User talk:Brandon/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Brandon. 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. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
Deletion never completed
I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenick Network Systems as delete nearly 9 months ago, but the deletion was never done. Can you do this, or did you change you mind, or should I ask someone else to do it? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD page move
You'll need to tidy up after This, as the tag on the article and the log in the AfD lists now both point to redlinks. Worse, plenty of contributors will have watchlist pages that won't register new edits. It might be better for you just to revert yourself. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed. There will most likely be a real second nom at some point, which is why I moved it. BJTalk 10:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly, only too true. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, thanks!
And your comment was surprisingly unhelpful as well. Criticism is good, blatant personal attacks are not. Guy0307 (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you know what personal attacks are, I'd suggest you read WP:NPA. Next time I'll just leave a disruptive editing warning if you would prefer. BJTalk 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- You did comment on the content, however the reason why you commented is highly related to my personal position. Guy0307 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about your personal position, replying to to AfD !votes with "classic POV" is simply inappropriate. BJTalk 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- As you just said, AfD isn't a vote. After five days an admin looks at all the comments and makes his judgment based on them (and his opinion of course). All I did was replying to these comments, saying that they are POV and do not help the discussion. You should warn them, not me. Guy0307 (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about your personal position, replying to to AfD !votes with "classic POV" is simply inappropriate. BJTalk 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- You did comment on the content, however the reason why you commented is highly related to my personal position. Guy0307 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please drop by the page and address the Richard Simmons edit. It is about filters you seem to be the major editor of. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Replied there. BJTalk 14:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
My WikiProject
Hi there. I'd appreciate it if your bot would stop messing up my WikiProject page. I understand that the pic on the project page is not free but please, make it stop doing that. I don't know of another pic I could put on the page. Carabera (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The NFCC policy is non-negotiable. –xeno (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Polycom
Hi there, I added some updated info on the Polycom and included requested references. Hopefully, it will be to Wikipedia standards....I saw the note that it needed to be rewritten...I modified some of the older content. Does this look okay now..if so, can the two banners at the top of the page be removed?Chasingriley (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Chasingriley
i have uploaded a newer small resolution image in place of that previous one. hence i took the liberty to remove the tag placed by you. actually i uploaded that image when i didn't knew much about copyright issues here on wikipedia. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy Bjweeks's Day!
 |
Bjweeks has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox. |
I thought I got April 1st for a second. Thanks! BJTalk 03:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
wikistalk tool
Hello! I just tried using it and got the following error: (2003, "Can't connect to MySQL server on 'sql-s1' (113)") Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Toolserver is being restarted. Or at least that part is. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. I noticed this one not working either. Anyway, I always find these tools helpful for stuff like RfAs and what have you to remember what kind of interactions I've had with people and to see what they created, etc. I wish I had the technical know how to make this stuff! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Centrum
I noticed you deleted the Centrum (multivitamin) article. As far as I know it was not tagged for speedy, nor would I think it qualifies under any of the CSD criteria, and it hasn't been around long enough for a prod or afd. Because you did not provide a deletion summary, I'm unclear why the article was deleted. The article was nonsense when I found it, however I turned it into a legitimate stub. Please let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was created by Tokkie032 (talk · contribs). BJTalk 06:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, you rewrote it. My bad. BJTalk 06:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I saw at ANI that you upped Mfield's temp block to a perm one. Just thought you might want to update the block template so that they realise the perm block. Cheers --GedUK 10:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template barnstar
|
The Template Barnstar | |
| I award you this Template Barnstar for outstanding work in the area of templates and coding all over wiki! BJ rules! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| Wow, how kind of you. Thanks for doing that bit of coding work without even being asked; it was really appreciated! NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
- BJ-you missed one - List of United States Air Force Academy alumni — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops, done. BJTalk 10:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- And if anybody wants it, here is the code. BJTalk 10:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4/3 Battalion
Hey, I noticed that you removed the copyvio tag from 4/3 Battalion. While large portions of the text do come from .mil sites (as I noted at the article's entry at Wikipedia:Copyright problems), there are also portions that come from these sites. Can you explain why you believe copyvio is unwarranted? (I could be wrong about it, but I'd still like an explanation, so I'll know for next time). Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- From the fist link: "Written in the fall of 1894." So PD-US.
