This is an archive of discussions past. Please do not edit this page, and instead visit User talk:ST47 if you want to leave me a comment.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47.
Is MFDBot malfunctioning? I noticed you reverted one of its edits when I was going to whitelist it in huggle, but I wanted to make sure it is running ok before I do that. Thingg⊕⊗18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing some debugging - there was a bug regarding format of the page. I've fixed it, and it will be returning to its once daily edit at 0:00 UTC. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MfDbot archived three discussions in fully transcluded form and one of them wasn't closed yet! I'm trying to fix but my hotel connection is dreadfully slow today.--Doug.(talk • contribs)22:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it actually archived straight through the Closed Discussions header, that would explain why I found the header missing the other day. I can't fix it right now due to connection speed. The biggest issue is the open discussion that needs to be put back in it's place. Thanks. And Thanks for all the hard work on this. I've never worked with a bot but I'm sure it must be a lot of work to get one to work properly sometimes and I know that this will eventually mean much less work for all of us at MfD.--Doug.(talk • contribs)22:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but, given the chance of future double redirection, I don't think it's a bad idea. Also, I think I saw a WikiProject somewhere about reducing redirection. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just by glancing at the code, try replacing line 513 with:
$content = $res->decoded_content();
Instead of:
$content = $self->{mech}->decoded_content();
And see if that fixes it. If so, please tell me so I can commit it, if not, I'll look into the code. Honestly, you shouldn't really be getting that error >.> That seems to indicate that you aren't getting a WWW::Mechanize instance. Your bot doesn't modify $editor->{mech}, does it? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I first tried after taking a look at the code, but still no luck. I should probably point out that the above error message is Perlwikipedia.pm with that patch applied, without I get a similar one:
Can't locate object method "decoded_content" via package "WWW::Mechanize" at Perlwikipedia.pm line 513.
Also, try putting print ref($self->{mech}) . "\n"; to see what sort of object $self->{mech} is. That may help with debugging the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running WWW::Mechanize 1.34 (the latest according to CPAN). Adding that line of code also confirms that $self->{mech}, is, in fact, a WWW::Mechanize object. —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door?00:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look through your @INC (perl -V if you need to see it, I think, or just try to perl -MRandomshitthatdoesntexist) and make sure there's a decoded_content sub in HTTP::Message. If you do something other than that sub, like a get_text() or edit(), does it work? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(←) You need to edit the last line of get_pages_in_category, and replace
return @pages;
with
return \@pages;
This can be diagnosed by noticing that the return value of the function is not an array reference, it is a numeric scalar. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; I downloaded perlwikipedia, tried to figure out what could go wrong, but in retrospect I don't think I am getting the error he is.
Paranomia, is the error happening on these lines of Perlwikipedia.pm?
my @pages;
my $res = $self->_get( $category, 'view' );
unless ($res) { return 1; }
my $content = $res->decoded_content;
If so, I am not getting the same error when I run it. Could you check what type of reference the $res variable is? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This won't help in finding the fix, but I had the same problem when I upgraded to the fix for issue 9. I didn't pursue the problem because I was in the process of changing my code over to use CBM's Mediawiki::API package, and I just reverted the upgrade to keep the code running until I had completed the switchover of my fairly rudimentary code. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. It is true that another way to work around this problem is to switch to a different framework (the one BrownHairedGirl mentioned is available at User:VeblenBot). But it would be nice to track down this problem as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered trying MediaWiki::API (this is what I'll probably try doing next), and already have tried porting it to MediaWiki, but didn't like it because it didn't have a debug mode. And considering someone else has had this problem, it would be nice to have this fixed. —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door?14:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's line 513:
while ( $res = $self->{mech}->follow_link( text => 'next 200' ) && ref($res) eq 'HTTP::Response' && $res->is_success ) {
sleep 1; #Cheap hack to make sure we don't bog down the server
$content = $self->{mech}->decoded_content();
And the error persists when you change the last line to $content = $res->decoded_content(); ? Which category are you trying, I will try again to recreate the error later today. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I can reproduce the problem now, on the latest version of Perlwikipedia from svn - but not with Category:Recursion_theory, only with the category you gave above. I'll see if I can work out what's up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This diff fixes it for me:
--- lib/Perlwikipedia.pm (revision 135)
+++ lib/Perlwikipedia.pm (working copy)
@@ -508,9 +508,9 @@
push @pages, $1;
}
}
- while ( $res = $self->{mech}->follow_link( text => 'next 200' ) && ref($res) eq 'HTTP::Response' && $res->is_success ) {
+ while ( ($res = $self->{mech}->follow_link( text => 'next 200' )) && ref($res) eq 'HTTP::Response' && $res->is_success) {
sleep 1; #Cheap hack to make sure we don't bog down the server
- $content = $self->{mech}->decoded_content();
+ $content = $res->decoded_content();
if ($content=~/<div id=\"mw-subcategories\">/i) {
$content=~s/.+<div id=\"mw-subcategories\">//is;
It sort of fell apart when the founder left Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm not technically capable of operating a closed proxy anyway, so I'm not an active member. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here I am trying to resolve a bunch of images, across a bunch of wikis, that were wrongly put on commons and need to be FUR'ed onto en:wiki, see here. So I try to do the first one, to establish the fix procedure, and I get bot-templated within six minutes here. Now I have no intention of joining the ranks of the image-screamers nor the bot-screamers, but I do have a few comments:
Can there be at least a one-hour grace period? At least? I wasn't able to find the exact upload pick for "LAC images on commons needing to be re-uploaded on en:wiki with FUR's, click here", but I did figure I would be able to upload with a generic non-license then immediately replace it with the full scoop. Now that does take a while to do, what with the conservative estimate of seven tabs/windows open to do the task - so can the bot store and check with delay? I'm hoping to write up some pointers for others to help, but if they're gonna get spammed in the meanwhile, realistically, they'll just stop trying.
