User talk:ST47/Archive6

Just don't go ahead and add it until you're ready, and make sure the dates are accurate.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ST47_5#General_comments ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Blair signature.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

AccReqBot has stopped operating. Hopefully that doesn't come as a surprise to you!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! I've been looking for a few weird bugs, and I think it's working, running now. --ST47Talk 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see anonymous edits at WP:ACC... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it got a captcha. --ST47Talk 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's running on my machine now instead of toolserv, because toolserv is broken, but I think we know what the problem is, the content is coming back compressed. I'll let you know if someone fixes it. --ST47Talk 11:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. I was just keeping you up to date in case you hadn't noticed. (Bot owners often don't notice changes in their bot's status. I'm a professional developer myself so I understand how that can happen! ) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, it works. --ST47Talk 11:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, The article about the Aztec theatre does not seem to be on line yet. Is that normal ? Thanks a lot Kind regards

71.42.159.19 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)charou[reply]

Yep. It is online, ant it's probably accessible from a google search, however our search engine won't register new articles until it's updated, which happens pnce in a while, probably weekly, but I can't be sure. What you can do is choose some related articles that talk about your subject, edit them, and put a Aztec on the River somewhere. This will allow visitors to see that your article exists. --ST47Talk 01:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I respond to an editor and I'm accused of "attacking" them? You guys really are fascists, aren't you? THERE IS NO INHERENT TRUTH.

You called him a fascist. That's well within our personal attack policy.

I don't see anything pejorative in calling a fascist a fascist.

00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I've registered the page under the name Aztec on the River

The official name is Aztec On The River with capital letters I cannot manage to edit the title of the page Would you be so kind to do so ? Thank you very much Kind regards

66.64.4.169 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)charou[reply]

I've corrected it, you can now access the page from Aztec On The River. --ST47Talk 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the proposal. You said "If that isn't clear enough, change it, but leave a message is just taking up space." But there are several other proposals there that take up less space, like "New comment". You are opposed to all of those? — Omegatron 12:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am. I don't see anything broken with the '+'. --ST47Talk 12:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several other people said it wasn't clear to them. Have you asked non-Wikipedian friends if they can figure out how to leave a comment if they see an error in an article? I've asked several of mine, and they weren't even aware they could edit the article without logging in.  :-) I think our interface needs some serious revamping to continue attracting contributions from passers-by. — Omegatron 12:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tooltip, right? Add a comment to this discussion. Anyway, we have help pages, don't we? If it isn't clear enough, then a comment should be there, or in WP:EDIT, or something. --ST47Talk 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure it out. Sorry for the trouble! ZapBoy ^{(contribs) (sign here)} 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request was a little vague, but initial approvals are active, additional question has been added as well. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/STBot 9. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy approved for one time run @10epm Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/STBot 9. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've set the timer and it should be running! --ST47Talk 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot seems to be running awfuly fast (>30edits/min) are your tasks so time sensistive this is required? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which bot? Certainly not STBotD, and the other two should only edit when needed? --ST47Talk 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relooking at the dates it was a few weeks ago. It was Special:Contributions/STBot on (2007-06-22T20:32:xx) 34 edits were made that min. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahha! I never meant to leave it running that long, I really only wanted 2 edits for the BRFA - I should have put a throttle in. It's since been throttled and is awaiting approval. --ST47Talk 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, figured it was something like that, which BRFA is awaiting review for that task? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be #8. --ST47Talk 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - About Wikipedia:Bot requests#Broken talk pages, I noticed STBot started fixing them, but then stopped (after two). Are you simply still testing it or did you get distracted by something or what? There's really no big hurry or anything - just curious. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was only a demonstration, I'm waiting for approval (link is two topics above this). --ST47Talk 21:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved and running 8-9 e/m. Worst-case is 5 hours for the ones we know are bad, and another 3 for the possibles. --ST47Talk 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry (noticed you were waiting for an approval after I asked). You do realize the "possibly broken" ones might or might not still be broken (sampling some by hand, most of them seem to still have the problem)? I'm curious how your code might handle this. Are you looking for a specific pattern and editing only if the pattern is present? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot would simply see that the find/replace had made no changes and would not save the page. --ST47Talk 22:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Android Mouse Bot req3. I don't mean to sound impatient, but it's noncontroversial and hasn't recieved a BAG response for about a week. Also goodluck on your RFA, looks like it will close successfully. --Android Mouse 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be getting a little behind :( Sorry for the delay, go ahead and do a trial. Thanks, --ST47Talk 13:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the quick response. --Android Mouse 13:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot did it again, for at least the sixth time: [1].

Please, please, please, do something to fix this bot of yours (and the others, i.e. the whole interwiki.py gang). This must be stopped. Please also see my recent posting to the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard, which was the third posting of mine to a relevant board to which I have had no response at all from any of the bot owners. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it added it again, something's wrong with the bot. I'm going to see if I can put in some sort of override, and until then, I'll disable the bot. --ST47Talk 10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help. As I said on the noticeboard, the solution that would probably be easiest to implement and most transparent for editors to handle would be if it just checked if the link is already in the page text but commented out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ST47, thanks for approving SkyBot 1 for a trial run. However, it may be a little while before I actually get the time, what with my limited time here (schools back), to do the trial run. I hope this is ok. Also, being entirely honest, I'm still trying to make myself understand WP:AWB/CFD - I have followed the file path to Pugins, but I cannot find the Recategorise per CFD 'main menu item'. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a CFD.dll in the /Plugins folder, and you need to copy that into the same folder as the .exe. Don't worry about the delay, we realize that people have lives, and good luck - ask if you need help. --ST47Talk 10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know exactly what you are talking about. I should be right on my way now, ready for trial tomorrow. And many, many congratulations on your sysopship. (I actually, considering the way you handled yourself, thought you already were an admin) Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on becoming a sysop. I've sent you an e-mail. Sean William @ 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. Thanks, --ST47Talk·Desk 19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider undoing your recent deletion of User talk:Cool Cat/Archive 2005/08 and User talk:Cool Cat/Archive 2005/09, because these pages are subject of ongoing controversy on WP:ANI (see relevant thread). Despite White Cat's claim, "speedy deletion" of these pages is a controversial issue, because the deletion break a lot of links from talk pages. Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, disagreement over whether a page is speedily deletable is traditionally discussed on such forums as WP:MFD. I suggest that if White Cat wants them deleted, he take the issue there. >Radiant< 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It breaks links from 2 talk pages, and one of them is mine. CSD states that some subpages are needed for 'administrative purposes', which I think means to retain vandalism warnings and and relevant history, but there's no need to keep these pages against the user's will, so I am going to go for deletion without strong evidence that the pages should stay - why do we need these redirects? --ST47Talk·Desk 13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We appear to need them primarily because their absence has caused repetitive drama on the admin noticeboard. I don't really know the background of this issue but am trying to minimize drama here. >Radiant< 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was I correct on tagging the articles created by User:Theladyboo? I am not certain and it seems both her and I are confused. -WarthogDemon 22:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've done it properly - an admin will review the article itself in a little bit. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47 can you tell me plz how can i have a calendar and time clock as you have got on your user page?--Adeelbutt88 ^talk 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving here from subpage. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dorvaq :)

