This is an archive of discussions past. Please do not edit this page, and instead visit User talk:ST47 if you want to leave me a comment.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47.
Wikimedia Foundation
Contents
#wikipedia-BAG
Is it possible to get access rights in #wikipedia-BAG to the nick TheLetterE? Also, what has happened to the reporting BAGBot? Hope you are doing fine. — Etalk12:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you had a backup of the BAGReport.pl IRC component, feel free to use it. As for access, I can do that next time I log in, which should be later today. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 12:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, can you please make your bots (specifically User:CSDWarnBot) {{Nobots}} compliant? While I understand the need to notify authors of speedy deletions, it's highly disrespectful to override their wishes. Thanks, скоморохъ02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly bothered about the deletion of the image, but I am concerned about the thoughtless deletion of the text on the aforementioned page, which had grown into a significant body detailing the blazon, explanation and history of the Manchester coat of arms.
I would like to know how I could run a database query and get this kind of information, as I would like to be able to do my own, I would update it constantly, you wouldn't have to worry about it again. If I can't do it, would you mind updating it for me. ~ Dreamy§22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
set @counter:=0; select @counter:=@counter+1 as rank, user_ids.user_name as username, count(logging.log_timestamp) as number from logging, user_ids where logging.log_type='newusers' and logging.log_user = user_ids.user_id group by logging.log_user order by number desc limit 25;
My old computer crashed recently, so I don't quite remember where to go to do this, could you please refresh my memory, BTW you are pretty amazing at answering my question. ~ Dreamy§23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a toolserver account, then type the following:
mysql -h sql-s1
use enwiki_p
set @counter:=0; select @counter:=@counter+1 as rank, user_ids.user_name as username, count(logging.log_timestamp) as number from logging, user_ids where logging.log_type='newusers' and logging.log_user = user_ids.user_id group by logging.log_user order by number desc limit 25;
Both pages are generated from the same script, and its uploader detection is kinda crappy. The uploader info there isn't ever used by the bot, so don't worry about it :) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure these are non-free? They are of people that Jonesy has taken photos of and released under the GFDL etc. They are completely free. Some of them may have used non-free rationales accidentally but I though I had fixed most of those/moved them to Commons. Which images do you have issues with? Woody (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at Image:Williams, Matthew.jpg it mistakenly uses the non-free rationale as a summary template. This then adds it to non-free categories and alerts the bot. A careful look at them would have shown this. Unless you disagree I am going to restore his page and then work through the images. Woody (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A valid assumption in most cases, but not in this case. They still have the correst licence, it merely confuses your bot. I would restore them whilst I migrate them to Commons. Woody (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a new theory about this page...it appears that when other users mess with it, the updates go on "pause" for a while. Is this due to a bot that does the updates not responding well to interference? Just curious. --Kukinihablame aqui01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bot completely ignores the content of the page and just overwrites it. It stops updating because the bot gets logged out, and I haven't logged it back in yet. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the cookies simply expire. I'm not completely sure how it works, I just know that I need to go type in my password again. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please advise on the reason my article about the book "Punk Like Me" by JD Glass was deleted. And what kind of authorizations are needed so this won't happen again, knowing the material was approved by the Author.
A tag has been placed on Punk Like Me, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Punk Like Me is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Punk Like Me, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD.
Hi, as you may or may not know, WP:ACC is in the process of being replaced by a mailing list. One option that's been brought up is to make a form on the toolserver where people can enter their desired username and e-mail address and the toolserver will send those details to the mailing list. Doing this would then give flexibility for the toolserver to generate links similar to those on {{account request}} and perhaps even to check the database for usernames that the software would mark as 'too similar' or check if the requester's ip address is blocked etc.
Do you think this is possible, bearing in mind any possible restrictions on accessing user data and rule 8 which prohibits authenticating with Wikimedia logins, and would you be able to do this? Thanks, Tra(Talk)14:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I'm trying to create an informative page for Hillary Flowers without it being an ad. I think she is worthy of a page and am struggling to make one. I've deleted it.
