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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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
EBot
Hi there! E(tc)'s page says you're handling his bots while he's away. I'm cleaning up WP:ABUSE, and I noticed that there's some error in what EBot posts to the Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Actioned page. Could you take a look at it, and let me know if it's something I'm doing wrong with the template, or if it's the bot? Thanks! --Darkwind (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry, wasn't watching this page) Hmm, it's never caused a problem before. My raw sig is a template (--{{subst:user0|Darkwind}}) 'cause I was lazy when I set it up. I didn't know it caused parsing problems for bots. --Darkwind (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the page, there are about three dozon entries saying "Rejected Wikipedia:Abuse reports/<ip> was rejected by [[User:{{{User|{{{User]] on ''<date and time>''" all inserted by EBot. The garbage I was referring to was the "[[User:{{{User|{{{User]]". I am sorry I was not clear. --Jjamison20:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ST47! I wrote an article on UK indie label Alex Tronic Records recently, but it was deleted with the reasons (spam, notability) given. I ensured that the notability of the article was verified throughout, e.g. including links and notes to major uk published magazines mentioning and backing up the quotes used. This was not intended as a spam article in any way. Please can you undelete the article and highlight what changes are necessary, I'll be happy to fix the article. The url for the record company is on www.alextronicrecords.co.uk if you need to check anything. Thanks! Whodis715:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the languages I could judge (English, French, Spanish, Italien, Dutch, Swedish) were all wrong. If your link is only based on other links, it is likely to be wrong. I'll remove it (which in my opiniom would actually be your job). Best regards --172.176.113.4620:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC) (i. e. de:Benutzer:Marinebanker)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is appropriate by Wikipedia standards, but you might want to protect the Afd debate page now that it's finished. Tweety21 (who goes by various IP aliases) has a long history of vandalizing anything that he/she disagrees with. Just a thought. Thanks. Ward300120:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a need to delete the talk page, WP:CSD G8.
If we must votecount, there are 13 to delete, and 7 to keep, with significant support for salting. However, AfD isn't a vote. There were a few users on the keep side who had no rationale (johnbod, sfacets) and hornplease's extensive research to delete was rather compelling, along with the high and increasing proportion of users with arguments to delete near the end. Please do re-delete the talk page, per CSD. --ST47Talk·Desk20:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pending the DVR, I have restored the talk page so that discussions there can be taken into account as the talk page was mentioned in the AfD. Hope you would agree that this is needed. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)20:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have requested two blank pages for speedy deletion. The one, in fact, is a talk page of a redirection article. Why you didn't delete them and just blanked the pages again? -- Magioladitis20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, we don't delete blank talk pages just because they are blank: There's not much point as long as a page is associated with it, they may be used. --ST47Talk·Desk20:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Melon (slang) deletion
Hello, I was just wondering... I created only the slang disambiguation aspect. All that text was previously MISSplaced on the Melon (fruit) page, where it definitely DID NOT belong :O. So I simply moved it to it's own page... I didn't write that content, so I can not vouch for it's validity, but still I can imagine it does deserve a slang context...?--Tallard21:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this was a very good decision (disambiguation or redirect would have been possible too) because there are no reliable sources for this supposedly scholarly phrase. Andries22:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archdiocese of Miami
In the interest of giving Wikipedia a chance to abide by its own policies, I have removed my threat to send this issue to the Catholic League. Please consider that there are millions of parishioners like me living in the Archdiocese of Miami who feel the same way and they are not Wikipedia editors who will be banned if they report this obvious violation of Wikipolicy that causes real harm to real, innocent priests and children.NancyHeise19:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unwanted attention!