Then I check your bot page, and I see "my notice, because BetacommandBot checks" - umm, I thought it was your bot? I thought the idea was that you would take the load? And a little further down, "If you're here to whine and complain", WTF, if you are going to have the exact same attitude as Beta, why did you split the bot? Just to reduce the per-user ANI thread-count? And BTW, I will revert the bot's edit to my upage, since 1) I read it, and 2) it's a spurious notice, since I had a current edit token to the relevant Image page when it dropped the notice. Oh also, that floating notice to take questions to the copyright page - nice, I thought the idea was for you to take on the questions, I must have really misread that approval (was that the one that was closed early?).
Now moving on to your own utalk, bots and "heat death of the universe" - srs? What normal user should have to deal with that almost impenetrable obstacle, and why should any editor on the english wikipedia have to leave the site to do, well, anything? I can handle bug reports wherever, but I'm not normal, and here I am - on your utalk, it's not a problem with the bot, it's a problem with the philosophy and handling of bots.
This is not meant to be a general rant, 'tho it is partly my response to my first attempt to upload an image, which was made in utterly good faith and full resolve to comply with non-free in all aspects. I'm only noting here some general impressions which I hope you could address. I'll note that I've been active on discussing bot issues, many of which I think are failures of communication, some examples are outlined above. Note also, I'm trying hard with bots and non-free images, I intervene on Beta's page whenever I can. Don't take this as an attack, but it is a comment on the general situation. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. One hour is too long, the bot would lose too much data on a reset. This is more than enough for anyone who adds the correct data when they upload the image, and most everyone else needs to be reminded, or has no intention of following policy. You can't really just say "I'll deal with the law in a few hours, I don't feel like it right now."
The reference to BetacommandBot is a reference to a different bot. BetacommandBot operates on images that already exist, mine operates on recent uploads. If someone removes a tag without fixing the problem, BCBot will catch it on its next pass.
If there's a technical issue, and you want me to see it anytime soon, it goes on the bugtracker. Because it's a bug. And the bugtracker tracks it. That's the point of a bugtracker. Unfortunately, most users aren't even sufficiently competent to use it, but in general, that means whatever they're complaining about takes longer to fix. I check this talkpage only once a day sometimes, even less others. Typically, if it's a real problem, it takes me a few rounds of back-and-forth to get a good understanding. A proper bug report would allow me to start working on it immediately, but again most people can't write bug reports. I check the bug tracker almost whenever I have a chance, and whenever one of my bugs is modified, I get an email and a ping on IRC. It's the one place I need to go to if I'm working on something technical, because all of my bots are there, and so are requests for database queries. 10:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you had cleaned up some problems with the image on the Atlantis: The Lost Empire article, and I hoped you could help me clean up a mess I have just caused there. I uploaded a movie poster for a different Atlantis movie, Atlantis (1913 film) but unfortunately called it the same name as the one that was already on the Altlantis: The Lost Empire article. I've tried to undo the mistake, but was unable. How can I revert that article back to its original and correct form? And the picture also? Thanks CactusWriter (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... nevermind... I'm an idiot, but improving. I figured out how to work it and it's fixed now. Sorry to clutter up your page with this nonsense. Please delete CactusWriter (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have sent me a notice that the image of Ms. Pinter which I upload must be removed immediately. I was given the image by the public relations department, Ms. Lisa Lugassi, of As the World Turns, Proctor and Gamble Productions for use in disseminating information about Ms. Pinter's involvement with the Oral Cancer Foundation, and about her public efforts to raise awareness of this disease. I have uploaded the image within the parameters of the agreement with the aforementioned individuals and organizations. Your bot and the removal of this image is wrong. Brian Hill, bhill@oralcancerfoundation.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilllaguna (talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the admin for tibettruth.com which is the website for Independent Tibet Network . One of our team (Wiki username=Zhiji) recently posted A Wiki entry about our organisation called 'Tibet campaign', which was deleted or frozen as it was claimed to be in copyright violation. Please explain how we, as originators and owners of tibettruth/independent tibet network, can be inviolation of our own copyrighted material or name? Secondly if the objection is based upon using the term 'Tibet campaign' well that is exactly what we are engaged in, it is a perfectly appropriate adjective and not in nay sense a misappropriaton of 'free tibet campaign'. Had we wished to do so we would have used the phrase 'campaign free tibet'.
If your material is copyrighted, it cannot be used on wikipedia. All contributions to Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reinstate two pages - American Orient Express and Grandluxe Rail
You've had an issue with page protection before, and you promised not to use your tools in that way again. Dare I suggest it's not a good idea for you to be protecting WP:BAG on a version you prefer? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your pledge only applied to BRFAs, not closely related issues? Great. Edit warring isn't acceptable from either side. Protecting it on a version that you have an interest in is part of the edit war. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? I thought this was settled when you agreed not to use administrative tools in cases where you are directly involved. Do you really not see how your use of tools here is inappropriate? ➪HiDrNick! 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. It obviously needed to be protected. We don't allow people to edit war over content of a page - we have policies about that, if you haven't seen them, WP:EW, WP:3RR. I don't see how I have a personal interest in supporting that system of BAG elections, as I haven't participated in any of the discussions about that for some time, didn't vote in any of those elections, and was one of the people who wanted to change away from that system. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure that you still supported the change, especially after withdrawing your confirmation discussion. Still, it's not exactly a good idea for you to always be the one protecting BAG pages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And instead, we should let chaos reign until we can find someone you like? I'll make sure to check with you before I do anything in the future. Since my bot was the one that warned the user above of the speedy deletion of his articles, perhaps someone uninvolved should help him? We wouldn't want me to make a biased decision, would we? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waste of time, I don't think either of you has argued that the page should not have been protected. The result would have been that the page would have been protected, and that's what happened. I didn't intentionally wait for BC to revert locke's edits, I protected the page as soon as I noticed the edit war in my irc window. I don't think locke would have been reverting in the near future anyway, as I've since been told that he was blocked at the time of the protection. I don't see a need to allow anyone else to edit war over it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I found a notice that a page I started work on was to be deleted. This is the FAQ project. I guess is because there was no content there, and I have been working to get it ready, so I was sort of early in creating the Wikipedia page. Can this be reinstated later once I have the content ready to go ?
