User talk:Brandon

Question

Well, I see you are on break and hope it is for good reasons, such as a summer vacation! Anyway, when I try to use this tool, which I find immensely useful for such things as RfAs, I am getting the following error: "(1045, "Access denied for user 'bjweeks'@'wolfsbane.toolserver.org' (using password: YES)")" Anyway, sorry to intrude on the break and no rush, but just wanted to bring it to your attention. All the best! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just got home from my trip. I'll have a look at the tool in a bit, thanks for the heads up. BJ^Talk 07:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed BJ^Talk 08:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

May I be the first of many to congratulate you on your new checkuser status. May I also be the first to present you with the follow userbox:

This user has checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Again, congrats! Now I know you to bug when I need a checkuser :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BJ^Talk 07:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your appointment as checkuser

Congratulations on being appointed as a checkuser. I remember how scary those first few checks can be, so I wanted to assure you that it does get easier, and that I'll try to keep myself available on IRC at #wikipedia-en-admins and #wikipedia-en-checkuser (which I've added you to the access list for, and given you invite exemption) so I can help you out with those crucial first few checks. Don't be afraid to ask me any and all questions you might have. Have fun! --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well done my friend - good hunting and best wishes. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• You just haaaaaad to get a rename right about now, didn't ya? That was quite a surprise, seeing checkuser results from somebody I didn't recognize in the least, then finding out that they're even really a checkuser! Thanks for the heart attack. ;) Welcome to the fold. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

{{{Non-free vector version available}}}

What was {{{Non-free vector version available}}} redundant to? The reason it seems unused is that images it is used on are subsequently deleted under the NFC rules. {{{Vector version available}}} can't be used on such images because it includes a thumbnail, violating NFC rules and resulting in bots removing the image reference from the template, making its presence pointless (and removing the information it was providing). At least, {{{Non-free vector version available}}} could be a redirect to whatever template you think is appropriate. Were you also planning on deleting {{{Nfvva}}}, which redirects to this template? Thanks, Stannered (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Recreated as a redirect to {{Vector version available|{{{1}}}|nonfree=yes}}. BJ^Talk 11:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Stannered (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:BonGens

I assume that since I haven't yet supplied the diffs that I was talking about at User talk:Nja247#Sockpuppeteers accusing others of sockpuppetry, once again, you determined sockpuppetry here using your new abilities. Is that the case? Do you want the diffs? Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the CU check was conclusive, don't really need diffs. Thanks though. BJ^Talk 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Report: BullRangifer

The reason I submitted this report is that I understood from Shell that even though I submitted this evidencence in SockpuppetInvestigations/Chiropractic, that BullRangifer was not checked or run through CheckUser because I submitted his name after the initial request was made, naming only 3 parties.

She said that if we wanted the other users checked, that we needed to submit separate reports. Here is where she said this: [1]

--stmrlbs|talk 02:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer was checked for the case. BJ^Talk 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why did Shell tell me to resubmit the case? --stmrlbs|talk 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

She isn't a CheckUser and doesn't have access to the CU log. BJ^Talk 02:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)`

So, both QuackGuru and BullRangifer were run through CheckUser against the IPs I list in the BullRangifer SPI and neither one had any connection to those IPs?

I checked the two IPs listed in the case, neither are connected to any account. BJ^Talk 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, wish I had known that before I put this together. What a colossal waste of time. It seems like there should be a better way to state what was run - what users were checked against which IPs and which users had CheckUser run against them. It would prevent a lot of confusion. --stmrlbs|talk 02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Brandon, I did want to thank you for checking the logs. I appreciate it. --stmrlbs|talk 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BJBot

I tried pinging you on IRC, but it seems you weren't about. Is there any reason BJBot isn't running at the moment? I know for a fact that there are a large number of orphaned images and images used outside of the article space waiting to be dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI

FYI. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 14:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Think Tools AG vs. Klaus Schwab

I noticed that you had blocked modifications to the Think Tools AG page, apparently because of complaints from the World Economic Forum (Klaus Schwab), which followed a paragraph that correctly stated that Klaus Schwab was actually closely involved with the company. The story was very adequately backed by references to newspaper articles published at the time, and there was no reason to remove the paragraph.

The response from Klaus Schwab's spokesperson, which apparently led to blocking the page, does not dispute the information that was on that page, and the retraction he mentions was not about any of the facts stated on that page, but about something else. His complaints about the page are obviously only an attempt to present Klaus Schwab in a more favorable light and to hide any connections between Schwab and the company.

For this reason I would suggest that the original information is returned there, and if there is something specific that bothers WEF, they should specifically explain what is wrong, and not request removing a whole paragraph or ALL references to Klaus Schwab. Schwab's involvement with the company, and the introduction of the company in WEF events are indisputable facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRC68 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Goramon

You blocked Goramon for sockpuppetry, but a cursory view of the contribs of the accounts doesn't seem to show any abusive use of multiple accounts. Am I missing something? If you could respond at User talk:Goramon, I think it'd be best to keep as much of the discussion as possible there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)