Jump to content

User talk:Quadell/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57→Archive 59

thank you for you guidance and patience -Elias Z 08:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you'll do next. – Quadell (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

History of KFC

Thanks for the review! I have hopefully addressed all of the issues now. Farrtj (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I've gone ahead and promoted it. Well done! – Quadell (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Weather Machine

I just want to say thank you for all of your assistance thus far, reviewing the article and images, responding quickly to my questions, etc. I will try to address all of your concerns as soon as possible, though some of them are proving to be a bit tricky to fix! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As of today, the nomination has only been open for 6 days, so it's fine if the fixes take a couple weeks. I'm willing to help in any way I can. It's a fun little article, and I hope it passes. – Quadell (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

mirror images

Hey, I felt the need to run this by someone and thought you might be interested. I'm sure the lawyers'll be moving in there soon, but I just posted this on an Amazon page: review for Graeme Thomson's new Harrison bio. If you get a chance to compare the relevant pages with the wiki articles (that is, if the Amazon search parameters allow for it), I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I suppose it's odd, sitting where I am – having purchased a book only to figure, Hang on a darn minute … I think I helped create that book ... Best, JG66 (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's terrible! As a Wikipedia reviewer, I always check for Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and I not infrequently fail nominees for such problems. But although I haven't personally had to deal with plagiarism the other way 'round – professional authors plagiarizing from Wikipedia – I know that it does happen. I'm sorry to hear that it happened to you.
I can't check the claim myself: at least for me, sitting in the U.S., Amazon isn't allowing "search inside", and the book doesn't seem to be in Google Books. I would ask my library to buy it so I can check more carefully, but I don't really want to reward the author financially.
I'm not sure what your best move is, since I've never dealt with this before, but I thought I'd list some resources.
All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks – so helpful, once again. You've got it in a nutshell: we're not used to seeing plagiarism the other way around.
I've worked with a good few non-fiction authors who, it must be said, have not been shy about pasting entire paragraphs from an online source (particularly Wikipedia) into their manuscript, and one tends to develop a nose for it, so to speak. (i.e., the "borrowed" text often stands out so much.) In the case of this Harrison bio, aside from the most obvious similarities (no straight pasting-in, I hasten to add), I can tell the author's tried to cover his tracks to some degree, here and there – another giveaway, because it's done far from convincingly. It's seeing all those same references from Rock's Backpages that did it for me. I have never seen many of those articles referenced in any book before – Harrison, Beatles, 1960s/70s rock music or otherwise. This author has simply ripped off a free encyclopaedia.
I will look into those options you've listed. Right now, I want to get the word 'round to a few other editors – if nothing else, I'd like to ensure that the review I wrote appears automatically with the book listing, by having more people vote it as "helpful". (As an Amazon customer, I would certainly find a heads-up like that pretty helpful.) Could well raise the issue at Copyright Cleanup, as you suggest. I'm thinking that a letter to the publisher is definitely in order. Knowing book publishers, they'll worry – they're just as wary of authors doing this sort of thing as you or I would be.
The only upside is, this author has actually legitimised a source I'd had this nagging doubt about in one song article. So: he repeats what I wrote, now I can use him as my source … Bizarre.
Big thanks again. JG66 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
No. You cannot use that source to legitimize another. That is circular referencing and that is not allowed. If this person took your work, didn't attribute and did other shady things why would you use anything they write? Though to be fair, Wikipedia's articles can be sold for profit, but attribution is required by CC by SA. Congrats - you are published. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It could be a good idea to use the {{Backwardscopy}} template on the talk pages of the suspected content. I've seen Talk:Jimi Hendrix use an example of this. I've clicked "helpful", but the amount of people doesn't seem to change for me unless it's a problem with the amazon servers updating. (I hope Quadell doesn't mind us using their talk page like this). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed a few of your articles for GA, I know how much work you put into them, so I'm sorry it's happened. I'm not sure what, if anything, could be done about something like this. Maybe you can get the publisher to cite Wikipedia in any future editions, but I don't know. Interestingly, there's a biography of Adele that cites the Adele wiki as its main source, so in theory the same should apply here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Quadell, Yeepsi's right – I've routed everybody through here to the Amazon link and our discussion. I'm hope that's okay?
My thanks to all for your input and ideas. It seems only Paul MacD can get even a partial preview (from an earlier version of your message, Paul?) – maybe you also, Yeepsi, in the UK? If everyone could vote on the Amazon page, I think that might be very helpful (either that or I'm grasping at straws).
Oh, and ChrisG: I know what you mean, but it's not an issue in this case. What I'd been concerned about was a good source for quoted text from a particular Harrison interview – his actual words. The existence of the interview and the gist of his statement, they were well supported; this author's used the same quote, sourced it to the same radio interview, so all is okay. JG66 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yah, just to confirm, I can get the prologue and first chapter as a preview, but it may be this is exclusive to the UK. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I too can see the prologue and first chapter only, but cannot search. (And it's fine to discuss this here.) – Quadell (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Same as above – up to the "Be Here Now Liverpool, July 1958" header in Chapter 1. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hope it's ok to do this. I've just been sent a screen capture of the copyright declaration at the front of the book, and thought it might be useful for anyone who can't get to it. The image can be viewed here. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I just ran across this discussion. Same thing happened to me a couple of years ago with the Tony Bennett article and a mainstream biography that was later published. I contacted the author, who couldn't quite remember if he had read the WP article, but passages on a couple of pages regarding a particular biographical period were so similar that he clearly had. But the rest of the book had no such issues, and in fact he had done a lot of original reporting and analysis, so I decided not to make a federal case out of it. But it's good to know about the Backwardscopy template, I've added it to that talk page ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For giving me a very kind GA review a few years back at a time when I was very down on Wikipedia. Thanks for encouraging me when I needed it, and for all you do to spread good will around this place! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Aw, wow, that made my whole weekend. – Quadell (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARE

Hi, I read your comments in the Gilabrand thread and I mostly agree with you. I know of editors who only contribute on one side, for example, user:Jalapenos do exist only writes about Palestinian attacks on Israelis, never the other way around. Yet I have no plans to interfere with his editing because he is expanding wikipedia with somewhat neutral articles (improving wikipedia). Gilabrand however is quite different; she's not adding information about Palestinian attacks or Israel donating aid. She cuts out criticism of pro-Israel groups[1] and people[2], she cuts out the word Palestine[3], Palestinian[4], and State of Palestine[5], she changes Israeli occupied(international community view) to disputed(Israeli view) [6], Israeli settlement (international community view) to Israeli neighbourhood (Israeli view) [7], cuts out information about a massacre commited by Israelis [8], cuts out the reason a village was depopulated was because the Israeli military had attacked it.[9], she makes "villagers...in a field 300 metres inside Jordan" (what the source calls them) into " infiltrators in a field near the armistice line" at al-Walaja.

