User talk:Brandon/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 4

Would I be able to slide in another task? Fixing redirects as a result of WP:RM? And possibly get approval for trial to fix Ninja Gaiden (series) to Ninja Gaiden? (Since I just performed the move...) –xeno (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be a separate request but I'll grant a trial if you file it. BJ^Talk 03:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

k, made a new task page. thanks, –xeno (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Already done. BJ^Talk 03:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

trial's done... =) –xeno (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

cheers mate, appreciate it =) –xeno (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

BAG: now with more efficient service. :D BJ^Talk 03:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

heh =) p.s. you forgot to signed this one, not sure if that's important. –xeno (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

already fixed. BJ^Talk 03:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i botched the link the first time, it's xenobot 3 that needs signed ... hehe. –xeno (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, forgot to sign then both. :| BJ^Talk 04:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

and that too ^^^ some coffee maybe? or sleep! the latter sounds good to me =) night. –xeno (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sleep indeed. BJ^Talk 04:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1.24289227 seconds in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Editing while intoxicated (evidence). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's probably expired by now... Sorry for the delay... SQL ^{Query me!} 07:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is Bstone when you need him? BJ^Talk 07:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the joke has missed some. Oh well. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues on the Nantes article

Hi, i've came to you as i noticed that you are an administrator, because i'm seeking assistance about a conflict with another user. I made modifications on the transport section on the Nantes article, then user schcambo (a user i've had many issues with) erased my edits and mentionned that it was vandalism. Could you take a look at the situation and tell me whether i am wrong or not. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.101.63.39 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael rotkin

Hi, just so you know, that page is a copyvio of http://www.seochampion.com/seo-company-bio.php. I just deleted the creator's userpage, which had the same content. Just letting you know in case he recreates it...

Cheers! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wimbledon Estates

That was a bit fast wasn't it? Four hours after it was nominated, and one hour after the first comment, you deleted this citing the AfD. If it was a speedy, surely you should have noted in the deletion log that it was a speedy - I'm going to wait for your response, but I think you should reopen this AfD and let it run. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the deletion was a fairly clear cut application of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. There is no way it would have been kept at AfD and arguably G11 applied (as it was tagged when I deleted it). BJ^Talk 10:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't see how it was spam - it doesn't look like an organisation or other entity being promoted. It looks like an article about a housing estate. I think judging WP:SNOW after one supportive comment, and giving the author of the article absolutely no time to respond is a little excessive as well. As for WP:IAR, I don't see how allowing the process to be concluded properly and allowing an adequate discussion, and perhaps the acquisition of sources poses a detriment to the encyclopedia, which is when we are meant to IAR. I'd still like you to undo it Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. BJ^Talk 10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Fritzpoll (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please undelete the AI-Wiki-page, what is the reason for deletion?

Triwbe has said you have deleted the AI-Wiki-page, what is the reason for the deletion? It was rated class B, and sould not be deleted. Please undelete the AI-Wiki-page, besides I want a copy of the AI-page's talk page to paste it on my talk page. It should not have been deleted but perhaps going at an Afd. See my talk page for more information, Regards ... (Anna Quist (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

If you want a copy of the article go here, since the article was a copy of that website. BJ^Talk 11:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. But if Anna Quist wants a fuller explanation, she can find it here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I had zero knowledge of the debate. I found the page while doing CSD work, confirmed the copyvio assertion and deleted. I just found the ANI thread and other talk of the page now. BJ^Talk 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius was right to point out that it was a copyvio, and you were right to delete it. You were then right to close the AfD as a "delete" and (in view of its history) to salt the title. However, if people don't already happen to know the "backstory", they're likely to infer from your terse closing comment either that the AfD ran its usual course or that you closed it per WP:SNOW but forgot to point this out. (Actually I've already had to correct one misunderstanding.) In order to avoid ambiguity, could you please return to the AfD and amplify your concluding comment a little? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Zeuspitar

The user page and talk of this user was deleted by you. No edit summary was given. Has he retired? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

