Jump to content

User talk:Quadell/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59

Mediation

can you please mediate - the craziness has begun: [1] sorry to bother you, thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is just me implementing the closure of a WP:NFCR. Modernist has made a point to edit war against the outcome citing WP:ILIKEIT Werieth (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I am still working on putting together a statement of principles in attempt to make the process smoother in general. But anything I put together will be voluntary. It would have no affect on NFCR outcomes, especially ones already open. – Quadell (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Today's featured article

You took part in the FAC of Waveguide filter which has now been promoted to a featured article. I have nominated it as a candidate for Today's featured article. If you wish, you can support that nomination here. Regards, SpinningSpark 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for your mentoring skills!

The Special Barnstar
I award you this very special barnstar to honour your meticulous mentoring and guidance to others. Thank you very much for being a very special mentor, friend and a fellow Wikipedian to me Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, thank you very much for the recognition! It's always gratifying to help a new reviewer learn the ropes. – Quadell (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done and thanks!

 Military history reviewers' award 
For reviewing seven MILHIST Good article nominations during the period October to December 2013, I am pleased to award you the Wikistripes. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Wow, how unexpected! I just reviewed whatever articles seemed interesting, and it seems I guess I stumbled upon several military history topics that caught my fancy. Glad to help! – Quadell (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A very small token of appreciation!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your selfless devotion and diligence in the pursuit of helping others and bringing in a positive change in their lives. Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You are far too kind. – Quadell (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Trichy

Hi, the article has passed FAC. Thank you so much for the excellent review! —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very happy for you! Thanks for all the excellent article improvement you do on Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

Hi Quadell. Why did you revert my edit on the Jimi Hendrix article? Is there a reason why "Army" shouldn't be capitalized? TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's "he joined the U.S. Army" as a named proper noun, but "he joined the army" is not capitalized. Similarly, "I saw Grandmother", but "I saw my grandmother". I really should have explained, instead of just reverting; I didn't mean to be rude. – Quadell (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now. Thanks for replying! TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix review

Thanks for the excellent review. I can honestly say that it was among the best I have ever received. Enjoy your break. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Truly, it was my pleasure. – Quadell (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Infinite

Hey Quadell, here's the link to the reassessment page about the Eminem album. I think it should be closed since there have been nearly two months since it was opened. Thanks and happy Holidays.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. – Quadell (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 136

I've posted my review for Ontario Highway 136 here. To ensure I've not committed any mistake, can you please check? --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I really like the way you handled this review! Very thorough. It looks like you took care of everything. Well done! – Quadell (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

For your steadfast adherence to civility!

The Civility Barnstar
For your unflinching commitment to etiquettes, civility and politeness amidst all the tensions and conflicts, I express my gratitude to you on behalf of entire Wikipedia community with this very small accolade. Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
That's certainly my goal. Glad to know I've been at least somewhat successful in this. – Quadell (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Frank Underwood

Please take a look at the review I'm going to post for Frank Underwood in my sandbox. Feel free to make any modifications there. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have commented there. – Quadell (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I've seen your tips. They are very good. This review will be a bit more challenging that I anticipated initially. Hence I'll take some time in working it out. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much. The credit is all yours. I merely followed your guidance and advice. Thanks a lot for your meticulous mentoring. It's been really enlightening to work with you. Truely speaking, my heart is heavy. There is no happiness at all but a lot of reminiscence, nostalgia and wonderful memories. I strongly feel we should have a policy on WP to make it compulsory for every mentor like you, not to graduate your mentees ever . But honestly, it's been a pleasure and privilege working with you here. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very glad that it has been a productive mentorship, and I'll be happy to work with you on reviews and article improvement in the future. (Though it may have to wait until I have time again.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I'll wait. Take your time. In the mean time, concentrate hard on the tasks you are occupied with, so that you are done in no time. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hanlon Expressway