If Gilabrand was editing from an anti-global warming perspective, she would not be expanding articles on critics of global warming and adding criticism to global warming proponents, she would be going to Hurricane Sandy and cutting out the section on global warming. I'm fine with editors who only want to write about alternative theories instead of evolution, but if they start going into articles solely to remove the word evolution or cut out sourced criticism of their favoured alternative theories, that's different. Sepsis II (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. You're very right that if a Wikipedian does not want to "play by the rules" -- if he or she frequently removes sourced criticism, for instance, or rewrites sections to favor one POV over another despite consensus on a compromise wording -- then I'd call that "bad behavior" deserving sanction. I don't know a lot about Gilabrand (I didn't even know she was a she, embarrassingly), and I'm sure there are lots of people who can better analyze her edits to see if she's indeed working against consensus, or if she is merely advocating one POV as part of a process toward establishing consensus. It's very possible that a topic ban might be warranted; I just don't know. But I do know that a pattern of adding pro-Israel (or pro-Palestine) material is a bad reason for a topic ban.
Thanks for your reasoned comments, and I hope Wikipedia becomes more and more adept at handling controversial topics as the encyclopedia continues to mature. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

NPoV

Hi Quadell,

On WP:A/E, you rencently wrote that if the community would try to impose as a standard that people write, each alone, a neutral way, we would create more problems than we resolve.

I don't understand what kind of problems you have in mind ? At the contrary, I think that this is the key point that would solve all the problems. People should be aware that they have to write all the pov's on an issue by themselves.

We are not here to edit in a topic in which we have strong feelings. We have to checks what all sources say on a matter, check the reliable and notoriaty of each, and make a fair synthesis of all these. It's clear that the synthesis could be discussed but not the fact that everybody must try to make this fair synthesis and not just to report what scholars who share one's own mind write...

Where is the issue with such a policy (which I thought was the right and accepted one) ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a terrific goal to have, and I strive for it myself. But if it becomes a reason for a topic ban, the enforcement becomes problematic. Realistically, there is no way that the majority of contributions to a contentious article like Vaccine controversies will be made by non-partisans without topic-banning the vast majority of contributors. It would also involve looking through all the edits of each contributor, to see if each addition of a pro-vaccine sourced statement is balanced by a corresponding anti-vaccine statement, more or less. I truly don't believe such a policy can realistically be fairly enforced, and I wouldn't want to see it selectively enforced. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I contribute nearly only in the contentious area of the I/P conflict from 1920 to 1948 in Mandatory Palestine.
If often said myself that I didn't understand why it was contentious for wikipedia because even if we can easily disagree with some analysis made by historians, we cannot disagree that this point of view exist and is notorious. And therefore, we know that we should report it.
I add that we are not here to report what we think about a topic but we are here to report what "reliable and notorious" sources think about a topic.
Your suggest that we can work in admitting that people only report the point of view that they like... That is a problem :
  • If we cannot trust a contributor not to fairly contribute with that philosophy, then we will have to WP:STALK him/her to check his contributions and that will harm the climate of collaboration and is again the 4st pillar. That's also demotivating and time consumming.
  • If a contributor is not able by himself to take enough distance with its own beliefs to check all side sources to provide a fair summary of what is there, it means he doesn't know the topic that he edits given he didn't read the different thesis on this. Therefore he cannot even properly describe the thesis he shares with the nuances that will afford the reader to understand the controversies.
I am deeply convinced by my practice that the only solution to write an article that complies with WP:NPoV is that each contributor alone complies with WP:NPoV and not that each contributors adds his pov's to get a melting pot of all differents pov's on the topic that will not be structured and that nobody will understand.
Pluto2012 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I certainly understand your perspective, and you presented it well. I think it's a tad idealistic; after all, for every editor who thinks he fairly and appropriately considers all sizes, there's another editor who thinks she does the same, and thinks the first editor is clearly biased. I do believe we should all strive to represent all sides fairly, carefully investigating our own biases and adding material that makes our own POV look bad when it's appropriate. I honor those who do. And I recognize that most contributors to controversial articles won't live up to that. It's just being realistic. So long as we require all editors to live up to the same standard, Wikipedia marches on. I honestly can't think of a case where an editor has been topic-banned, solely for only contributing to one side. I think it's a dangerous precedent to set.
Regardless, I admire your commitment to NPOV, and I thank you for your many contributions to the sorts of articles most editors aren't willing to get involved in. I do want to ask that further discussion of my comments at WP:A/E be taken there, rather than on my talkpage. (There's an old saw that if you comment on anything I/P-related, vaccine-related, or date-formatting-related, no matter how tangentially, your talk page will consist of nothing but comments about comments for months, and I'd like to avoid that.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Quadell,
I didn't intend to talk about the current WP:A/E. You made a comment and should not modify this, in no case.
Thx for reading me. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Earthshpere