You appear to be receiving it! Both Commons and Meta pages were vandalised today - let me know if you want any form of page protection on either - cheers --Herbytalk thyme12:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm asking this as you're someone I recognise who is on the WP:ABUSE page. The page there says don't report unless an IP has been blocked 5 times. However, this particular miscreant is proudly exclaiming that he can't be caught as he's on dynamic IP and can change his IP at will. The result is that no single IP address has been blocked 5 times. However, as you and I know, he *is* trackable as he'll be logged in to his ISP. I'm going to start gathering the evidence anyway, but would appreciate knowing what to do with it once I have it. — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)16:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used a cool tool called a rangeblock to get all of them with one hit - it would be useless to post messages to all of them, so we rely on the block summary. --ST47Talk·Desk21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bon, but after 1 month the block is released and on the next incident there is no info about the block on the ip page ? so, first question, how long did you block ? Mion22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you put a Commons image on the Main Page, you need to make sure it is protected, either by uploading it here and allowing cascading protection to protect it, or by asking for protection at Commons. Image:Mozart drawing Doris Stock 1789.jpg was unprotected when you put it on the Main Page. --- RockMFR19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cascading protection is enabled on the main page. But cascading protection does not work across projects. It is possible for someone to vandalize the image at Commons unless the image is either uploaded here or the image is protected at Commons. This sort of vandalism actually happened at Image:Shinzo Abe, 2007Apr27.jpg a few days ago. --- RockMFR22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ST47, I have protected your userpage (and if the vandal does not stop soon, I will have to do the same with your user talk page. You seem to have an IP-rotating 'fan' ... --Dirk BeetstraTC08:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing regarding this bot RfA which you approved. User:BetacommandBot has been continuously tagging images for deletion which have fair use rationales but do not contain links to articles in which they are used.
The issue has been brought to WP:ANhere. The bot has been blocked and unblocked, and the issue is rather heated. Please comment on whether the behavior was within the scope of your approval (or more generally whether it is appropriate by your judgment).
Hello. Because you update / maintain WP:ADMINSTATS, I was wondering if you had any type of magic that would be able to updated Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Currently, the system used involves downloading the enormous enwiki-stub-meta-history file and using Perl to pull out the appropriate data, though there must be a better way. Would you be able / willing to update the list? Cheers. --MZMcBride19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is very likely to take longer than ADMINSTATS, but should be a trivial modification. Actually, I got a list of the top 2000 wikipedians for Betacommand last week. I'll test it out now, and see if I can update that list. --ST47Talk·Desk20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay. You responded so quickly I didn't even think to check your talk page again until just now. The cut-off is usually 5000 edits, though if you think that the list will be too long, you can raise it to something higher, maybe 6500 edits. Also, as a side note, you may just want to dump the results into a subpage and not edit the actual page, as its gotten kind of political recently with some people wanting to opt-out and all bots have to be removed. Just a heads-up. Thanks for doing this! --MZMcBride22:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, the guy is obviously jumping from IP to IP. Could you perhaps lower the block lengths to avoid excessive collateral damage for anyone that inherits the IPs? EVula// talk // ☯ //18:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I generate the list through a direct database query, something most users cannot do, as it requires toolserver access. I will update the instructions to reflect this. --ST47Talk·Desk22:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unicode and bot malfunctions
Since STBotI is persisting in creating image description pages at nonsense titles whenever it encounters a non-ASCII image name, I've modified OrphanBot to notify you whenever it finds one of them. --Carnildo19:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to...
In response to your message on my talkpage, fair point, however, I only reverted his page twice, what he is doing, is deleting my comments, and when I make a reply, calling them reverts, and threatening me with a block, what is your opinion on this? Meateater10:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, you shouldn't have reverted his page at all. His removal of comments means that he has seen them, I suggest you stop harassing him via his talk page by restoring those comments. --ST47Talk·Desk10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PROD, I am entitled to make a reasonable request for the restoration of any material deleted without due process. I now ask you to restore Evil lair, a universally known concept and a basic shtick of several kinds of fiction, into my userspace with full page history so that I may review the reasons behind the proposal and examine the article for salvageable content, per our policies and guidelines for inclusion.