Howdy, in this edit [1] the bot left a rather ugly box left on the page due to a malformed <br/> piece of code. Can the bot screen for the this? MBisanztalk09:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the reason it was so obvious was the white space between your end carrot > and the malformed tag. What would be the impact of your tag eating all the whitespace to the next non-blank character? MBisanztalk16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that would work. That particlar edit. I noticed, is from TWINKLE, not a bot, but I'll see if the changes can be made so it removes the images correctly. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should not use your page protect tool as a weapon against regular users with whom you disagree as you did at the BAG discussion of the proposal for the new bot to tag images. It's completely and wildly inappropriate. BellwetherBC21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to present information material to the discussion is disruptive. Please do not troll talk pages and other discussion areas by making accusations which are immaterial to the discussion. You are attempting to derail discussion and process. It will not be tolerated. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you view something as "immaterial to the discussion" does not make it so. The additional fact that you obliquely threaten to block me ("It will not be tolerated") is completely unacceptable. Also, stop accusing me of "trolling." It's a serious accusation, and I view it as a clear [[WP:NPA|personal attack. BellwetherBC21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very surprised to see Bellwether's comments described as trolling; ST47, you should substantiate that claim or withdraw it.
It's also perverse of ST47 to accuse some of "attempting to derail discussion and process" when ST47 has just closed the discussion despite several issues being unresolved.
I think that the "will not be tolerated" comment needs clarification: exactly what is not going to be tolerated? Trying to contribute to a discussion whose outcome appears to have been decided in advance? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:CVUUsers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
If there exists a non-free image, Image:NonFreeExample.jpg, and through some malformed link, the user arrives at Talk:Image:NonFreeExample.jpg, then the image would be displayed instead of a link. Apart from being a violation of NFCC, it's really bad style. It may cause similar issues with categories - that is, not display the link - I'm not sure. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 17:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm just wondering why you semi-protected School on 17th December. Previous to this there had been just one instance of vandalism that had been reverted within one minute. Maybe there had been vandalism some time ago (I guess there probably was, with an article like this), but you didn't really give unprotection time to work. 82.20.24.97 (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who unprotected it had also unprotected a bunch of other high profile pages at the same time without discussion, that's one of the ones I chose to reprotect. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction in your evidence: you refer to "Betacommand's use of a non-admin account for security purposes", when actually both Betacommand (talk·contribs) and Betacommand2 (talk·contribs) are non-admin accounts. It would be more precise to call Betacommand2 an alternate account. BTW, if you could persuade Betacommand to add a note to User:Betacommand2 to mention that it is an alternate 'security' account, rather than just a "Test & VandalProof account", I'd appreciate it. I've asked him, but no response. Carcharoth (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right, of course, I've corrected that. I'm not able to reach beta at the moment, since I won't have access to IRC until I get home tomorrow afternoon, but I'll ask him about it then. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please block the user User:Thebigchode and put him out of my misery?
Would you please block this user User:Thebigchode and put him out of my misery? The reason for this is because he keeps vandalizing pages by replacing names with the name "Tony". Could you please block him...permanently? Let me know what you think. Thank you. AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I received a few warnings for uploading photos incorrectly copyrighted, I believe I fixed them by re-loading them and choosing the correct option, but I can't tell. Are you the right one to ask, or can you give me the link to the correct person? Thanks-new at this.--Chemoqua (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're missing a copyright tag - if you want to use an image on Wikipedia, it has to be free, so if you took the image yourself just go to the image page, edit it, and add {{pd-self}}. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 20:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot flagged this image [2], but I couldn't figure out how it was non-compliant before, and the ICHD didn't seem to think it was issue either? Am I too tired to see the error? MBisanztalk07:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It seems that images that use the article= parameter and have a link to an article that does not start with a letter were mistagged as not containing a link to an article at all. The problem has been corrected. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think in future you could note bugs like this at the bot approval request page? I've just read it and I didn't find this bug and correction noted there. Maybe I missed it. Would have been useful information for BAG members to review. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EPIC.jpg Bot detection query
Your copyright detection bot (User:STBotI) has picked up the image I uploaded, and has appeared to hacve flagged it. if you could review this please, i would be greatful. the image is located here: [[3]] I have since changed the license, to a more suitable one. as i am new to wiki, i am not sure on how to brand some copyright, although i am fully aware of how Copyright usage is applied, as I've learnt how to not violate it through my material on Youtube.