Hello. You rejected the article I written about the Soviet artist - Czeslaw Znamierowski. May you please elaborate on the reasoning and what specific corrections are needed. As far as I can see I did provide multiple independent sources that establish this artist's notability. Each source is a newspaper articles, review or information from published book of that time period. All sources where written during Soviet era by well establishes newspapers, magazines and books. I located these sources in the National Library of Lithuania. Due to this, please let me know why these references do not fit the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you Earthsphere (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. Sure, I'll be willing to help you with this.
The proposed article is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Czeslaw Znamierowski. Before we can keep an article, we have to verify the subject's notability. The article calls the subject "renowned", and that he made "some of the most notable paintings in the Soviet Union", but I can't find anything about him online outside of his official site [10], even when I search on the various name variants. Sources don't have to be online; if offline reliable sources establish the artist's notability, that's good enough for us to create the article. But to be honest, I'm not able to understand the sources listed in the references at all. What is "Вечерние новости Nr. 121 ( 2255 ), вторник 25 мая, 1965г. Вильнюс, "Певец Вильнюсского Пейзажа", Р. Алекна"? A book? A magazine? What is "Vakarinės naujienos, Nr. 118 šeštadienis 23 gegužės , 1970, "Gėles kūryboje ir širdyje ", R. Jakutyte"? This line of text in a non-English language is not useful to me for checking to see if the subject is notable or not.
If the sources are books with ISBNs, perhaps you can list the ISBNs so the books can be referenced. It might also be useful to use Citation templates, such as {{cite book}} or {{cite news}}, so that the title and author of the source can be clearly understood. I hope this response is helpful to you. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

12:48, 20 November 2013 (EST) Hi there, Thank you for the detailed reply. It is much appreciated. The artist was very well known during the Soviet period. Unfortunately after the collapse of the USSR, vast amounts of information and even public records on majority of Soviet artists (especially those that were no longer living after the collapse and were unable to continue exhibiting themselves) were simply lost in the chaos of those events - or at best archived in the libraries. This was the case with Czeslaw Znamierowski. That said in the art institutions, universities and organizations of former USSR, this artist is very well known. For example many of his artworks are located in the National Art Museum of Lithuania: http://www.ldm.lt/dailininkai/Tapyba_19401990_Z.htm (scroll down until you see the title: ZNAMEROVSKIS ČESLOVAS). Unfortunately, little information at the moment can be found on such artists online, especially in English, largely because the generation that knows of them is not well versed with computers, internet or English language. However there is a substantial amount of historic documents that can be found but only in person and in hard copies at local museums, libraries and galleries. I did just that. I completed an extensive research into Czeslaw Znamierowski and was able to located many historic documents about him. Now, myself and several other people are bringing this info online so that everyone can find it more easily. I gave permission to the creators of his official site (http://www.czeslawznamierowski.com), that you found, to use some of that research. In fact if you kindly visit their research page you will see the images of original documents, locations where why were found and translations. I also did what you asked and added an English clarification to the each source and three more books that mention this artist (note: two Soviet books did not have ISBN). Hope that this is satisfactory and again I thank you for all the help that you are providing. Earthsphere (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you are going about this the right way, and we at Wikipedia appreciate the research you are doing. I can now confirm that the artist is notable and verifiable, mentioned in several independent, reliable sources. I have accepted the article, which now resides at Czeslaw Znamierowski.
The "Katalogas „Lietuvos tapyba (1940–1990)“" link you sent me was quite useful, and I added it as a source, and added information I found at that source. Also, the articles at http://www.czeslawznamierowski.com/research.html are exactly what we need! I would like to help improve the source formatting so that these can be linked. Please look at what the article looks like now, and make sure I haven't inadvertently added any errors. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you so much for all your help. I reviewed the modifications you made and they look great. I learned a lot as well and will continue to apply your principles in this and other future articles. All the best! Earthsphere (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Quadell, thank you for the kind words you left of my talk page. I'm still new to the wiki talk pages so not sure if I need to leave the reply to your comments here or on my talk page. Can you let me know. As for the article, again thanks, yes I'm working through all the historic data that I have (most of it is also on the official page) and putting together a chronological summary with chapters about the artist. I have much more to add but hopefully will finish by tomorrow. It would be incredible when other wiki users join as I'm sure there is much more info about Znamierowski out there. Question, how do I combine references, does not seem fair to have you clean up after me, especially that there is more info with these references on the way. With best!Earthsphere (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to leave a note on my talk page. Alternately, you can leave a note on your talk page, and if you do I'll see it. (This is because I have your talk page on my watchlist.)
It's great that you're adding information. Please be very careful to reword material in your own words. So far as I can tell, you've always been good about that, but a lot of new Wikipedians cut-and-paste information directly from the sources, and of course we can't allow that. So I like to make sure new users are aware of our plagiarism policy, just in case.
For combining references, I have made sure each reference in the article has a name. For instance, one of the references is named "Jakutyte". The first time this reference is used, I write out all the details between the <ref> and </ref> tags, like this:
<ref name="Jakutyte"> Newspaper: Vakarinės naujienos, Nr. 118 šeštadienis 23 gegužės , 1970, "Gėles kūryboje ir širdyje ", R. Jakutyte</ref>
Each subsequent time I use this reference, I only have to give the name, and it knows all the rest. But I also have to include the / character at the end, like this:
<ref name="Jakutyte" />
There's lots more information at Help:Referencing for beginners, although it can get quite complicated. I'm always available if you need assistance. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd seen that project in the peripheral, but I hadn't actually gotten involved. I'll give it a look. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Hi Quadell, many thanks for casting your eye over Spanish conquest of Petén - and for sorting out all those damned commas! The articles was recently promoted - thanks for the review and the support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I just added and removed some commas. You made a tremendous contribution by including so much quality material on a part of North American history that's too often forgotten. My hat's off to you, sir. – Quadell (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

It is a very rare day indeed when someone shows up on my talk page and offers to do something instead of complaining that something needs to be done. Thank you so much for taking the time to learn the intricacies of articlehistory, and for helping with cleanup! I hope you won't mind if I let you know when I have more batches that need work; no worries if you are busy elsewhere. In any case it is an immense relief to know someone else knows how to do this work. Thanks again. Maralia (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. (I've even helped teach another editor how to make these fixes, so with any luck, we might actually win this War on Badly Formed Article Histories!) If you know of another easy-to-peruse batch of bad histories to look through, please let me know. – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for "massmessage" right

Hi there Quadell, I hope you're doing well.

Could I please get the "massmessage" right?

I'd never heard of this before, but it seems quite useful, I saw it used over at User talk:Ian Rose, and explained at User:MediaWiki message delivery.