Ahoy. As you know, a small amount of us admins have been opting out from varying WP namespace statistical lists. (For instance, I have removed myself from WP:LA and WP:WBE). Would you be willing to accept requests to opt out of your administrative statistical reports? By no means am I saying "zomg remove me or else!," I'm just wondering if you were open to opt-out requests... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>07:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I hope you don't mind, but I unblocked the user and instead suggested to them that they see WP:NAMECHANGE, as the guidelines at WP:IU are a tad vague and leave exceptions for long user names, and the growing consensus seemed to be that it would be best not upset the user so that he runs away :). Cowman109Talk22:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to help him for a while. He wants to include his telecom company. It clearly isn't notable, but he has trouble understanding the rules. I feel that he could potentially be a good editor, if he knew what he was doing. Want to try and help him? ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to set a number, because that's simply inviting WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you can leave a neutral message on one article talk page, do so, but it's a bad idea to try to 'recruit' editors for your cause, as someone's gotten in trouble for that recently. --ST47Talk·Desk00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please talk to User:Dbachmann? For the second time he has reverted many of my recent edits, without any justification. The info I have provided is all sourced, and is from major or well known scholars, I don't understand what he finds wrong with them for him to be acting this way. Please look into this, I really think we need a neutral user to step in and look at the facts.--Moosh8806:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Major scholars such as Colin Renfrew, Thomas Gamkrelidze, and Vyacheslav Ivanov support what I had posted, are they to be considered "Armenian nationalists"? It is in fact dab who is pushing his views, I have scholars to back up my claims, who does he have?--Moosh8818:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked a Tor node that I recently started, which is perfectly fine and must be the case for Wikipedia to survive. However, I also use this machine for tunneling HTTP traffic at times and would like to be able to edit Wikipedia myself. I was under the impression that one could edit via Tor (or, a Tor IP) if they were logged in (Editing_with_Tor), but even though I log in, I am unable to edit. Can you enlighten me?
--dinomite16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tor nodes, like any other open proxies, are hard-blocked to prevent vandals from using their own IP to create accounts, then anonymous Tor proxies to avoid an autoblock. If you would like to edit from a computer that hosts a Tor proxy, you should either set the proxy to not allow exits to ports 80 or 443, or not allow any exiting. (The former can be done with your exit policy.) If you take any of these steps, please contact me, or use the {{unblock}} template to contact another administrator, and your IP can be unblocked. --ST47Talk·Desk18:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did the former and disallowed port 80 and 443 exit from the Tor node in question. Would you be so kind as to unblock it? Another thought, is there a list of IP addresses for Wikipedia HTTP servers, so that I could block access to them only, rather than blocking all 80 and 443 traffic? --dinomite18:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ST47. Just curious, why did you delete Moosh88's (or 98, don't remember for sure) message from my talk page? I don't mind, I was just wondering if you know something I don't. Thanks.--TigranTheGreat22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it was spamming, however, It was not "hugely POV", I was and still am looking for help with editors I had mentioned. If you are going to get involved in this, please stay neutral.--Moosh8818:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coat of Arms
DO NOT DELETE THE COAT OF ARMS OF MY HOMETOWN EISENACH AGAIN!
GERMAN COATS OF ARMS ARE ITSELF IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, IT IS MY LEGAL RIGHT TO SHOW IT. See below for the legal situation. Have it translated by somebody, if you do not understand German.
From de: WappensatzungZitieren des Wappens: Ohne eine Genehmigung durch die Gemeinde und damit auch nicht durch eine Satzung schützbar besteht das Recht, ein Wappen zu zitieren. Ein darüber hinaus gehendes Gebrauchmachen im Sinne des § 12 BGB ist nur dann gegeben, wenn durch die Verwendung des Wappens im Verkehr der Eindruck entsteht, der Wappenträger habe dem Benutzer ein Recht zur entsprechenden Verwendung gegeben. Ein solcher Fall liegt etwa dann vor, wenn das Wappen zur Ausstattung von Waren oder sonst zur geschäftlichen Kennzeichnung benutzt wird (vgl. dazu Palandt § 12 BGB Rn. 38 zu § 12 BGB und BGHZ 119 a.a.O.: Verwendung des Siegels der Universität (...) auf T-Shirts). Ansätze von Gemeinden, die Nutzung von Wappen für heraldisch-wissenschaftliche Zwecke von einer Genehmigung abhängig zu machen, sind rechtswidrig, da sie ohne eine entsprechende Rechtsgrundlage in das Grundrecht auf Meinungsfreiheit, die freie Berichterstattung und die (historische) Forschung (Art. 5 GG) eingreifen. Regelungen in kommunalen Wappensatzungen, nach denen für die illustrierende, zitierende oder rein abbildende Verwendung des Stadtwappens eine Genehmigung gefordert wird, sind wegen des Grundrechtseingriffs unwirksam und müssen nicht beachtet werden.Kraxler03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? (Note please that this is en.wikipedia, best to speak english, it's your job to communicate properly.) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs10:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a large number of people spoke for deletion that it was clear that keeping it in place didn't have consensus. I closed the TFD discussion and moved the template to User:ST47/Deletable_image2. The redirect should be deleted, but I'm going to leave it to make sure you have a chance to update your bot script. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, give me a few moments so I can undo the changes that the community demanded last month in favor of the changes they demand this month. --ST47Talk·Desk17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break, or at least two minutes!