I saw that an IP replaced your talk page, so I reverted it, not realizing that it's apparently your bot. Sorry, haha. Apparently it needs to be logged in again? GlassCobra17:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is connected to an IRC feed (irc.freenode.net #wikipedia-en-image-uploads) where there is a bot that maintains a blacklist and whitelist of users and that gets some information (size, dimensions, uploader, tries to find a copyright tag) for all images as they're uploaded. My bot reads that in, gets some preliminary information about the image, and adds it to a queue. After 5 minutes, the bot checks that image for the presence of a copyright tag and valid rationale and then makes the necessary taggings. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. As you may have noticed (or not), I've mentioned your user page in a few places recently. Your views on fair use are important to make clear, but do you think you could do so in a less inflammatory manner? I think "DEATH TO FAIR USE" is inflammatory language. "Say NO to Fair Use" is also a bit strong, but I'll leave that for now. I realise I can't make you change this, and I know many people will defend your right to say this, so this is why I'm asking you politely if you will consider toning the language down a bit. Incidentally, are you making a distinction between non-free use and fair use? One more thing: how is that banner trick down in the bottom right corner done? Is that a template or some CSS stuff? I've also left a question in the section above. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The language looks fine to me. If people can get away with saying fair use bots are ruining wikipedia, I fail to see how "death to fair use" is any worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope ST47 will still reply here, but thanks for your comment, Hammersoft. May I ask where people say this about fair use bots on their user pages? That would also be divisive language, although "ruining" is different language from "DEATH TO". Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out. I may raise both examples at ANI (you suggest Bleveret takes his dispute there), but out of courtesy I will wait for ST47 to respond first, as I do want to try the "polite request to tone down the language" first. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the superbolditalics calls for death, however I'm going to leave the little banner. I've seen more politically/morally loaded language than that. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your bot may have made an error. It posted a message on my talk page about a speedy deletion tag on an article called Skitsoboy13, but I had nothing to do with this article. I didn't make it, edit it, and have never even seen it. It's not a big deal by any means, I don't really care, but I was just curious as to what happened. Thanks! Voyaging (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That page was a user's talk page that was accidentally moved into mainspace. You were the first user to leave a message there, so it appeared as though you created it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Do you suppose you could do something with the wording of the CSD warning plopped on a user's page by CSDwarnbot? For example, take a look at User_talk:Decendant. This is a new user. I was looking at new pages and typed up a welcome (subst'ing the standard welcome message) and simply asked if this (now nom'd for CSD) page was some sort of test. At save time I ran into an edit conflict with CSDwarnbot. Warning users is definitely a good idea that I fully support, however if these are usually put on new user's talk pages I think the wording (and general appearance) is pretty far from "new user" friendly. This will be this user's first interaction with Wikipedia. He or she probably has no idea what a bot is, what a tag is, what speedy deletion is, etc. If the user page doesn't already exist I think a message much more like the Welcome message I left would be much more appropriate. The bot could figure out the user talk page doesn't already exist, and in this case leave a far more "new user" friendly message (perhaps even automatically add a hangon to the nominated article!). We don't have to brutally delete anything new users create. We don't have to treat new users as the enemy. Warnbot is a very, very good idea. It will however be many users' first impression of Wikipedia. I think making its message much more welcoming, and much less impersonal, will result in more editors staying here (and fewer being driven away).