I'd like to use it to deliver messages to members of WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, actually, that's the first I'd heard of massmessage as well! I've looked over the links rather quickly, and it sounds like a good improvement, but I can't figure out how the massmessage right works. When I look at your user rights list, I see this. As you can see, it's not even in the list of rights I can't change. I'll look into it more when I've got a little more time. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up: I just found out about this pertinent discussion. – Quadell (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Also, what is "autochecked user" and "confirmed user" ? — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Brand-new users are not "confirmed", so they can't create new pages, and they're not "checked", so their edits show up as needing review in Recent Changes. Once a user account has been around for four days and has made ten edits, the account becomes autoconfirmed. Admins can give new accounts the confirmed status if they want, even if the account hasn't been around long enough to be autoconfirmed, but for existing autoconfirmed accounts, the confirmed status doesn't do anything. Also, I can give an account the "autochecked" status so their edits don't show up as needing review; but anyone who's already a reviewer or an admin will be implicitly autochecked, so adding the right doesn't actually do anything for those users (such as yourself). – Quadell (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thanks, that makes sense. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I commented at WP:VPPR#Create new user group for m:MassMessage, I wonder how long it will be until/when/if that takes effect? — Cirt (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea. Sometimes the developers move glacially slow, sometimes they rush inadequately-tested changes in, and often they're somewhere inbetween. – Quadell (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Q, just wanted to say thanks for productively intervening in that mess. Frankly, I'd hoped a few other editors might comment to move that toward a mutually agreeable solution, but that makes me all the more appreciate your being willing to tackle it.

Anyway, I've withdrawn from the article, so hopefully, that'll be that. There is another qualified editor at the article who's probably willing to guide it through GA--the editor Mark insisted should be the new nominator anyway--so there's no reason for me to stick around and fuel any further conflict. Ideally those other editors there can still bring this to GA while I can finish up work elsewhere, so that'll be a win-win.

But again, seriously, thanks for joining that conversation! Usually that's the kind of intervention I do for others on that board, so it was a strange experience to be on the other side of it. After a week or two I'll have to revisit those pages, assess my behavior, and see what I can do to avoid it in the future. (Certainly I could have been more patient, at least.)

So I owe you one! Enjoy the week, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry that situation didn't turn out very well. When I edit in a contentious situation, I try to remember that priority one is to protect my own mental health and enjoyment of life, and priority two is to improve the wiki. Trying to fix someone being wrong on the internet should be way down at priority ten or so, just behind getting enough potassium in my diet or something. Still, conflict can be so seductive, for totally awful and nonsensical reasons! It's hard to just walk away, but sometimes it's the right decision.
Anyway, thanks for improving the article so much! If you feel you owe me one, simply pay it back by saying honestly whether you think I'm out of line, when conflict finds itself my way. If I'm in the right, then it's great to have support, and if I'm in the wrong, I'd rather have gentle correction from a friend than encouragement to continue being wrong.
I'm going to totally enjoy my Thanksgiving in Ohio to the highest degree a vegetarian can, and I hope you enjoy the coming week as well. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Can do--and I feel your pain on vegetarian Thanksgiving. Luckily, with us having Little Miss Khazar this year, we're hosting for the first time; there'll still be turkey, but much greater emphasis on meatless alternatives... -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

GA

Thanks for reviewing Nigersaurus. After you're done could you GA review Crocodilia? LittleJerry (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's an impressively-thorough article! I'm currently working on the Nigersaurus FAC, as you know, and I may need to plow into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1, but I'll put Crocodilia next on my list. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Almost done now! – Quadell (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for your help copy editing Fuck (film) on its way to WP:FA.

Much appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, CIRT. I'm glad it was promoted, and I hope you enjoy your trip. – Quadell (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, I have no idea why I typed your name in all caps. – Quadell (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Renomination alert

Hi. An article you previously commented at its first FAC has been renominated, and it has been recommended that previous reviewers be alerted about its second FAC. Dan56 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. I saw that this article was renominated, but I inferred (perhaps wrongly) that you would prefer that I not comment. I am willing to comment, if you wish. (If not, that's fine too, no hard feelings.) – Quadell (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

GANs

Hi Quadell. I'd like to let you know that I will not be able to work on our GA reviews until next week, due to the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday in the US. Edge3 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. I'm doing the family Thanksgiving thing myself. I'll leave it open another week, so long as you're not giving up on it. – Quadell (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Crocodilian review

The Natural History Shield
For Reviewing Beyond the Call of Duty on Crocodilia and elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I see that you created this shield from the pages of ancient manuscripts, imbuing it with power. Someday, when I am worthy, I shall figure out just what kind of bird that is, and on that day perhaps I can reach Level Two of Wikipedia.
Seriously, your work on the article was invaluable, and I look forward to seeing where it goes next. Do you know if anyone is considering using the information here to improve the more specific crocodilian pages? Crocodilia gets almost a quarter-million pageviews per year, but alligator gets 700K pageviews and crocodile gets well over a million; and neither is a GA. Do you think it would be relatively easy to bring the quality of those up, just based on the work you folks did at crocodilia? – Quadell (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
:-) It's a Lyrebird and I'd better say so on Commons. Many thanks for the kind remarks. I don't know what LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth have in mind, but I don't imagine they've considered it. Looking at Crocodile, it's already quite a good and long article - I think it'd be a substantial task to upgrade, and it'd need more than just the info we've provided as it quite rightly goes into more detail on the species it includes. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Crowd of frogs at WP:RM/TR