His talk page was left with a somewhat unpleasant retiring message, I was hesitant to call it an it attack page, so I just left the reason blank. BJ^Talk 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to Bjweeks - Anarchy is cooperation without coercion/destruction/deletion - about the deletion of the AI-Wiki-page and cooperation to achieve an updated AI-page with general Wiki-consent

I find really no good arguments for your speedy deletion of the AI-apge. Sources on www.anarchy.no are of course relevant to an article about AI. Ad the copyright matter, GDLF etc, I am not sure about this. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know the routines. But I am sure we can reach an agreement on the copyright question. I want to discuss this, with the aim at a good solution within Wikipedia bureaucrat rules. I would like som more information on this matter, and please be so kind to inform me.

Leaving the bureaucracy at side for a moment, I will inform you a little about the content of the AI-Wikipage:

Someone - I don't know who, had placed a tag with questions about the AI page:

1. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.

Ad 1. There are independent third party publications, three main Norwegian newspapers, Le Monde Libertaire and the CRIFA-bulletin and several webpages under external links.

2. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.

Ad 2. "Notability" is a word thay can be interpreted in many ways. I guess the question of notablity is related to the so called "anorg-warning" at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html . This is however a total hoax, rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html

3. It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter.

Ad 3. I have no "conflict of interest with the subject matter". I am acting in a scientific, objective way, stating facts in this matter

4. The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax.

ad 4. I have answered to this under part 2. AI is not a hoax.

The AI-page is B-rated, i.e. a fairly good Wiki-page, and it should not be deleted.

I think you should agree with me in this matter, since it is the truth. In case you don't agree: Tell me what exactly do you mean is negative with the AI-page?

We, anarchists and other editors on Wiki should cooperate without coercion/destruction/deletion, on making the best possible AI-Wiki-page. I am open for suggestions. My long term aim is an A-rated AI-page. I will not republish the AI-page until Wiki-consensus on the page is reached in advance, including you. I will work in my sandbox, until Wiki-consensus is reached, and then publish an updated AI-page. I think you should cooperate in this matter. Your seemingly hostility vis-a-vis AI and the AI-page seems a bit irrational.

(Anna Quist (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Message to Bjweeks about the deleted talk page of the AI-Wiki-page. It should be a copy of it archived somewhere on Wikipedia, and I would like a copy of it pasted on my talk page

You deleted both the AI-Wiki-page and its talk page. I guess it must be stored somewhere here on Wikipedia. Please give me a relevant link, or paste a copy of it at my talkpage. Thank you in advance (Anna Quist (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

I'm going to butt in here and say that, as someone who userfies deleted content on request, if the material is a copyright violation (i.e. a copy of another website) then you can't have it userfied. The point of deleting this material is to protect WIkipedia from legal threats. Try writing the article at a userpage such as User:Anna Quist/AI in your own words, with sources that assert notability, etc. and then get in touch with Bjweeks (or me if he isn't around) and we'll check it over to make sure it won't get deleted back in article space. If you have any questions about what I've said, feel free to come by my talk page to talk about it. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International

I'm ok with the deletion - it was after all a copyvio, and lacked independent sources. However, I'm not convinced that the organisation wasn't notable in the 1960s and 1970s before it faded. I started poking round in journals and books and uncovered interesting evidence I planned to add to the article and bring to AfD. I'd like to further research the subject, and if sufficient evidence of notability comes up, write an article in userspace and request an unsalting. I understand the problems with persistent vandals recreating AfD'd content, but there may be a legitimate article in there. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The page had already been salted by another admin, then the article was recreated under a different name. So I thought resalting was in order. BJ^Talk 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BAG mentorship

Greetings. If my application for BAG membership goes through (and it's looking good so far), would you be willing to mentor me for a bit? I'm liable to make mistakes the first several times I close requests, approve trials, etc., and it would be nice to know an experienced BAGger is looking over my shoulder to undo any newbie errors. (Thanks a lot for co-nominating me, by the way!) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, took me a week or two after joining to learn all the "unwritten rules" that BAG has (IRC helps). BJ^Talk 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