If the bot text were a template (perhaps one for new users, and a different one for established users), we could tweak the wording fairly easily. Just a suggestion. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The warnings are all in the bot's userspace. There's no way to separate new users from old users, except that if there is no existing talk page, we can send a welcome message as well, I guess. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion request
I uploaded Image:Neighborhoods of Brunswick, Georgia.jpg, but please delete it. It is definitely not a free image, and I am not an admin so I cannot delete it. Jaxfl (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:WoodstockMoviePoster.jpg
Greetings, ST47. Today I uploaded Image:WoodstockMoviePoster.jpg. STBotI has tagged the fair use rationale as invalid under Non-free content criterion #10C. However, the fair use rationale for the image does contain the name of the article in which fair use is claimed. The name of the article is linked also. I created the fair use rationale using Template:Filmr. Is it possible that something about the template caused the bot to miss the article name? Please let me know your thoughts. If you reply here I will see what you say. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk)03:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from attacking users who disagree with you
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, I would like to remind you not to portray users who disagree with you as attacking another user, as you did on my userpage. Please read fully any discussion and research the user you are speaking to before taking it upon yourself to levy personal insults against user that has been editing since 2004. Constructive discussion is appreciated, making insulting posts on their talk page is not. I did not in any way attack betacommand himself, I attacked the unconstructive and fundamentally bad-faith nature of his bot and pointed out that his hostile behavior towards other users was most inappropriate. You on the other hand have gone out of your way to insult me as a person. Perhaps it is you who should read the welcome page again. Superslash (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I attacked the unconstructive and fundamentally bad-faith nature of his bot" - rather than, as I suggested, making constructive comments, you resorted to attacks and sarcasm. You continue to do so now, parodying a warning, and your claims that since you've been editing since 2004, you are above the policy, are erroneous. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 13:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you deliberately ignore the facts and construct a fallacy for yourself. I did make a constructive comment, there was no attack, and humor has no bearing on the validity of my statement that betacommands hostile behavior was innapropriate and that his bot was acting destructively and in bad faith. The only erroneous claims here are the ones to which I am replying. And by the way I am not parodying a warning, I am parodying a vandalization of my talk page by someone who has personally insulted me and continues to do so despite already being involved in an arbitration case over that exact sort of behavior. Ordinarily I'd continue this until it's resolved one way or another but since you show a remarkable desire to completely ignore or misconstrue whatever I've said I don't really see any point. Given your behavior I have left notices in my comments to make sure that if you attempt to bring admin wrath down on me with your falsified claims someone will check the history to make sure my obviously non-flaming comments were not altered to say something else. Enjoy your arbitration ST47, I have little interest in being a pawn to support some imaginary claim of persecution in betacommand's favor. Superslash (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Youredits were imaginary. Must be this newfangled mediawiki software, making me see edits that you didn't even make. I'm ever so sorry for bothering you over this database bug. Feel free to continue not editing at your leisure. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re your statement: I am not 'continually attacking' you. I issued you a single warning for disruptive behavior. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A warning which has all the validity of the Emperor of San Francisco given your current bias in support of betacommand. Either way you can remove it yourself or I can put it in my soon-to-be-constructed hall of interesting vandalisms, because at the moment that's all I consider that "warning" to be. Justifying his behavior as "brushing against" the civility policy while warning me off for saying that his behavior was inapropriate is an obvious display of abusive bias, and I just can't take your warning as anything but a political ploy to scare me into supporting your point of view. That aside since you continue to insist your fantasy version of events where I'm the one insulting people instead of your new idol and supposedly claiming to be above the rules I see no point in ANY further discussion with you. Superslash (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the response time of the bot that comments out images from an article? This image Image:Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.png should only be in 1 or 2 of the articles its currently in. So I was thinking of opening the pages it should be in, deleting it, letting the bot comment it out of all the articles, and then undoing the bot only for those it should be in, but that would only make sense if the bot is always running. MBisanztalk06:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You recently deleted a report without giving any reason. After returning from a block today, the user in question has made several highly racist remarks, has repeatedly deleted fact tags he doesn't like without giving any sources, and has removed an earlier report on himself from the AIV. Would you care to explain how this is acceptable? Thanks! JdeJ (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I asked the reporter for clarification into his request on his user talk, and am awaiting his response. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47)
That makes perfect sense, but don't you think it might also have made sense to leave the report standing while awaiting the clarification? Apart from everything the user has done, he has repeatedly been calling Roma people "gypsies", the equivalent of calling Afro-Americans "niggers". He has also edited one of my comments on the talk page of Eastern Europe to say the opposite of what I had written and, as I said, deleted a report on himself from the administrator intervention against vandalism. Even disregarding all his deletion of content and of tags, I would think the above is enough of a day's work to get anybody blocked. Cheers! JdeJ (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Marc KJH
Today, User:Marc KJH has made personal attacks against me. Made personal attacks against User:Cordless Larry. Blanked his talk page at least 3 times in an attempt to avoid his warnings. This worked and he got a caution when he should have been reported because he was already on a final and only warning. He is also trying to behind wp:dispute, even though i have never edited the same page as him. I don't even know what page he means! For some reason, everyone today has got some virus that stops them from seeing that User:Marc KJH is harassing me and User:Cordless Larry! I am now asking you to please see sense and give this user a block. TheProf | Talk19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:US Coast Guard E-1.png
I've updated the page I made that linked to this image - I replaced it with a link to the image that already existed on Wikipedia, so I have no problem with you deleting the image I uploaded. Nickersonl (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankenstein meets The Wolfman
I believe I have just added the correct template. Could you take a look at it.