See these move requests? These are frogs that are supposed to move to scientific names, but the articles were all created by User:Polbot in 2007 from a document called the IUCN Redlist. Is there any way to track down a human who would have asked for these articles to be created? Whoever that person is might have an opinion on the move. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, frogs are supposed to hop around, right? They were part of a systematic stub creation based on Red List, so the bot created pages for every species assessed by IUCN. Occasionally it got confused with common names, and placed articles under Spanish, French or whatever common name (and English too, of course). The irony is that the Spanish common names are probably more often used than English common names for these South American frogs. English common names tend to be direct translations from the scientific name, or derived from the place where the specimens were collected. I don't see anybody saying "Ooh, that's a Kopstein's callulops frog! What a beaut!" At least not on everyday basis... Spanish names might actually be used somewhere. But in any case, there's another similar size bunch of frogs with Spanish names, but I bundled it in a much bigger move request. I didn't really feel like ramming 300 pages into technical requests... Beyond that, there could be few stragglers with Spanish names, but probably not many. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Yes, I created Polbot and ran the task that created these pages. Honestly, I don't really know the standard for naming species articles... but I'm supportive of any attempt to get them at the right location, and I'm willing to help with that, if I can. (As an admin, I can move over redirects, for instance.) This seems like a bot task though, I would assume, and I'm no longer in a place where I can create and run Wikipedia bots. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. – Quadell (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Florence Fuller, with apologies

Hello Quadell. First of all thank you for your reviewing of this article. Unfortunately (and fortunately), I just discovered the most substantial published work on Fuller, having failed to identify it on several previous literature searches. It has led to these significant revisions of the article. Given the changes (which do only affect two sections, if that helps), I wonder if you would take another look and comment if necessary? Apologies. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Well first off, congratulations on finding such a great source! Yes, I'll look it over when I can and finish my review. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Still recruiting?

Greetings, I've been interested in quite some time in GA recruitment. Recently I saw you add your name as nominator, would you be interested in taking me as your second recruitee? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. I created a page for your GA Reviewer Mentorship at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Ugog Nizdast, and this page will be the central location where we'll work together to go over instruction, practice, quizzes, etc. See you there! – Quadell (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much and wow, I never expected it to be so personalised. Currently I'm away and when finally I get time to edit, I shall reply there when I thorough myself with those three links, hope there's no time issue here. Thanks again and it's an honour to be taught by you. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you be my mentor?

Hi. The Recruitment Center page says 'available' against your name. Would you please mentor me through the process of GA reviews? -Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. I see that you have just started working with the "Good article" process, which is great, and I hope your nomination of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act goes smoothly. I created a page for your GA Reviewer Mentorship at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Seabuckthorn, and this page will be the central location where we'll work together to go over instruction, practice, quizzes, etc. See you there! – Quadell (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for accepting me as your mentee. Thanks also for your wishes for my first GA nominee and yes, I have very recently entered the GA process with my first nomination on 22 Nov. I have bookmarked the page created by you and will use the same during my training for GA process. However, please allow me 3-4 days to carefully study the guidelines, instructions and links suggested by you under the first step. Thanks again -Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
There's no time limit, so take whatever time you need. – Quadell (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I need advice based on your experience on Wikipedia. It's about this GA nominee. If you check the edit history of this page, all of a sudden this user is making substantial deletion of content which appears to me vandalism. On checking the contribution page of this user, it appears that s/he has been deleting content quite substantially to other pages also and has been involved in conflicts. This user doesn't have a user page, the contribution list has a lot of red marks and also the account is about two months old. Although I contributed significantly to this page, I don't consider it as 'my' page so there are no personal issues. However I don't want to get involved in any discussion with this user due to time constraints. Also if I keep on reverting the deletions it would lead to so called 'edit war'. Should I leave the page to the good judgement of Wikipedia administrators and other users. I would very much appreciate if you could advise me the best approach in such a situation given the time constraints. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This is unfortunate. It appears that this user has some political motive for trying to remove content from pages on topics he doesn't like. This happens on Wikipedia from time to time, and I'm sorry it has happened in an article you have worked hard in and are trying to get to GA status. I see that another administrator has blocked notabede for a few days, but he may continue this behaviour when he returns. If so, we'll just have to endure it.
The best way to deal with this kind of situation is to use the article talk page to say why you think the content should stay, then wait for other users to comment, and then restore the content if it looks like notabede is the only one who objects. I'm also watching this page, so hopefully the consensus decisions will be enforced. We don't really have the luxury of being able to protect an article without getting into discussions with problematic users—if you don't discuss it on the talk page, then it just looks like both parties are reverting without consensus. That said, you don't have to write a long essay or try to convince the other person. Just say something short and simple, like "This is a large amount of sourced content, not original research, and I don't think it should be removed".
Regardless, this is unrelated to the fact that it's a GA nominee. It happens to a lot of articles. Be patient, be persistent, keep calm, and I think it will turn out okay. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
May be it's fortunate. It was God's will that I should devote my time and attention to this article. I think now it's His will that I should learn the art of effective communication and also at the same time start shifting my time, attention and focus to my most coveted goal which is to see a 'star' on this article before the end of 2014. So "Thy will be done".
Yes, you're right s/he appears to be politically motivated. Although it's difficult not to get attached emotionally to your contributions, I should also appreciate the positives coming out of this 'learning curve'. Yes, I agree we'll have to patiently persevere.
In compliance with your advice, I have updated my comments on the talk page. Yes, I do understand now that my actions were more emotionally motivated than objective and I would in future keep the 'consensus' aspect in mind while dealing with such situations.
Thank you so much for guiding me through this and helping me realise my mistakes. Thanks --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Your response on that talk page was just right. Getting the Ghandi article featured is quite an ambitious goal! I certainly wish you all the best in that. – Quadell (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review

I'll get on it, but I've got some big RL commitments over the next 2 weeks, so it may be slow. GregJackP Boomer! 01:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. After all, you waited nearly 4 months for the review. I like having deadlines, though, so I'll just arbitrarily choose December 21 as the day it stays on hold until. Does that work for you? – Quadell (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

J.D.B. v. North Carolina GA

Hi Quadell. Just letting you know that I passed the GAN for J.D.B. v. North Carolina. Thank you for your hard work on both of the GANs that we traded! Edge3 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! That's great news. Thanks also for removing the non-free image—I can't believe I missed that! I hope I have the chance to work with you again. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
........ Looks like you enjoyed much more than turkey during Thanksgiving! ;) Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hi can you comment on this nomination. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a strong nominee, but I'm not likely to have time before the end of the year. (I'm trying to focus on the GAN Backlog Drive this month.) Still, I hope it passes! All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

re: JHD review

Thanks for the offer. At this point I have no plans to expand JHD beyond GA class, through one day I might - would need to get a second source (a book biography for that first). I think the current source I used as primary ref (another encyclopedia) should be good for GA requirement of being comprehensive, but probably not for anything beyond it. I'd be happy to ping you when or if I ever expand it further and list it for milhist A-class. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship

Thanks very much for your offer. I'll almost certainly take advantage of it; I'm not as confident as Khazar2 that I really understand the fine points of GAR, and I'd be very hesitant to embark on another review (only the second of my career) without an experienced reviewer to call upon for advice.