Your bot is so damn fast, it preceded my addition of a {{db-author}} tag. Furthermore, fair use rationale was given in text, so it's also malfunctioning. I just don't want a copy with Amazons' damn look inside arrow and will have to find another cover image for Patriots Reign. Suggest you fix your bot to exclude book covers, this is ludicrous waste of our time. // FrankB03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. What? There's no rationale here, and I don't see why I should ignore books, unless it's because you want to take the easy way and violate copyright law. --ST47Talk·Desk10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete this page? Your summary says "Temporary page, too old", what do you mean by it being temporary? I am complaining because this user is now inserting images which have copyright issues on the Icelandic wikipedia and I wanted to be able to link to the discussion on his English talk page. Can you undelete it. Stefán17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how this might be appropriate for pages of users with one or zero edits but this guy has been around for a while so it seems strange that the administrator who blocked him at one point placed his user page in that category. Anyway, thanks for restoring it. Note, I removed the category so it won't get deleted again. If that was not appropriate please let me know. Stefán19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Newky
Erm... did u just happen to be the one who Banned this User aswell? if not do you know who did? cos he was banned after a Sockpuppeteer said hello to him. Turns out the Sockpuppeteer and Newky are 2 different people cos i saw this "Newky" create his account on a School computer, meaning that it would be unlikely for him to be the Sockpuppereer as there are 30 Wiipedians in my school.OsirisV19:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to thank you! I have applied all possible and relevant copyright and fair use image tags. I think this will satisfy anyone who is concerned with copyright infringement. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk02:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bot
I'm italian wiki user. In it.wiki the users are welcome by bot. I thinked in en.wiki, too.
Now I'm looking for other task.--Kaspo20:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wondering what I'm supposed to do regarding your notice here? I uploaded this screen shot of the True.Origin website front page which I'm going to use on the article I'm creating for True.Origin. It's just like the screen shot at Image:Talk_origins_archive_front_page.jpg. That image seems to be OK, what do I need to do to make this one OK? Thanks for your help! --profg02:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, commendations for reminding me about this issue. I was practically worried that I had used the wrong license and that the image would have been deleted. --DannyDaWriter00:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the above person. Not only were they uploading unsoured images but inserting large amounts of copyright material. See history for the Downtown San Bernardino article. I can't find anything online for the rest but of course I suspect it is. I checked through their contributions and deleted a couple of copyvio items and removed some other material. I hate copyright violations because you wast so much time chasing down the original material. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got yer bot message. This image (an official portrait) by a DOD employee would seem to be in the public domain. What is the problem with a DOD image? I understand that some government agencies employ civilian photographers or print them in published works, but a group portrait of the Secretary of Defense and his staff? I don't think so. RM Gillespie17:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my case, when the {attribution} parameters specify a Wikipedian as the copyright holder, that ought to be sufficient. In other words, it is the same as -self copyright claim. However, more generally, I have my doubts about a bot being able to process this. A source statement might be reduced to a simple noun phrase, e.g. "Disney movie poster", "Yoplait website", etc., and most of the variations couldn't possibly be recognizable by a bot, which is one of the reasons I am concerned about your bot trying to do this kind of work, which it does not seem to have been approved for. All I could gather from the ones it tagged was that it liked long descriptions and disliked short ones. Dragons flight14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I do a lot of uploading of university and college logos, and I've found that whenever I upload such an image with the {{logo fur}} template included, your bot invariably tags the image with the "no FUR" stuff. Is there a way to get the bot to recognize the aforementioned