2nd chance

Whaddya think? He can always be quickly reblocked... It's your call, of course. –xeno (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking of it, I'll go do it. BJ^Talk 16:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

MoS bot

As you asked in the WP:MoS, you have my support. I believe a MoS bot is possible, however its routines will likely crossover to the responsibilities preformed by the AWB. A reason to refute that a MoS bot is unncessary is that the AWB is operated by our users discretion: articles are not corrected regularly. There are several other issues we have to address; one is safety, I understand and believe that articles can be corrected safely, however general conception is otherwise; two is significance, we do not want bots filling the history pages with minor edits, this also lapse into the All in one bot; and three is the MoS is not on solid ground: new proposals are created on a frequent basis, and the patiences of its defendents are drawn very thin(this can work in our advantage, however). We appear to be online at approximately the same time, IRC is possible, simply post a room on my talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Hi. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Security Now!, it seems that you relisted the debate but forgot to change it from Log/2008 July 24 to Log/2008 July 29. Please be sure to do so in the future. :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I take it the script I'm using doesn't work. :( BJ^Talk 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoneware webOS. If you're using the same script I am, all it does is add the notice on the AfD. You still need to manually un-transclude the AfD from the old log into the new log.[1] [2] — Scientizzle 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that explains RelistBot... Now it just needs to be finished. BJ^Talk 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

TaBOT-zerem

Hi,

Can you please assist with this request: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TaBOT-zerem?

The trial was carried out successfully.

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Beep, did you miss it? Your input is welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong decision

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_1/reflist

"D" also means discussion, in spirit, AS IS EXPLICIFIED IN WP:CFD, in A formal decision... TFD's needed an overhaul for several years now... especially in it's ATTITUDEs expressed in the spirit of Delete vs. Discussion.

I can't well make posts to the pump if you're going to preemptively act... so I'm off to AN/I next. AND I HATE wikipolitics... I said duty, and meant it. Grrrrrr! <g> // FrankB 20:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings, but I think you were impetuous and 22 or something. :)

I just didn't need the curveball... here... bad enough the one here Template talk:reflist#Editprotect request 2008-08-01...

I hope you follow AN/I and tidy up one way or another since you complicated the links for the community. If the discussion continues on the talk, at least initiate a section there... I was trying to have one clean page. <shakes head> tsk tisk
I need to go to edits in progress on half a dozen tabs on wikiversity and the commons... THIS WAS NOT a good thing for me. So do monitor and act older than your ancient 22 years! :) // FrankB 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

re: I'm still not understanding CSS is "frontend" in that it is processed by the users browser. The extra code amounts to an extra div and some CSS, how could that possibly cause extra server load? BJTalk 02:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue... I'm not asserting that it does, but am asserting that THAT was what Brion seemed to be saying, AS I READ IT... now... far too long ago. I have no idea of what is handled by CSS, personal scripts, and so forth, or how the HTML is generated for that fact save some fuzzy conjecture, BUT DO have a working knowledge of what I see on a browser source page... sometimes that's the only way to see why a template is misbehaving...
I'm also quite aware that you can't put carts in front of the horse... being able to cause a template to self-subst is an example of that sort of wish... as the current parser doesn't support it. I wrote a prettyprint program long ago that would allow such 'back stream alteration', but subst won't allow it. Attempting it in templates is a violation of causality. The closest we can get is a template like {{DATE}} that has to be explicitly subst'd at the time of file composition (i.e. when saved). My point is that the order in which things are processed matters, as well as when and where inside browser tech... all matter. I'm cheerfully clueless on browsers inards and inneractions, so have nothing but semi-informed guesses as one kind of computer professional on when and where things have scope and influence the HTML streams displayed.
Anomie seems to have suggested this is a baseless concern here, but what he says is only one interpretation, and I could be misunderstanding that for it's context. So far I just know I don't know, and until someone flat out makes the point that Brion's quote is out of context and another cache was involved, I don't know what to think.
I do know, ego's get involved and people hold onto things and defend them past the time they should consider them dispassionately. If three people (or more whom I know and trust) or Brion in particular, say there's no cached page problem and performance degradation, then I'll be satisfied. Until some people comment I've worked with before... I'm on hold. Nothing personal, I just know I DON'T KNOW... knowing what you don't know is a good starting point. Almost as good as being "dead certain because...", you know?! <g> // FrankB 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rereading Brion's quote in context just now before closing, looks like the whole 'rationale' and interpretation for that drifted in my mind as the curve balls came along today... the discussion should really be the continuation of that topic... "Multiple_columns_deemed_bad" (They've certainly been bad for me today!)... two columns or none, cause what I thought Brion said, is apparently not there now! Ooops. Now what do I do???? What a friggin nightmare this turned into...