I've added a calandar/clock to your user page, if you copy that lump of text to your talk page, it will be there too. Would you like any modifications? --ST47Talk·Desk 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the calendar & clock, but it is Adeelbutt88 who would like to have them; not I. I simply moved his question from your subpage to your discussion page.  ;-) — Dorvaq (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOH! (I didn't mean to do that!) --ST47Talk·Desk 20:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you undeleted Code2000 per DRV, did you check the talk page and its history? It seems curious that the only comments I see are ones made while the article was in deletion limbo. If there is no prior talk, no worries; but if there is a prior talk history, we should get that back as well. You can reply here if you wish. Thanks. --KSmrq^T 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some sort of weird glitch, when I tried undeleting the first time, it didn't go through. All 35 revisions are there now, thanks for telling me! --ST47Talk·Desk 14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; and what scintillating reading it is! One more puzzlement: Should there now be a note at the top of the talk page that this article was re-instated after a DRV? I'm not familiar with the boilerplate for this situation, but the usual idea is to let future editors/admins know not to waste their time: notability is attested. --KSmrq^T 19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A plain text notice would be fine, if even that's needed: information should all be in the deletion log. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you archive the old talk page, rather than merge it with the new one? The sequence of comments is confusing, especially since there is no page history to see what in the article, the comments are discussing.jonathon 20:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for archiving the talk page. jonathon 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_18#Category:Films_by_shooting_location_.28closed.29 It was intended to overturn all the subcats that were deleted in the original debate. Do I have to do a separate DRV for that or are those being processed as a part of this? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Unfortunately, you'll have to restore the contents yourself, I don't have access to that information, perhaps you can track down the bot that did it? --ST47Talk·Desk 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You incorrectly add pt:Tavares (Rio Grande do Sul) to the article on Tavares (band). This is an entirely different subject to Tavares (Rio Grande do Sul), which currently does not have an English article. I have again reverted your last change. Ghmyrtle 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You again do it? I wish you had told me the first time, as there's probably an interwiki conflict. I'll try to resolve it. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict should be resolved. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm a bit concerned that you immediately reverted and assumed I was abusing templates and wasn't a clerk as opposed to notifying me of the problem. I've put the case into the NC section. MSJapan 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please provide the four diffs that you used to determine that I breached 3RR? BlueValour 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see enough reverts by you recently enough for that block, probably an accident. The block's expired, and you're good to edit, however. Sorry for the inconvenience! --ST47Talk·Desk 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but that is not acceptable. Having such a block on my record would cause grave harm to my chances of applying to become an admin. Will you please:

• Remove the block message.
• Remove the block from my block log. BlueValour 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can close this BRFA: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SkyBot_1. ~ Wikihermit 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it yesterday or the day before and today I was thinking of changing it for the same reason. Thanks for telling me as I really wasn't sure about it. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks :) --ST47Talk·Desk 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo :D Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, your request for adminship was successful and you are now a sysop. You may wish to add yourself to Wikipedia:List of administrators. Once again, congratulations. --Deskana (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap that was fast - we really should be paying you! Thanks! --ST47Talk 12:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Viridae^Talk 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --ST47Talk 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I'm sorry I didnt !vote, I sometimes miss good candidates. Congrats! -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congrats from me too, hadn't even seen you were running, what a shame! Welcome to the club... Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Though, I'm afraid I won't be coming up with any poetry as you did :( --ST47Talk 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, poetry? Well, that was just the opening line from a 15th-century song I like... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm not sure if I !voted either, but you seem to be doing a good job so far. Congratulations. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Politics rule 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congratulations! Giggy _U^CP 22:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats ST! :) Sebi _[talk] 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone! --ST47Talk·Desk 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to do say earlier, but belatedly congrats and all the best. ^Khukri 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, uh, I mean congrats. :) -- S ^up? 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --ST47Talk·Desk 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=145475186&oldid=145474986

That's the whole point, mkil will reply with 10 arguments and most of it makes no sense, just watch over this guy you and bart, but on a private level... he needs to go. Do you want accurate wikipedia?>

I understand that, and I understand that you believe that user is malicious, but we can't leave it there. I'll bring it up with some other admins and see what they want to do. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are new? The above user has connections to some administrators who are helping him, watch out for his edits and reverts! I can send you directly lots of evidence.

Well, I am new, and I've looked at the user's edits, and don't see anything particularly bad, perhaps a particular edit would help? --ST47Talk·Desk 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i appreciate your nice reply, this is something i never get, can i have your email, since some things may be against wiki privacy rules. (if there is such a thing)

The problem is not a simple one and there is a lot i want to tell you, all i want is neutrality and not to be influenced by other administrators who back this guy. As I am sure by now you have been told. I am also on a public computer and different people edit, i was accused of some vandalism and it was not me, one of the reasons to find good administrator. The reason I am writing you is because you replied to my query, first.

