and now agrees the image is free. The reason I request this is because I'd like to put the article and image through DYK. Strikehold (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Done. – Quadell (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Strikehold (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

LivingBot 9

I'm still fumbling around with this one, but I now think I've got all the bugs worked out. Hence I've got to really carry on the trial, an extension which you can make official if you wish. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So let it be written, so let it be done. – Quadell (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Errr. As far as I'm aware, all SCOTUS-related articles use Case citation links in the intros. It's standardized across all SCOTUS-related articles. While I appreciate that one person found them annoying and filed a bot request, I think a bit more discussion is needed regarding them. Esp. given that there are thousands of cases that will be modified. Your thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people find them annoying and unintentionally deceptive, me included. I'm certainly open to having a wider discussion though. Where's a good place to discuss it? – Quadell (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess a thread at Village pump (proposals) and drop a note at WT:SCOTUS and some other law-related WikiProject talk pages? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for celebrating my 2nd wiki-anniversary

Pilover819 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Weatherlover819 (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

DrilBot

Since you approved the bot, could you take a look at User talk:DrilBot and see if my proposed solution makes sense? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, another question. Would I need a separate BRFA in order to run the bot supervised (essentially just using AWB for CHECKWIKI fixes on that account, without it being automatic)? That way I could fix things like incorrect square brackets which can't be fixed automatically, but which also don't need to clog up watchlists. I don't really mind either way; I can just use my main account, but I was just curious. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No, you don't need to get any permission to run AWB supervised, even if it's some of the same code that Drilbot uses. – Quadell (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; what I meant to say was could I use AWB on the bot account supervised, rather than on my main account? I only had "automatic" in the BRFA, so was wondering if it would also be safe to use the bot account itself to make other CHECKWIKI edits which aren't actually automatic by using the DrilBot account, since the BRFA didn't actually specify "supervised" as a use option. It seems like it should be okay—there'd be even fewer false positives than in the automatic mode—but I just want to be sure. By making my non-automatic CHECKWIKI fixes that use AWB on the bot account, they wouldn't clog watchlists. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, in this case it's fine, since the bot wouldn't be doing anything more than it was authorized to do. Supervising a bot isn't a new function needing approval. So go for it. – Quadell (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment from the gallery: as long as you aren't making controversial changes (thus someone could say you were using the bot flag to avoid scrutiny), I don't think you will have a problem. –xeno talk 20:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay; thank you both. I just wanted to be sure before doing anything. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have stalkers? Cool! – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) One more question; I don't see anywhere a real guideline on bot edit speed, but do you think that maxing AWB's rate would be OK? Right now I have it set to delay 1 second before each save. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would advise keeping the 1 second delay on. – Quadell (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
That's kind of what I thought, but I decided it wouldn't hurt to ask. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking

Hello... FYI, date delinking has been temporarily prohibited per an Arbitration Committee injunction, pending completion of their judgement on the matter. Editors are not permitted to use scripts or perform wide-scale date delinking while the injunction is in place. Please feel free to ask if you have questions about this matter. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. Thank, I'd seen the injunction. But note that it doesn't proscribe all date format changes; it prohibits specifically "mass linking or delinking", and I'm not doing that (and I won't). I am removing date links in accordance with our guidelines, but only in articles that I am editing for other reasons, and only when I personally examine the articles to make sure that each change is correct and according to policy. If I have no other reason to edit an article, I don't edit it just to remove date links, and I don't remove a link where there is consensus on the talk page to leave it in. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the use of the script to delink is part of what has been prohibited, and other editors have been blocked for similar actions. (For clarity, please do not interpret the mention of blocks in the preceding sentence as any sort of warning or threat, but instead as a "heads-up" note. The "delinking" script is central to the ArbComm case; some editors have been unpleasantly surprised when they learned the hard way about the injunction.) As well, ArbComm is still in the process of formulating a decision as to how to handle links, how and if they should be removed, and so on. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying, but I have to disagree with you on the injunction's purpose. The instruction is "not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking" and says that this applies to bots, scripts, or anything else (by hand?). It's not a specific script that's the problem; it's whether the edits are "mass delinking" or not. If I'm editing an article that I'm trying to bring up to featured status, it doesn't matter whether I use a script or not to format dates, names, or anything else; on the other hand, if I go through articles randomly and remove or add date formatting by hand, without looking at the changes made, that's a violation of the injunction, right? I don't think the ArbCom meant to prohibit formatting dates according to the MoS and consensus when done as a side process, when editing an article anyway for other reasons. If there's significant disagreement on this, I could ask the ArbCom for a clarification. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It might be best to ask, so that there is no confusion. Ryan Postlethwaite is the clerk handling this matter. --Ckatzchatspy 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:A BorisA Berlin1948.jpg