Just wanted to let you know that the password for STBot is available on FishEye subversion at the toolserver—I'm not going to give any links to be on the safe side, but you may wish to remove it from the source code. Cheers, —paranomiahappy harry's high club20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STbot is no longer used except for bot access to the API, so i've blocked the account and changed the password. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 21:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no actual risk to those images, as they're on commons. At least I know now what that line of code I removed was supposed to do >.> --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since your bot seems to be having so much trouble with images on Commons, would it be worthwhile to add an "Is this on Commons? If so, move on to the next image" check to the bot? --Carnildo (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the original idea - it checks to see if the image exists, then if it's local or on commons, and only proceeds if it's local. For whatever reason, this was causing all sorts of errors from the bot on images with unicode filenames, so I removed the check without realizing what it was for. I've since reinstated the check and the bot hasn't made any more incorrect taggings, nor is it crashing. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've reverted it, since it isn't a WP:SNOW candidate, and I can't see where MF has withdrawn it. If I've missed something, please feel free to point it out to me. Thanks, Gwernol00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And when there's something like that going on, check before you same the page that you aren't reintroducing the vandalism. Your save at 20:17 was BEFORE my fixing of the vandalism at 20:18, so if you have hit preview, you'd have known what was going on. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am exceedingly unhappy that you saw fit to snow close my RfA. It may indeed only have snowball's chance in Hell of passing, but you ought to have done me the courtesy of asking what my feelings were on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is so incorrect, besides the bracket imbalence here? I think it's quite clear that it's removing links to non-free images... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bracket imbalance, converting two of the images into inline links but the third into "NonFreeImageRemoved.svg", and editing inside a comment. --Carnildo (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should prove compliance with WP:NFCC, for example by using {{Non-free use rationale}}. In particular, you fail to mention points 1, 2, 7, and 10c, and I seriously doubt that that image complies with 1 and 8, and that is why the image has been tagged. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said. I just gave you a list of 5 requirements that you fail to address, and I give you a suggestion, and you completely ignore the requirements and accuse me of forcing you to follow the suggestion? Follow the policy and the bot will leave you alone. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You bot writers are a surly bunch of pricks, I give you that ;) That is not what I said. I know that isn't what you said, I figured it out for myself. I also figure out that you are too lazy to write a bot that parses for "rationale" (or "rational" for poor spellers like me) in the body of the article page. If you want some help doing this, let me know. The bot I wrote never, ever required editors use a tag or template just for the bot's pleasure, but then I'm not lazy like you. We don't write pages for bots. --Duk00:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for 'rationale' would allow people who don't write real rationales, such as yourself, to evade the bot. My current detection rules, which search for certain key terms or templates, seem to be correct, at least in this case. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, foundation level policy requires that the non-free state of images be 'machine-readable', so yes, we do write some pages for bots. Here, we're writing a page to ensure that copyright law and policy are followed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please direct me to the 'machine readable' policy on en. My apologies if I missed that. Also, If this image gets deleted, it will be because of your little tantrum, not because it lacks a rationale or is the right thing to do. Please try to do what's best for the project and not what's best for your sensitive ego. This is as classic a fair-use case as they come. --Duk00:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bookkeeping Associations Deleted, would like it restored
This article was only a few hours old before it was deleted. It is required to ensure that articles on bookkeeping can make reference to bookkeeping associations and their purpose. It will also avoid a situation where people keep adding bookkeeping associations to the main bookkeeping articles and make it unreadable and long. --NilssonDenver (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. My name is Hall Hunt. There was a page about me that was deleted earlier this month. I just noticed that it was deleted. I don't know anything about publishing anything about Wikipedia except for looking articles up, so I am amazed that I even found this page to ask you the question.
How can I get the page back up? I think it said said something about plagerizm. I didn't create the page to begin with, but rather I think it was an organization I am a part of. Maybe they plagerized there other webpage or something. I am not sure.
The bottom line is I would be willing to do anything I need to so the page can be posted again. Please let me know what, if anything I can do.
I guess you usually post responses here, so I will check back. Otherwise just email me at HallHunt@comcast.net .
Thank you very much! ;o)
67.129.185.89 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Hall Hunt[reply]
Hi there!
Looks like I deleted your article because it was copyrighted material, and we can only use free non-copyrighted text (see at the top left of this page where it says "Wikipedia, the FREE encyclopedia"?) If you do believe that we should have an article about you, you can write a draft, making sure that you can back up your information with links to reputable web sites, and visit WP:AFC for more information. Before you do, please note that we cannot publish your article unless it is written in a neutral way (You can't say "Hall Hunt is the best because he is awesome", you can say "Hall Hunt has won so and so competition in the field of competitive eating," granted, of course, that you have actually won that competition) and contains links to reliable sources, like newspapers or other websites, or even this article, which is what our old article was copied from. You might also want to have a look at WP:COI first, since writing about yourself in a neutral way is often a difficult task - but if you do happen to slip up, there are plenty of eyes around to help out. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a couple of friendly words, because I'm worried that you may be rubbing some editors the wrong way, and potentially scaring them off from Wikipedia. I think it would be very helpful if both you and your bot provided a little more information about what Wikipedia, and your bot, expect to find at a non-free image page - and to let editors know what it is they've missed out from their rationale.
