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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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.
Can you please fix your bot to stop treating images tagged with the {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} template as fair-use images? (They belong to the Wikimedia Foundation.) I previously brought the issue to your attention in reference to a message left on my talk page when I updated a sister project icon used on the main page, but the bot just did this (over the course of seven consecutive messages) when I updated all of the sister project icons.
Please also remove my name from User:STBotI/Notified users (as all eight warnings stemmed from this bug).
When contacting him, you should include diffs or links to archives of your talk page for any warnings that STBotI has placed there. If he finds that the number listed here is incorrect, or that the bot has sent you a warning due to a bug, he will adjust this page accordingly.
You've included that advice since December. I went to the trouble of following the requested procedure, and you refuse to honor your end?
Please don't respond by removing that text and reiterating that I shouldn't care about your list. Just do what you promised the community. Thank you. —David Levy20:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community SHOULDN'T care. That page is long, and I don't feel like loading it. I also am not really in the best of moods to be dealing with whiny users, but I hereby and henceforth give you my permission and blessing to go do it yourself, granted that you agree to stop your strange stalker-esque fixation on that page and on my obviously lacking life. If you'd like to email me a shipping address, I'll have a contract written up, signed in blood, witnessed by an officer of the court, and shipped to you, authorizing you to edit that page. Just stop being petty and irritating over what shouldn't matter to you. ST47 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I'm behaving in a "stalker-esque" manner by following the procedure that you prescribe? I don't appreciate the above personal attacks.
Crap. You're actually right. I need to hack together a way to do it without loading that monstrosity in firefox though. ST47 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had figured that your continued persistence here wasn't due to any actual needs but rather due to your rather annoying desire to cause as much trouble for other users as you possibly can. A 0 on that page means zero. The bot has never warned you, according to that page. Rather than continue on your merry way like a user with a legitimate concern would, you need to continue making demands and imposing your will upon others. Please cease your trolling. In fact, please do the same as I asked Spitfire to do below. Stop leaving messages on this topic. Anything left here that continues to frustrate me will be ignored or removed. ST47 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This annoys me, I'm sure you've put effort into this, but I tag a page, copy the warning, go to the users page, click edit, paste the warning, and save, what do I find? The bot has already warned the user: sure maybe not a bad thing to have a bot doing this job for us.
But: I think this is a bad thing because, should the user want to ask someone for help about the tagging of "their" page (as they often do), where do they go? To the bots talkpage? here? But you've already told them NOT to come here, new users generally aren't experinced enough to know to check the page history to see who tagged it, and the bot just makes it hard to find a way to the talkpage of an actual user to help the creator, once the page is deleted, they can't. Cheers SpitfireTally-ho!21:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This "warning" system is very annoying. Before I can even place a warning on a user's page you've already gone and auto-posted one. This isn't your place to do so, so soon after the tag has been placed. Many (most?) users on Wikipedia are not script jockeys. They do not utilize tools that automate the process of posting comments when tagging an article for speedy deletion. I would kindly request that you cease and desist from this activity or else find a way to alter the behavior of your bot so that it does not interfere or step on the efforts of other users. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
can you visit this discussion and let us know where the opt-out is for users receiving messages, or for messages being left on behalf of users, or both? and if it's the former, is it possible for users to opt out of the latter? –xeno (talk)21:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to program the ability for users to opt-out of the bot's watchful eye, i.e. those users that are complaining that it has a tendency to preempt their more personal hand-written notes? –xeno (talk)22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone would like to submit a patch to CSDWarnBot.pl which will improve its page creator detection algorithm and add the ability to identify the user who added the tag, for opt-out purposes, then I would certainly commit that patch. I will provide links to the current versions of my scripts in an addendum to this message shortly, once I work out how to upload them. ST47 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if anyone actually is interested in this enough to go and code a patch, and this isn't (as I suspect it is) just a few users complaining about an isolated issue, then that person may also want to (in a separate patch, if possible) have the bot wait 15 minutes before leaving a message. The bot already only runs every 10-15 minutes, but that apparently isn't enough for some users. ST47 (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point right now in wasting my time trying to figure out how to do that, and cover edge cases, and deal with people who do stupid things. It's really not something I feel like doing. This is a wiki, though, and if someone would like to step up and make themselves useful, rather than just running about and being annoying, I'm willing to accept their work. I'll reply here, thank you, because it's one less idiotic noticeboard I need to keep track of. ST47 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you've quite finished throwing insults around, you may realise that as you are a bot owner, if a complaint comes up on the Bot owner's noticeboard about one of your bots, you have an obligation to respond, five users have agreed that it would be a good idea to put a delay (or make some other modifications) on the bot from the time that a page is tagged, rather then just doing 15 minutes scans. Please try and