Hi Quadell. Sorry to have to trouble you again regarding this one. Please could you kindly let me know what is the usual timescale for a decision in this situation? I've put all the available information about photographer, time and place on the discussion page and on the image page. You have kindly given us the Wiki policy position, as far as possible. It's unlikely that anyone will have more to add to the discussion. What is the next step? (Please notify me of any reply on my talk page). Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles listed at WP:PUF are kept for at least 14 days while their status is debated. After that, they can be deleted by any administrator if it is determined that the image is not free and cannot be used. Since the image was nominated on 4 May 2009, it won't be decided until after 18 May. – Quadell (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Thank you for kindly letting me know. --Storye book (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ffd stipulations

Regarding this, Ffds are for deletions, not stipulations as to where images can and can not be used. That should go to Rfc or Dispute Resolution. It's not Ffd's purpose to set rules and regulations, only to gauge a consensus of whether or not to keep a file. Please refactor your close reason and restore the Fair Use Rationales to the image, as well as the image to any articles you may have removed them from. - ALLST?R▼echo wuz here @ 00:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just not true. Frequently a file will be acceptable according to policy only in a given article, but deleted if it is consistently used in other locations. It is a standard and commonly-accepted practice to have such community discussions on FFD. I removed the additional rationales from the image in accordance with consensus. You are welcome to take the issue to deletion review if you believe I acted incorrectly. – Quadell (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion Review is not the appropriate venue since the file wasn't deleted.. just as Ffd is not the appropriate venue to decide where and when a file can be used. It's simply for either keep or delete the file. - ALLST?R▼echo wuz here @ 03:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You keep asserting that, but it's not true. – Quadell (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

LawrenceFobesKing.jpg

Hi - Obviously I totally agree with your closure of the FfD Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, so this is not a request to reconsideration or notice of a DRV. However, I was wondering which and/or who's arguments convinced you to close as you did, and if some arguments were particularly persuasive in either direction. This is just my curiosity about this part of WP: image fair use policy and usage, FfD, and an interest in the fair use consensus process generally. Of course, one way is to hang out at WP:FfD more and at WP:WPFU, and the talk pages of WP:FAIR, etc. If you don't feel comfortable answering here, or you want avoid increasing the possibility of a DRV, you can email me. Or not. Either way, thanks for any response, and thanks for a good close, IMHO. — Becksguy (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly, the closure was based on policy and precedent. It's well established that an article primarily on an individual can have a non-free portrait of that individual, assuming that the person is dead and all other NFCC are met. But it's also well established that the use of non-free images in lists, to represent one item in that list, is not acceptable. This is basically because a few sentences about a person in an article on a larger theme is not enough content to merit a non-free image of that person. The larger theme can be understood just fine without a picture of any particular individual, so NFCC#8 isn't passed. So the argument given by Fasach Nua, though brief, was perfectly adequate. But Stifle's eloquent analysis summed it up perfectly.
I didn't care at all about accusations of censorship, homophobia, etc. I try to look at each case on the image's merits, and not get involved in the politics. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll just say I agree with you about non-free images. This image shouldn't be used except in its main article. But Ffd isn't the place to set stipulations. That was my only disagreement. Nothing personal. - ALLST?R▼echo wuz here @ 18:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for image: Underground entrance.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of image: Underground entrance.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  –radiojon (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikibirthday

Thanks for the birthday wishes! I'm still having fun and there's lots to do, so I hope to be around for a few years yet. Davidelit (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

More photo questions

I see you're the one who handled my photo issue on Calliopejen1's talk (thanks for that!), so now that I have another issue, I'll just ask you instead. The user User:MRDU08 has been banned for repeatedly uploading copyvios under "self created image" tags, but lots of his photos, like this and this are still up. As with the latter pic there, I listed it as a possibly non-free photo, but considering nothing MRDU08 uploaded seems to be valid (hence the block), there must be a speedy cat these pics fall under. How should I tag these photos when I come across them, or can someone like yourself on Commons just do some admin action to delete them all in a batch?  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source, you can delete them as unambiguous copyright violations. In these cases, however, they have to be listed at WP:PUF or WP:FFD. I'll look through the user's uploads. – Quadell (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Names