I've posted my review for Hanlon Expressway here. I mentioned one WTW issue. I wasn't sure about it but since the nominator is very good and friendly, I took the liberty. Can you please check this issue and also the image checkpoints there? We haven't had much discussion about GA 6 so I'm not sure. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that it's been resolved. I think your WTW concerns were insightful, and I'm glad to see they were quickly improved. – Quadell (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiggles woes

...Because [sarcasm on] this truly is the most important thing that's going on in my life right now! [sarcasm off] ;)

Anyway, you asked to keep you informed if Dcelano broke the topic ban. I'll just refer you to his contributions for proof. [2] It took him all of one day! And he's moved onto poor User:AngusWOOF to harass, too. Sigh. Thanks again for your assistance in this matter. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well he probably doesn't know if the topic ban pertains to talk pages. He is posting more forum chat stuff on my page and Talk:The Wiggles and Talk:The Wiggles videography but when I bite back and mention how irrelevant it is, he deletes it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked for 24 hours. (I think "broadly construed" indicates that talk pages are included, given the nature of the initial complaint.) AngusWOOF, I recommend you not interact with him in any way. Simply leave him alone, and report to an admin if he violates the topic ban again. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, he's at it again:
Okay, blocked for 48 hours this time. Next time it will be for 4 days. – Quadell (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt your wikibreak, he posted a few more edits. He originally posted on topic on my talk page but pulled it after I warned him [7] which is okay but then he's moved on and did these:

  • Yule Be Wiggling [8]
  • I'll Tell Me Ma [9]
  • Wiggly Wiggly Christmas [10]
  • forum-like on topics my talk page [11]

I've reverted his changes for unsourced. I'll let you know when it gets severe. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's unambiguous. 4 days this time. – Quadell (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

He's going nuts on [12] and the same talk places. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for 1 week this time. – Quadell (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce

I was about to post my review for Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce here, when I noticed someone else has posted the review. But GAN page shows "Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce ... Christine (Figureskatingfan) ... being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Seabuckthorn" Can you please advice me on this? I noticed it after completing the review on the article sandbox --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! Sorry the link I accessed was of 2009. A silly mistake. Well, that's my habit. Apologies. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, it's very hard to follow what reviews happened when for that page! I think something got moved or deleted somewhere, and I'm not sure how. Anyway, I'm glad you figured it out and provided a good review. – Quadell (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

UN GA review

Sorry to have kept you waiting. I've replied to your changes at the review page. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. I replied there. – Quadell (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Nations