I haven't picked a new article to review yet. Since I'm probably going to ask for your input, are there any topics that you're allergic to? For example, I don't think I could do a good review of an article concerning sports, or TV shows, or manga, among others; similarly, there might well be subjects that you'd rather avoid.

As with my first GAR, I'll probably do my scratchwork at the mentorship page. Will you be watching that, or should I reach you directly through your talk page?

Thanks again for your offer of help; I hope that once I acquire a little better understanding of the process, I can start reviewing solo, and can make up for some of the time and effort that you and Khazar2 put into making me a better reviewer. - Ammodramus (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help you with performing your second review. (I don't really have any topics I'd want to avoid, though it's polite of you to ask.) I put your mentorship page on my watchlist, and we can discuss your next GAN choice there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on yet another mentee. I'll hit the GAN list and try to find a good article to evaluate. Ammodramus (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (anatomy)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for helping me sort out the copyright issues with two Anatomy atlases that we found to be in the public domain. CFCF (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
If you're willing to crop and upload all those anatomy image files, I'm certainly willing to do the research! – Quadell (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Haha, I'm happy for any help I can get. Currently working on another book before I get to them at commons:Category:Sobotta's Anatomy plates, though it takes a lot of time. I'll be back when I'm through the material I have (might take a while with 1800+ images including text to go). CFCF (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I see you're doing the Braus illustrations now. I'm delighted to see all these quality anatomy images being added. Is there anything I can do to help? – Quadell (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would always appreciate a helping hand in uploading and cropping images (and white-balancing some that are uploaded), or adding captions from the books. The Braus images are all uploaded, but seeing as I don't understand the captions (in German) I haven't started on them. Right now I'm mostly working with the Grant atlas, uploading the images that are high enough quality that they can be used (unfortunately there is quite a lot of noise in many of them). I understand if these weren't the tasks you had in mind, but I'm totally swamped with material so I don't have any more copyright questions now. CFCF (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the only imaging tool I currently own is MS-Paint, I wouldn't be all that effective at image manipulation. But I can help with captions, categories, and inclusion in articles. It's a bit overwhelming! There are so many low-quality anatomy articles (e.g. Subscapular fossa), and so many image resources, that it's difficult to know how to be effective at organizing materials so as to make the content-creators' jobs easier. – Quadell (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, my hope is to get a list like this one for WP:MED: [11], but for WP:Anatomy where you can see which are the most read articles, and then to improve them in that order from most to least read. As you say it is quite overwhelming to take an image and place it in each article that can benefit from it, so this is my plan. If you'd like to start with the captions, I think the Sobotta ones are the easiest to add. The commons category commons:Category:Sobotta's Anatomy plates missing caption are all the uploaded images missing captions. Finding the captions can be done by searching for the image number at: Volume 1 & 3 [12] (volume 2 is not searchable, - the other are searchable by selecting plain text). A gallery of all these images is available here User:CFCF/Sobotta. These images are of very high quality, and could be used for very many articles down the road. The entire text is also public domain and there is a Template:Sobotta's for when text is sourced from there. CFCF (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. that article Subscapular fossa is most definitely a candidate for a merge to Scapula. There are articles out there for seemingly every singly structure, but their content isn't holding up, and many wouldn't hold up against WP:N. CFCF (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disgraced

FYI, I tinkered a bit further with the plot just while you were finishing up your review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Those were all positive improvements. Congrats on your latest GA. – Quadell (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your input at that dispute about the publication of art works I was embroiled in. I think that would have gone very badly for me without your help. Thanks so much (and that book is excellent - I should say this Help page needs updating, but of course I wouldn't presume). Bookmarked your copyright page as well.

I'm astonished how little I know about copyright! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Honestly, I don't think Cullen was hoping to get the images deleted. He had some important questions, and I'm glad to have helped resolved what is honestly quite a complicated issue.
You're not the only one to have suddenly discovered there's an ocean of copyright complexity you don't fully understand! I think if traffic laws were this complicated, no one would drive. But I'm always available if you have any questions. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I love Wikipedia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN

I don't know if you've checked back in with the discussion on my FAC, either the main nomination or the Talk page you started, but I'm a little bewildered (and more than a little frustrated) by the turn it's taken. Curious for your thoughts. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching that situation. There are really two different issues: one involves your own editing of the article, and the other involves your responses to Imzadi's substantive criticism of the reference formatting.
In the first case, I've never seen another case where the nominator was not prepared to personally edit the article, and I'm not sure how it should best be handled. The instructions do say that nominators must "deal with objections" and "make efforts to address objections promptly", and usually that means editing the article themselves. One could argue that you are still dealing with and addressing issues by convincing someone else to make the edits. I see that point, but one could also argue that you are not prepared to do what is necessary for a FAC. Imzadi is correct when he says that policy does not prevent you from editing the article to make non-controversial changes in line with consensus. If you choose not to, there will be many reviewers who are not interesting in doing the hard work or reviewing this article, given the suspicion that their concerns may be dealt with only indirectly, slowly, or with communication difficulties. Imzadi's opposition is not due to the article, but to the nomination, which he sees as problematic; that's a valid reason to oppose and suggest withdrawal.
The the second case, you don't do yourself any favors by resisting making requested changes, or arguing about whether each and every point is strictly necessary. WP:OVERLINKING does apply to references, for instance, and when I've brought that issue up with the nominators of other articles, they have typically been quick to fix the issue. (Then again, they were willing to make these changes themselves, which made it easier.) Reviewing an article for formatting issues really is a lot of work, and no one wants to do this if they feel like their work will be in vain. It is probably your responses here that convinced Imzadi that issues raised in the FAC would not be dealt with quickly, due in part to your resistance to personally edit the article.
At this point you have a few choices. You can withdraw the nomination and allow someone else to nominate it, someone who can make any required changes. Or you can revise your plan and state plainly that you are willing to make such changes, unimpeded by either your narrow interpretation of COI or your hesitancy due to other motives. Or you can continue the FAC as it is, and hope that enough people will support to counteract the opposition that the nomination has already gained. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, those are really interesting thoughts. I completely see what you're saying about it, and it's about as big a quandary as I've run into in all my years on Wikipedia. Of course, I also recognize I'm about as much of an edge case as they come. I don't quite know the best answer to this—and I suspect nobody does—but I really appreciate you laying it out for me as you see it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the GAR!