A few of us are working on Category:Biography articles without listas parameter in an effort to insure that articles and their talk pages are sorted correctly in the categories to which they are assigned. Listasbot has brought the category down from 334,000 pages to 107,000 pages and will have it down to as few as 10,000 pages by the end of the month. However, the editor who manages listasbot and I are both stymied by Arabic names. (I have read the article about Arabic Naming conventions a number of times and I am still certain that I could not get it right.)

Could you and/or a group of editors who you know who are knowledgeable in this area start wading through the Arabic names in the category, determine a value for the listas parameter for each page, insert it into the WP Biog banner and also put that value as the DEFAULTSORT value on the Article page? The bot is already at the "M" pages so if you and those you recruit can clean out the "A" pages by the end of the month it would be a great help in reducing the backlog.

Thank you for considering this matter.

JimCubb (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jim. Traditional Arabic names are alphabetized by just their first name. So Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud should be alphabetized just as written, as "Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud". If the person is better known by a nickname, such as Ibn Battuta or Rumi, then it should be alphabetized by this name, directly. All Arabic names of people born before 1800 or so should be alphabetized this way; I can't think of any exceptions. Some contemporary Arabs have begun to use Western style, treating their nasab or nisba as a last name. Some only do this when writing their names in Western letters, treating their names as traditional Arab names when writing them in Arab letters. (The majority still use Arab alphabetization all the time.) I will consider going through these as I get time. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. This makes life much easier. Despite notes that I have seen on a few pages it really is necessary to apply DEFAULTSORT values to the Articles and listas parameters to the talk pages so that the category eventually will contain only the pages that should have the parameter but do not.

As you go through them remember that no "special" characters or diacritical marks should be used.

Thank you again for your input and thank you for helping with the venture.

JimCubb (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm using AWB to go through, finding Arabic names from before 1800 and adding {{DEFAULTSORT:{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} to them. Unfortunately, this imports all diacriticals, apostrophes, etc., which is incorrect. My task also doesn't add the listas parameter. But still, it's better than nothing. Does someone have a script or bot that replaces Á with A and removes punctuation from DEFAULTSORTs and listas params? – Quadell (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that listasbot cleans names so all should be well.

JimCubb (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
AWB and some bots remove diacritics from DEFAULTSORTs. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but....

Another robot about images has just pestered me, I know its not your fault or anything but its pretty tiresome now. This time it says the image has been uploaded for 7 days, when in actual fact I had just uploaded the image and was in the business of creating the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadblocker (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but my talk page has been reverted - seems like someone made a mistake :) Anyway thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadblocker (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And now the TaggingBot is back for the 3rd time... --Roadblocker (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ffd

In regards to this comment of yours, I specifically said copy I saw had no copyright notice in the very first "Keep" !vote at the beginning of the discussion. I guess you missed it but deleted the image anyway. - ALLST?R▼echo wuz here @ 04:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

When deleting the file, you wrote: "If the uploader said "I looked, and this book doesn't have a copyright notice", then I'd believe him. " However, that is what the uploader said. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the operator does not have this book to look at. He doesn't remember it having one, but he no longer owns the book. – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That is, however, what he said, exactly what you asked for. He did look, and this book didn't have a copyright notice. He didn't say "I have it in front of me now, and will forever, and at the moment I sell or lose it, feel free to delete anything I got from it". He looked when he had the book, when he was scanning it, which one would think would be the right time to do so. Surely he is not required to maintain his original copy indefinitely? --GRuban (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If anyone can confirm that the book did not have a © symbol when it was first published, then great. Until then, I'm really not interested in debating this further. After all, any cover of such a book would work just as well in the article, and as I understand it, many such books were never copyrighted. So if it's important to you, find one and upload the cover. And if it's not important to you, well in truth it's not that important to me either. – Quadell (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I did confirm it. My exact words at the Ffd on May 11 were, "and the copy I saw had no copyright notice." On May 16, 5 days later, your exact words were. "If the uploader said "I looked, and this book doesn't have a copyright notice", then I'd believe him." Then you deleted the file anyway. At least own up to the mistake. - ALLST?R▼echo wuz here @ 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dates