The article United Nations you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United Nations for comments about the article. Well done! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for being a part of this Million-Award-worthy GAN review! – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Please accept this as a small token of my appreciation. Once again, thank you for your patience in the GA recruitment, and I'm proud to have graduated under your guidance. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You are very kind. Thanks for helping with the GAN backlog! – Quadell (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your advice regarding having only one open review at any particular time. It's working wonders. I reached that point after a lot of hurdles and restraint. But finally I'm there. I had one curious doubt. I thought I'd ask you. For how may seconds were you rude to anyone in your entire life? Is sec an appropriate unit? Do we need microsecond or even nanosecond? Another update from my side is, for the first time I passed an article without keeping it on hold. Here is that article and the review page GAN. It's by Dana. I hope I've not committed any mistake. You may also want to check this one here, especially by T3. Any clue what he means? And finally, I'm checking the list of recruiters everyday in the hope that I see "Available" again against your name. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing GAN work! You are getting a reputation as a very thorough and knowledgeable reviewer.
I have, I'm sad to say, been rude to people, certainly. There were times that I've been sarcastic and bitter, but it usually made my life worse. (I alienated people who could have been helpful to me.) If you look closely enough through my history here, you'll find times I insulted people or was rude... but I try not to, nowadays.
I took sometime in finding right words to convey my thoughts to you regarding this. In fact, I felt very happy to know that you were such. But at the same time felt sad at knowing that you "try not to, nowadays". I believe that civility should never be a dam on a flooded river of frustration which is bound to be breached sooner or later. But yes, I don't endorse sarcasm and bitterness also, although in my real life I'm renowned to have done a PhD in these two fields. I love people who are rude to me, mainly because they hardly ruffle a feather in me. I'm terrified of people like you who are repositories of gentility and all virtues because I must retain them in my life and hence a need for extra caution. I also believe that you should ban civility from your real life, especially personal life involving your close friends, and strive to create an atmosphere conducive for honest discussions with utmost ease and spontaneity. You should rather be more assertive and be not afraid to speak your mind. The kind of person you are, even when you were extremely rude, your words must have been like soft flowers falling on a person with a rather increased speed . So don't worry and be rude, at least with me. Try me! I challenge you. With your current approach of "try not to", I'm scared and worried you may enter, God forbid, into some kind of "depression" sooner or later. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 21:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You make some good points. Honestly, I'm much more careful with my words when I'm on Wikipedia (or any public, online forum) than I am in person. I remember my mother telling me, "Don't ever write anything down that you wouldn't want the whole world to see." And on Wikipedia, I write things down for the whole world to see nearly every day! But when I'm in a private space around friends, I'm much more likely to try out ideas, be spontaneous, go too far, and apologize. – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That's great! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It is rare that I pass a GAN without requiring any changes, but it does happen. Dana Boomer is a very experienced article writer, and I would expect that her nominations would require few, if any, improvements. I don't think you made any mistake when passed it.
Finally, the kudos you got from TonyTheTiger are exceptional, and you should be proud. Not everyone gets that sort of praise from him; in fact, it's quite rare. It makes me proud to have been your mentor. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The credit is all yours. The mistakes are all mine. Thank you very much for being always there for me. As I've said it before, I'm saying it again and I'll always say it again and again, that you've been truely a friend indeed. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious

declaration of independence
Thank you, lover of "reliable, neutral, and free" from the beginning, for quality articles such as United States Declaration of Independence, for good articles and reviews, help with articles for creation and for new users, and for doing more during your "break" than others do in a year, including: "I remember my mother telling me, 'Don't ever write anything down that you wouldn't want the whole world to see.'" and a fair fair unblock, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (12 August 2007, what a poem!, 1 June 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You are too kind, Gerda! Well you have made my January! Though we've rarely interacted, I feel like you know me quite well. Too often we wait until Wikipedians retire to tell them how much we appreciate their efforts and contributions; thank you for taking the time to make me feel recognized and appreciated while I'm active here. (By the way, I know it may not seem like it, but I really am trying to take my Wikibreak seriously. With few exceptions, I'm only responding to issues that are brought to my attention and where my assistance is requested. I feel bad that there are so many worthy FACs and GANs and AFCs that could use attention, but won't be able to jump in and help until my class ends and life settles down a bit.) Thank you again, o bestower of jewels. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Agriculture