I should have my email posted somewhere...It's STWiki@gmail.com. And yes, I see that you're editing from a library, and I wouldn't hold any childish vandalism from that range against you. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've now finished - I hope! - sub-dividing the pages listed at User:ST47/UKLC. Please will you re-run the query, so that I can see if I've missed anything? If you want to overwrite the last results with the new ones, that will be fine. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now, since I don't have access to a computer with perl. I'll be able to do it in two days once I'm back home. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I could do with a break from them! Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, list updated. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looks like I need to do a couple more :-( Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, please? And if you could easily give a grand total, that would be handy. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Total is 42235. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid service! Thank you.. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! --ST47Talk·Desk 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem! You seem to have a couple of zero totals (apart from those expected, for disambiguation pages) - the first one, for instance. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they were redirects. Fixed. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your decission to protect Anonimu's talkpage, combined with User:Sceptre removing userboxes from several users, including one admin, has lead to a controversial discussion. The discussion can be found here. This is what Sceptre said about your action: "No, ST47 protected it because Anonimu was disruptively removing comments because I'm a "blind supporter." He seems to suggest that he is a "blind supporter," but I guess that was an error from his part. I think he meant to imply that Anonimu removed his comments because he believed that Sceptre was a blind supporter, which would in turn constitute as a personal attack, and which made you protect the talkpage. I would like to know if that is how you reasoned when you protected the talkpage. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a reply there. --ST47Talk·Desk 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it should be tagged as resolved? It's becoming a shitstorm right now. Will ^(talk) 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator's noticeboard as a whole tends to do that. Sure, I'll do so. --ST47Talk·Desk 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you reprotected his talk page to the original 7 days, not 2 days. Will ^(talk) 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again... Will ^(talk) 19:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I changed it! I even checked it! Let's try this again... --ST47Talk·Desk 19:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again! You might want to get another admin to do it for you, seeing as you're having so much trouble. Will ^(talk) 19:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. There is something wrong with this. I know I typed the right thing in... --ST47Talk·Desk 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting information about other editors, regardless of whether you believe it to be true or not. If you persist, you will be blocked. Crum375 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I was informing a user of an article that referenced him, much the same way as people inform me when there is a discussion that involves me on the administrator's noticeboard. In no way did I endorse or oppose the opinion given in the article, I just think it's important to know when you're linked to on the front page of slashdot. My edit certainly wasn't as inflammatory as, say, Hexrei's. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not appointed as a news provider of attempted outings of WP editors. Rest assured that we all have google and we all know how to use it. By your posting this information here, you are furthering the aims of the original harassers. Please stop, or you will be blocked. Crum375 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have you been appointed a 'reverter', or what you will. We're volunteers, and we discuss. Further, you've already threatened to block me for editing slim's page, surely this threat isn't for me editing your talk page? His new message bar was activated, so I have no need to edit again, he can decide whether to revert or not. As a final note, perhaps we should protect slim's talk? --ST47Talk·Desk 22:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are all appointed as protectors of each other's privacy and well being. If I see an attack or harassment against anyone, I will revert it, warn the offender, and block if necessary. An attempted outing, or information about it, are harassment. If a user sincerely wanted to alert another about a personal matter, s/he would use email. Crum375 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV is female... Will ^(talk) 22:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a dyktalk template on Talk:British Army - did you mean to put it on Talk:Johnny Ramensky, because I haven't been able to find a DYK factoid for the British Army, though you posted two user ones for Johnny Ramensky. Just noticed it on my watchlist. RHB - Talk 11:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Thanks, fixed :) --ST47Talk·Desk 11:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ST47!

I just reverted several hundred bot edits on Wikimedia Commons when I saw, that OsamaK uses the bot here for the same purpose. Look at some examples:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAcura_Integra.jpg&diff=6734692&oldid=5518797 No source, no author given. Suddenly “own work”
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Açude_de_Heliópolis.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=6781868 author: Gilberto Jacob uploader: Larissa batista. We’d ask for a permission instead of adding “own work”.
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Aérien_panacée.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=6734904 obviously copyvio, maybe Google Earth.
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:119A65B284882ACBE4C41F4D2970.jpg&action=history another obvious copyvio.