Thank you very much for undertaking the GAR for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution ! I know that it was a bit of a slog, but I hope that you enjoyed reading it ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It was fascinating, and not a slog at all. (I've yet to see you write about a boring character.) Thanks for making all those changes and reviewing those sources, and congratulations on crafting such an informative, unbiased account! – Quadell (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Grant

Thanks again for the thorough review. I enjoyed working with you, and the article is much improved by your comments. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Truly, it was my pleasure. Thank you for your thorough work. – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nabi Su Article for Submission

Dear Quadell,

Thank you for reviewing my article "Nabi Su."

Nabi Su is a Modern Hybrid Chinese Martial Art. The reason for your decline was that it did not "provide evidence of notability from reliable sources." You then state that "Popular Science is a reliable source, but that article does not mention Nabi Su." The Poplular Science article was from 1968.Mary Vaccaro (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) At that time, Nabi Su was called "Yun Mu Kwan Karate Institute." The first two sentences of my article under "History" state that:

"Developed by Grand Master Min Q Pai, Nabi Su evolved out of Yun Mu Kwan (a Korean style related to Taekwondo), which Master Pai learned in Korea and taught after emigrating to the United States in the 1950s. In the 1950s through the 1970s, most striking-based Asian martial arts in America were generically referred to as "Karate." Therefore, Master Pai's New York school was originally known as the Yun Mu Kwan Karate Institute."

The third paragraph of the Popular Science Article reads: "So I find myself climbing a long narrow stairway to Yun Mu Kwan ("where warriors gather to study") Karate Institute in Manhattan's Greenwich Village."

In the fourth paragraph, he makes his first mention of "Min Q. Pai, 32, Master of the school..."

The entire article is about the reporter's experience in 1968 with the Yun Mu Kwan Karate Institute and its founder Master Min Q. Pai, before Master Min Q. Pai changed the name from "Yun Mu Kwan Karate Institute" to "Nabi Su."

I believe this meets the standard of notability. If I should add something to the article to make the history of the Nabi Su name clearer to the reader, please let me know.

Thank you again for you time. I appreciate any further comments/corrections that you have.

Sincerely,

Mary Vaccaro (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct: the Popular Science article does discuss Nabi Su, under a previous name. Thank you for your clarification: this is one reliable source that covers the topic to help establish notability. But in order for us to create new articles, it will require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This proposed article has one such source, but several will be needed to establish notability. (Note that information from Nabi Su teachers or students of Min Q Pai are not considered independent.) – Quadell (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll find another reliable source. Thanks for answering so quickly and approving Popular Science as a Reliable Source.Mary Vaccaro (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I did a lot of rewrites, and I think this is a much better article. I am resubmitting it to you now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Vaccaro (talk • contribs) 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Million_Award#Nominees

It sound like you review nominees. Could you please look at Wikipedia_talk:Million_Award#Nominees.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to! If you find any articles that you review, that others have nominated, that you think might qualify, feel free to let me know about that too. – Quadell (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I do a fair amount of reviews. Usually not too highly-viewed. However, I am pretty sure the current WP:GAN I am reviewing is highly-viewed (Schindler's List).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at these. I left a question about what you have done on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep an eye?

Hi Quadell, thanks very much for reviewing/declining the unblock request at Talk:1zeroate. I 100% agree that—regardless of the merits of the current indef block as stated—due to their editing behavior in general, Wikipedia would be worse off with an unblock of that account. I think your review of the editor's contribs was spot on, and here at WP:AN I had started a section asking for an indef block for general bad behavior, but that got closed off as moot due to the indef block regarding the account age question. To me it would seem that the basis for the current block could very well be addressed with an explanation that the editor was using IP accounts before registering, and an unblock granted. I'm concerned that might happen. My request is: could you please keep an eye on that User Talk page and keep any patrolling admins up to date on the deeper underlying concerns regarding the usefulness of that editor, so that decisions aren't made just on the account question alone. I'd do this myself but I am involved in content disputes with that editor and they have asked me to stay off their User Talk. Thanks... Zad68 02:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I gotta tell you, it always exhausts me to plow through emotional unstructured essays, like the ones that user tends to specialize in. I saw the unblock request, and in order to figure out what was going on, I was willing to examine the user's history and contributions. But I'll be honest: I'm probably not going to be watching the situation all that closely. I'm certainly willing to tell other admins my findings and assessments... but I think getting any more closely involved could easily become more of a time-suck than I really want to deal with. Sorry to be less helpful that might have been hoped for, but these situations really aren't my forte. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for considering anyway. As it's turning out, ‎JamesBWatson isn't being fooled by the logorrhea they have been posting, so we might be good. Zad68 13:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game FAC 2