Take a look at this article Agriculture and its review here. I was about to review it when I saw this. I want to help Dana. Although she is very experienced, but no one likes to be yelled at. I want to make sure that she does not feel an undue pressure because of this. Can you please advice? Give me details as to what should be my exact next step if I were to interfere at all. What do you think should be the best strategy in such situations in terms of outcomes? I mean Dana must feel that I'm trying to help her. I was thinking of posting something like "I also could not find any typos in this article". Just to form a consensus. Would she welcome my interference? --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it appears that Hawkturnal is new at reviewing and is not very good at communicating. Dana seems to be taking it well, though. If you choose to say something there, you could try saying something like this:
Outside opinion: I'm a GA reviewer as well. I looked over the article, and I don't see obvious spelling or grammar errors. I hope this is helpful feedback.
Then again, if you don't say anything, it'll probably work itself out. In the worst case scenario, the reviewer will fail the nomination for questionable reasons, and Dana will simply renominate it. Then she'll probably get a better reviewer next time. But if you want to say something, just say that it's an outside opinion, and it should be fine. – Quadell (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to explain the situation to you. Take a look at the talk page of the article here. It seems there is another user, not new, but hardly of any contributions, who appears to be giving her a hard time. This article may have stability issues. What do you say? Also refer talk page of Dana and my message there. What baffles me is that, how easily new users can derail the whole process and discourage a hard working and sincere author like Dana, and I can do nothing but watch. Am I judging it objectively? Feel free to correct me. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you mean Noodleki? Yes, it is a common source of conflict when users have different opinions on what material should be included in an article, and this can make it difficult for articles to achieve (and maintain) a high level of quality. All quality content providers have to deal with this situation eventually; it's a side-effect of Wikipedia being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Policies like WP:3RR and WP:Consensus make the problem better, but they don't eliminate it.
So what can you do? It can help to look over the different version and recent changes, and give your own views of what's best for the article (in a constructive way). This can be very valuable for achieving consensus. It's important not to take sides or assume that one editor is always right, but instead, comment on the content to help resolve the conflict. I've attempted to do that with this edit. It's quite possible that the issue is now resolved, and there will be no stability problems for the GAN review. At least, I hope so. – Quadell (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw your response on the talk page. It's perfect. I think it should resolve the issue now. I'm glad you took a calm and composed decision. I'd have surely done something rash. Congratulations for the accolade below. The user has done a great job in putting our feelings for you into words which I always tried to give a best shot at but always failed miserably . Btw, devoting half an hour to WP doesn't mean you aren't taking your wikibreak seriously. I'm sure you deliberately and out of humility misinterpreted the accolade below. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Why can't we be human? Because then the vocabulary of discourse would be compassion, empathy, sympathy, forgiveness, patience and love. Lets not be a judge. We can then ignore the parameters of being bias or taking sides. Lets understand the situation of an author who through an arduous journey brings the article to a certain stage. For example, if you aspire to be a Picasso and are working on a painting. You are so much engrossed in your work that it's your life for the time being. Now I, by mistake, spill colours on that painting. You acknowledge that it was purely unintentional and the fact that I'm your very good friend. But you'll still be traumatized like hell. Any person willing to help you should first and foremost calm you down, show empathy and bring smile back to your face, because only then you can take rational decisions and those decisions would be then as good as any great judge that can be entrusted with the task of arbitration. What I mean is, lets try to be ordinary members of a community and acknowledge the fact that we are not bots but humans, and lets not try to be a judge always. These are the times when any author in any such situation needs our so called "wikilove". We are generous with this gesture when a person is already ok, but hesitate a lot when a person needs it the most. It's like serving the dinner when no one is hungry and leaving the table empty when everyone is starving. So this was the essence of what I meant. I don't claim to be right here. It's just an opinion. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hi everyone, I've noticed that a few of you haven't updated your totals as several reviews have passed but on the backlog page, it still says that the article is under review or on hold.

Please update your totals and continue to do so until February 1. If the status of a review is under review or on hold according to the backlog page, even though the article may have passed/failed, it will not count towards your final total.

For those that made pledges during the drive, the final donation amount will be determined sometime in February.

Thank-you.Sent by Dom497 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497: I don't think that's true. My reviews were all closed by the end of January. Is there one in particular you think I missed? – Quadell (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game

Hello, I have recently nominated 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game for featured article for a third time. You were a commenter on the first attempt so I figured I would inform you of this. The previous attempts have failed due to lack of discussion, so if you have the time you input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the time right now, but I wish you the best of luck! – Quadell (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Input request

There is a discussion taking place here regarding the inclusion of File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg at Jimi Hendrix. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

  1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the time right now, but I wish you the best of luck! – Quadell (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, no worries, and thank you! — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hey! How you doing lately? Connection is very slow, so I would really appreciate if you reply at my talk page. I miss a lot Wikipedia :( -- Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive Award

The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
For reviewing 22 Good article nominations during the December 2013 GAN Backlog Drive!--Dom497 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm very glad to have been a part of such a valuable project. – Quadell (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For reaching your goal to review at least 21 Good article nominations during the December 2013 GAN Backlog Drive! Dom497 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The self-goal was a good motivator for me. – Quadell (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Quadell:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Spam-whitelist

Hey Q. Firstly, I want to add my congratulations & thanks to those above for your fantastic work reviewing articles last year. Secondly, I want to say how much I missed your insightful comments in GARs while you were away. And thirdly, I'd like to ask a favour … (Ain't that always the way?!)