- Second: "Text Credit: Sentinel's Creed - The Old Guard, 3rd US Infantry Unit, USA" PD-US-GOV (this one is a tad iffy)
- Third: "COPYRIGHT, 1896," PD-US
Hope that explains it. BJTalk 23:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk)
Thanks for following up on those; looked like generally a SPAcct & the attribution on those images wasn't consistent. Hope the OTRS follows. Skier Dude (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ref date problem
Small problem BJ. The ref dates you created are fine except when there's a single digit. They should be 2009-04-09 vice 2009-4-9. The format gurus will be all over this. Is it possible to tweak your script and rerun? Let me know. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's an easy fix. BJTalk 15:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done. BJTalk 07:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done. BJTalk 07:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ping. You responded to the OTRS ticket on this one. Your opinion would be most welcome. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Database reports
Hi. Thanks for share your source code in Database reports. I'm going to use them in Spanish Wikipedia, and I'm going to learn a bit more about SQL queries. Thanks and happy programming. Emijrp (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you removed some passages from this article invoking BLP. Can I just ask if there's some deeper reason for this? I recognise the passages could do with a bit more sourcing and I cannot currently vouch for every factual bit in there, but the scandals as such are clearly notable, had massive media coverage at the time, and the articles cited do seem to cover them in the general outlines. Do you read Greek? By the way, BLP doesn't really apply, since the man is dead, unless you acted out of concern over the other persons mentioned? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The removal of the section was for the other person mentioned, who complained to OTRS. The removal of the entire section of the article may have been a mistake but it appeared mostly unsourced at the time. I have no objections to the reinsertion of the first paragraph if the claims are verifiable but the second one should stay out unless it can be highly sourced. BJTalk 00:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Mickelson
Your edit of Phil Mickelson removed the following sourced text: Mickelson is unpopular with his fellow players. In a poll by GQ magazine, Mickelson was named as one of the athletes most hated by other PGA tour players.[1]
Please be careful with your edits and not remove sourced material without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
?
people have been telling me that I need permission to use my script and I have to get approval, they called it a bot, so why isn't it. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did the subject of the article related to this AFD request deletion? If it was the vandalism, you could tell them the article is protected and looked after at the moment. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, a clarification has been requested at the AFD for Human Rights Documentation Centre. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Goatse
Please undelete the image; the seven day grace period of F5 hasn't elapsed yet. Sceptre (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also see WP:DRNC and WP:NOT#CENSORED. Sceptre (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not happening. Feel free to DRV it though. BJTalk 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Also Mr. Weaks
You co-nomination was much obliged and shall be passed on down the generations as the gift that keeps on giving. Or...whatever. I'm trying to make this as non-generic as possible. HIGH-FIVE! --Closedmouth (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
User you blocked
As an admin who had previously blocked this user, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Returned_blocked_user.--Otterathome (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. BJTalk 21:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Image query
Hi BJ, could you tell me, please, what the source was for this image you deleted? I can re-upload it and get an OTRS ticket for it. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs
- CC-BY. If you leave me a note once you've sent the email I'll undelete and tag. BJTalk 07:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, cancel the request. It exists elsewhere and does have an OTRS ticket. Thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
anti-cancer
Hi, i've responded to your Afd at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Herb_(anti-cancer). cheers
Thanks for your help regarding the false positive filter!
87.69.177.35 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Smile!