Never thought I'd actually get to see the day when BAG was taken seriously enough to have to give an opinion. I've commented at the proposed statement and wanted to point out User:MBisanz/BAG1 is available if you would like to use it. MBisanz talk 12:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Architecture

Your "cleanup" buried a recent vandalism rather than removing it. Please check recent edits back to a reliable edit before applying "cleanup". Amandajm (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a tough one to prevent, but thanks for the heads-up. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Warner's Grant, Vermont

I've undone your edits here and your deletion of the related map: you deleted it as a file also on Commons. However, the local file is fine, while the Commons file is problematic. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now commented on Commons about the situation. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
I hereby award you "The Admin’s Barnstar". Cheers. RogDel (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! For me? Thanks so much! – Quadell (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

LivingBot 9

Section moved so it's easier to find

I'm still fumbling around with this one, but I now think I've got all the bugs worked out. Hence I've got to really carry on the trial, an extension which you can make official if you wish. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So let it be written, so let it be done. – Quadell (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Things have been going really well recently. I would normally declare "Trial complete" and turn the bot off, but this whole project relies on trust. Users need to have faith that the bot will be holding the other end of the rope, and that's quite a leap for most people. Hence, I think it would be detrimental to turn the bot off now for any length of time, and it's going to look awkward if I call the trial completed and continue. So, would you mind, in the interests of the encyclopaedia (I wouldn't ask you otherwise) curtailing the trial yourself by approving (or rejecting) the bot sometime soonish. I don't mind when, it's the inevitable delay that I'm more worried about. Cheers, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I will look it over in a bit. – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks great! Approved. – Quadell (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

images requiring transfer to commons

Hi Quadell,are there many of these images and if so how would I find them? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes there are! Currently there are over 16,000 in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. But every one helps. Thanks for helping out! – Quadell (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks, I am not that hungry (16,000) but I could eat more than one. best regards (Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Birthdays

Don't worry, I'll have things totally under control while you're out.

Hey Quadell, I will be traveling for the next about 10 days and might have limited internet access. Would you be able to keep an eye on the WikiBirthdays (about once a day or so) in case I'm not online? r?ana? talk/contribs 23:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing! – Quadell (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographical disambiguation

A discussion you might be interested in is here. I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to pool lots of biographical bot-stuff at WT:Biographical metadata? Or maybe at a disambiguation or biography WikiProject? Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ral Partha miniature.jpg

At 14:44, 20 May 2009, you deleted this file. This seems improper in that you participated in the discussion rather than closing it. Please restore the file. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the deletion was proper and made according to policy. – Quadell (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I would have closed it the same way based on the current evidence, however I agree with Colnol Warden that closing a discussion in which you are involved is something which should generally be avoided. If the file were restored for this reason, I'd just close the discussion with the same result when I next went through the PUF backlogs. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Warden is, for reasons best known to himself, annoying and harassing people regarding deletions and Xfd nominations. Please feel free to ignore him and remove his protests, unless they bother you unduly, in which case please let me know. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 19:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Saipan

Hi. I just made a fix to Saipan and see that the issue was introduced by an edit of yours (way down near the end). This was, of course, inadvertent and is likely an issue with Wikipedia:AutoEd. I don't use that, but may give it a cautious try. I hope this isn't widespread. Cheers, Jack Merridew

Yes, this appears to be an AutoEd bug. Thanks for catching it, and fixing it in this case. I'll pass it along to the AutoEd developers. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

STOP!

Please can you tag your AMG cleanup edits (like the recent one to Addison Hehr) as either a bot or minor, so I can users can filter them out of their watchlists. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. – Quadell (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AMG updates

Hi Quadell, Just noticed you've been doing a lot of bot updates to fix the AMG template, and it is simultaneously moving the "lifetime" template from the top of the categories to the bottom. (example) Therefore the birth date/death date or birth date/living are being moved to the end of the list. I was just wondering if that is intentional, as I thought the dates were supposed to be shown first. I may be working on an incorrect assumption about that. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The documentation at {{lifetime}} says "Since Categories are preferred to be listed in most-common order, the Lifetime template should generally be placed after the last Category tag," and WP:Cat says "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical). Normally the most essential, significant categories are listed first.", which I guess also suggests that year of birth/death cats go at the end as being less significant than most other cats. PamD (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A request

Hi Quadell.