stay civil as you explain to me why you can't get on and fix your bot, instead of telling everyone else that its their problem and they should fix it, this is your bot, thus your problem, and thus you need to fix it. Thank you for your time SpitfireTally-ho!14:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is really simple fix, we both know it. If you are incapable or unwilling of writing a simple time check yourself, the bot needs to be stopped and somebody who can should run it. BJTalk20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't. I don't even know how my current craptastic history parsing works, but it's mostly trial and error that got it as far as it is. I hear that some people have issues with it talking to the wrong user, but I suspect that it's usually a case where there was a pagemove or someone forgot that they edited a page. Date parsing annoys me, and I really don't feel like bothering to go figure out how to do it again. Bot works fine as it is. If a user really intends to add their own message, all they need to do is replace the bot's message. ST47 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking note of them, and I am noting that they don't appear to have a valid point. Please stop leaving messages here, User:Spitfire, you're frustrating me. Future frustration will probably result in me ignoring or removing your messages. ST47 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To explain my G7 here, the author created an identical article at Nathowal (which I'm still trying to edit so that it doesn't look so terrible, but anyway), without actually moving it. Since I didn't consider that title to be a particularly plausible redirect or search term, I tagged it as G7. Then the user blanked the page and left a comment that he had "moved" it, but of course he didn't (new account). I can tag it with something else I guess, I just didn't think R3 was appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have just deleted a page I was working on, giving the reason "blatent advertising". I did not create the page, and was fully aware that someone had merely copied and pasted promotional text from the companies website, and, I was in the process of editing that page to fit within the guidelines. Had you looked you would have seen that the page was being worked on just a few hours before you deleted it. You should have left a message for me in the page discussion, rather than delete it. Please communicate with me, before deleting any pages I am working on. Please, undelete the page.Danrok (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm a little confused - it doesn't seem that either Tangotango's or SQL's RfA reports are back up - is there something I am missing as to what has superseded it? — neuro(talk)14:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was editing the SUPERSWEET entry after months of trying to figure out why it got deleted in the first place. Yesterday I began compiling references for it and doing research on the magazine. Unfortunately, you deleted it before i could complete the edits. Is there somewhere to store the page while I'm working on it? The original page was deleted and I was trying to make it better. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.7.142 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. If you create an account, you gain a number of benefits, including a 'userspace' - a part of the wiki dedicated to your rough drafts and personal notes. While anyone can read and improve this area, it's held to weaker standards than the actual encyclopedia, so you can work on your article there, and only make it an actual article when it's done. Once you've created an account, let me know so I can make a copy of the page you were working on, and I'll give you a link. Then, once you're done, you or any user can help you move it into the encyclopedia. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I thought I wasn't even supposed to be running that anymore. I've changed the category, and I've also improved the bot's ability to detect the first line of text. ST47 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at a new bot function that would post a "So you tagged an article for rescue" - type tag to those who added {{rescue}}. Is this a logical/do-able function of this bot or should I look to asking for one? -- Banjeboi01:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably wouldn't be a problem. I'll need to put this on hold for a bit though, as I don't have time to code it at this moment. ST47 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it appears I should have requested fully automatic mode for the trial for my bot. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/MandelBot. Thanks for approving it in manual mode. I have made changes to the request to reflect this change and as such it is not the request you approved, so I consider it unapproved and waiting someone's consideration. Is there some template I should put back on the page to indicate this? Thanks -J JMesserly (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, User:ARSBot adds articles tagged for rescue {{rescue}} to the talk page of WP:ARS, the problem is that these entries are never removed. For example, there are 86 articles listed now, but only 33 articles which actually have the template currently. Is there anyway the bot can also remove sections for a talk page when {{rescue}} is removed from the pages? Ikip (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have been manually removing items so "these entries are never removed" is mistaken. If the bot is to be utilized in this way then we have a subpage at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles subpage where removed from currently listed articles can be moved. They should not be deleted or auto-archived as this list is the only record we have of most of our work. -- Banjeboi02:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Barnstar is awarded to St47, for his brilliant technical work on wikipedia. Your work is a real asset to wikipedia, thank you. Ikip (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The set of artciles in Wikipedia was an idea from me. We have now translated the catalan article in several languages, among which english. Once thsia rtcile was done, we took teh decision to integrate the text of the artcile in the website of the association. so it is not a copyright infraction but the other way round !!!! In any case, we castellers de Vilafranca have the copyright of what we write in the artciel and the photos. I understand your concerns but I would like in teh future you consult us first before deleting the article. can you put back the article please ? Or let us know if you have any comments. Thanks in advance !