This bot task is dangerous for our project. On Commons users explicitly have to express that their uploads are “own work”. We often have to delete files as copyvios transfered via CommonsHelper because we can’t find a source on en.wikipedia.org (again and again: actors, musicians, often uploaded by users with a few edits, no source, no permission). :-( --Polarlys 17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the approval and it seems as though the bot only tags articles that are marked {{GFDL-self}}. Regardless, I've asked him to comment. Thanks, ----ST47Talk·Desk 20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons the bot exacly does what you asked him. But that’s the problem. On every project people upload files without information on author and license, but choose one of the -self licenses (they are at the top of every drop down list). Often there is no correlation between authorship and -self license. Without this bot function everything remains as it is (no advanced state BTW), with this bot we get pictures including a lie. A work is likely “self-made” when the author typed these words. --Polarlys 00:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've asked him to not use the bot for those tasks and I'll keep an eye on it. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! When placing a Commons image on the main page, please remember to first upload it to the English Wikipedia and tag it with the {{c-uploaded}} template. Otherwise, it will not be protected (so a vandal can replace it at the Commons and change what appears on our main page). We just had Image:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG repeatedly replaced with an image of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and it could just as easily have been a Goatse image. Thanks!  :-) —David Levy 07:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do so in the future. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as you see. I'll stop it--OsamaK 12:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Why were the audio samples removed? Wikipedia:Music samples states "There's no limit of how many samples you could use in one article" and other FA musician articles have more samples than this, eg. Kylie Minogue, Pink Floyd, AC/DC. There shouldn't be a set number of samples allowed; each sample must be judged for fair use seperately, eg. The Sensual World song was discussed in great detail in the article so its sample easily satisfied fair use. I may reverse your edit if I don't hear from you soon. Epbr123 13:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that you can justify that much material as fair-use, especially on an article that's on the main page. Fair use must contain the minimum amount of material needed to illustrate the subject. Feel free to change the samples around, but there shouldn't be any more than 3 non-free media in an article. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline says there's a limit of three? Any song discussed in detail will be fair use. Epbr123 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with three as a sort of guideline. There is no need to have that many samples in an article. WP:FUC, a policy, requires minimal use. 12 samples is not minimal. 3 is more than enough. I don't care which three, change it if you will, but for a featured article, the 'best' articles on wikipedia, we should adhere to some sort of standard of quality and legality. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment on this FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pearl Jam. Epbr123 10:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a nice rule of thumb to go by (and personally one I'll keep in mind), but it's certainly not a guideline. Every article is different; some music articles may need more than three soundclips, some may need less. To be fair in this case, I do think the three soundclips present at least give a basic overview of Kate Bush's sound. WesleyDodds 10:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree that Kate Bush's musical range is any less varied than Pearl Jam's. It's possibly far more varied. The article emphasises her wide range of musical styles. Even her voice is different when comparing Wuthering Heights and Running Up That Hill. Epbr123 10:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if you noticed it or not, but your bot signed a recent comment to my talk page with a datestamp of "21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)." If this is true, I demand you divulge to me the details of how you reconstructed the the flux capacitor. Now. (hehe, totally just kidding with you). :D Anyway, thought you might be interested in that bug. Have a good one, and cheers. :) --slakr 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that there is no way in hell that that should happen. Thanks, I'll go fix it. Again. :P --ST47Talk·Desk 11:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image was tagged because it was orphaned fair use (CSD I5), not because it was missing a fair use rationale (CSD I6). In any case, the image was not orphaned, as it was reinstated immediately after it was tagged, and the editor who readded the image perhaps forgot to remove the tag on the image. Can you take another look at this, and perhaps restore it so a fair use rationale can be written? Thanks! —Kurykh 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted because there was no rationale, not because it was orphaned. I've restored it so that a rationale can be produced and tagged it with norationale. Once you add a rationale, please remove the template. Thanks, --ST47Talk·Desk 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was deleted per CSD I6, but it was tagged CSD I5, leading to some...eh...confusion. —Kurykh 17:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this image removed? It had a correct URL and was there for quite some time... (Signed by User:GSK, just not logged in right now)

It was a non-free image without a rationale. --ST47Talk·Desk 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the image of the blue rahkshi? I'd like a good reason.Swirlex 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link would be very nice. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the answer to my question I'll put it in bold so you can see it if you didn't before Why did you remove the image of the blue rahkshi?heres that link you are desperate for.RahkshiSwirlex 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was removed because it had no fair use rationale. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the other images of rahkshi.Swirlex 14:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other images? --ST47Talk·Desk 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other images in the rahkshi Bio. Why are you not taking those away to.Swirlex 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't even think to look at those. I've tagged them for deletion, and they'll be deleted within a week. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for getting rid of stuff that shouldn't be in Wikipedia, but can you at least clean up the mess you make as you do it? You've left broken links, legacy text and template image tags in the Keane (band) article. -- Scjessey 12:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I am fed up with self-righteous administrators and brainless bots breaking perfectly good articles with perfectly good rationale for things like specific photo content. I am so upset you don't even understand. Most people who contribute to Wikipedia don't have the time to fight with this garbage and will just tell you to go to h$ll and not fix it!

You are diminishing the quality of Wikipedia, and if that's your primary contribution, then you SUCK!

It's too much work fighting the system when you're just trying to contribute a little bit of knowledge or add an openly-available media release picture, which of course, I can't properly put a license on because the correct options just aren't there anymore. Why is this? Administrative power trips, perhaps?

So, thank you for pissing me off and making me hate the world again.

And furthermore, do you actually read the photo descriptions or the rationales the people put on them? Or do you just systematically go around deleting things that look like they're unlicensed? Because I have news for you: photos I put up are always, always legitimately available freely. I just don't have the correct options available to me in order to tell YOU what that license actually is. What is the point of expecting proper licensing tags if you don't give general users the ability to tag them properly?

I believe I have contributed to this community a LOT, yet I feel treated like crap and undermined at every turn. Self-righteous jerkwads love to exert their power over the puny Wiki-peasant masses and frustrate their best efforts at making good, not-broken articles.

Thanks so much! You're a pal breaking my articles! What a nice guy! Yayyy! I'm so happy I have to re-upload an image at some point that I couldn't tag property given the options! Yayyy! I'm so happy you noticed! Yayyy I'm so glad you didn't check that it was actually legitimage!

Yayyy, big brother, I'm so happy! You're great! Do you get points for every crappy edit you make that frustrates normal users? Does someone pat you on the back? Or is this the best way to troll Wikipedia-- with an official title? That way you can frustrate people legitimately and get a kick out of your power.

Does it make you feel special inside? Do you rub shoulders with President George Bush, because you're acting like him-- a great leader and the greatest tyrant the world has ever known. Heil Bush! Heil Wikipedia! HEIL HEIL HEIL.

(Yes, I just snapped. It was coming for a long time. Do you know how many times I've re-uploaded necessary crap and fixed broken elements?)

As long as I'm ranting about Wikipedia, how much time to you spend on this project? I'm sure a lot. Why do you think it helps anybody to blindly remove content without looking at what it is or where it actually came from? I put it right there! You could have read it for god sakes! If you want to improve your precious Wikipedia you care so much about, why not be more CAREFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.100.135 (talk • contribs)

Most people who've spent your thousands of hours toiling away on the project have taken to the habit of signing their posts with ~~~~. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user: You have 24 hours to rescind your personal attacks or I will rescind them for you and will most likely block you in the process.

As for the image itself - What was the point of commenting here if you won't even give me enough information to review the deletion?