I don't think that you've really been involved in the discussion, so would you be able to determine the result of the RFC at WT:NOT? I archived the poll earlier today because people kept on !voting after it should have been closed, but since I'm involved I can't really say what the result is because I have my own views on the topic. I understand if you don't want to get involved in the situation, in which case I can try to find somebody else, but I think that Hobit has posted it at WP:AN three times now and nobody's done anything. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now. – Quadell (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's clearly no consensus, so I said so. Now when there is official policy that includes a section, and there is a 50-50 split on whether that section belongs in the policy, I'm not sure whether the appropriate response is to include or to remove the section. I'm not even sure where to point you for guidance on that point. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd look at WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLICY. My understanding is that if there isn't consensus for something's being policy it shouldn't be policy, but as I said I'm involved so please consider what I say with that in mind. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll look at it. Meanwhile, do you have any further input for Locos at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Locobot 2? – Quadell (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AMG template cleanup

It looks like the cleanup project on which you're currently working is also resulting in the unlinking of dates. I'm guessing that this is an inadvertent result of some setting in AWB, because I know that you're already familiar with the date delinking arbitration case (nice efforts on the BAG statement, BTW) and I can't imagine from the way I've seen you conduct yourself anytime I've run into your name that you'd be violating the injunction on purpose. You may want to have a look at this conversation and consider weighing in, as your edits have been referenced there. Just a friendly heads-up. Regards, Mlaffs (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied there. Thanks for notifying me. – Quadell (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem — there's been enough collateral damage from this case already. I'd hate to see anyone else get needlessly dragged into it. Mlaffs (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Check

Hi, you told me that the green check (File:Yes check.svg), is not eligible for copyright. So what is the next step? To re-license the works? I can't do it because its a protect page. ZStoler (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked on the image description page at Commons. – Quadell (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Images moved to Commons

Hi Quadell,

Thank you for the work you have done in transferring these images to the Commons. If it's alright with you, I'd prefer respond to your questions here rather than on the Commons. Here are the answers:

  • All the photos of flora were taken either in Canada, the United States, Zimbabwe, or Saint Pierre and Miquelon. If you would like me to specify which of these four locations is the correct one for a particular photo, just let me know which and hopefully I'll remember.

I hope you find this information helpful, and I hope my not using the Commons directly does not inconvenience you.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quadell,
I'm glad you like my photos. I have identified the location for most of the images of flora on the page you indicated. The ones in the first, unnamed section are those whose location I could not remember. I would expect that about half of the images in that section were taken in Florida, while the others were taken in either Ontario, Newfoundland, Saint Pierre, or Zimbabwe.
Neelix (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 7

Hi, I just read this request for approval. Did you meant there that it is ok for User:Erik9 to close discussions as no-consensus/delete? I mentioned to User:Erik9 here that I thought it better for an admin to do, but we have a difference of opinion so I ignored it. (it was only my opinion). The deletion review here and discussion here really makes me believe again he should never close anything but unambiguous keeps. Garion96 (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a careful read. – Quadell (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My TFD closure of Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_1#Template:Nearest_tube did not involve any bot actions. The comments that I made with respect to this issue at the deletion review discussion and on my talk page did not relate to any edits performed by my bot, approval(s) of tasks for my bot, or any other matters within the purview of the Bot Approvals Group. Erik9 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Garion96 (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Film articles