Bjweeks, Xclamation point 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! '
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
208.68.235.32
The user is requesting unblock with valid reasoning, ie 'why was I blocked'. I see no notices on their page. The block log says for SOCK, but no examples or diffs are provided. Can you take a moment to post evidence on their user space possibly using the template {{IPsock|username|evidence=[[WP:SOCK|foo]]}}. Cheers. Nja247 07:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a closed proxy editing ArbCom cases. Would you like the output of an nmap scan? BJTalk 07:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Added to the talk page. BJTalk 08:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers, and no didn't need any scans or anything, just something to go by when reviewing the block (which seems to have been done in the interim anyhow) -- Nja247 08:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I no longer have access to OTRS. Could you please explain why the subject requested deletion. The request alone is not enough for an AFD to finish in deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- No specifics given in the ticket. Given the state of the article surely other reasons for keep or deletion will be given. BJTalk 09:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Francesco Carotta AfD
Hi - can you tell me why the AfD was courtesy blanked? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- The subject objected to being called a crackpot repeatedly... BJTalk 05:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Heat and kitchen come to mind. What did he expect when he wrote the book? But how did Carotta object? Email? I've noted on the article's talk pages numerous insults and even almost threats from his supporters, by the way. Still, as it is easily accessible, no major problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- He sent an email to OTRS regarding, I didn't see any harm in just blanking it. BJTalk 22:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Heat and kitchen come to mind. What did he expect when he wrote the book? But how did Carotta object? Email? I've noted on the article's talk pages numerous insults and even almost threats from his supporters, by the way. Still, as it is easily accessible, no major problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Error with User:BJBot
Your bot posted a duplicate template on File:New Zelda Logo.jpg. I'm assuming that's a bug? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Somebody created another template, I'll add it to the source. BJTalk 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, this is a different problem. I'm not sure it is quite a bug, but it could be handled better. BJTalk 22:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You blocked WEWhistleBlower a couple of weeks ago and the user is asking for unblocking. I'm not sure I understand the block. I've placed the unblock request on-hold pending more information from you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replied there. BJTalk 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Robert Boylestad
Hi Bjweeks. I thought I would bring your attention to this discussion. You started an AfD from otrs:2009032610045579. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not much I can do anymore sadly. BJTalk 22:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
New image project
Hi. This little note is just to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. In addition, I'm proposing merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group, because their aims seem to be very similar. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Discussion about redirecting those projects is located here. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Commented there. BJTalk 22:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of File:Kufic.JPG
Wouldn't this be {{PD-Art}} ? Jheald (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ping? Jheald (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that depends on how you define "mere picture" or "scan". I deleted the image along with all of the users others. BJTalk 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- What do you think it is then, if not a mere picture or scan? How does it differ from any other image that would be tagged with {{PD-Art}} ? Jheald (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...? Jheald (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that depends on how you define "mere picture" or "scan". I deleted the image along with all of the users others. BJTalk 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Red cunt hair
Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair (2nd nomination)
Hi there,
Regarding this AfD closure,
I'd appreciate it if you could please elaborate on how you came to your decision that the consensus was to delete the article.
Thanks, Chzz ► 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Red cunt hair
(Copied this back from your archive, after Miszabot archived it, to give more time for a response Chzz ► 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair (2nd nomination)
Hi there,
Regarding this AfD closure,
I'd appreciate it if you could please elaborate on how you came to your decision that the consensus was to delete the article.
Thanks, Chzz ► 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- The main debate centers over whether or not the article constitutes more than a dictionary definition. The keep as notable votes were arguing with themselves, nobody was claiming the phrase to be non-notable. The move votes were not compelling because a "Hair (unit of measurement)" article would only only devote a small section to "Red cunt hair" and would most likely have to withstand its own AfD. If you'd like the article undelted in userspace so an article on hair as a unit of measurement I'd be happy to. BJTalk 18:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you; I understand. I already have a copy of the most recent revision. Could you tell me what changes, in your mind, would elevate the article from a dictionary definition? For example, I've already added the picture (which would not be in wiktionary); would further scientific evidence of the dimensions help? Or further references? Thanks, 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I believe one of the points those in favor of deletion were making is that it is a phrase, not an actual unit of measure. It just means "really small amount", nobody is going to take a measurement in the unit so scientific evidence of the width of a pubic hair is rather pointless. BJTalk 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you; I understand. I already have a copy of the most recent revision. Could you tell me what changes, in your mind, would elevate the article from a dictionary definition? For example, I've already added the picture (which would not be in wiktionary); would further scientific evidence of the dimensions help? Or further references? Thanks, 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just to chime in here, an article about really small units of measurement would be pretty cool (though we may already have one lying around somewhere). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- MZ - it's a good idea for an article, I think, yes; however, I still personally think that this one could stand alone.
- BJ, I understand your comment about measurement, but I'm still unclear on what additions would satisfy you - or do you simply consider that the article is incapable of falling within the Wikipedia remit?
- After reviewing the AfD, I am considering taking this to DRV. By my count, there were 11 keeps, 2 moves and 9 deletes. With the discussion on policies that ensued, I don't see how this can be declared a consensus agreement to delete, and I think it should therefore have defaulted to keep.