I recently submitted a request at the Spam-whitelist regarding a Gary Wright interview on smashing interview.com. Early days yet, but I can't see that anyone's addressed requests on that page for 10 days or so – meaning, I don't hold much hope. As an admin, would you be able to intercede there? Completely understand if it's not your field and/or you'd rather not. I'd like to get Gary Wright up to scratch, because I think the article belongs on Template:George Harrison – but it's no great priority for me. See you at the next GAN, I hope. Best, JG66 (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have commented there. – Quadell (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I'm sure it'll add weight to my request. JG66 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Anti-war film for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anti-war film is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-war film until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks that that case sorted itself out. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maco (toy company)

The article Maco (toy company) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability; company existed, but there are no reliable sources which discuss the company in detail. There are ebay listings, and a blog, but little else. Fails WP:COMPANY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that stub was up to 2004-standards when I made it, but it looks like no one has added any info or sources in the intervening decade, so I suppose it's not that important. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Maco (toy company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maco (toy company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maco (toy company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much had my say above on this one. – Quadell (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko nominated for FA

This is a general notice to previous reviewers: The Tadeusz Kościuszko article has again been nominated for FA. Opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive2. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Best of luck! – Quadell (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Recruiting

Hi, this is Vinethemonkey,

I want to learn how to make good article nomination reviews. Can you teach me how? It would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Vinethemonkey (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Vinethemonkey

I'm afraid I don't have the time right now. Sorry! – Quadell (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Polbot articles

Hello. I've had a look at quite a few species articles created by your Polbot. Many of them are quite short, and some (not me) would argue it's be better to simply merge them into the genus articles. Did the community ever reach a consensus not to delete/merge Polbot's very short articles? Has anyone suggested they should be deleted or merged? Thanks a lot for the info.--Leptictidium (mt) 12:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. Polbot made those species (and genus) articles 6 or 7 years ago. Since then, a few have been fleshed out into GAs, but many others have remained stubs. Occasionally one will be nominated for deletion, although in every case that I can recall the community consensus was that the stub should not be deleted. It's possible that some would be better off merged into genus articles, especially if the information in each species article is nearly identical, but I suppose that would depend on the specific case. I don't remember any discussion on merges. I'm always pleased when I see additional information added to a species stub that Polbot made. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --Leptictidium (mt) 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Undelete talk pages too, when undeleting, please

Thanks for undeleting File:Jerry_Rosenberg_1424049c.jpg long ago. Please undelete File_talk:Jerry_Rosenberg_1424049c.jpg too. (Is it not the norm to undelete the talk page when a page is undeleted?) --Elvey (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:) So is it the norm to undelete the talk page when a page is undeleted? --Elvey (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure, but I didn't see a problem in this case. – Quadell (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Angelou FAC

Hi Quadell, hope all is well with you. Favor to ask: would you mind taking a look at my latest FAC [13], which is over there languishing? I would muchly appreciate it. And let me know how I can assist you, of course. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it. A very good read. – Quadell (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper peer review

Hi, Quadell. I've put Sgt. Pepper up at peer review and I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions you have for improving the article in preparation for FAC. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think I'm the best choice to peer review it. I don't know nearly as much about the album than many others, and wouldn't know if important facets are missing. I hope it gets an adequate peer review this time. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Will you recruit me?