Please stop delinking the year a film was released in film articles. This is contrary to the film project guidelines. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to those guidelines? I don't believe that there is a guideline that says years should be linked in film articles. Consensus is overwhelming in a recent poll (with over a hundred participants) that years in Wikipedia article should be linked only rarely. See Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, and the guidelines at MOS:UNLINKYEARS and Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological items. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment from the sidelines: I haven't looked in the poll in detail, but my personal feeling on the issue is that normal dates (like 2009) should not usually be linked, but topical ones should (like 2009 in film), since the latter are usually of more interest to readers. That's just my opinion on that, though; as I said, I haven't really concerned myself with all the date-linking stuff. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, incidentally. But piped year links, like [[1976 in film|1976]], are a bit unhelpful in my opinion, since it isn't clear where the link points to. Again, that's just my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Quadell. There is currently an ArbCom restriction against delinking dates -- could I get you to leave this change out of the edits you're making? Thanks! [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The arbcom injunction is against blindly mass delinking dates. It isn't against all date linking or delinking, and all sides seem to agree that it's responsible to link or unlink dates as appropriate in individual articles, when done in the context of other changes. I asked the Arbcom for further clarification on this point, but they have not yet responded. This was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for_ arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#Please do not make this dispute longer, and both linking and delinking enthusiasts seemed tepidly supportive of making such changes are individually made, done with the intention of improving the specific page it was used on, and done in the context of other changes that I was making on the page anyway. As I said there, "If the arbcom wants us to leave all date formatting alone, I'll be happy to do that, but that doesn't seem to be what they've instructed." All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Gah, I pressed block before I saw this response. The injunction is meant to be interpreted very broadly, I think -- I was requested by a member of the Committee to get you to stop making the edits. I'm sorry for putting the block in place -- if you can confirm that you won't delink any more dates, I'll unblock straight away. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think delinking dates (so long as you're not blindly mass-delinking) is a blockable offense, or an offense of any kind. I resent that I should have to agree to that to be unblocked. If the arbcom wants to prohibit all date delinking, including that manually checked and done in the context of other improvements to an article, I wish they would say that. Or at least, I wish they would answer my request for clarification on the matter. (I also note that I have not delinked any further dates at all, under any situations, since you left the note on my talk page.)

Sam, I sincerely believe that I'm complying with the ArbCom injunction. It's really not my intention to "skirt the line" or whatever. I only want to improve stylistic concerns in articles I'm editing, and I want to do it in a way that's in line with policy, with our style guidelines, with Arbcom instructions, and with consensus about the various style issues. I think I'm doing that. If you think I'm not, I wish you'd discuss it with me instead of preemptively blocking me. – Quadell (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The arbcom injunction states that "all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise". Using AWB to delink dates is a pretty clear violation in my mind. Wizardman 17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. I happen to disagree. When you use AWB, you verify each change individually, and your edits are primarily designed to make other changes, I don't believe that is "mass delinking". There's room for people in good faith to disagree on this, of course. – Quadell (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, it was absolutely not intended to be a preemptive block -- I saw that you were still making the edits some good while after I sent the message above -- I presumed you hadn't seen it and had AWB on auto-save or whatever it's called. I assure you that I really didn't want to make the block!
I'm going to unblock you on the assumption that, with your comment above, you won't carry on the edits. Please be assured that I absolutely consider you to be acting in the best of good faith here.
[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Sam, thanks for unblocking me, and I won't take it personally. But there's still an open question here. If I (or anyone) make a change like this, am I going to be blocked for it? I don't believe the ArbCom injunction calls for this. My request for clarification from the committee has been unanswered for the last 10 days, so I don't think it's fair to block people based on one reading of the injunction, where honest people disagree on how it should be applied. Bear in mind many people (including at least two people generally on the pro-linking side) have delinked some individual dates in articles they were working on, believing that that individual case should not be linked, and believing (as I do) that the ArbCom injunction doesn't prohibit this. – Quadell (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll prod the Committee to do some clarifying. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I dearly hope edits like this (which I do a lot) won't end up proscribed. – Quadell (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Quadell, I'm sorry to see that I was prescient with my "needlessly dragged into it" comment yesterday — regrettable. I wouldn't presume to read Arbcom's mind but, while you may review each change individually when you use AWB, and that's certainly how it's supposed to work, there's been evidence presented during this case of users working with AWB at a speed that makes it clear they couldn't possibly be reviewing each change. The result seems to be a need for somewhat of a hard line approach, although it's unfortunate that wasn't clarified for you when you asked the specific question about a week-and-a-half ago. I'm glad to see this got sorted out quickly, though.
If I can also offer two cents on the 'year in film' discussion that started this, those types of links are what dragged me into this mess originally. I can't argue that a piped 'year in film' or 'year in sports' or 'year in radio' link isn't necessarily intuitive, nor can I argue that a "see also" link to that information might not be better. Unfortunately, some people's solution to that is to simply remove the piped link and not add add the "see also" link in its place. Even if not intuitive, the piped link is still a link to useful and relevant information, and removing that type of link should never be the correct solution. I don't know if that's what caused the original complaint above — just my general thought on the piped link issue. Your mileage may vary, of course. Best, Mlaffs (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. I am sorry to hear this has happened again. For reference, here is our earlier discussion, and I regret I wasnt more clear then about the intent.[1] I am sorry that nobody replied to your Request for clarification; I never saw it. We have answered similar requests for clarification elsewhere.

