User talk:Brandon/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

hello. the substantial amount of reason was given in the deletion listing as to why the image should be kept. I will re-upload it so as to avoid deletion, please look at the prior evidence for reason as to why the image is not a copyvio. Zarbon (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

why don't you recommend me something then...? What image would be suitable to be uploaded? I mean seriously, there are tons of userboxes that are under the same exact supposed editing. And none of them are deleted. Why does that one HAVE to be deleted? Give me some ideas then, help me put in a good image for that userbox. Zarbon (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any FPS that has freely licensed artwork. BJ^Talk 17:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why you should help me. Help me think of something to supplement for the image. If you're that quick to delete the image, then you can at least help me in my efforts of providing a free image. Zarbon (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I observe that the article Database Console Commands (Transact-SQL) has been speedied due to copyright violations. However, the article does not satisfy the following criteria for C12, which it should, in orde rto justify speedy deletion as perWikipedia:CSD#Images & Media:

* There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving;
* The material was introduced at once by a single person...

I find that the article has been speedied due to the fact that an earlier version of the article had been tagged by CorelSearchbot. However, fairly significant additions had been made since the article had been tagged. Wikipedia:COPYVIO#Dealing with copyright violations states:

If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored.

There are alternatives to deletion which could be implemented.

Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Alternatives to deletion -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored. BJ^Talk 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much :-). However, unfortunately, I observe that the article has been deleted by someone else. :-(. Well, let me tell something. Well, it is better that administrators communicate with the contributors of the article and work for bettering the article instead of indulging in Deletionism. The article has a lot of useful content and could very well be improved. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the deletion of this image non-controversial? Simply south (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The image was on commons, I only deleted the image page. BJ^Talk 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the barnstar below this topic. Anyway, going to Image:Interlingual Barnstar.png without the action=edit in the bar, the image does not still show up, unless it is under a different name which i nor others know. This image was used for the Geog Barnstar. The image has been now removed completely by the bot User:CommonsDelinker. Simply south (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct, it was also deleted at commons.[1] I just deleted the local image page containing the PUI notice. BJ^Talk 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i've gone back to propose an alternative (and exceedingly basic) image. I suppose i couldn't ask how to get rid of the whitespace on my image (around the edge of the globe), or if possible, could you do it? And if anyone is asking, yes it is actually just a random collection of shapes, so as to be hopefully non-controversial. Simply south (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't remove it now, you would need to remove it in your editor before putting it on top of the barnstar image. BJ^Talk 21:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Easier said then done. Nothing fancy here. Oh well. Simply south (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually i've just learnt how to do it. What do you think of the image? Simply south (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For working the backlog at WP:PUI - a particularly complex. thankless, controversial, and always backlogged area. You rock! Kelly hi! 21:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, lets see if I can empty the backlog today. :D BJ^Talk 21:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, what about June 7th? You seem to have skipped that one (not that I blame you!) Kelly ^hi! 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Was it that obvious? I've moving backwards towards it, I'm going to try to find an OTRS member to help. BJ^Talk 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's rather a lot of discussion regarding the nature of NPOV, the recent stubbing of Ray Joseph Cormier and this (and another) image on the article talk page. It would be appreciated if you could nip over there and explain why you decided that the image should be kept. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody brought up the NFCC status of the image so I fixed the image page, resized it and stuck it back in the article. I wasn't aware of any other issues with its inclusion. BJ^Talk 06:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you refused a move from Algae to Alga. I thought wikipedia's style rules dictated that pages should always be named after the singular? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It was already moved in the other direction, I'd bring it up on the talk page, if people agree I'd be happy to move it. BJ^Talk 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for reconsidering your decision and the benevolence you showed in weighing the efforts I had taken towards creating and building the article RavichandarMy coffee shop 11:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :D BJ^Talk 18:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, BJ! I noticed you closed out some of the discussions on that page and removed it from the main PUI page, but there are images there that haven't been processed. I see you got Howcheng to help out - the images I was mainly concerned with were the following, which claim permission but have no OTRS ticket -

• Image:Monkey-in-restraint-tube-Covance3.jpg
• Image:Monkey-and-man-hands-Covance.jpg
• Image:Monkey-behind-bars-Covance-cropped.jpg
• Image:Monkey-and-man-hands-Covance-cropped.jpg