template as a valid FUR? Thanks! Esrever02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a bot operated by you suggests that there is a copyright or source problem with this image. The image is dated 1898, made in the U.S. before 1923. The source is provided, and a description. Please let me know what additional information you require on my talk page. Thanks. CApitol302:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, any idea why your 'bot sent a message regarding a copyright or source problem? Please reply here on your talk page. CApitol312:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, ST47... I've been working WP:ACC a lot lately, and, I noticed, that this month, AccReqBot hasn't been keeping up with the Completed Requests for October... In fact, the header template for those requests, does not even list October! :) Thanks! SQL(Query Me!)09:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Your bot, User:STBotI, seems to be tagging images for lack of sources. Is the bot account doing this unsupervised using an algorithm, or are you (the human) checking the image page for sources? There is a related discussion going on here (bottom of that section). If you could add something there, that might be good. Carcharoth10:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user that used to be Rambutan has contacted me about your overturning the deletion of User talk:Rambutan. As I understand it, if this user does not want any connection between their two accounts, then he is entitled to remove the links. As the page was moved, anyone who had edited the user talk page would now see that in their history as an edit of the moved page. If anyone gets curious then they can search the user rename log; there is also an entry in the block log which notes the connection, so the user is not able to hide their block history. I often see user talk pages put up for speedy deletion, and I remove the speedy tag from them; however this one is an exception. Do you object to my deleting the page? Sam Blacketer18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't know how to prevent this Image from deletion. I am a CoCreate emplayee and the image is free-to-use. Please explain to me how to proceed. --Cad-freak09:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You only need to add one thing, an explanation of why the logo is useful - there are guidelines for that here, and when I get back, later today, I can help you out :) Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs10:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page creation
Your bot made the following pages for images that don't exist:
I received a notice about a JVF Radio redirect I created that was going to be deleted. I created that redirect diring the JVF Clique AfD in anticipation that the deleting admin would delete the redirect also, citing the AfD so that the JVF Clique would not be recreated as JVF Radio. To make a long story short, I really did not need a notice about the deletion, but it was nice to receive notice. Anyway, very good, thoughtful bot. Keep up the good work. -- Jreferee t/c22:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was wondering if this edit/notification by your bot is some kind of bug. Presumably notification is supposed to go out to the creators of articles proposed for deletion..? If that is the case, I don't recall ever having created the article. However, the article has already been deleted and so there is no way of knowing, unless one is an administrator. Cheers. --Mal17:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I suspect that HBC AIV helperbot4 may have accidentally removed an entry from Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. However, I am not sure of this. Here is the edit. It appears as if the bot intended to remove Jesse1616 but inadvertently removed an addition entry for 66.76.71.254. But, again I am not sure whether the second entry might have been tagged for removal. --Ben James Ben01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. For the record, here's the output from around that time:
[2007-10-17 00:38:41 UTC] Fetching special IP list...
[2007-10-17 00:38:42 UTC] Done, will check again in 10 minutes.
[2007-10-17 00:39:20 UTC] rm 'Jesse1616': Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
[2007-10-17 00:46:54 UTC] Fetching instructions...
[2007-10-17 00:46:54 UTC] Done, will check again in 30 minutes.
[2007-10-17 00:48:43 UTC] Fetching special IP list...
[2007-10-17 00:48:43 UTC] Done, will check again in 10 minutes.
[2007-10-17 00:58:44 UTC] Fetching special IP list...
[2007-10-17 00:58:44 UTC] Done, will check again in 10 minutes.
[2007-10-17 01:03:58 UTC] 72.10.107.101 matched 72.10.107.101, marked as: User is in the categories: [[:Category:Shared IP addresses|Shared IP
addresses]], [[:Category:Shared IP addresses from educational institutions|Shared IP addresses from educational institutions]].