The primary problem that this injunction was intended to resolve is mass delinking while the case was ongoing. Unlinking "xxxx in film" while doing other changes clearly falls within that.[2] Most of the date delinking has been done in conjunction with many other useful edits, resulting in edit-wars with good and bad being reverted together because the date link changes are not trivial/non-controversial changes - at least until the case is closed and the MOS is stable again. The injunction was trying to stop all piggybacking of date linking changes into other large scale tasks. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, John, that's very clear now. I won't do that then. One other question: I frequently merge articles in Category:Bot-created FJC subpages needing merge action, and sometimes one version will link dates and one won't (e.g. User:Polbot/fjc/John Wilson Campbell vs. John Wilson Campbell). When I merge the articles, I try to pick the best info and best formatting from each half. This is all done manually, of course. (Example) Is this going to get me into trouble? – Quadell (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Delinking in the course of manually merging would be fine, unless you merged 100s in a day without warning in which case discussion is stifled by a sense of fait accompli. In the case of Burrows there was a two month delay between being tagged for merging and the actual merge, which is plenty of time for discussion. However while poking about I noticed that User:Polbot/fjc/Mark Americus Costantino doesn't have a corresponding merge tag on Mark Americus Costantino, and neither does User:Polbot/fjc/Sidney Allen Fitzwater - will you be adding a merge tag on these articles? John Vandenberg (chat) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a strange situation, when a merge is useful and in line with policy, and the person doing it should be thanked... but if he does too many too fast, he should be blocked. Very odd. I'm glad it's a temporary situation.
In response to your question, after Polbot had added merge tags to the As and Bs, some people objected that it was cluttering up the articles or spamming for the project or whatever. Consensus was that the bot subpages should link to the articles, but the articles shouldn't link to the bot subpages. I didn't agree, personally, but of course I went with consensus. – Quadell (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

General discussions about delinking years in articles have no bearing on the film project guidelines, which recommend the year a film was released be linked, i.e. 2009, which will lead the reader to 2009 in film. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, could you link to that guideline? I can't find it. – Quadell (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hats off to you

...in tackling some of those Soap Opera-related discussions, but you didn't include a signature block to indicate who deleted the image(s)/closed the discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 03:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it did that automatically. I'll be sure to sign them in the future. – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Functioneries

Hi, Thanks for letting me know, I have left a short statement of agreement with your thread. Cheers   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nom me?

Hi Quadell,

I'm nervous asking for this, and I'm hoping you'll say yes, but I won't know until I ask.

You are an administrator that I feel I have had a good amount of interaction with, so I'm wondering if you would be comfortable nominating me for adminship. It's been almost three months since my last RfA, and I feel I've racked up a good amount of knowledge in that time (hopefully I've addressed most of the concerns that the opposers at my last RfA brought up). If you are/aren't comfortable and/or close to it, I'd be happy to answer whatever questions you have, and accept any feedback you're willing to give. I'm looking forward to what you have to say. Thanks, Matt (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sir Hector Maclean

Hello, I was wondering if you could offer your advice on the discussion linked above? I've particularly raised it because this editor seems to have been creating similar dabs; I'm happy to go along with whatever you suggest. Boleyn3 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Yeah well, one wonders, and one plods on, as for 4 years it feels like a century SatuSuro 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DrilBot

Does the summary that I've been using recently seem more clear? It's hard to fit a full description of fixes into the field, so having the description linked seems like the best solution to me. If you have any other ideas, please let me know. Here's its recent edits. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Those descriptions look darn close to ideal.
Incidentally, have you ever heard of Quadell's Law of Bot Criticism? Well, I guess you probably haven't, since I just made it up. It goes like this. To calculate how much criticism a bot can be expected to receive, first determine its efficiency factor. Is your bot ten times more efficient than a human? One hundred times? That's the efficiency factor. Then multiply that factor by the amount of criticism a human could be expected to receive for making the same number of changes, and that's your bot's expected level of criticism. (To determine how much appreciation a bot should be expected to get, simply divide by the efficiency factor.)
Anyway, all the best, – Quadell (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look; I just wasn't sure if there was any more way that I could really make them better. And I really like your Law... it seems accurate just from my experience, which as you know isn't much. I'd thought that I'd get more criticism for image deletions and other admin stuff than for a bot! :) Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval of DrilBot 2; I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't any major opposition to running it on a different list, with a slightly different goal in mind (setting DEFAULTSORTs). Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NP, but it was really Jarry that did it. I just lent my support. (And see also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Muro Bot 5.) – Quadell (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but you helped. :) Anyway, I'll comment at that BRFA. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You said...