- Please let me know your thoughts on that, thanks, Chzz ► 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote, but you can take it to DRV. BJTalk 21:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm fully aware that AfD is not a vote; I just don't see any clear consensus. Therefore - and absolutely no offense intended, nothing personal at all;
Deletion review for Red cunt hair
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Red cunt hair. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chzz ► 22:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've pinged your e-mail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just replied on the talk, I'll have a look at my email. BJTalk 02:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- 'Kay, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Replied. BJTalk 02:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- 'Kay, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate
I find your comment at WP:ANI, "The image namespace is deprecated, nothing to see here", to be inappropriate, condescending, and derogatory. Admins are supposed to conduct themselves, what was the word, politely, I think it was. The image space is not deprecated, it is expanded into the file namespace, and either file or image can be used interchangeably, per editor preference. The point is that is annoying for a bot to change a specifically chosen and perfectly valid syntax for a less desirable syntax. The issue certainly has not been resolved, unless some changes were made that I am not aware of, although at present the bot is not active for who knows what reason. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Less desirable in what sense? You readily admit they're synonyms. If a bot wants to use the canonical name (which is "File"), what's the issue? We don't allow bots to go around bypassing redirects, but if they're already making productive edits and they also want to do something minor like change Image: → File:, I don't see an issue. "Tempest in a teapot" comes to mind. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are a lot of factors that involve personal style, though, as the edit window states, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I personally prefer to use Image: and do not want any bot changing it to File:. The reason I use Image, is to emphasize that it is an image. The issue is that the bot is not only not making a useful change, it is making a distasteful change. When a person writes a sentence, just because there are several synonyms at any point that could be chosen, does not mean that they are interchangeable - it dramatically changes the sentence by which of those synonyms is used. I have no problem with the bot making useful auxiliary edits, but changing Image to File is not useful. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: File: vs. Image: on ANI
I have a question about this as I still use Image: over File: as general force-of-habit. Is this change coming from a bot that is going through and manually changing Image to File or should all editors do so? I am kinda confused. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 3, 2009 @ 04:22
- No, it was a bot that was running a "cosmetic changes" script along side its main function. Any user or bot that is just changing Image to File should be blocked. Image isn't going anywhere anytime soon so it's no real worry. BJTalk 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, just wanted to clear that up. When I seen that on ANI, I thought a bot was going through and changing it (which I personally would have no problems with). Thanks for the response and Have a Good Sunday...NeutralHomer • Talk • May 3, 2009 @ 04:26
- While the bot is not specifically changing Image to File, which would be prohibited, the effect is the same, as over time you can expect the bot to find some other edit to make, and as long as Image to File is still in it's bag of tricks it will use it. That is what I object to, the contents of the bag of tricks. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Err, that's the entire point. To slowly make minor changes along side other edits with the result being an eventual switch over to file. BJTalk 05:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I beg to differ - there is no "eventual switch over to file". Users are free to use Image: forever. It is totally personal preference. I could be wrong but I see no reason for ever removing the Image: mapping of the File: namespace, and I find it extremely unlikely that it would ever happen. Hence, any changing of Image: to File: is simply annoying and less than useless. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any discussion that took place that reserved using Image: as an editors choice. BJTalk 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you look at the release notes of MediaWiki 1.14.0, it simply states that the Image namespace was renamed File, but that Image still works, for backward compatibility. That means it can be used by user preference, forever - it will never be going away. Remember the change was made to accommodate audio and video files, not to make images harder to use. It also notes that some external applications may need to be changed, and although that is not explained, it is because the URL for the image is at file, instead of at image, or at least the description of the file, I am not sure about the actual URL for the file. If you look at WP:Images, it states that File: and Image: can be used interchangeably. That means by personal preference, or no preference even. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any discussion that took place that reserved using Image: as an editors choice. BJTalk 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I beg to differ - there is no "eventual switch over to file". Users are free to use Image: forever. It is totally personal preference. I could be wrong but I see no reason for ever removing the Image: mapping of the File: namespace, and I find it extremely unlikely that it would ever happen. Hence, any changing of Image: to File: is simply annoying and less than useless. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Err, that's the entire point. To slowly make minor changes along side other edits with the result being an eventual switch over to file. BJTalk 05:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- While the bot is not specifically changing Image to File, which would be prohibited, the effect is the same, as over time you can expect the bot to find some other edit to make, and as long as Image to File is still in it's bag of tricks it will use it. That is what I object to, the contents of the bag of tricks. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, just wanted to clear that up. When I seen that on ANI, I thought a bot was going through and changing it (which I personally would have no problems with). Thanks for the response and Have a Good Sunday...NeutralHomer • Talk • May 3, 2009 @ 04:26
- (bug 44) Image namespace and accompanying talk namespace renamed to File.