Hi ST47!
I have just seen that you have deleted the article about Castellers de Vilafranca. My name is Pere Sola Claver and I am member of the council of Intrernational relation fo this association. I can prove it by visiting this link : http://www.castellersdevilafranca.cat/index.asp?carpeta=presentacio&web=consells&tipus=htm&m=1 .
The set of artciles in Wikipedia was an idea from me. We have now translated the catalan article in several languages, among which english. Once thsia rtcile was done, we took teh decision to integrate the text of the artcile in the website of the association. so it is not a copyright infraction but the other way round !!!! In any case, we castellers de Vilafranca have the copyright of what we write in the artciel and the photos. I understand your concerns but I would like in teh future you consult us first before deleting the article. can you put back the article please ? Or let us know if you have any comments. Thanks in advance !
Hi, saw this edit on my watchlist and thought I should follow up. Robot-assisted disambiguation of "t-ball" to "tennis" is incorrect. As you can see at the disambiguation page, T Ball can mean three different things, and in this case, I assume it meant Tee Ball. I've never heard of t-ball meaning tennis and Australians don't play tetherball, so tee ball is the only logical disambiguation for the term in an Australian article. Thanks, Somno (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I received a message regarding copyrighted content http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BAS_logo.jpg
I've uploaded a file with a very similar file name, which is a completely different picture. The one your bot detected as infringing has nothing to do with my upload and it's a completely different image.
That message is from LAST YEAR. It was correct when the message was posted. The image has long since been deleted. ST47 (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you on IRC, but I don't think you were there. I'm not sure how it happened, but I thought I'd let you know about this edit, which was clearly in error. When checking the bot's contributions, I also noticed this double warn and this five times warn. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the first issue, but didn't tell you because I got caught up in trying to debug the other one. I believe I patched it, but I'm still looking to see if I got all the bugs out. ST47 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mnhs (talk·contribs), a representative of the Minnesota Historical Society, has been uploading images that the Society has copyrighted. They have been tagging these images with {{Non-free Minnesota Historical Society image}} and citing a fair-use rationale in each article for which they are uploading the images. Meanwhile, STBotI has been tagging these images and saying that they're potential copyright violations.
Looks like I wasn't expecting the copyright tag itself to take up more than one line. I've updated the tagging rule. ST47 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And released image tester version 0.2.6 with the updated code and a new test to make sure this bug doesn't come back. ST47 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please have User:BAGBotnot mark its edits as minor when leaving messages on user talk pages. When the bot flag is combined with the minor flag, it suppresses the nice orange bar. –xeno (talk)18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Um - are you looking for me to do something about that BRFA, or actually write a bot to perform that task? ST47 (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YOu gave me 10 points for my Featured Topic, but it should be 50 because the instructions clearly say "10 points per article in topic" and my topic has 5 articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the instructions clearly state that you should list each individual article in the topic, as well as the topic itself, to gain credit. The bot is, sadly, not sentient. ST47 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I never realized that we actually had instructions either. Some clever person must have read my mind and figured out what the bot expected, and actually written it down. ST47 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there.
Your bot sent me and did not have a license.
I forgot to add one, and was forced to add a license template to both of them to prevent those missing colors being deleted.
Toothy7465 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on User talk:128.252.121.153, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
G8: the only content is a speedy-deletion warning for a long-deleted page.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:User talk:128.252.121.153|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
Sorry, I dodn't mean for it to be spam, I have just sent this message to lots of people before, adding and subtracting and revising it and I don't really care about all the dates there, but apparently you do. You are the first user (other than me) to suggest it was spam. once I apologised to a user in advance if it was spam, and he said don't worry bout it Sorry! --RayqayzaDialgaWeird221023:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Looks like I was a little overzealous with the } key! I'll go check it out on my laptop and see where the issue is. ST47 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not interested, do you know any tech savy editors who would be able to reinvent the wheel and create a bot which contacts the creator of an Afd? I say "reinvent the wheel" because one editor already created this bot and had it approved already:
1. First off, we have it so when the {{rescue}} tag is removed from an item it is moved from the current article page to the subpage. Sadly there continues to be some edit warring resulting in multiple removing and relisting the XfD discussion. As a solution can we make it so this listing is moved to the subpage when the XfD discussion is closed/archived instead - I think this will lessen the disruption overall.
2. Secondly, tagged items are presented in the order they have the rescue tag added to them. Instead I think it would be more helpful to list them chronologically by the date they are sent to XfD. In theory this would move items that have less time before the close of discussion towards the top of the list. Obviously this won't be foolproof as not every discussion is exactly seven days but in general I think this will help pre-organize some of the work. We would then add a subsection for each date and sort each listing under the XfD created date. It may make sense to add a line of text for each listing - Nominated for deletion discussion May 5, 2009. or similar.