It is clear from your comments on your talk page that a number of editors feel their images already satisfy the requirements, and that the template messages left by the bot have not made it clear if, or why, this is not the case. Your first replies rarely help them to understand why they are in error; in some cases ("Stop being stupid and fix your image") they are downright rude - especially coming from an administrator.
I'm not sure of the mechanics of your bot, but I suspect you would reduce the number of irate posts to your talk page if your bot's message gave the user clearer instructions, which could perhaps be made more specific according to which of the bot's rules was broken. I'd suggest something along the lines of:
“
You have tagged this image as fair use, but you didn't provide enough information for a bot to verify that the image meets these requirements. Please go to the image's talk page and check that it clearly describes why the image satisfies all the posts listed here and here. You may find it helpful to look at this guide. Sorry if this is inconvenient, but we have to be very careful that Wikipedia abides by copyright laws. If you have any questions about the copyright status of your image, or of Wikipedia's copyright policy in general, you could ask here.
”
Also, please do read template messages you post on user pages, check they're appropriate (you recently tagged my burgeoning talk page with a message saying "Welcome to Wikipedia!" when a quick glance would have shown you that I'm not exactly new to the site, which didn't exactly make a great first impression) and check that they provide the editor with a clear "next step" through the complex copyright mire. I usually find that editors are more willing to spend their time doing things, such as providing a fair use rationale, if I take a couple of seconds to speak to them helpfully rather than just bombarding them with unhelpful templates.
I hope that that will help to engage editors a little more in the copyright process and encourage them to improve rationales, rather than thinking "sod it, it's not worth it", and leaving useful images to get deleted unnecessarily. Besides, I'm sure you get pretty frustrated wasting your time messaging people telling them why your bot was right and they were wrong - which is clearly the case in the majority of instances! I hope that a more helpful bot message would reduce the number of people requiring such a response.
I am cautious about telling users exactly what is wrong with the image, because if they know exactly what the bot saw, they can fix that issue and then not be seen by me again, whereas if the image has many problems that the bot cannot detect, it is preferable to have them fix all of the issues that they can find so they comply with the policy, not with my bot. The problem arises not when they can't find out what the problem is, but when they refuse to read and understand policy, even though the relevant policy is linked from the deletion tag, the warning message, and the bot's talk page. It seems to me that no amount of handholding, short of fixing the image for them, of course, will help. There's an old adage about giving a man a fish... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the assumption on the part of the uploaders that my bot is in error, as evidenced by the section title "fix your bot" is ever so slightly annoying. Perhaps that contributes to the "irate" nature of my responses. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is a mess, and I totally understand that many contributors have trouble following it, especially in a way that makes bots happy. It sounds like you have two ultimately contradictory goals: you want it to be obvious how to follow policy, but you also want it to be non-obvious how to pass your bot's check. But in an ideal world the bot's check would be equivalent with policy. The fact that it's possible to "comply with policy but not with your bot" requires that there is a significant difference between your bot's rules and policy. It's an understandable situation, since the policy is so complex, but it shouldn't be taken as a desirable situation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I'm one of the users the subject of the discussion above. An average user, average editor and - I thought until now - diligent reader of wikipolicies as required. The difficulty with your response just above is that I can't see what your bot saw. Some time back I uploaded an image - Image:AubreyGibsonRosebowlJacket2.JPG - for use in an article I created. It has just been tagged by your bot. Fair enough. Now, if I've read the policies correctly, the justification I've given for the use of the image is adequate. However, I took the point that maybe I've put the justification in the wrong location on the image page. I confess it's a while since I've uploaded an image, so I tried to edit the image info page - and this reminded me that the process is semi-automated. I couldn't work out how to shift the justification for use from its current location to a location next to the link to the particular article (and only article) in which the image is used.
I'm taking the tag off, not to be difficult, but because (a) as far as I can see I've complied with WP policy, but more to the point (b) at the moment I'm only visiting the site every couple of weeks and the bot / WP / whatever is only giving me 7 days warning.
I'm sure you'll set me on the right track. I have the fish, thanks, but my problem is not understanding your bot's message but in successfully responding to it. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you didn't answer, I'm going to ask one more time; please direct me to the 'machine readable' policy on en. Furthermore, how does this affect Image:BanqiaoDamAfterFailure.jpg (hint, it already had a {{Non-free fair use in|Banqiao Dam}} tag and was therefore machine readable).
Let's be really clear here: this image is classic fair-use. It had a rationale. Your bot tagged it because it didn't have a particular template. There is no requirement that this particular template be used on fair-use images. Instead of admitting that you are a lazy bot writer, you first blame the image, then me, then some 'machine readable' policy that makes no difference since the image page already had a machine readable tag.
This was a difficult image to find, and it should not be deleted every couple of years because some bot writer all of the sudden decides there's a particular template that must be used.
If you want this image to use a specific template for fair-use, go ahead and add it. Otherwise revert your edit and fix your bot. --Duk12:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Please show me where your bot was approved to mark for deletion fair-use images With a rationale. --Duk13:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot tagged it because the rationale is not complete. Why in the bloody hell do you not realize that? You fail to address the most important point, the lack of a free equivalent - Why must we use this non-free image? Why is there not a free one? You fail to address 10c: There is no mention of the page it is used on. You fail to address 8 to my satisfaction: You say it is an educational use, but why is this particular image the only way to educate readers? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bot may not judge the quality of a fair use rationale. You might challenge that quality, which is fine, but if your bot fails to pick up a fair use rationale, no matter how poor, and tags the image for deletion, I'm going to re-block the bot. --Duk23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, when you remove images from flag templates such as Template:Country data Réunion, please replace the image with a placeholder instead of nothing. Image:Sin bandera.svg is usually used for this sort of thing. As it is, your change effectively breaks every page that transcludes that template with the region parameter, and the template documentation code certainly offers clues that something is wrong. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at STBotI's last seventeen edits. It failed to recognize three existing fair-use rationales [4][5][6]. Another edit added This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content... when the image made no such claim [7]. That's an unacceptable error rate so STBotI has been blocked.