- For backward compatibility purposes, Image still works. External tools may
- need to be updated.
Hi. A couple of days ago you removed an enormous amount of coatracking on this article. I also removed it, yesterday, and today it was added again. I removed it again, but I have the feeling that that's temporary. There seem to be a couple of editors at work here, and the article, even without the heaps of praise, is nothing but a bunch of kudos. I have half a mind of cleaning it up, but it's only half a mind right now. This is just a heads-up, I guess; it's probably too early for measures like protection and such, but I have the feeling I may revisit you here again. Thanks, and keep up the good work, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted it, there is now an OTRS ticket related to the article so that may come into play. BJTalk 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thanks a lot! Drmies (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Closing afd
Myself, I interpret 7 days as 7X24, not (6X24) 12. The advantage of keeping this is to avoid contributing to what seems to be developing into a competition between different admins about who can close the most. (I'm not think of you particularly, btw). And I'm not here to object to any of the closings. DGG (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
AFD fix
Thanks for that, I thought I might have missed it. =) American Eagle (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Repair Permissions
Well, it looks as if the AfD fails on grounds that too many people think it's keen. Would you like to officially propose the merger into Disk Utility which you (sensibly, IMO) suggested? —Scheinwerfermann T·C06:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of File:Kufic.JPG
Bringing this back (unanswered) from your Archive 8:
Wouldn't this be {{PD-Art}} ? Jheald (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to restore this image, or do I have to take it to Deletion Review? Jheald (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Leslie Leigh & Co.
You deleted the page I created as titled above. I don't seem to be getting much cooperation from you so have decided to message you directly. Please could you have a look at the article at your earliest convenience and judge the page now amendments have taken place, then make (if necessary) judgments on how we can improve the article, in order for it to be accepted ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by As200 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for File:Kufic.JPG
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Kufic.JPG. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jheald (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can you clarify the content of the OTRS request you have cited: Who was it from? Did it specifically identify this image? Jheald (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up question added, at the DRV. Jheald (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
investigation into NIMSOffice
Recently, I proposed an investigation into the identity of NIMSOffice. This anonymous user clearly pushes his own agenda. Now NIMSOffice also proposed to investigate me, please see this page and my comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GFZLab#Report_date_May_9_2009.2C_06:10_.28UTC.29
I felt restrained to make in my comment an important point. With good probability I can indicate who NIMSOffice is, but I don't want this information to be public (in case I am mistaken). For WP-investigation it may be useful, though.
I suspect that NIMSOffice is K.Iakoubovskii from NIMS, Japan, who couathored a paper with Dubrovinskaia. This person is also involved in journal STAM, which published Dubrovinskaia's paper within a few weeks from submission, and against referees' rejection). On the above page you will find NIMSOffice's claim that he never had personal interactions with Dubrovinskaia... If NIMSOffice=K.Iakoubovskii, this would be obviously wrong. Aoganov (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov
Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov
Please see and comment here. --mav (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Honda-logo.svg
File:Honda-logo.svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Honda-logo.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Honda-logo.svg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS
Name has been hidden via OS instead of renamed; saves log entries. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Image permissions - OTRS check?