However, any image I deleted was tagged to be deleted for at least a week. If there is a particular image, I can recover it and email it to you, so you can upload it following our non-free media policy. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I do feel bad about the character tear-downs... I'm sorry-- thus, rescinded. It was uncalled for. I hope you realize how much of a problem these image deletions are creating for people, though. The image deletions themselves still make me never want to contribute to this community again. It probably won't be me who makes you reconsider bulldozing through articles and images, though. Either way, I hope you can find it in your heart to change the way you do things . . .Wikipedia has just become too regulated and heavy-handed these days and you just happened to incur my wrath for so much frustration building up . . . And I'm not an angry person. I have never gone off on anybody online like that ever-- until now. The situation is not your fault anyway-- it's probably the fault of Wikipedia's own success and legal ramifications of "possibly" copyrighted images.... Not to mention the tendency of any community to become totalitarian after a while...

So, even if it's a long-winded and a little underhanded of an apology, I honestly do feel bad for the personal stuff. Sorry.

can you tell me what happened to my teenagent image video cover screen shot, why it was deleted and why I was not informed on my profile talk page? Govvy 08:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted because it did not have a fair use rationale, as required by our policy on non-free media. If you'd like, I can email the image to you so you can re-upload it to include the fair use rationale? --ST47Talk·Desk 11:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you deleted Lions rugby logo 2007.png, most likely as a copyvio. I was asked by another admin to put a detailed fair use rationale on that page, which I did while the page was still active. AFAIK, the use of that image in Lions (Super rugby franchise) qualified under fair use. Should this page be restored, or not? — Dale Arnett 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I missed the rationale when I deleted it. I've restored and removed the speedy delete tag, and readded the image to the article. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually check if a rationale has been added before deletion, as in the case of Image:Tbmviolet.jpg. --Eyrian 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• TTOTD: 7 not spelled out.
• TOTD: 7 not spelled out.
• TTTOTD: 7 not spelled out.
• OTD: 4 not spelled out.

19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it was removed from page. What was the reason. We want to make sure its done correctly.

thanxs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Miguel_Alvarado.JPG has never existed, are you sure that's the right name? --ST47Talk·Desk 20:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • note: this is the history 15:33, 31 July 2007 ST47 (Talk | contribs) m (2,134 bytes) (Removing Image:Miguel Alvarado.jpg, I6) (undo)

Image:Miguel Alvarado.jpg was deleted because it was a non-free image without a fair-use rationale. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • There was rational tags on the picture what happen?

{{Non-free promotional}} is not a fair-use rationale. --ST47Talk·Desk 01:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 31	30 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium	Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry	WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to be a little less messy when you delete an image. Clarityfiend 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to I6, you deleted the OGG samples on Keane due of not having a fair use rationale which actually had. Having been deleted about four times, I'll upload the samples once more and I'll just tell you, if you delete them again, I'll link them when they cannot be deleted as I did once. And it worked. Nāhuatlahtōlcopa cēntlamatilizāmoxtli īpan.--Fluence 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Seems it's not the first time. Ya gotta be careful.--Fluence 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there seems to be a bug in it see here, notice that it has the wrong time stamp on the sig. --Chris ^g 10:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed as of july 31. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your email bounced. Message follows:

On 8/4/07, Dan Collins wrote:
> On 8/4/07, Achilles Sakai <trevianmotto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > whyd u remove the logo from the new trier page
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Messenger Café — open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. Visit now.
> > http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_AugWLtagline
> 
> Speedy deletion criterion I6, no fair use rationale, as I stated in my edit summary.
> 
> --
> ST47
> Administrator, en.wikipedia
> 

--ST47Talk·Desk 12:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its poster !!, every movies in wikipedia have poster. whats wrong ? --Sport woman 16:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free media must have a 'rationale' - you can learn how to write one here. Once you add it to the image page, please remove the speedy deletion template. --ST47Talk·Desk 16:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you remove the whole image tag; you've done this a couple times. Postdlf 16:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll fix that in the future, --ST47Talk·Desk 16:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that particular one, but I think you need to go back through all of your recent edits and doublecheck...I keep finding more.[2] Are you using some kind of automated software? It doesn't seem to be working well. Postdlf 16:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are annoying 19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pat MacDougall.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if the picture is big? I just resize it when I use it, what's the problem?

Is it any surprise that you have become an administrator only to delete images and destroy other people's useful work? Especially when you yourself don't know how to post images. Idiot. Jade1984 08:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:STBotI is out of control :-p. See diff. ~ Wikihermit 03:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've fixed it. I'm looking into modifications. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Is it possible to ad a delay to your bot "STBotI", i uploaded an image, then forgot the tag, clicked immediately on edit to add the appropriate tag, and by the time it was done it had added a warning to my talk page and a deletion warning to the image page. I think if the bot was delayed by 5 to 10 minutes, then you might reduce the number of situations like mine, whilst still reminding people to tag their images. Thanks User A1 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of adding a delay, though for other reasons. I'll make the delay longer to accommodate situations like yours. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, what more do you expect to see a rational state that isn't completely redundant to the non-free content tag already on the page? It might be the case that the tag on the page is inaccurate (I see the image isn't used yet, and it's an album cover not a DVD cover) but a user provided rationale isn't going to be any better. Please don't demand rationales except in cases where the validity of the fair use claim looks questionable. --Gmaxwell 13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states that those tags are not valid rationales, as there are several things that must be stated by the user: replacability, resolution, source. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If policy says something clearly stupid we don't follow it, per policy. ;) When we have an album cover image used on an article about the album it's clear who the copyright holder probably is (and any source claim is going to be equal or worse than that obvious guess). The mindless no-rationale tagging is clearly harmful: To make your bot shut-up people just paste in mindless boilerplate rationale which simply repeats the copyright tag a second time. Once thats done the image gets no more oversight. We might as well make a rule that says the each non-free image has to have a unique 14 digit prime number in its image description for all the good it does us. --Gmaxwell 13:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if a 14-digit prime number protected us from a lawsuit, I'm all for it. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

norationale tagging has been disabled where the tag matches /album/i. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that Jade1984 was a sock of User_talk:Victoria_Eleanor who pretended to be dead. I see the odds of this ending well drastically decreasing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on their uploads. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. I've been helping out a bit at WP:ACC and noticed that when I or someone else creates an account for another user, AccReqBot is the one who welcomes them with {{Welcome}}. Is it possible (and I'm in no way a coding expert) to have some sort of user list where it signs a certain users name, or some way to notify a user on a list to welcome the new contributor? This is in no way a major concern, but I think new users would benefit greatly by being welcomed by other users rather than a robot. Thanks and happy editing, Arky^¡Hablar! 20:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible, why don't you make a topic on the talk page and I'll set it up if we have consensus. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get the image deleted off of the Wikimedia Commons as the Commons does not allow for "Fair Use" images. I would like to reupload the pic to Wikipedia with the following:

---

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. It is a historically significant photo of a famous helicopter of which only two were built.
2. It is of much lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality).
3. The photo is only being used for informational purposes.
4. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the helicopter in the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. The image also presents the helicopter in a way that all the unique features of the design are viewable, and is recognizable as one of the most popular images of the Fw 61.