I think I'll just sit on this and see what else develops there overnight... maybe someone will flat out say that the page caching isn't affected. Maybe it should be swerved to the two vs. one column original discussion... Hell, I'm so tired now I'd better wait 'til morning. No matter what, this has been very unpleasant. Regards // FrankB 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

please check this page out for vandalism (in the end) Georg Leber

Non-free images SVlogo.PNG on Template:Southern Vectis route 1, & Templ... route 7

Whoops! I really ought to have read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions and realised Templates are banned. I could apply for an exemption on the grounds these particular templates will only be used on their associated articles, but it's not worth the hassle, especially as they'll probably be the basis for many more. I'll just stick them back on the appropriate articles themselves. Out of interest, I know it wasn't you who did it, but can you think of a reason why only the main Southern Vectis still has a fair use rationale? I see the point about the templates, but it still needs to be used on List of Southern Vectis bus routes and Island Breezers, and the image is still present on those pages. I'm going to get in touch with the editor concerned... --Peeky44 (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

BAG-related questions

About how long does a {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} usually stick around before the request is considered expired? (Example: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Peti610botH/re.)
I approved my first RfBA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DumZiBoT 2. I followed SQL's instructions pretty closely, but if I could do it better in some way, let me know.
...and I denied my first RfBA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 4. Again, any constructive criticism is welcome.

Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1) A week is a good guideline. 2) Good close, I don't see any problems. 3) Good deny, I was waiting for somebody to do that one. BJ^Talk 19:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Communications

Sorry about the 'edit war', BJ. I was unaware of what was happening until I got your note. I thought my edits were failing since I was new to the game. Thus, I tried to re-submit them correctly when that wasn't the problem at all.

I hope that you will reconsider allowing the edits I submitted. An emergency call is the most critical an operator will make. As a REACT volunteer, I know that the failure rate among such calls runs as high as 94%. It seems vitally important that readers get that life-saving information. That is why I placed it right up front, so they couldn't miss it. It is a chance to save a life. Thanks, and sorry again about the mess-up.

Ron McCracken (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Ron McCracken

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/タチコマ robot (10)

Can we please reopen this. I'd like to work on this again. I have made two test edits already. -- Cat ^chi? 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BJBot

Your BJBot is making changes that don't match. I've put an image who's Copyright holder allows it to use for free purposes, and your bot changes it to NonFreeImage all the time. Non-sense¿? --Vitilsky (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The image actually isn't free, I've updated it. BJ^Talk 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Intern

Why the removal of the one part most Danish people define when using the term "Intern" Covergaard (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I missed something working for a day isn't really an internship but if I'm wrong I will readd it. BJ^Talk 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It functions like this: Some students - most considered rather naive by the majority of the population apply to be part of the "working for a day" program. Then they are sent to firms which are a part of the program also in order to work in this firm for a day. Their salery goes to a foreign project if they can get the money out of Denmark, which have been a problem due to our partipation in the war against terrorism - Some of their projects are being investigated to be cover for terrorism. The Students receive knowledge about the workplace. It is a internship, but of course a rather short one. I am happy to say that today it is only a minor fraction who participate, but it is still approved as a part of a political deal from a former government. Covergaard (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The More You Know. :) I've added it back to the article, sorry for the trouble. BJ^Talk 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Alexbot