To fix this, I'd suggest a) searching the image page for key words that would indicate a rationale, or b) propose at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline that {{Template:Non-free use rationale}} be required to aid bot work. Didn't think about how to fix the last error, but I'm sure you'll figure it out.
It is not acceptable for your bot to make these errors, but it's even worse when you refuse to acknowledge the errors and attack the messenger or the rationale instead. And it's sure as hell not acceptable for your bot to evaluate the validity of a fair use clam.
I'm not unsympathetic to your work, having processed thousands of copyright violations (before you made your first edit) and done automated work myself. I know what you have to do to fix this and that it isn't very hard. Sofixit.
There is no rationale whatsoever on [8], [9] is not sufficient, and the tagging on this is correct because there is not sufficient information to be sure that there is no copyright info. The rationale on your image is not sufficient. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree with Duk in a few of these cases. Image:Broom by Bundies2.jpg is just a bogus rationale, it's true on that one. But Image:Brother Is To Son.jpg is a decent attempt at writing a rationale by the kind of contributor who hasn't yet passed the bar in wikilawyering. In the cases where there is a rationale but it is not "sufficient" for your bot -- generally based on an out-of-policy requirement that it has to include the literal title of the article -- it's wrong for your bot to go around saying "there's no rationale". There's a rationale, the bot just can't find it.
This is an area that is extremely daunting and confusing to most contributors, and its typical enforcement by bots (using an article title as a proxy for a rationale) only confuses the issue more. We either need better heuristics for criterion 10c, or we need to re-examine the assumption that 10c can be enforced by unassisted bots (remember that many NFCC criteria aren't). One proposal I would make would be to tag images where the bot can't confirm the existence of a valid rationale with a template saying basically that, instead of a deletion template making the bald assertion that "there is no rationale". A person can then check the description, and tag it for deletion or fix it.
A category page full of templates? No, nobody but an experienced Wikipedian is going to have any idea what to do with that. I think a better thing to do would be for the message to provide a template for them to fill in and tell them how to add it to the image page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that the argument 'some of these rationales aren't sufficient' doesn't fly. A bot may not judge the quality of a fair use rationale. If it is a poor rationale and the bot misses it, I will re-block the bot. This isn't about how good the rationale is, it's about the bot working or not--Duk22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. You are saying that if the bot tags an image for not having a sufficient rationale, you'll block it? Well, that's the last time I try to follow policy. Make sure that you don't follow any policies in the near future either, I'll be watching you. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find your behaviour to quite extraordinary for an administrator, and really setting a rather poor example. How many people have you thrown insults at, or tried to intimidate, in the last 24 hours alone? If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You let yourself down once again I'm afraid. Why not aspire to be one of the best administrators, instead of spiralling towards becoming one of the worst? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could stop harassing ST47, go on with your wiki-life, leave him alone and stop continuing the fight, and you won't risk an uninvolved administrator coming in to take note of the uncivil way you have been treating ST47 on his own talk page?⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this bot again. Its accuracy is horrible. It tagged the following images for deletion for not having a fair use rationale, when in fact they did have a rationale [10][11][12]. The final link should have been tagged orphaned fair use, not lacking a fair use rationale. How did this bot ever get approved? --Duk
Come on ST47, I know you're obviously annoyed about the whole situation with Duk, but calling him an idiot on your userpage isn't helping anyone. I've removed it and I think the best thing to do would be to have a short break, think about things and you might be in a better frame of mind when you return. Everyone gets stressed here - things will get better soon. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ST47, you are a vital part of this community and a respected member to at least me. Please consider taking a couple days off and returning refreshed to continue this great endeavor. MBisanztalk22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to echo MBisanz. I looked things over and all I see is the bot doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Vassyana (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to disagree with the above. TAKE A DAMN BREAK. Too much wiki-time is bad :) (especially, in bot-land!) Take a short break, and, come back, with a clearer head :) SQLQuery me!07:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soxred93 (ut) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
weburiedoursecretsinthegarden has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Looks like a user (not me, I just run an automatic bot that told you about it) took your article and removed it, replacing it with something else, and then had the thing he replaced it with deleted. I don't know why he didn't just leave your thing, but you can ask him here. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I'd expect you to know better. I ask that you retract your !vote unless you have a serious reason - the bureaucrats will give it very little leverage anyways, and besides, the nom has retracted his oppose. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood02:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for the snarky "apparently" - you know very well that opposing per nom only because you've always wanted to oppose per a nominator is highly inappropriate. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood12:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I've replied to you. I'm going to get a number of restores from your criteria for all of the mzmcbride deletions since april as well, and will post those stats. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I know that you did mention to me a few weeks ago that you would send me the code to BAGBot (both on-wiki and IRC versions), was this so I could take over the running of BAGBot or just for backup purposes? I just didn't really understand at the time. Please clarify, thanks. — E↗TCB02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to ensure that there was a backup, since it seems to have been dying recently. (This morning, for example, it was dead for about 2 hours.) If you are able to, I can get you a copy of everything you need in case it dies again. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you possibly re-delete this? If any opera project pages are deleted in error we will see them. This one was not deleted by mistake. Thanks. --Kleinzach23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've re-deleted that page. I also automatically undeleted the following articles from Wikiproject opera - do any of these need to be re-deleted?:
I'm very confused on why anyone would want to delete the talk page archive redirects. The page move to rename the archives was in July 2007 and some had existed a year before that. Redirects are cheap, and we have no real way to track off-site linking. -- Ned Scott05:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point of keeping these redirects? Who would ever use them? (BTW to clarify: I didn't delete them myself - I only discovered them when they were being recreated.) --Kleinzach07:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"we have no real way to track off-site linking" - that is the reason. Most people only stop to check if links have been made to the page from within Wikipedia, but don't consider the other possibilities, or discount them as not worth it (the wrong attitude in my opinion). This mainly applies to article redirects. Redirects in other namespaces are less important, but it can still apply. Imagine you wrote a blog post and linked to several pages. Here is another example: there may be some archives of AN and ANI that are only linked from the archive templates and nowhere else. If at some future point, someone renamed all the AN and ANI archives (not as silly as it sounds - people are still sporadically renaming the old VfD discussions to put them under the AfD headings), then that could result in redirects that no-one has used inside Wikipedia, but that people could quite possibly have used outside Wikipedia. The same applies to deletion discussions. This does vary according to what the page is, but in my mind there is sufficient doubt that it is best to keep all such redirects unless they are misleading, or if they have only recently been created. If, say, such renaming takes place the same day the initial page was created, then the redirect can be safely deleted. If the page being renamed has existed for weeks, months or years, then it is safest to keep the redirect. If this was being discussed at WP:RfD, the regulars there would tell you the same thing. The problem is that many people (including MZMcBride) bypass WP:RFD. And even the regulars at WP:RFD disagree sometimes. I hope this helps explains things a bit more. Carcharoth (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit above my head but I'm happy to be advised by you. In this case - if I remember correctly - I was leaving a letter space in some archive titles but not in others so I then tried to standardize them, hence creating redirects. --Kleinzach13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
One of your bots deleted the page I created on ArmorGames.