[2007-10-17 01:06:01 UTC] rm '222.154.226.165': Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
[2007-10-17 01:07:44 UTC] rm 'Turdmuncher': Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
It looks like it could have been an edit conflict, as you would get with any other editor. It seems to be isolated, but I'll ask one of the devs about it if it continues to be a problem. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, looks like an edit conflict to me (I just happened to see this post when I was checking my watchlist). I just checked out the exact same entries that were on the page at the time in my sandbox, and my instance of the bot correctly removed only the one entry. Looking at the timestamps in the history, I'd guess that helperbot4 loaded the page before 66.76.71.254 was added, then saved with the other entry removed, wiping out the intermediate edit, as you said. The bots won't ever remove two entries at once (unless they're merging, say, 3 entries for the same user/IP into 1). I think this is the first time I've actually seen it EC in this particular fashion, so that seems pretty good to me :) —Krellis (Talk) 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made a mistake removing a WP:UAA report here (I got caught cutting and pasting). When I went to clean up my mistake, HBC AIV helperbot4 had cleaned up the mess for me, but left a rather unusual edit summary. Looking over the source code, I think the problem is with check_page() in that $user (or more specifically $2) is not checked being an empty string. The regular expression used
m/(vandal|userlinks)\|\s*(.*?)\s*\}\}/i
could result in $2 being an empty string. The empty string is passed to check_user() which fetchs the block log URL with an empty parameter like so:
which gets you the entire Block Log, picking up the wrong admin who did the block. Anyways, quirky little bug that I thought you might want to know about. -- Gogo Dodo05:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! It seems that one of the developers is stalking me watching my talk page, so I'm sure he can weigh in, but all we really have to do is check whether $2 is empty, and if so, act accordingly, simply removing it rather than checking the block log. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs10:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page creation
Your bot made the following pages for images that don't exist:
Since you expressed interest in being a participant in WikiProject Closed Proxies, I'm notifying you that I have created the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies. We're currently in closed beta; during this time, we'll bring several proxies online and ensure everything is working before accepting applicants.
Thank you for the limited information. Unfortunately, as I have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, nor time to fix it right now, I must direct you to the bug tracker, at [5]. There are instructions at the top of this page. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs10:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bot approved?
How did a bot (Computer) that wants to change jpg to svg get speedy approval? I had several links on my userpage changed, most of them so small that there's no noticeble difference in quality; no one would want to print them at high resolution anyway. So what is the point? All it does, is making the image harder to edit, totally contrary to the general wiki-sentiment of open editability. I'm trying to keep my cool, but needless 'fixes' like that really get me worked up. - Mgm|(talk)07:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SVGs are significantly easier to edit, they can even be changed in a text editor. It is standard practice to change simple JPG or PNG images, like diagrams or flags, to SVG. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs10:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't account for the editing of cartoon images and CC logos. Neither qualify as "simple images". As for them being easier to edit, we'll have to disagree. I can open them with notepad, but without a visual representation, I have no idea how to make certain alterations. It looks more like a programming language than something easy. With MS Paint unable to open such images, at the very least such image pages should inform people unfamiliar with the format how they can open the image for editing. - Mgm|(talk)11:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this was a disambiguation page to distinguish between two (2) separate Elm Islands!!! Now I'll have a lot of work to find those two!!! Thanks for nothing. cheers, Peter Horn18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter that there were no articles yet, sooner or later some one would fill one of the gaps (empty links) and possibly create (a) nonsensical link(s) of the kind of which I found so many. So,
Protected scripts spam
Could you please stop spamming my talk page with these messages? I guess you're using some kind of a bot. I really think you should've made it to consolidate all the warnings into just one, with the included list of protected scripts.Thank you ∴ AlexSm00:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the security problem of unprotected user scripts. Could you change the protection in the various scripts not to cascade, though? Cascading protection may cause unexpected problems when not needed (especially in scripts, where templates may be included by mistake and not affect the display). Thanks. – rotemliss – Talk08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
National Restaurant Association?
I keep getting odd messages from this bot when I upload pictures, saying:
National Restaurant Association logo. This logo may not be used to indicate a National Restaurant Association enorsement or recommendation unless explicity expressed by National Restaurant Association representatives. For questions on the use of this logo, please e-mail media@dineout.org. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This is really odd, as I'm uploading pictures of footballers, which has nothing to do with some "National Restaurant Association"... please sort it out, I do not want to/think it's fair that, I will be blocked from uploading. Andre66615:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Wasn't sure what the procedure was, so I just posted the google search jscript to be helpful. Let me know if there are any other issues!
![19:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47/Archive8#c-KF-2007-09-16T19:22:00.000Z-"Thank_you_for_uploading_Image:Gräf&Stift_DD-2FU.JPG."){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