Can you please confirm that the permission for File:2009WVTeenUSA wiki.jpg and others from that same set came from the photographer Jonathan Carter? I find it rather strange that he would release the photos in that way. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- The release is from Sanders & Associates. BJTalk 02:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- But Sanders & Associates aren't the photographer/i.e. the creator of the image. The original photographer is. So wouldn't it be correct that Sanders don't have permission to release images they did not create? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Btw I think its great the images have been released, just very unusual. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is legit by OTRS standards, I can follow up with the photographer though. BJTalk 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I already have, I'll let you know if I hear anything. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is legit by OTRS standards, I can follow up with the photographer though. BJTalk 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Eva.maria2009
Hiya,
It says that you deleted User talk:Eva.maria2009, but there's no deletion reason - I see the user removed a tag with their first edit, but, I wondered why you removed my 'welcome' note? I think there might have been an error on it - I was about to fix that, but it had gone. I expect you had good reasons; please let me know. Cheers! Chzz ► 05:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I indefinitely blocked the user 3 minutes before you left the welcome note. BJTalk 05:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Aha. Fair enough - no notice on their talk, so I didn't spot it. Thanks. Chzz ► 05:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why the page TCE Company, Inc was deleted. It was not structured in the form of advertisement or spam. The page listed references for the accomplishments of the company and the firm has been in business for over 20 years. How is the content of this page any different from the content of other pages such as NewEgg, CDW and Talkswitch. All pages follow the same structure of content.The only difference is the size of the company.Bgatza (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Brian
OTRS matter
Hi. I'm not sure what the protocol is with helping each other out with tickets, so I figured I'd just drop you a note. :) I've been talking to the author of Ticket:2009060310047417 at User talk:Lamerica (and could have saved you some time yesterday if something pretty horrific and time-consuming had not come up at WP:CP, eating the rest of my afternoon and turning my attention to other matters into mush. Sorry!), and he has written you back to clarify the intentions of his release. I wanted to point out that conversation for context in case it's helpful. Apologies if the right thing for me to do is to directly involve myself, but, again, I'm not sure what the protocol is, and I'm just not innately that bold. At least, not until I learn the ropes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, me, back again. :) The user pointed out that a separate letter had been sent clearing the article, which was evidently merged into the same ticket #. I've gone on ahead and noted the clearance for the article, but it was GFDL only so I have advised that a second letter should be sent co-licensing under CC-BY-SA. Since I've asked him to send it to the same ticket #, it should show up in your inbox. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Me again, hanging out all over your talk page. :) I've assigned the new letter to you, since I could not for the life of me manage to merge it. (I got a stern "No permission!" notice from OTRS when I tried.) I did put the release on the article and on File:Cwr main entrance.jpg, but I'm leaving File:Cwr dean cornwell mural.jpg, File:Cwr chicharro y aguera.jpg and File:Cwr sale des pas perdus.jpg to you since the first two are photographs of images the copyright provenance of which I can't guess and since the last one, though assigned to the same photographer as the other image, isn't clearly identified as belonging to WTO. This stuff does get complicated. :/ I'm back to WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The other ticket was in photosubmissions, I've merged them all and moved it to permissions-commons. I thought they wanted to release the PDF, which I uploaded here File:080312CWR_LR.pdf, I didn't realize there was an article and images derived from the PDF. I'll go fix it. BJTalk 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- File:Cwr_chicharro_y_aguera.jpg would be PD under Switzerland law but not Spanish, not sure what to do there. BJTalk 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, me. I have no idea. :/ Images are not my thing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. My understanding of the letter was much facilitated by my finding the article listing first. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, me. I have no idea. :/ Images are not my thing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
TCE Company, Inc
Can you explain why the page TCE Company, Inc was deleted. It was not structured in the form of advertisement or spam. The page listed references for the accomplishments of the company and the firm has been in business for over 20 years. There was no difference in the content of this page as opposed to the content of other pages such as NewEgg, CDW and Talkswitch. All pages follow the same structure of content.The only difference is the size of the companyBgatza (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Brian
- I've undeleted the article at listed it at AfD. BJTalk 05:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you're happy
You owe me one. Keegantalk 07:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Alan Harvey articled deletion
Please could you tell me why the Alan Harvey article was deleted? I'm not entirely sure how the system works so would be grateful for feedback --JHumphries (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article didn't follow the WP:BLP policy. I am not willing to undelete it but if you wish to challenge my actions you can request it be reviewed at WP:DRV. BJTalk 22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The DRV advises I discuss the matter with you first. I suppose the point is the suddenness of the deletion. The article was tagged NPOV and it is my understanding of the process that NPOV issues were being highlighted on the talk page and looked at there. It is my understanding that if there was contentious material it would be removed not the whole article. If it had gone beyond that point in some way could the article have not been proposed for deletion first to allow a final discussion on whatever the issue was? --JHumphries (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article has been repeatedly deleted since its AfD, the latest being in January of this year for the same reason I deleted it. The article is very poorly sourced depending almost entirely on primary sources, is highly negative and notability is borderline at best. In addition OTRS has received many complaints regarding the content of the article. BJTalk 22:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The DRV advises I discuss the matter with you first. I suppose the point is the suddenness of the deletion. The article was tagged NPOV and it is my understanding of the process that NPOV issues were being highlighted on the talk page and looked at there. It is my understanding that if there was contentious material it would be removed not the whole article. If it had gone beyond that point in some way could the article have not been proposed for deletion first to allow a final discussion on whatever the issue was? --JHumphries (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- ^ The Ten Most Hated Athletes http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_4103&pageNum=2