It said that this was because the page had been created and deleted before.
I had quite a bit of information on that page. Could you provide me with a copy?
Is it possible to undelete it?
Thanks
KingRyanV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingryanv (talk • contribs) 08:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing ST47 is taking a wikibreak, he may take some time to reply. ST47, feel free to email me the code if you want me to run it. — E↗TCB12:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't notice the userpage message there. I'll manually archive until it's sorted. ST47, sorry to hear you're having trouble. –xenocidic (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of ST's bots should be considered non-operational at the moment, I'd email him if you are interested in hosting/using the code. MBisanztalk14:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am the general manager of WQJJ-LP and certain inaccuracies have been brought to my attention by one of our listeners. Several of the discrepancies I have been able to correct but, your "Huggle" bot refuses to allow me to include the (true) information that states:
WQJJ-LP is the only FM radio station licensed to Jasper that actually maintains a local studio and operates as a "Live and Local" radio station."
What's with this? (Sorry, I'm NOT a wikipedian but, as the station manager, I think that I should know the facts about my business.)
Now, I see that (while I was writing you this message) you've managed to label my factual edit as "vandalism". how is it that facts are "vandalism"? If we cannot get the facts correctly labeled, I'd prefer not to have a business that I *own* listed on wikipedia. Must I have a lawyer do this?
I apologize, I obviously can't read. I think I thought you were saying it is the only radio station that was actually 'listened to', not 'licensed'. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I would not do that. My point is that *all* (the only) other FM station licensed to Jasper is operated from a studio located in Birmingham which is more than 40 miles away. This may not be a big issue to most but, when there's a tornado tearing through the town, the listeners want to know where to look for local information and not some remotely operated jukebox that isn't really even located in our town.
I am almost at wit's end in dealing with your bot. Can you PLEASE help me make this article reflect the correct information? It's referring people to an old (outdated) website and the information is reflecting what the radio staion WAS several month back. I can assure you that it is no longer accurate as I'm sitting inside the station now and it is anything but "silent" as the listing claims. (Such inaccurate claims can also cause us problems with the FCC should someone see it and choose to become a troublemaker.)
I've made all of the appropriate edits but, your bot continues to label my efforts as "vandalism" and to issue all of the accompanying warnings and threats. I can assure you that I am the station owner and, if you wish to verify these claims, you may contact me at (205) 384-6498 which is listed with AT&T as "WQJJ" which *is* the radio station about which this article so inaccurately describes.
Since I see in your contribs that you aren't using Huggle, I am obliged to suggest that you look into it. It is full of awesome and speed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I do use it, but I still enjoy the challenge of the old fashioned way! (Check a little further into my contrib history and you'll see!) But I too must head off for a while, so other vandal whackers will have to move to the front lines. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the revisions page of PA Consulting Group, I note the following revision by you. This removed two perfectly legitimate edits unconnected with the edit by Kubanczyk.
Please stop doing this sort of thing. Turn the bot off if you cannot get it to work properly.
(cur) (last) 11:45, 29 June 2008 ST47 (Talk | contribs) m (13,253 bytes) (Reverted edits by Summilux to last version by Kubanczyk (using Huggle)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 11:45, 29 June 2008 Summilux (Talk | contribs) (13,650 bytes) (→PA ventures: Updated for demerger of Ventures June 2008) (undo)
I happened to glance at the adminstats page, and I noticed you hadn't updated recently. Is that related to the issues you're having with the bots?--Kubigula(talk)22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noone else I can think of offhand that isn't there, you seem to have gotten all of the really active ones and the ones I've personally communicated with. I will think about it and see if anyone else comes to mind. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how experienced you are with that, but I hope you can help. I logged into python, then used the script "interwiki.py -start:Z" Then it just kept going saying "Retrieving special:Allpages from Z namespace 0" for hours. The bot didn't make any edits. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong. What? Thanks, «Milk's FavoriteCøøkie22:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contacted off-Wiki (obviously) by the above editor. He comments that after he was blocked his unblock request was denied by User:Phil Sandifer, and that he and Phil Sandifer were already in content dispute. He contacted me as I was involved in a discussion with Phil Sandifer at WP:ANI where we discussed Docmartincohen, where the result was that he was blocked - for socking in that instance, although the original discussion was regarding COI.