Greetings. Back in June you blocked User:Alexbot indefinitely for running unapproved bot tasks. He is applying for another bot task (double redirects), and I approved the account for a 50-edit trial. I also unblocked the bot account, but I'll be keeping an eye on it. You might want to as well. If you think I unblocked in error, please let me know. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No objections here as long as he sticks to approved tasks. BJ^Talk 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for setting the protection on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Country data Punjab

I put up the flag for PK-PB, the Pakistani province, Punjab, on this template but you reverted it. My last edit showed its usage on the Pakistani government site for Punjab, http://pportal.punjab.gov.pk/portal/images/bot-upper-log.gif. I think that perhaps you are mistaking this for IN-PB, the Indian state, Punjab, and as such will revert this template to the version with an image. Please try to understand. :)--Thecurran (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The image was removed from the template because it is non-free. See WP:NFCC#9. BJ^Talk 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DRG Logo

I'm not sure why the DRG logo in the navigation table has to be deleted. The image comes from Wiki Commons and says it is for open use. It's also on another article. The one with a warning on it is the yellow and black version on de.wiki. Again it would be great to resolve the permissions and use it.

In any case, surely there must be some way of displaying this; the DB logo is on the DB nav tables and they still exist, whereas the DRG is defunct. Can you help? --Bermicourt (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This image isn't marked as being free but it seems likely that it could have been published before 1923. Do you have any information when the logo was first used? BJ^Talk 08:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Deutsche Reichsbahn was formed in 1920 and the company (Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft) in 1925, but I'm not sure when the logo was first used by them. They don't exist any more. Interestingly the de.wiki site one e.g. here - Deutsche Reichsbahn is a computer generated version. Pity the uploader didn't supply more details. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The logo seems to fit the criteria for non-free use and is used elsewhere on English Wiki. It was almost certainly first used in the early 1920s. Is there any reason why it can't be reinstated? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images can't be used in templates, which is why I originally removed it. BJ^Talk 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

help with Conservapedia

Hay can you revert this[3] edit you just made. The site appears to have fixed its hacker problem but I cannon revert as the url blacklist prevents me. - Icewedge (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done BJ^Talk 23:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Brandon. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you retrieve old Racing_line text?

It seems that when you moved Line (racing) to Racing line you made the old content of Racing line inaccessible (i.e. obliterated from either page history), at least with my skills. Can you find the old content? There was a little bit there, including something of a scientific reference. I actually have saved somewhere else the reference, and might look into working the reference in, although it was rather simplistic. (Basically boiled down to saying "Try to fit the largest diameter circle into the available space").--SportWagon (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

here. BJ^Talk 16:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference was [4]. But old page was overall even worse than I remembered. But please leave for a while, thanks. :) --SportWagon (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

oldid if I change my sandbox. BJ^Talk 03:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've snarfed it all to my "Sandbox" now, thanks.--SportWagon (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Judith 2001 Solo.jpg) per BJBot (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bjweeks, but I don't know what to do and am too stupid and pressed to figure it out. Can you help? If possible, please insert the images of Judith Durham into the article. I do have permission for their use on Wikipedia only. They were sent to me by Graham Simpson, her agent, with clearance for Wikipedia; I uploaded the permission statement with the images. Richard David Ramsey 18:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Images that can only be used on Wikipedia are not allowed. It would need to be licensed under a free license. BJ^Talk 18:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

TestEditBot

See User_talk:TestEditBot#Bot_shut_off. Should we unapprove this? The guy that did the block emailed me with more detail. The bot flag was previously removed too. Pls advise. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I requested the flag be removed because anti-vandal bots should run unflagged (ClueBot being an exception) so that their edits can be human reviewed. Normally we leave it at being blocked. The approval can be revoked but it hasn't been done yet. BJ^Talk 19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This bot seems to have a problematic history IIRC. I think for now it should stay blocked. As for removing approval, I leave that to BAG ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Django_default_page.png