Hello; you gave input on the first nomination of 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game, so I thought I would inform you that the article is back up for featured article for a second attempt. You are welcome to review it and comment on it (or not) if you want, but I figured I would inform that it is back up to spark discussion. Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 16:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I'm focusing on GANs this month, but I'll look at it in January. – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Sega Task Force Barnstar
Just wanted to extend to you my greatest thanks for your awesome feedback and support at the Sega Genesis FAC, and then your GA review of Sega Meganet. Thank you for helping to increase the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of Sega, and on behalf of the Sega Task Force I extend to you my gratitude. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Quadell by Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... on 23:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Would you believe, I've never actually played a Sega game? (I watched some friends play Altered Beast when the Genesis first came out, but never played it myself.) Regardless, it's always rewarding to review an article that the nominator is passionate about. – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Really, now? Altered Beast isn't really that much a game, haha. They're not the same as they used to be, thanks to a few critical mistakes, but I've always found passion in the history of the industry and especially of Sega. Speaking of which, if you have time, I just brought Sega CD to FAC as well, but I won't hold my breath as I see you're getting really pestered all over the place to review FACs and you're working very hard on the GAN backlog drive. As a future foreword, though, I happen to be a firm believer in reciprocity and giving back to those who help me, and I also happen to enjoy reviewing FACs and GANs when I have time, so feel free to let me know if you ever have an article or two you'd like to seek comment on, and I'll be glad to share my thoughts. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw Sega CD was a FAC! Very exciting! It's definitely on my list to look at in January. Good luck with it! – Quadell (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ex College

Thank you for the thorough review. I hope you found the article interesting. If you happen to have any thoughts on the tip of your tongue on taking the article to FAC, I'd appreciate your feedback. (If not, no bother.) Happy holidays and thanks again czar ♔ 14:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I found the article quite interesting. I don't really have any further comments in preparation for FAC, since in the GAN I tried to mention opportunities for improvement even when not technically required for GA status. Best of luck, and happy holidays to you as well. – Quadell (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Freedom of speech

Thanks very much for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Freedom of speech, I've trimmed the text size at those selections, perhaps you could have another look? — Cirt (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspected you'd fix that promptly! Yes, I'll go comment. – Quadell (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

William Hayden English

Quadell, if you're not too busy (and not sick of Gilded Age politicians,) would you mind reviewing William Hayden English at FAC? I don't normally solicit reviews, but I've had a hard time attracting reviewers and the article would certainly benefit from your attention. Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Decisions, decisions...
Well... ordinarily I'd say no, since this month I'm focusing on the GAN backlog drive (where I'm currently winning!) and trying to stay off FACs, even though there are several tempting ones available... but this one is quite interesting, and I see that it's been waiting patiently for over a month, garnering only two reviews. At the very end of November, in preparation for the GAN drive, I finished up as many FACs as I could, and I nearly reviewed this one then. (Instead, I spent too much time working on this other candidate, unfortunately, where the issues I brought up were promptly and thoroughly ignored.)
So seeing as its you, and given the circumstances, I just can't help myself; I'll go ahead and review it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I think he is pretty interesting, and it would be a shame to fail FAC for lack of interest. I thought about reviewing that other one, too and never got to it. It has some potential, I think, it just needs some work. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope you're still glad you asked... I know my reviews can be annoyingly demanding at times. – Quadell (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I am! FAC needs thorough reviews to keep our standards high. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Resolved. Glad to help, and I suspect it'll sail through now. – Quadell (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We Don't Need to Whisper

In your edit summary you stated "Leads do not need to cite sources except for direct quotes or particularly controversial statements. See WP:LEAD." which is actually completely wrong. I had a brief look at WP:LEAD and here are a few lines I found especially important:

  • the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.
  • and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
  • there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
  • The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.

Please do not remove the maintenance template again, thanks! Skarz (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This should really be discussed at the article talk page, since it's a question about the article itself. There's already a discussion at Talk:We Don't Need to Whisper#Lead needs citations, which you're welcome to join in on I see you started using a previous username. Let's discuss the issue there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Fucking Machines thanks

Thanks for taking on the GA Review of Fucking Machines.

Your suggestions were most helpful, and I tried my best to directly implement changes to address all of them.

I think the article looks much better for it.

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

Cheers, pina coladas all round!
Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
You keep being awesome, Cas Liber. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And a delightful Boxing Day to you as well, kind sir. – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you look up an old image?

Happy turkey day to you. Hope you are not loaded on tryptophan to edit. When you get a chance to check it out, can you possibly tell me when w:File:Map Rail Ireland Viceregal Commission 1906.jpg was originally uploaded here before being moved to the commons? I found a 2005 external source as there was none give to the commons move so I wondered if the source I found predates the en upload or was copied from here. It is the olny same resolution image I can find. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps vegetarians get crypto-fan from eating too much tofurkey? Not sure about that one...
Anyway, this image was first uploaded to Wikipedia November 19, 2006, by Suckindiesel, who stated "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." After being nominated for deletion, the same user expanded that to:
{{Information
|Description=Viceregal Commission on Irish Railways map<br/>
|Source=Scan of original in my possesion
|Date=1906
|Author=British Government
|Permission=This image is in the [[public domain]] due to its age.<br/>
|other_versions=
}}

== License information ==
{{PD-BritishGov}}
But it had no life here before 2006. All the best to you and yours, – Quadell (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, brilliant lookup. "crypto-fan:" that's funny. All the best. So the source I found predates the upload here and being exactly the same resolution I have to presume it is the same one that Suckindiesel used even though he says he scanned it, or maybe it was his original scan before uploading it here. The author appears to be correct. Anyway, I'm going to modify the commons image. Thanks again. ww2censor (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Any time. – Quadell (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Quadell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, a new toy to play with! Thank you much. – Quadell (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

1924 Rose Bowl

Hello, Quadell. The 1924 Rose Bowl is back at FAC for the third time. Since you supported it last time, I was wondering if you were willing to look at it again (nom here). Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I might do that, although to be honest, I'm a little concerned about the nomination. Last time, the only issue most people had was with the quality of the prose. Although I supported the article and feel it fulfills our FA criteria, I have to admit, the prose is not its strong suit. But it looks like no edits have been made to the article since midway through its last review. I think it would go better if you sent it through GOCE again, or had some more informal sort of prose review, to at least show due diligence. – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article United Nations that you recently 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
· · ·

Ah, thank you! Looking forward to it. – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Quadell. You have new messages at Talk:People v. Aguilar/GA1.
Message added 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think I've addressed everything. Let me know on the page numbers, if I need to change that. GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been a pleasure. I hope we can work together again sometime. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quadell/Archive_55&oldid=1248961926"