Docmartincohen has asked me if the protection could be lifted so that he may request review of the original block, and have it reviewed by somebody he was not previously involved with. Under the circumstances I have said I would ask you to review the matter (and that I would inform Phil Sandifer of my action). Since I am certainly aware that Phil Sandifer was requesting advice regarding editing by Docmartincohen and I am certain he would prefer that all processes appear to be as neutrally reviewed as they most assuredly were, I would ask you to consider lifting the protection of the page to allow Docmartincohen another block review request. If you wish, I could do the necessary unprotect. I shall watch this page for your reply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we really want to go through this I suppose we can. But we've got a user blocked for abusive sockpuppets returning with new abusive sockpuppets days after the last set was blocked, and, when those got blocked, creating another one. I'm not really sure I see the value of this sort of proceduralism. It's handing a microphone to an obvious troll so that said troll can, what? Pointlessly grandstand further?
I agree. Note a lot of his edits are just ads/publicity for Martin Cohen's books; others are just silly. He seems to be opening new accounts on an almost daily basis and wasting everybody's time. --Philogo 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
101 (number) (Docmartincohen: 20:15, 18 July 2008)
Most of the additions are absurd - one or two are perhaps not quite so absurd.
--Philogo 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't really know how Wiki works, but hasn't the block already been reviewed by ST47? So:
Decline reason: "No actual request for unblock, only disruptive accusations with no evidence. Obvious sockpuppeteer, still creaking socks (see below comment by Phil). Also, note that Phil did not block you, David Gerard did. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)"
Also, I should perhaps point out that all of those edits I mention above involve him referencing the work and books of Martin Cohen (i.e., the person he claims to be).
--99.232.75.237 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC) (Jeremy Stangroom)[reply]
He's actively sockpuppeting after a block, appearantly, and he's already had 2 unblock requests, one reviewed by me, another by phil, and there's a third admin who blocked him (phil did not block him, as he alleged). --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; the point made was that the first reviewer was Phil Sandifer - with whom Docmartincohen was already involved - and that subsequent reviews referred to that, but if the initial unblock request was also subsequently reviewed and found insufficient I think the editor has had a fair crack at it. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this edit. It looks as though the bot got an "edit conflict" message and simply ignored it. OK, it probably don't happen very often but is there a policy on this situation? And is your bot conforming? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing else the bot is able to do. It doesn't have an edit screen open like you do for the entire time it's modifying a page, it only opens the screen when it's time to save. Therefore there's no way of knowing if someone else edited the page without at least doubling the server load of most bots. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 12:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found a new server - tried to contact you on IRC, guess you didn't see...I started most of the bots back up, but since I gave you BAGBot's account, I can't use that account yet. Ping me on IRC if you see me online. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently recreated this page, it has been deleted about a dozen times but i didn't try to create an article but rather redirect it to Coprofilia the relevant article on sexual practices involving feces, could you reconsider? I know it was a bot deletion so i see no hard in recreating and hangingon the next speedy if it comes since i wasn't around the last time.MY♥INchile23:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know: My bot neither proposes pages for deletion nor executes the deletion, both of those are done by humans, my bot only advises users that a page has been proposed for deletion. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for recently approving Plasticbot. I have one quick and easy question before setting her loose. As it runs using AWB, can I apply the AWB General Fixes along with the approved task? PlasticupT/C00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you only make the edit if there's a real change to be made - don't edit an article if the only change is to make general fixes. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what caused your bot to send me this message, but if you like, I'll report it as a bug. I don't recall ever having any involvement with the article, so it may be an issue. Doesn't matter to me, but tell me and I'll make it a bug report. Cheers. Thanks for all your hard work. User:Pedant (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You actually edited it a while ago to make it into a redirect:
(diff) 18:00, August 18, 2008 . . Snoop God (Talk | contribs | block) (empty) (As totally disrespectful. The page does not need to be Redirected.)
(diff) 05:25, April 22, 2006 . . Pedant (Talk | contribs | block) (redirect to TheFalling Man)
Unfortunately, the bot does not realize that you aren't really the person who wrote the article, so you're the one who gets the message. Sorry - if you'd rather not receive any future messages, I can tell the bot not to send them to you. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a bug in the warning messages that your bot leaves when the talk page of the editor you are leaving the message to is empty. It adds a "1" to the very top of the talk page. See example. The "1" is not there if the editor already has a talk page like here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really mean to fullprotect it >.> It's nighttime. I didn't even realize that there was an RFPP, he asked on IRC. I set it to a semiprotect for 12 hours and I've watchlisted it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Pyeongchang2014.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a page about the artist Dotmasters that was deleted earlier this week. I am passionate about street art and noticed there are a lot of established street artists not mentioned in Wikipedia like Nick Walker, Blek le Rat, Jef Aerosol etc. So I started my first article with Dotmasters. It's my first article and it took me ages to write it and format it and was quite pleased with the end result for a first article. I don't know anything about publishing anything on Wikipedia except for looking articles up, so I am amazed that I even found this page to ask you the question.
How can I get the page back up? I think it said said something about blatant advertising.
So how do you make an article informative and not advertising?