Source: Focke-Wulf Fw 61 on All the World's Rotorcraft.

{{Non-free historic image}}

---

Since you were the admin that deleted the image, I wanted to be sure that it would meet your requirements and/or your understanding of Wikipedia's fair use requirements before proceeding. The image is to be used in the infobox on Focke-Wulf Fw 61. It is also found on the web at various resolutions at many other sites (here, here, here, here, and here) and is one of the most popular images of this particular helicopter. --Born2flie 11:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rationale looks good to me, feel free to reupload. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a conflict with the name from Commons. Image uploaded as Image:Focke-Wulf Fw 61.jpg but triggered a speedy deletion. I inserted the hangon template and made my argument on the Talk page. Thank you for your help! --Born2flie 13:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikiwings
		For your assistance in helping replace an image for one of the critical historical helicopters of WP:AIRCRAFT. --Born2flie

The speed and fast-paced nature of your bot is being disruptive when it's completing it's tasks. I ask that it's edit rate is slowed. — Moe ε 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the bot edits real-time, slowing the rate would result in lost edits. I am going to add a delay to the bot to allow users to add rationales. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serously, did you even bother to slow the rate like I asked you too? It just tagged another one of my images in under a minute of me uploading it. It doesn't matter how fast the task is performed by the bot, all that matters is that it's actually performed. Next time, I'm not going to bring this argument here anymore, if it happens again, I'll bring it to adminsitrator's noticeboard. — Moe ε 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has a 5 image buffer, after which it loads the image and makes the edit, unless you're reuploading deleted material. If that isn't enough time, then add the licensing information as you're uploading it. If I make the delay any longer then we lose context and we give uploaders more time to upload infringing content before being contacted. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to remember to add it as I go along, and I don't think it's a very unreasonable request for a delay of 4-5 minutes to occur. Less than a minute is absurd. Why can't the bot be scripted to look at images uploaded 4-5 minutes ago instead of the ones most recently uploaded? I don't think 4-5 minutes of lag can cause much harm to Wikipedia considering there are users who periodically do the same work your bot is doing and they do it just as annoyingly fast as the bot. — Moe ε 16:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scripting the bot to wait based on time would require me to harvest/analyze the data, set a timer, watch a timer, harvest data to make sure it didn't change, and most likely in the process double the size of the bot, increase memory usage by approximately 100 MB, increase cpu utilization, increase network utilization - causing the threat of disconnections and increasing the lag time for response to IRC commands, causing a bigger usage spike on shutdown, precluding any use of testing by inputting custom data, precluding the use of my instant tagging in the case of oversized images, and causing a discord between input and output for anyone who happens to be watching for bugs. Now, we have a little drop down box in the image upload dialog that allows you to choose a license. It's hard to miss, you almost have to look at it. There's also a custom inputbox where you can input whatever you please including the requisite rationale for non-free images. These two components make up most of the active UI. There is a very large blue box which states, in large, red, bold font, Your file will be deleted unless you provide detailed information on both: the source and the license. This is followed by several other boxes, including one which details the need for a rationale. It even uses the word "must" in italics. Now, there is no way that you can upload an image without seeing this message, and there is very little excuse for failing to provide the requisite information. However, there are still over 500 images each day which to not follow these guidelines. To compensate me for the time to delete these, surely you can take the time to either read these guidelines as was intended, or use the bot's warning as intended by correcting your error, removing the deletion tag, and going on with your editing in peace. As I see it, this is much the same as antivandalbot, which promptly reverts possibly accidental edits and informs the user of their error. STBotI, like AVB, detects violations of policy, identifies them, and notifies the uploader, saving people such as myself the time it would take to review every image uploaded to this encyclopedia. --ST47Talk·Desk 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is I don't violate policy and I add rationales and licenses, and always have, two minutes later if I didn't do it the first go around. Well damn me for being slower than your bot.. — Moe ε 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is fucking ridiculous. Now I uploaded Image:Wings to Fly and a Place to Be.jpg and it tagged it for speedy deletion with the rationale: "Duplicate of deleted image File:Wingstoflyandaplacetobe.jpg [3] Since when are we not allowed to upload new images when the old one was deleted? — Moe ε 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you check out STBotI's tagging of duplicates? It tagged Image:Front page shiur time yomatzmaout.JPG for a speedy as a duplicate of itself, which is probably not what it should do. --B 05:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one. Image:Khafre.jpg --B 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that means is that it was deleted and reuploaded under the same name. --ST47Talk·Desk 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... but is there something you can do rather than tag it for a speedy? It would probably be nice to have repeat customers tagged so that they can be examined to see if they are copyvios ... but if the image was originally uploaded with incompatible license terms, deleted, and reuploaded under a legitimate free license, we don't want someone to speedy it as a duplicate. --B 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd also like to have it notify the uploader - do you have any idea on a tag to use? --ST47Talk·Desk 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've created Category:Possibly reuploaded images and I'll publicize it to some of the licensing experts. I'll reconfigure the bot to use it once I reboot into my linux partition. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, cleaned up and already fixed in the working code. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a serious request. Wikipedia needs a bot like the one I have in mind. Please approve it.

P.S. You can control it. I'm basically a novice at BASIC.