[1] could have a more descriptive edit summary. If not too time consuming, could you add a clarification like "Adding or removing one or more recently listed articles - Added 0 Removed 2?" I hate to beg work that I could probably do myself, and feel free to say "no, too hard," but it would be really useful. Thanks for any efforts! If you don't have the time, is the source available, and I could just send you a patch? Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could come into the WikiCup channel tonight or tomorrow, I'd like to update you with WikiCup information for round 3. iMatthew : Chat 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason your bot has given everyone a bunch of featured credits and other funnies, and may have removed Mitchazenia from Pool A. Please could you try to remedy this, thanks! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I wanted to submit a message because I needed help with something. According to the deletion log on the page "The Angola Horror", it mentions you deleted it due to a copyvio. I'm interested in doing a new article on the wreck (if this is what the previous article was), and I wished to know, if it isn't too much trouble: what got the article canned and what source(s) were involved in the copyvio? Thanks! Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ST47, thank you for your interest in helping users creating accounts. Your request has been approved. I advise you to read WP:ACCG before you use the system.
At this time, you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day. You won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user. However, if you have reached the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:RPE.
Please take a look at WP:NAMESORT, particularly the sub-section WP:MCSTJR, particularly "accented letters and ligatures should be replaced by their unaccented or separated counterparts".
Also, disambiguation terms (such as "SPD") are normally omitted from sort keys. In particular, in biographies, putting a disambiguation term after the family name causes a disruptive mis-sorting. Studerby (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I wasn't aware of the issues with disambiguation terms - there was one word I was told to ignore, because it was merely a rank, however I wasn't aware of anything else, however I only added, not changed defaultsort keys, so nothing that was working is now broken. I couldn't find a simple way to remove the diacritics. ST47 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ST47, can you do the last and final round 3 update at 23:59 (UTC) tonight. The round is over today. Next time your around on IRC (within the next two days) I'll let you know what's going on during round 4. iMatthewtalk at 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Pwn article still locked after two years? I had intended to add the following
There also an alternative form "own", derived from the original lineage of the word<ref name=omgpwned>
[http://www.omgpwned.net/history.php]</ref>. The internet mockumentary series [[Pure Pwnage]]
([http://www.purepwnage.com/ site]), is notable for using this pronunciation.
as I felt it was worthy of mention considering the increasing usage of the word. It is finding its way increasingly into the spoken word.
I'll add on a general note that it's very frustrating to find such forgotten locks still in place years after their implementation. This may seem a trivial article, but I have found it on many important ones as well. It would be nice for locks to have a sunset clause of some description.
ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about the scoring system in the Wikipedia:WikiCup. Is it a bot that does it? Can the bot be used to score another contest? I'm thinking of setting one up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation to promote participation and camaraderie. Would I have to set it up exactly like the WikiCup or can I request a few differences? Thanks for any help you can give. - TrevorMacInniscontribs03:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's bot-run. All that is really necessary is that you decide how to score it, and I then write up a bot configuration for that. I am however going to be quite busy and not necessarily in the possession of internet access for the next few days owing to a college move-in, but I will look at this when I get a chance. ST47 (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. The scoring is very similar to the WikiCup. DYK, ITN, GAN, FAC and other Featured Content (minus Feature Portal) are exactly the same. I've not added mainspace edits because without a bot it would be too difficult to score by hand, but if your bot was to score it, it would be the same as WikiCup, except the only edits to count would be those on pages in the Aviation Projects Scope, i.e. talk page tagged with {{WPAVIATION}}. I've also added points for creating an article (so 5 points for creating an article and putting {{WPAVIATION}} on its talk page). Also .1 points for assessing an article (changing |class= to |class=anything ) and .1 points for completing the B-Class checklist in the {{WPAVIATION}} banner. If the last two are too difficult to code I'd be fine with dropping them. The contest page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Contest#Scoring if you want to take a look. It's all set up just like WikiCup, with submissions pages and scorecard all set up the same way. Thanks again, for any help you can give. - TrevorMacInniscontribs22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your user pages have been edited by anonymous User:210.5.53.22. I'm the owner of a server with static IP address 210.5.53.22, but I'm not sure how this IP address has been attributed to these edits. Please let me know if there is any further way I can help. Kiwipete (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to create a page on SPX Corporation but see that one had been previously created and deleted. How do I ensure I don't duplicate that article or the problems it had that caused it to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceebs59 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Fixed ST47 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Won't fix ST47 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