Here is a case where user talk was replaced with "26946" and nothing else. According to the edit summary it should be regarding an image (like in Alton's link). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was my first encounter with your bot, over at User talk:Dessie123. Don't you think the bot should check first if there is already a notice? It's kind of spammy to double-shot the CSD notice and can confuse users as to what's going on. Rob Banzai (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or I'll look into it now. Fixed that bug, my bot wasn't properly decoding certain characters. Now we use the API, and may or may not need to continue looking into it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I loaded the page but somehow I overlooked the licensing line. I tried to go back and put that in but I can't seem to figure out how so I'll just tell you. Here is the page:
The licensing to the cover belongs to either the photographer, the artist, or the record label, in this case, CEMA Special Markets, which is a division of Capitol Records in Canada. This Greatest Hits album (which was an audio recording) was released through Avon back in 1993. The serial number (at least that I think it is) to the CD is S21-17435. Again, I tried to input this information but am not sure how. I'm still fairly new to the wiki. Let me know if there's anything else I can provide you with.Itsmyright (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copy edit work and I think I did what I was supposed to. I went on ahead and deleted that warning thing. To be honest, I'm not sure if that's allowed or not, I'm sure I'll find out. But I think it's done and corrected. Let me know if it is. Thanks.Itsmyright (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We wrote the article called "Beauty Bridge" which is a trademark owned company serving and served closed to million customers. People search for this company and want to know more about that.
When we were writing this article we inspired from Sephora which has been selling similar products and services and one of Beauty Bridge's competitor.
What should we do in order to Beauty Bridge article get relisted?
Gerkavun (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have recently had an encounter with an unapproved admin bot, and despite an extremely clear dictate by policy that these bots should be blocked, have been discouraged from doing so. Depending how this situation resolves, I will likely file an arbitration request to hopefully resolve this issue once and for all. You commented on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Adminbots, stating that you ran an admin bot. To help get an idea of how widespread admin bots are, as well as get a uniform decision, I would like to ask: Do you still operate this bot, and does it operate when you are not present? Please reply on my talk page, thanks, Prodegotalk00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were you following this on unblock-en-l, or did Spellcast contact you out of band? Nobody seems to have followed up with the ISP yet, though the block change was what they were ultimately looking for...
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Ghanaian Muslims, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Ghanaian Muslims has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Ghanaian Muslims, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I created it, it had legitimate entries at one time, and it is certainly a category that should exist, so it looks like your bot has collaborated with a vandal. Good work, and thank you. Alex Middleton (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, don't you hate the stupid bots that go after you for no good reason? Yeah, I hate them too. If you had read the message that you just pasted, you'd realize that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here. Unfortunately, you article people don't even seem to read what people say. That would explain an awful lot of the behavior that I thought was just plain idiocy, but is really ignorance. Thank you for enlightening me. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for populating the 6th - 15th century Saint Categories from my lists at User:Carlaude/Sandbox2
Can you for populate the 1th - 5th century Saint Categories from my lists now that those categories exsist-- and remove pages from the Parent Category:Ancient Roman saints as the occur?
I agree with Alex. What's the benefit here? Bots editing archives are usually pretty frowned upon. And I don't see any place where this was requested or asked for (not specifically a BAG-type approval, per se, but did Nichalp even request this?). :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. I hope that you will see this since I do not know what /dev/null means and I think that as an admin you did not really mean to insinuate that if I have a problem with your bot I should not come here to ask about it. But maybe I am wrong and you are really saying that.
My problem is that yesterday I uploaded an image and chose the wrong copyright justification. Your bot already got rid of the image before I had a chance to fix it. I think...truth is, in the past when I have made a mistake someone would leave a message on my talk page telling me that I had 7 days to fix the problem. In fact, someone did this for another image that I uploaded yesterday that I chose the wrong cr thing for. but I cannot find the image that your bot got to, and no message was left for me so that I could fix it. Is this some new policy? Or is it just that your bot has gone wonky? can you direct me to the image so that I can fix the permissions on it? thanks. (I don't live here, so please give me a whole day to respond)
Also, maybe you know how I can change the permissions here? I don't see how to get back the the original section list. The images are both made by me (into .jpgs) from works by an artist who gives her complete permission to use in any way on the wiki. I made the mistake of choosing the educational purposes one because I thought that's what wiki was. when the thing came back with the red banner I did not read until it was too late -- I thought the red was just a bold design choice. sorry. Saudade705:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to Image:John e. casida.jpg and Image:Condensedmudrawikisonya.jpg, they were deleted by User:Stifle because the license you specified didn't permit commercial use. The reason for the seven-day waiting period for things like lack of source or license information is that those are problems that can be corrected; if an image is under an unusable license, there's generally no reason to wait on deleting it.
To change the information on an image after you've uploaded it, you need to go to the image's description page (click on the image or any link to it) and click "edit this page". The image tags can be found on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All. Unfortunately, it sounds like what you've got is permission to use it on Wikipedia only; that's not good enough. One of Wikipedia's goals is to make a collection of information anyone can use and re-use, and to do that, anyone contributing images or text to the project need to permit such re-use. --Carnildo (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast reply...I came back because I realized I had made a mistake in blaming you for that one image...I didn't know what to say because the person who owns the image was sitting next to me but I thought she shouldn't upload it herself because that looked self-serving, so I thought that I would upload it for her, but then I couldn't say that I gave permission. It is like an identity problem in philosophy -- if we were Siamese Twins! Then I accidentally chose the only educational purposes designation, probably because it looked like the best one. I get so confused with so many options. I guess I will have her upload it herself and make it "use any way you g-d-damned please" -- in fact, if there was a blatant designation like that, it would be a lot less confusing for people like me. Thanks! Saudade707:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are several designations like that: "public domain" reserves no rights whatsoever. "Creative Commons Attribution" adds the requirement that the creator be credited. "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike" further adds the requirement that any re-use also be placed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license. --Carnildo (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Invalid --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brother_Is_To_Son.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Broom_by_Bundies2.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brooklyn_and_Broadway_BigO.png){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ABrooke_norfolk_village_sign.jpg&diff=214222769&oldid=183246345){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Finger_Style_Guitar_1.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=214339202){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Stringin_Along_1.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=214338422){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:AxisBoldAsLove.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=214329016){kind=link}
){kind=link}