Hi, My name is feeling fancy free (not really, but whatever) and I just started editing on wikipedia, and would like to be recruited to review articles for "Good Article" status. I looked over some of the articles that you've reviewed, and we may have some similar interests, such as Hebrew, synagogues, and my favorite "anything." I hope you have the time to help me become a reviewer. Thanks.Feelingfancyfree (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would love to, but I'm afraid I don't have the time right now. – Quadell (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

BAG assistance needed

Hi Quadell! There are quite a few Requests for bot approval that are awaiting BAG assistance. Would you be willing to look at some of these? Thanks in advance! GoingBatty (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't closed a BAG request in several years, and I'm not up-to-date with the latest procedures and customs. I wouldn't be a good choice to step in and decide on requests at this time, at least not until I get some time to look over the issues and latest consensus for things. – Quadell (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again

When I logged in to check on the automated message posted to my account (like the one you got, above), I again noticed the msg that you left me last year saying hi, and so I'm back, saying hi again again--sometimes I really miss the community here on WP, but I've SOOOO gone on to other obsessive things. Like Facebook. Which isn't nearly as useful to the world at large, but where I can complain about it and don't feel like I should do anything about it. ;-) Elf | Talk 16:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I hear ya, Elf. Thanks for stopping by. – Quadell (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ran into a friend of yours the other day, and I have some questions...

Hello there! I'm working on creating a userscript to assist users in finding CVs, and using the script (before I knew that things from us.gov websites are in the PD) I tagged one of Polbot's pages for deletion. DGG graciously informed me about the PD thing, and now I'm here to try and improve my script be filtering out as many of those PD URLs as I can. As such, I'm wondering if you could tell me how Polbot decided which sources to make pages from. If all of the pages made by Polbot came from PD sources, then I can look for that hidden comment in the html and tell my script to just ignore those pages (or note that the content was placed there by Polbot and is probably in the PD. Thanks for any help you can offer on this topic at all. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. Copyright violations are a serious problem on Wikipedia, and I'm grateful for the creation of tools to help deal with the problem. As to your specific question, Polbot performed a number of functions over her lifespan. Are you referring to the Congressional biography articles, or the species articles? – Quadell (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I came across her in a congressional biographical article, but am interested in all articles and as to whether or not it might be safe to note all of her pages as "safe, likely PD". Thanks! :D — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The sources for those articles were first published by the United States Congress, and any creation of the United States goverment is in the public domain everywhere in the world. Unfortunately, determining what material is and isn't PD is a tremendously difficult exercise. I recommend "The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More" by Stephen Fishman for a good introduction to the difficulties involved. – Quadell (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shadow Hare

The article Shadow Hare has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable person

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The issue seems to have resolved itself. – Quadell (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Eduardo Garcia post-injury in the kitchen.jpg

Please would you kindly give me your opinion on the current licence for this image? I have been reviewing an article containing this image for DYK, and I am unhappy about it - but I cannot understand how or why it has a move-to-commons template on it and how or why it hasn't been tagged FD. I have never tagged for FD yet, and I don't want to make a mistake. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Currently, this image is in violation of our copyright policy, but it should be easy to resolve. The uploader (who said "Evidence: Will be provided on request.") needs to forward the e-mail where he received permission to OTRS (permissions-en@wikimedia.org), and then the image can be tagged {{OTRS pending}}. Once OTRS reviews the e-mail, they will know whether the permission given is sufficient for Wikipedia or not. If the evidence of permission is not forwarded to OTRS, the photo should be deleted... but it would certainly be polite to let the uploader know first and give him a chance before tagging it for deletion. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Will do. --Storye book (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion?

As my quondam GA-review mentor, would you be willing to take a look at Piotr Skarga, which I'm currently reviewing? The nominator/principal editor and I seem to have reached an impasse; and since he's got much more experience than I have at both writing and reviewing GAs, I'm hesitant to insist on my position.