Both you and another user are apparently somewhat confused about this image. It is a screenshot, taken in Mozilla Firefox, of the default page of the Django web framework. Firefox and Django are both released under certified open-source licenses, so I'm somewhat stumped as to what sort of copyright violation you think has taken place there. I've further uploaded a new version taken in Firefox with all visible extensions disabled, so as to ensure that not even a hint of the existence of non-free software exists in the image. If this is insufficient please provide a rationale whose basis is in copyright law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubernostrum (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Taj_nontabbed.png, Image:Taj_tabbed.png, Image:Taj_mahal_infobox.png

Does the bot tag as orphaned images which are used in the project (Wikipedia) namespace but not used in the main namespace? These screenshots of GNU licensed Lynx browser renderings are being used to demonstrate text browser displays within a WP:VPR thread only. There is no other OS chrome etc. within the image. Sswonk (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Non-free use rationale}} needs to be replaced with {{Information}}. BJ^Talk 04:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Danke

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. However, in order to keep the vandals from harassing someone else, I ask that you refrain from hitting the "protect" button on my talk page. I have a separate page set up so that I'm not disrupted by he or his eunuchs. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 00:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I undid it as soon as a I saw, I didn't see the reverted version until after I already protected. BJ^Talk 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging

Replaceable fair use images should be tagged with {{Rfu}} rather than the CSD template. Thanks! BJ^Talk 04:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does the speedy delete template exist then? Asher196 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself, I can't think of a situation where it would be used. BJ^Talk 04:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Craigslist.png

Hello,

Your bot BJBot tagged Image:Craigslist.png as orphaned. On this image page description, MediaWiki says "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file." though it is actually used on the article Craigslist in the infobox. Maybe because it is used in a collapsible pane. What's your opinion? 16@r (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, it was the blanking vandal. BJ^Talk 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me what was inaccurate in my edits. Beckyvolley (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reliable sources that suggest that Trig is actually her daughters son. There is a strong consensus on the talk page to not include it and that it violates WP:BLP. BJ^Talk 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I added that there was dispute on who Trig's mother was to the Palin article, after which you threatened to block me on my talk page. I see that this rumor/conjecture is part of the article now (at least the last edit I viewed). I have no reason to believe you are biased or rude, though I found your curt message on my talk page... inappropriate. I will presume that you got caught up in the heat of others' edits to the article and did not mean offense. ;) Beckyvolley (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Thanks, Bjweeks, for your close attention to the article on Sarah Palin.

You removed this statement from a note inserted by me into the article; you indicated as your reason that the statement needs to be sourced:

McCain's announcement of Palin, coming immediately after the Democratic National Convention, overrode media analysis of Obama's acceptance speech and attempted to appeal to supporters of Hillary Clinton. See the note about Palin in the English Wikipedia article on Joe Lieberman.

First, I can find a credible source which argues that the announcement diverted media attention from Obama to Palin. But that effect was pretty obvious; McCain's motive for the timing, however, would need to be sourced, but I have now left out any statement of his motivation.

Second, Palin in acknowledging McCain, explicitly and positively mentioned Hillary Clinton for having put "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling." I can reference Palin's speech if you wish.

My concern is that the article at this hour gives the impression that Lieberman's pro-choice voting record and historical Democratic Party affiliation were the sole factors precluding McCain from choosing him. Outside of Wikipedia the world seems to recognize that McCain chose Palin in part because of the desirability, from McCain's vantage point, of peeling off enough Hillary Democrats who want to see a woman serving in such high office.

What specifically are you asking me to source? (I'm trying to do this in the midst of Gustav!)

Richard David Ramsey 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a source that the McCain campaign planed the announcement to coincide with the DNC then it may be suitable. With the amount of unsourced material being added most of it is getting reverted on sight. BJ^Talk 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether McCain actually planned the timing for that purpose is not the main point. What needs to be inserted is something like, but not so graphic as, the need for Lieberman to undergo a sex change. I'll reference Palin's mention of the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling made by Hillary's voters and get back to this intriguing article after the storm has passed.