Is it possible to add hidden categories to the templates on Template:Bots? It might help get a handle on abuses not only with images, but also with articles. The template code though doesn't appear to be standard template code, so I'm not sure. MBisanztalk23:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well since its not an obvious template (to me) and it could be high use, I'll tread carefully and probably wait a week or so. MBisanztalk04:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I got your message and I understand your meaning.
I am not being clumsy at what I am doing as I put a lot of time into it.
Just gotta keep trying to do it correctly. If you don't want me to post images of relevant people I won't do it.
Thanks,
Electric Japan (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reading your message
I have added everything I can see that is required and more.
I have put down so much information that is required and relevant to the image.
I have spent long,long hours last night doing this without stop.
I have read the requirement and followed them.
Thanks,
Electric Japan (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suzanne Engo
I'm just letting you know that another user has all but blanked this article and is now attempting to have it deleted. 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)John celona (talk)
I've been following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Proposed decision#Page protection. Would you have time to read that and consider helping to resolve this by: (a) unprotecting the page (it should not remain protected indefinitely); and (b) softening your stance somewhat to help achieve closure on this issue. It goes without saying that no-one should continue to edit the page, but unprotecting would at least show good faith that the incident is passed and that you trust people to make comments at other venues. I intially posted in that thread that unprotecting the page was needed, but I am now approaching you first, as I think that is the best way to move forward and allow both "sides" to achieve some form of reconciliation. Would you consider this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing - trying to bring this to a close and avoid bad blood - I think some people will still have issues with whether or not your initial page protection was appropriate. Since the arbitration committee are not likely to directly address the issue, I've asked several editors what kind of reassurances they would like from you regarding future conduct. Your evidence presentation was actually pretty clear on this point, but I've posted here if you want to comment there. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Direct questions
Per this, I am asking you two direct questions which should, hopefully, resolve this one way or another:
In future, will you avoid using your tools concerning bot requests where you are named as an operator?
In future, will you avoid using your tools concerning bot requests where you have participated in the discussion?
