User talk:Brandon

Blatant advertising on Allscripts

My intent is a scholarly and workmanlike entry with a neutral point of view and verification. The article's internal and external references support notability. I'd like to try again, paying close attention to requirements. I'll remove the unfulfilled table of content entries that appear to simply be advertising for products.

How do I gain access to do this? Your guidance is appreciated.

Murry1 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Igbo people.jpg

I will update the image with free images from wikipedia then you can review the image and see if it fits with wikipedia's standards Ukabia (talk)

Accusation of vandalism on 1988

Oh, sorry, it was an accident. I completely forgot about the credibility which Wikipedia always strives to maintain. --Garzj019 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop

from your bots archives §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, when a requester posts a non-free image for cleanup, vectorization, ect. they don't always read the How-to and end up posting the direct image onto the page. ie [[Image:Copyrighted.jpg]] instead of [[:Image:Copyrighted.jpg]] BJBot replaces [[Image:Copyrighted.jpg]] with the copyright notice image. This is very unhelpful as it sometimes makes it impossible for a graphist to know what image was posted without going back (sometimes through 100s of edits) into the history to find the image. It would be of much greater help if BJBot could replace [[Image:Copyrighted.jpg]] with [[:Image:Copyrighted.jpg]] so graphists still know which image is in need of repair. I know it's possible, just wondering if you'd be so kind to implement it? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this possible? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'll add it within a few days. BJ^Talk 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the help. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Quicktime 7 Leopard.png

I5 requires 7 days of disuse - this image had been disused for ~hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=QuickTime&diff=242050139&oldid=241741232

Furthermore, it was replaced with a more copyrighted image that needs to be deleted, and the image you deleted restored - see the old IfD here. WilyD 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They are both bad screenshots, I'll just make a better one. BJ^Talk 03:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Better? BJ^Talk 04:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's also fine. I can't say whether anyone else'll object or not, though. WilyD 10:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image bot question

I recently got three notices posted to my talk page at once by BJBot regarding orphaned fair use images that I had previously uploaded, but in all three cases it turns out that the images are orphaned precisely because new .png conversions were uploaded via the bot itself just before the notices were posted to my talk page. I have no objection to the file conversions, obviously, and given that they've been converted I have no objection to the old .jpg or .gif files being deleted, either — but is there a way that the bot could, in future, distinguish "your image is actually orphaned" from "your old image is going to be deleted because it's been converted to .png format" so that the user doesn't have to waste time investigating why the image is orphaned? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest your bot is stopped until you rewrite it to prevent what is happening. This is rather excessive and unnecessary. 121 messages to one person in one day, and not one of them was needed, as all the images listed (which had to be checked individually) had been replaced by png files. It may be a matter of looking into the process of replacing these files so that the originals are automatically deleted without a message, but in the meantime, your bot's messages are causing work which need not be done. I've personally had three today. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 16:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed, it should no longer notify the uploader when a {{PNG version available}} template is on the image. BJ^Talk 17:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bots source code

Hello, Bjweeks. I wanna just to know if you're publishing your BJBot's sources code or not. It may be very useful if you do :)--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 23:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoffmann Estates Logo

I am very confused. I uploaded the image at: Image:Hoffmanestatesil.gif It appears to still be in use on the Hoffman Estates, Illinois page and not orphaned. Am I missing something? Racepacket (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It got converted to Image:Hoffmanestatesil.png. BJ^Talk 01:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a question

Just a question, can I ask if three days are sufficient for Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) epecially this is not his/her the first time for using such comments« PuTTY^SchOOL 10:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

regarding Gary Weiss

What exactly is wrong in adding the controversy part without passing a judgement? facts backed by multiple references is not welcomed, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groovy12 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you asserting that antisocialmedia.net is a reliable source? BJ^Talk 07:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What about http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.179.94 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you pls respond here? Wikipedia must be careful in moderating Gary Weiss page given some allegations (I guess I dont need to provide a reference here) that someone at wikimedia doesnt like Patrick Byrne!

And, if I get banned for just saying this (I hope not), my worst fears about wikipedia just came true and I would of course never donate anything to wikimedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groovy12 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because somebody is claiming bias does not change how the rules are enforced. BJ^Talk 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

BJ, thats what I want to know? What rules are you referring to? There is big controversy surrounding the guy, picked by tens of news sites. And you are not letting it be included. how is page about Weiss complete withtout this - I dont understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groovy12 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section has been long warred over. If you feel that something has changed, write a draft and post it to the talk page for discussion. BJ^Talk 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking authors

You recently removed a link to the author in a source citation (here). It's really no skin off my nose, but I would point out the article on Citing Sources mentions:

If your source is not findable online, it should be findable in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unfindable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably findable (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context.

Although in this case the source is findable online, I can find (after a cursory search, admittedly) no specific interdiction concerned with linking authors' names in source citations with Wikipedia articles on that particular author. In fact, if anything, it increases verifiability, which is surely a point in its favour. If there is such an interdiction, could you please point it out to me; and if not, perhaps you would consider reinstating the link.

With many thanks. Nick Michael (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User pages are not articles and should not be linked to from articles. If the author became notable enough to have an article it would make sense to then link to that. BJ^Talk 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I'll just have to go on trying to become notable! Nick Michael (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, it was the wrong article. I'm sorry if you think that I'm using the rollback function unproperly. -- K. Annoyomous24_[c] 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Strappado merge

Hello, I see that there was a discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strappado bondage, with a result to merge Strappado bondage into Strappado. The notice of the AfD does not look like it was posted to either Talk:Strappado bondage or to Talk:Strappado. This looks like a huge procedural issue, with the very editors having the most stake in both articles' disposition being excluded from the discussions.

Is there a process to appeal the result of an AfD? TJRC (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review. BJ^Talk 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I notice that part of the instructions for that say to "please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)," I assume by pointing me to DR, you've got no problem with that. By the way, although I'm correct above noting there was no posting on either articles talk pages, there was indeed a notice on the Strappado bondage article itself. I should have checked that. But no notice on either Strappado or Talk:Strappado, so my main point remains; but I did want to acknowledge my error. TJRC (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just commented on the DR, I'm not quite sure if you are contesting how I closed the AfD or the lack of advertising. Either way, no objections. BJ^Talk 04:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it. To be clear, I'm not criticizing you, or for that matter, anyone. Everyone seems to have acted in good faith here, but the editors of Strappado were shut out, since the AfD morphed into a merge discussion. If it had been proposed as a merge from the get-go, both articles would have had notice. TJRC (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

• Training and development (AfD discussion)

By way of experiment, I deliberately didn't touch the discussion when fixing the article. (I have another experiment currently at Corporate personality (AfD discussion) where I have.) Compare the article as it actually stood at the time of closure against what was said about it in the rationales given, and note the lack of any discussion after the first 4 hours. Re-listing to engender further discussion would probably have been better. Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)