You said "delete" but most of the images were ketp at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_19#Willie_Gillis_at_the_U.S.O..jpg. Was that intended? The same here: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_19#Willie_Gillis_on_K.P..jpg. --Damiens.rf 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten to delete File:Willie Gillis on K.P..jpg, and I deleted it now. File:Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg had already been deleted. – Quadell (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just curious...

Hello Quadell.
First off, I'd like to thank you for your help in the past with copyright problems with pictures (my ip tends to change a lot, but you've been most helpful when I've been irked by people taking credit for the works of others). I've noticed that you've taken on the gruelling task of tagging Eyreland's images. However, one in particular really stood out: File:HF_RTTY-mode-comparason.png.
More specifically, it's the observation made in commons about it (here).
Even though things like cropping down a candy bar image to only include the logo are obviously derivative works, and screenshots of websites are clearly not original creations, it's still not uncommon for people to think otherwise. Basically, one of those 'honest mistake' things. However... When the only modification made to the image is to blank out the copyright notice, that can't be an honest mistake. Even assuming good faith, explicitly and consciously deleting a copyright notice so you can then pass it off as your own work must be considered fundamentally dishonest, correct?
So, I guess my question is... why hasn't he even received a warning about something like that? If one were to assume that everything else was just a long string of honest mistakes, then he'd pick up on that from all the deletion notices. But confining one's actions to erasing the copyright notice? I just would have thought that'd warrant a "stoppit" or something. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that he purposefully removed the © notice. Or it's possible that the graphic was published elsewhere without the © notice, and he used that version. I can't say for sure. – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Shiny

Thanks! I can't talk all the credit though Thehelpfulbot will also have some oil please! ;)

The Helpful One 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the WikiBirthday thing! I didn't realise they did that. Has it really been a whole year? It doesn't feel like it. Feel free to sign my guestbook too if you like! :) Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Time_Magazine.jpg and Trevor_hoffman_si_cover.jpg

Dear Quadell,

I was wondering if you can explain better how on Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_19 you came to the conclusion that the "result of the discussion" was delete for both of these two images? I know that AFDs and FFDs are not votes, but in both cases you chose to delete files that had more support than against, without giving a reason for overriding consensus. If you felt that there were good arguments for deletion not being made, wouldn't it have been better to make them as part of the discussion rather than as the closing admin? Thank you. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding File:Time magazine.jpg, in my closing statement I said "Neither this cover, nor Time Magazine, nor inaccurate visual depictions are mentioned in the article at all outside the caption." I hope that helps to explain it. For File:Trevor hoffman si cover.jpg, I stated "Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8". As the deleting admin, I had to take into consideration not just the comments made on these particular images, but the wording of our policies and the precedents set on hundreds of previous similar images. We just don't use non-free images of things that aren't mentioned in the articles outside of captions (as in the former case), or to provide evidence that a given magazine made a given claim (as in the latter). This is confirmed in all the many nearly-identical discussions on previous images used in very similar ways. – Quadell (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Italic titles for species articles

Hi, I noticed that your bot has made lots of species stubs in the past - thanks! Could I draw your attention to this about making titles of articles be italicised. If you make more species articles in the future you don't need to use a "name" section in the taxobox and this will make italic titles! Also how easy would it be to get a bot to change the titles based on the exceptions also listed? Cheers Smartse (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a bot request to automate this task. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 13. – Quadell (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

SDPatrolBot

Thanks for your help throughout Quadell :). BTW, do I need to do anything to "get the flag" or are the approved requests checked? - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As soon as a bureaucrat sees it, you'll get the flag. Shouldn't be more than a day. – Quadell (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks again :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quadell/Archive_44&oldid=1248961328"