Please feel free to answer here or there (the arbitration proposed decision talk page), or contact me on my talk page if you want to discuss this further. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that it's obvious that we all avoid using tools in these cases. It isn't until someone continues to be disruptive after non-administrative measures are undertaken that use of admin tools is necessary, if only because no uninvolved admin is available. For an example of this stance in policy, see WP:BLOCK. We warn vandals before we block them. But we do eventually block them, and if no one else is readily available, I just might revert their edits AND block them. Are we suggesting that that would not be acceptable? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 11:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, I would hope it's obvious that blocking vandals is an analogy here, and that I'm not calling anyone a vandal. You never know how someone will twist a comment in an attempt to further their witch hunt, however, so the point is worth noting.) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 11:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the unhelpful witch-hunt reference to one side, my final question is whether next time, if there is a next time, you will try and find an uninvolved administrator to deal with your concerns about discussions being derailed? If I can get an answer on that point, this will be resolved as far as I'm concerned, though I can't speak for others. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty much what I said, if someone is available, sure. If something needs doing and it'd be easier to do it myself, I don't see a need to go hunting down administrators. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a grey area, but please do make an effort to find someone who is uninvolved. Being able to display that sort of judgement over how involved you are is an important part of being an administrator. And I don't think that removing Bellwether's comment was helpful. At the very least, that removal should be noted in this thread for your talk page archives. Bellwether, before getting angry about this, consider that that an angry response from you here may not help, and ST47 may argue that an angry response from you proves his point. I am going to raise all this back at the arbitration case pages. ST47, please consider restoring Bellwether's comment. Bellwether, please keep calm in any response - if you were going to be calm anyway, I apologise for wrongly pre-empting you. Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finished with him. I'm not angry, but this is just ludicrous. Not only does he refuse to see reason on this issue, but he attacks others as "disruptive" (in his evidence) and "unhelpful" (here) for daring to question his use of the tools as a weapon in a dispute. Something has to be done about him. (For the record, I'll be restoring my comments shortly, as they were not "unhelpful" in the least.) BellwetherBC13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vandal analogy doesn't really fit, and finding an uninvolved administrator shouldn't be hard– you seem to be an IRC regular, so it should be relatively easy to find one on there, if not, WP:AN/I and WP:AN are always available. The point I think that needs to be made is that you should never, under any circumstances, use your sysop privileges in a dispute that you're a party to. No matter how objective you feel you're capable of being, it will always look bad to outsiders when you do this. —Locke Cole • t • c02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't just look bad, it is bad. And if he does it again, he should be blocked until he foreswears using his tools as weapons in a dispute. Call it a "witchhunt" all you want, it is what it is. All any of us has asked for you to do is promise not to do so again. BellwetherBC03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now, since Bellwether restored his comment (which for the record I think was fine, but seems to have upset ST47) I turn to ST47 and ask you (ST47) to not revert the re-addition of Bellwether's comment. You (ST47) can of course end the whole thread and archive it, but please just do that if you don't want to discuss this further. That would be the quickest way to end this, and would still send the signal that you don't want to discuss this with Bellwether, which I'm not entirely happy about, but is still your right. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted one of my Images (STBotI tagged it) checked and made sure that the copyright information is up to check, so I put a message on the bot and here so that I can get it checked ASAP. Here is a copy of the message I left STBotI:
Have a look at the [perlwikipedia.googlecode.com perlwikipedia] module, that should have MOST of the tools you need - lacking a way to access Special:LonelyPages, but if you look at the module, you should be able to adapt some of the other code. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would get perlwikipedia.pm from the link I gave you earlier, save it to a directory, and in that same directory, make a text file with the necessary code:
use Perlwikipedia;
$editor=new Perlwikipedia($USERAGENT);
$editor->login($USERNAME, $PASSWORD);
Obviously, replacing the all-caps variables with whatever you desire. I'd suggest a useragent like "Bot/WP/EN/YOURUSERNAME/BOTUSERNAME:VERSION", as that contains the necessary information. You can also put an email in there. Save it to a file, extension .pl, and open a shell. Navigate to that directory and run (I think) perl nameofscript.pl. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm waiting for a reply from the toolserver admins on my account's status. Hopefully it should be restored within 24 hours. That's why my bots are down, and why I'm not on IRC. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, regarding the NFCCBot thing.... If I "screwed the pooch", and messed everything up, I'm sorry. I just have a lot of other stuff going on right now, and, I've got no desire to work on it anymore, particularly with the ratio of amount_of_crap_generated to usage_and_usefulness at this point. Were you even still planning to run it anymore btw? I kinda figured your image bot, and Carnlido (I hope I got the spelling right...)'s (which, can do DAB's I understand), and the other one which for the life of me I can't find so may very well be imaginary, coupled with BCBot, kinda eliminated the need for further image bots of that type right now. Anyhow, After the last couple days, I'm done with it. Sorry again. SQLQuery me!03:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging bot
I uploaded an image of an album cover a while ago, having checked the Fair Use Policy, and included justification for why it complied with the fair use policy. However, STBotl tagged it, and (seemingly) subsequently removed it, before I'd had the chance to respond to the initial tag. I'd thought it was ok, so I just wanted to check whether it was a misunderstanding on my part of the fair use policy. Thanks
set @counter:=0; select @counter:=@counter+1 as rank, user_ids.user_name as username, count(logging.log_timestamp) as number from logging, user_ids left join ipblocks on ipb_user=user_id where logging.log_type='newusers' and logging.log_user = user_ids.user_id and ipblocks.ipb_id is null group by logging.log_user order by number desc limit 100;
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.