Richard David Ramsey 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My comments in the Palin talk page refer directly to the efforts on individuals to undermine the NPOV of the article. You're being overly aggressive, here. Professor Backwards (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I've reviewed the edits in question, and I think Bjweeks is doing a fine job handling a very difficult and important subject. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to follow the Dispute resolution process. All comments on the talk page should be about content, not contributors. BJ^Talk 03:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The last comment was specifically about the article's main image. Professor Backwards (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"the purpose of this article is NOT to flatter Gov. Plain." was fine, the rest was not. BJ^Talk 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a WP:INARTFUL PHRASING which you can point me to? Professor Backwards (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't make snarky about editors and you should be fine. If that fails WP:COMMON. BJ^Talk 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but never forget- Assume good faith. Professor Backwards (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

←I don't think you intend to harm the wiki but that doesn't make your comments any more appropriate. BJ^Talk 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you provide an explanation?

I posted a request for bot approval.

You summarily denied it without discussion.

And without providing a reason.

Why?

Is there a bot or are there bots that have been approved for this type of task? If so, please tell me what they are, so I can contact them.

If not, then please reinstate my request for bot approval, so it can be discussed.

I'll use programmable macros to create the bot if I can't find a programmer to do it. Please resubmit my proposal.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: please reply on my talk page, thank you. -TT

Something going wrong here...

Hi, your BjBot reported that my image Image:Goering giving a speech to his fighter pilots near Calais September 1940.jpg is orphaned. Actually, it still is used on Battle_of_Britain#Raids_on_British_cities. I don't know why this page doesn't show up in the File Links section of the image page. So it is not you BjBot that is in error but the cross-links in Wikipedia are. I don't know where to report this error, I will leave it up to you. Kind regards, Arconada (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed BJ^Talk 09:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

pardon me

I am trying to understand the premise of the recent warning you gave me. please help me understand what I am doing wrong here.Duuude007 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RFAR alert

One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#MZMcBride. In your case, you are, like me, one of those who made an edit to the article while it was full protected. GRBerry 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin correction?

Is she still the "presumptive" nominee, or the de facto nominee? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

After the acceptance speech should would be the de facto nominee I think but not sure. Sources would be good. BJ^Talk 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She is simply the 2008 Republican Vice Presidential Nominee now.Duuude007 (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BJbot

Can you fix the bot's false tagging of images that aren't really orphaned? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, if MediaWiki says the image isn't used how is the bot suppose to know it is? BJ^Talk 02:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's mediawiki causing the issue and not the bot? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Two threads above this, I get many reports of this nature that I verify and fix by making the null edit. The bot's code checks for orphaned status twice, once in SQL and once from the image page. BJ^Talk 04:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I've never seen the image page itself be wrong. Have you mentioned this to the wiki devs? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it is the way the job queue works. The job queue isn't very efficient from what I hear, speeding it up would help solve the problem. BJ^Talk 11:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

maybe you can help

how do i get passed these 'orphaned' image issues? What so i have to do to upload a picture/logo that i own and not get dinged for orphaning or copyright infringment? I've read many an article, but everything is so confusing! can you clarify for me? Csheppard1 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned means the image isn't being used in an article. BJ^Talk 02:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22#PUI_Bot

Did you ever get a chance to do this? If not, could you please relist it at WP:BOTREQ so that someone else will take it up? Stifle (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to code a bot to replace the broken PUI/Copyright problems listing bot anyways, should be easy enough to combine the old IfD bot with it. BJ^Talk 02:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Samwell

I'm curious as to your reasoning behind the "no consensus" for Samwell (entertainer) (on this afd)? Four unsigned IP keeps (three of which were single-purpose accounts). One keep that boiled down to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is not a valid reason. Jasynnash2, seresin, and I all pointing out that no reliable sources can be found to verify the person's notability. Just curious? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus is not based on numbers. No keep arguments provided any policy-backed reasoning. Just lots of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments. Those who supported deletion pointed out the lack of verification or notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)