I won't describe our disagreement, lest I put myself on the wrong side of WP:MEAT. If you can spare the time, I'd greatly value your opinion on this. Thanks-- Ammodramus (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Ammodramus! Articles of specific interest are always tricky, since I'm not 100% clear on the boundary between how much background information can be assumed and how much explanation is necessary in the article. Often, a specialist in a given topic will take for granted a familiarity with persons and events that a typical en.wiki reader will not share. Some of those assumptions are valid, and others are not. (I've also found that some specialists are happy to see the perspective of an outsider, or nonspecialist, such as myself, and improve the article greatly by briefly introducing concepts necessary to fully appreciate the article. Others are quite resistant.)
In this specific case, I would not grant GA status on the article unless many changes are made. Many of the paragraphs are one or two sentences, including in the lead section. The lead section does not adequately summarize all sections of the article. The organization is questionable, having separate "writer" and "writings" sections, and having an "importance" section (as if his life and writings were not part of his importance.) In addition, many of the questions you ask in your review are the sorts of questions most readers would have. The article does not, of course, have to explain the entire history of Poland and the Reformation; but if Skarga's importance can't be understood without knowing the power balance between king and szlachta, for instance, then that relationship has to be touched on enough to edify the casual reader.
In the end, remember that passing or failing a GAN is not that big a deal. Piotrus has nominated many, many articles for GA and FA status; some have passed, and others have not. If your review aids in the improvement of the article, that is more important, in my opinion, than the outcome. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this—I appreciate the advice of someone who's got much more experience than I as a GA reviewer. Since you haven't posted on the review page, I assume that you'd rather not officially join the discussion. Would you object to my mentioning this conversation there, or would you prefer not to be brought into it to that extent? — Ammodramus (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's no problem. Mention all you want. – Quadell (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks—your opinion is greatly appreciated. — Ammodramus (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

We lost the author of a file

Hello Quadell,

Five years ago you deleted File:Cougar chile unitas 47-06.JPG here at en.wikipedia because the file was already at Commons. Unfortunately, we never recorded the author of that file over at Commons! Could you please tell me which source and author were indicated on the file page here at en.wikipedia then? Thanks! Ariadacapo (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. The original description was:
Chilean Navy AS332F1 Super Puma helicopter in BACH Williams flight deck - UNITAS 47-06 - Mejillones, Chile
The original uploader was Evogol, who was in the Peruvian Navy, but who blanked his page back in 2006. He tagged it {{PD-self}} when he uploaded it in October of 2006. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you muchly for the prompt, extensive and precise answer. All the best, Ariadacapo (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

GA recruitment: Teaching about image licenses

Hey there, old mentor. I see that sadly, the GA recruitment is not as active as it used to be but I came here to give you some constructive feedback. While I was part of the program, I think it would have been nice if you mentioned the basics of image licensing. I did make a blunder in one of my reviews later regarding a Fair use image. Since a good portion of new recruits would be like me and know nothing about licensing, don't you think giving them a crash course in it would be a good idea in the future? All I did was read the GACR and not understand most of the part related to images. While reviewing, I checked what I thought were legit-looking licenses.

Don't worry about me, after that incident, I thoroughly read WP:NFC and observed sample articles. Now I even uploaded a few images from Flickr and a non-free game screenshot. Warm regards, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's very solid advice. Image licensing (along with correct fair use rationales) is such a tricky, complex, and exception-filled area of Wikipedia policy that it's no wonder so many users have trouble with it. The GA criteria do require that "images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content", so I suppose it's necessary for GA reviewers to know whether a copyright tag is correct or if a rationale is valid. This is a tricky balance. On the one hand, we don't want to put such a burden on GA reviewers that no one wants to do the work. On the other hand, we don't want to promote articles to GA status that clearly do not pass criterion 6a. Thanks for bringing this up.
By the way, I have a great deal of experience with both copyright law and Wikipedia image policy, so if questions come up that you're unsure how to handle, feel free to contact me. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions can sometimes be an excellent resource as well. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quadell/Archive_56&oldid=1248961970"