All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.
The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image didn't, and still doesn't, have a copyright tag explaining the type of image. Foundation-level NFCC policy requires machine-readable non-free media verifiability, and we implement that through the copyright tags. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a few changes I made to my common library caused all my bots to be unable to notify me if they got logged out. RFRBot got logged out, and I didn't notice. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Fruits Basket images
A comment about your deletion of a large number of images that were various Fruits Basket character articles. I fully understand, and agree with, the need for free use rationales and for using only essential non-free media. And, indeed, many of those were not essential -- and, in fact, I'm preparing to merge several of the affected articles into the list of characters, making images moot. But not all of them. It is extremely annoying that no notice that these images needed rationales was ever given in the articles, either by editing the captions or on the talk pages, thus giving interested editors the chance to provide valid fair-use rationales. Please, in the future, stongly consider giving your fellow editors due consideration. Or in other words, play nicely, eh? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were tagged for over a week, and they were uploaded incorrectly in the first place. If you need then, reupload them properly. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They may have been tagged, but pretty much no one but the original uploader watches an image. And since I wasn't the uploader, I don't have them to reupload. In other articles I've worked with, notifying the editors who work on it, somewhere in the article/talk page, has been SOP courtesy. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck Lorre
Hey, I just wanted to say good job on that edit you did to Chuck Lorre's page. It was getting ridiculous. Wikipedia could use more people like you who cut out the BS and the spin and just state the facts. Well done.
The information provided is correct, and is not copyrighted.
Foxfoxfox87
Rationale tagging issue
Hi. Some non-free images were incorrectly tagged as having no/invalid rationale on 21 April [6][7][8]. I just looked at a few of the more than 500 images tagged yesterday and noticed these; there may be more mistagged images. Also, you did not reply to my 20 April message about mistagged book covers on User talk:STBotI, so here is a link to it in case you did not see my message on that busy page. All the best, Bláthnaid13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't been looking at stbotI's page recently. I've fixed the problem in your first link, however 2 and 3 are valid taggings - the bot needs to see a link back to the page it's used on, not just a reference. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A wikilink to the article the image is used in is not required in WP:NFCC#10 (it is just "recommended"). Editors who hand-write their fair use rationales often to not have a link to the article because the article name is in the header, and headers generally do not have wikilinks. The tag added to this image says that the rationale does not have "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item", when it clearly does. I don't mean to pick on your bot, as the vast majority of tagging it does is accurate, but mis-tagging might whip up more of the drama about bots tagging images that has thankfully died down in recent weeks. Bláthnaid16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, I've just noticed that there is a conflict in the wording in WP:NFCC#10 ("The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well)) "and the 2nd paragraph of {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}, which says ("per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed") so that tagging is not your bot's fault. That's my mistake, so apologies! Bláthnaid16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Is requesting unblock. I don't believe it is a bot, and do similar things myself with FF tabs. Please look into it and provide more guidance to the user if you would like him to get a bot flag. Either way, he can probably be unblocked. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I unblocked cause he gave a reasonable and plausible explanation why he edits taht fast and Werdna pointed out that there is no rule against high speed editing, just against unapproved bot editing. MBisanztalk17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ST47. If you have a moment, could you take a look at MediationBot1? It seems to have made rather a mess of the formatting on pages it edited today - e.g. [9], [10]. Much appreciated, WjBscribe18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your bot tagged this image in error, I believe. I carefully examined the image page, and can't find any problems. Would you please take a look, and let me know if I missed something? If not, please remove the tag. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a rationale tag accept unnamed parameters like that. I've added a way for the bot to check for that way of doing it, however rest assured that the image is correct. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone started using spaces in the headers for new sections, and the bot didn't expect that. Fixed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange way to post a rationale, but I thought I accounted for that. I've added additional rules to the bot to prevent such issues. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Pamlico 140, please