Can you respond to me on the request page, please? --ST47Talk·Desk 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your bot adds "Template:Di-no license" to commons images. That template does not appear to exist on commons. Same for the user talk page template. Please fix that, and the pages the bot edited. Thanks, Magnus Manske 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the bot for three days so you'll have fewer pages to fix once you come back from your wikibreak :-) I'll unblock it once its fixed. --Magnus Manske 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added new source code to AntiMalBot.

)

Gp75motorsports 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)gp75motorsportsGp75motorsports 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to complete the overturn based on our prior discussion. Please see User_talk:Radiant!#Possible_Deletion_Review

11:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Sitel logo.gif. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sigma 7 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, what do you think (if this is even possible) of adding a minimum of three minutes between image upload and user talk page message for your bot? Sometimes getting the messages right on time can be quite annoying for established editors who add the proper tag in the very next diff.--Chaser - T 04:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add the tag as you're uploading the image? It seems like that would be easier as you have the dropdown box of all the tags. Unfortunately, I can't add a delay of time, but I can and have added a queue of 3 images for other reasons. We can increase that time, but I don't see why it's so hard to add the tag the first time through. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot seems to have a problem with Unicode characters in image names, resulting in it creating pages like Image:Dennis&SanPedroDeSaño.jpg, or the now-deleted Image:Alizée.jpg. --Carnildo 06:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode scares me! I'll switch the URI unencoding to utf8 and keep an eye on it. --ST47Talk·Desk 10:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 32	6 August 2007	About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter	About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays	WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had cleared out a few fair-use images I had up that had been tagged by a bot while I was away from the wiki for a while. They are Image:UsmLogo.gif and Image:UsmHuskies.gif. These images are University logos for use on their specific page. If you can undelete and tag a message on my page, I'll take care of fixing the rational for them. Thanks, Autocracy 10:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I think User:STBotI may be malfunctioning. It is tagging for speedy deletion duplicates of images that were previously speedy deleted. However, a prior SD is not binding, and I have checked several that are inappropriate. In one, an album cover, the prior image was uploaded by a banned user, but that isn't relevant as long as the current user isn't banned. Another was deleted previously for lack of a fair use rationale, but there's one now. I don't think prior SD's should be flagged for SD. They have to be examined on their current merits. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  07:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already changed from the speedy tags to a different tag that places it in a category for review. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's tagging none existent pages. [4]. ~ Wikihermit 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange, mostly because I thought I already fixed that error. It's probably due to a change in the input format. I've fixed it and will watch the bot for a very long while, however it has also been configured to not create new pages. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you undelete Image:Dolza from Robotech Macross.jpg so that I may add non-free fair use rationale and reinsert the image into the Dolza and Boddole Zer articles? I apologize for the inconveniance, however the image was tagged [5] for deletion while I was out on vacation [6]. Thank you for your time. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead! :) --ST47Talk·Desk 12:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir! The image has been re-tagged with non-free fair use rationale and re-added to the articles in question. Thanks for you assistance! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those images were not FU. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were, look at the description pages of the 3 that weren't deleted. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure of the story with your bot, but it clearly needs a good deal of fine tuning. In addition to marking images as duplicates of themselves, it's doing things like marking images for deletion saying, "previously deleted elsewhere as orphaned", when the current one is not orphaned, or "previously deleted elsewhere as no license", when the current has a license. Just wanted to give you a heads up; as of yet, I have seen few to no postive contributions from the bot (though those may be deleted). The Evil Spartan 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: Tagging as duplicate of self means the image was previously deleted under the same name. These cases are particularly important because it is not likely to be an accident, and an expert should review the image to ensure it does not violate policy.

Second: The markings as deletion no longer occur. I now use a tag to warn others that does not utilize deletion categories. The template in no way harms the image.

Third: The bot's tagging of unsourced or nonrationaled images is certainly useful, as it allows those who usually perform the task to work elsewhere.

I will look into any constructive suggestions into the improvement of the bot. --ST47Talk·Desk 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, it was a constructive suggestion. The Evil Spartan 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted :Image:Swtpclgo.png because it did not havea fair use rationale. This is true. The license was incorrect because the logo was not a registered trademark. Southwest Technical Products did not copyright their catalogs or brochures and they only used a trademark on a few software products. I will ask around and try to determine how to tag the image. Do you know? -- SWTPC6800 00:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but I think that it's PD. Let me know if you decide what to do and I can restore the image if you do not have a copy. --ST47Talk·Desk 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please restore the image and I will change the license to PD-ineligible because it is an abandoned or dead trademark. -- SWTPC6800 04:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has problems. It linked to an image as Image:Image[7], and claimed it had no fair use rationale when in fact it did. Oh, and its Unicode support sucks. Image:Charles Münch.jpg -Nard 01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask your bot what this was all about. -- RHaworth 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says that somoeone told it to call the image $imagename, but it was really called $image, and it informs me that the error is fixed now and apologizes for any inconvenience, informing you that the correct image is in the edit summary and that the dimwit who caused the error has been dealt with. It hopes you will have a good day. On behalf of STBotI, --ST47Talk·Desk 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're way too much obsessed on the FU, and you act like a malfunctioning bot deleting images with a FUR applied as I proved on the cover for Hopes and Fears. I think it's obvious for any rational living being covers are the only image which could possibly illustrate an album; furthermore there is a special template for them, so if you're not lacking logic you won't delete that image when I upload it again, get it? If not, you may be a bot--Fluence 15:20 8 August 2007 (UTC-5)

Regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2the Max as 'no consensus', please consider that this AfD was already coming from Deletion review, so arriving at a consensus would be desirable. Moreover, it seems to me that the first opinions have been based on a not sufficiently thorough evaluation of the sources. For these reasons relisting the discussion would in my opinion be the better option. --Tikiwont 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked your bot. The warning message has an extra "image:" in th filelink making it look like it has already been deleted :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed BAGBot is signing as you - this is rather misleading. Could you possible change it to sign as itself? Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can STBotI leave a more descriptive and not-so-loud edit summary when editing User:ST47/IMG? The (WARNING! WIKI IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE!) thing makes it look like a vandal edit summary. Also, it may be better to just link to the images (possible copyvio and/or non-free) instead of inlining them. Resurgent insurgent 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Resurgent insurgent 13:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I should hope these edits were the result of a malfunctioning bot, or of a malfunctioning user. Either way, it's not something that should be happening. --Carnildo 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please go through your recent image removals and check for any more instances, such as this? --Carnildo 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on your bots talk page here about a possible mishandling of special characters. --Pekaje 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Well, the bot doesn't like unicode, however I set it to leave a warning anyway, since the user will likely know what it's talking about. Perhaps I should set it to simply ignore such images. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would (IMHO) be the better option, until you can make it understand unicode. Otherwise there will be unnecessary cleanup to be done. Hopefully these bad cases are rare enough that it doesn't matter if the bot misses them. --Pekaje 12:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the image of the composer Lou Harrison has been deleted. Now that the composer is dead, how would it be possible to get a free image of him? Surely the image would be justified on the basis of fair use in this instance? --Godfinger 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free image can be used, as long as a non-free media use rationale is used. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have deleted these images under CSD i6, but to my knowledge, they had not been tagged. Policy requires that i6 images can only be deleted "seven days after they are tagged". Please provide the log that these images were indeed tagged. — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Hellskitchenlogo.jpg

Page history

    * 21:10, August 1, 2007 . . Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs | block) (146 bytes) (Image is missing fair use rationale and will be deleted in
seven days if it is not added.)
    * 10:28, April 25, 2007 . . Cydebot (Talk | contribs | block) (98 bytes) (Robot - Renaming non-free template "tv-screenshot" per
Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates.)
    * 17:10, July 25, 2006 . . 71.29.77.154 (Talk | block) (Summary)
    * 22:19, June 26, 2006 . . Pacman5 (Talk | contribs | block) (official logo for hell's kitchen)

File history

    * 22:19, June 26, 2006 . . Pacman5 (Talk | contribs | block) 360×288 (71,814 bytes) (official logo for hell's kitchen)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:GordonRamsay.jpg

Page history

    * 21:24, August 1, 2007 . . Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs | block) (109 bytes) (Image is missing fair use rationale and will be deleted in
seven days if it is not added.)
    * 04:24, April 23, 2007 . . Cydebot (Talk | contribs | block) (61 bytes) (Robot - Renaming non-free template "Film-screenshot" per
Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates.)
    * 15:26, November 14, 2006 . . Wiki alf (Talk | contribs | block) (Reverted edits by 194.70.181.1 (talk) to last version by Thunderbrand)
    * 14:34, November 7, 2006 . . 194.70.181.1 (Talk | block)
    * 13:36, September 17, 2005 . . Thunderbrand (Talk | contribs | block) ({{film-screenshot}})
    * 19:36, July 7, 2005 . . Madchester (Talk | contribs | block) ({{screenshot}} from Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares)

File history

    * 14:43, July 29, 2005 . . Dmn (Talk | contribs | block) 928×536 (187,470 bytes) (removed black border)
    * 19:36, July 7, 2005 . . Madchester (Talk | contribs | block) 960×544 (47,210 bytes) ({{screenshot}} from Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares)

--ST47Talk·Desk 15:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 15:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See new discussion location at Category talk:Films by shooting location. Continued help needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please kill your malfunctioning bot? It keeps tagging images that have a valid FU rationale as lacking it. [8] Óðinn 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of templated fair use rationales is 'highly contentious', in the words of another admin, and as such the bot seeks to enforce the part of policy that is more clearly defined, aiming towards unique, or at least specific, fair use rationales with a focus towards an image's use in a given article. Even though you may use the same fair use rationale for all logos, each criterion must be confirmed for each use of each image, and I interpret the use of templated rationales to be an easy way to circumvent that. On the other hand, if you use {{Non-free use rationale}} it is necessary to at least read the name of each parameter and consider the image's compliance to that criterion. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're intentions expressed on my page are good, but I think I have the right to express my anger. Please leave me alone! --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. If you are angered by users, you should still abide by policy if possible, or if impossible, shut off the computer. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Your bot recently re-added a flag icon to a place of birth in a bio article infobox, just after I had removed it.[9] Flag icons for place of birth and death are very strongly deprecated, per WP:FLAG: "Not for use in locations of birth and death." There are some very good reasons for that. You can read recent discussions about that particular use of flag icons here and here. Perhaps you could have a word with your bot. And thanks for your work in creating a bot to do the thankless, tedious mopping up on Wikipedia. If there isn't a Barnstar For Bots, there should be! ॐ Priyanath talk 03:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably due to an edit conflict or something like that - though the edits were 26 minutes apart, perhaps a database glitch. I'll go through the bot's recent edits to ensure that it only did this once. Also, we have several barnstars related to bots, the davinci barnstar and we have this award someone made, but I don't see anything to give to a bot :( Poor bots don't get any barnstars. (Oh, and I didn't make this particular bot, it's based on m:interwiki.py) --ST47Talk·Desk 11:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't see any other edits like that one, so I thought it might be a bot with a hiccup. Maybe you should give him/her some milk and cookies. ॐ Priyanath talk 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not sure if you actually noticed in the middle of all the bot related messages my note [10] or if I expressed me clearly enough, would you please consider to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2the Max for the reasons given previously? --Tikiwont 08:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see, but never got a chance to fully review the decision. At the moment there are 7 users with opinions and they are split through the middle, so I don't see much chance of reaching consensus, and relisting is used where it isn't even clear that there's no consensus: 2-3 comments. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! If I remember correctly, I have seen AfDs being relisted with that many contributions and that is just the numerical side. But there is more. Already in the original CSD7 DRV at least two editors -- wihle overturning expressed concerns about the quality of the sources--, and it is this issue that the initial !votes didn't really address. (A relisted discussion, which according to that small orange note attempts 'to generate a more thorough discussion' could, on the other hand, built on the 7 sources already having been broken down. --Tikiwont 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]