Hello, ST47, nice to talk to you. Okay, So my username is Pamlico 140. And I created a Page Named Pamlico 140. Your spam bot read it and blocked me from posting, and therefore i had to log off to write this message. I can see how the bot recognized it as a page about me, or about my beliefs and opinion. But please, I can Explain. You see, I am a devoted sea kayaker. i own a kayak called the "wilderness Systems Pamlico 140" , Pamlico 140 is the model name (Like Camry, in toyota camry. it is my username because i am very fond of this kayak and It is my username for every website. I made a page for the Pamlico 140, and I was very neutral about it and it was an article about the kayak, not me. It simply stated facts, not opinions. At one point, some people changed it and put their opinions in it, but I fixed it. Also, your bot recognized it as an advertisement, and heres why thats unlogical- There are hundreds of articles on individual car models, just like my article of an individual kayak model. So if the "Subaru Legacy" page is not spam or an Ad, what makes "Pamlico 140" an ad or promotion. I did not intend to promote it. Please, if there is something unsatisfactory about it, tell me, and I'll try my best to correct the problem 64.136.26.201 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're evading a block? That's against policy. To contest a block, log in and add {{unblock|your reason here}} to your user talk page. I did not block you, nor did I delete your page. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright forms for self-created images
Dear ST47,
I just received a message from one of your bots (STBotI) - copied below.
I tried filling the necessary forms several times and I have specified that I took the pictures myself. I have read the instructions and followed them as close as I could.
If there is something wrong with the forms, tell me how I should do it.
Thanks.
- Wikifulchemist. (I hope I'm signing this right - my first time signing)
Wikifulchemist (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--
Image copyright problem with Image:TexasRed.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:TexasRed.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Message left on userpage
I found this message on your userpage, so I've moved it here for you:
An article I created has been deleted or is going to be deleted because of being "not needed". It involves a poet, soon-to-be-published one. Is that :not important enough for Wiki, or what's going on? Ps. Sorry if the means of contact was wrong, I'm new to Wikipedia..Carablea (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed what you had said about the fair use rationales on the album covers. I explained it more with a new rationale on all of her pages. Please this new one is a much better rationale and leave it at that. Finding information for old albums isn't exactly easy and I can't possible know every single detail of the album, but there is enough information there explaining that it won't take away any rights of the wonder or copyright. I am very tired and need to rest since it its 10:43 PM and I need to sign out soon, so please respond back after you get this. Gracias. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fritzl article
Hi. I noticed that you;ve set the Fritzl article to full protected. Would you consider putting it on semi? (which was apparently all that was requested in the first place). It's still a major, developing story, with new information emerging every day.--Redirectorial (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for more opinions at ANI. I'm not saying your in the wrong as such, but fully-protecting IMO is a little too much. D.M.N. (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think I'm responsible for that mistake. It looks like a bad joke. Or worse, Vandalism. Is it possible for someone else to be using my IP? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did create that page:
Page history
(diff) 17:18, May 1, 2008 . . The way, the truth, and the light (Talk | contribs | block) (68 bytes)
(diff) 08:49, May 1, 2008 . . Ludvikus (Talk | contribs | block) (51 bytes) (#REDIRECT Final solution to the Jewish question)
Hi, I added this image (Image:Hyland redslide.jpg) and later found it in the Wikipedia commons, so I didn't put the proper copyright status on it. I want the image deleted (but not from the commons). Could you help me out? Thanks! --Kaitlin510 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:LondonParalympicLogo.png&oldid=198626568){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Image:EPIC.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AA_Work_In_Progress_DVD.jpg&diff=207214255&oldid=204642522){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAMusicalMassacreTheBeatnuts.jpg&diff=207184665&oldid=179290363){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAWomansTouchThelmaHouston.jpg&diff=207206256&oldid=179289655){kind=link}