Kelly ^hi! 12:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I forgot to get the PETA ticket, I'll add when an OTRS members wakes up. BJ^Talk 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BJ - I was also concerned about Image:JulietGellatley.jpg on June 8th - the uploader has had since that date to supply the ticket and hasn't. I think the image should be deleted until the license is established. Kelly ^hi! 16:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

PETA images were deleted as an OTRS ticket couldn't be found and their site says noncommercial. As for the Viva! image, it was Friday night UK time when the email was sent so I'll give them until Monday night before I delete it. BJ^Talk 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks, BJ. Kelly ^hi! 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bjweeks

I would like to thank you for blocking this user. I had reported it to AIV too, I went to all the pages this user contributed to and reverted the vandalism. Thanks for the block! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just doing my job. :) BJ^Talk 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why have you removed "jewelery" from the AWB typo list? "Jewelery" is not a legitimate spelling in any variant of English ("Jewelry" in the US, "Jewellery" elsewhere). The reason "jewellery" and not "jewelry" was settled on as the "default" correction was due to this being the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject. I appreciate you may think different, but even if you object to a British spelling as the default, surely having it correct to something is better than leaving a typo in place? I'd have no problem with it using the American spelling as the default, if you think that would be an improvement (although a dip-sample wiki search on the misspelling seems to bring up a ratio of about 2:1 British English to American English articles). – iridescent 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And this is why I avoided editing that page before. :/ Reverted. BJ^Talk 19:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all... – iridescent 19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

When deleting pages The Killing Moon (band) please remember to delete the redirect pages as well Animal Suit Driveby, Thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As a newbie to Wikipedia without friends or allies, I am in an ongoing dispute with 2 to 4 Administrators congratulating each other on how well they decimated the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier. I knew it had to be cleaned up and refined. The removal of the images from the article started the dispute, but they are now restored. I just want to thank you for your post of support. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

hello and a question:why you denied my robot? [2]

thanks Ladsgroup (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your request was for more than one task, including many tasks we do not allow. Every request must be for a single task. BJ^Talk 02:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

if i corrected to one task you undo your edit? Ladsgroup (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks Amir (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts.--Rockfang (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bj, you may wish to place a much longer block on that IP. Whenever you see that "HAGGER?" idiocy, it's from a long-term page move vandal originally known as "Grawp." Just so ya know. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware it is Grawp (or an impersonator), I'm just still a little hesitant with longer blocks. :P BJ^Talk 05:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I wasn't aware that you were aware. Impersonators of the little sonofoagun would expalain why so many of these things have been happening since last September. There seems to be consensus that he's manipulating users at 4chan.com to bombard the site and another admin contacted me to say that they've zeroed in on the originating IP. This may become interesting. Thanks for letting me know what's up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, because you approved my bot originally i thought i would direct my question to you.

You know how in this bot request i specificly asked to tag swimming articles with the swimmingProject template. Am i also allowed to do other requests such as this one, or do i have to go to BRFA again and get specific approval?? Cheers Printer222 (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You filed a specific request so you would need to file again but you can make a general request to do the tagging for any project. BJ^Talk 06:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You were putting words in my mouth. I never, ever said Wikipedia was a battleground. Get your story right or you just look like a buffoon (in a political sense.)PokeHomsar (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on various talk pages are inflammatory and political. This leads me to believe that you are treating Wikipedia as a political battleground. BJ^Talk 04:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

i stopped but you know he deserves everything he gets. 75.3.133.115 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did double redirect fix, but I use my laptop. Is it very serious to block my bot account indefinite?I don't think so.

I request to unblock my bot account now and let me run interwiki.-Alex S.H. Lin 12:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex has requested an unblock of Alexbot; discussion on the bot's flag is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Revocation_and_deflagging_of_Alexbot. I'm inclined to unblock, as I can find no warnings (Apart from the initial, declined bot approval request) about unapproved tasks, and I add that the unapproved task in question for this block appears to have taken place a week ago. Am I missing something major, here? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so much on the unblock, as this needs more discussion, but my point on warnings stands. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the second block for running unapproved tasks with the bot account, but the block may have been a little hasty with the last run being a week ago. BJ^Talk 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's as may be, but three unapproved tasks (wikiformatting, double redirects, and speedy tagging broken redirects) would indicate that there are deeper problems than a one-off mistake. No harm in the block staying in place pending further discussion. I still would have liked to see more warnings, but if the BRFAs are sufficient notice not to run unapproved tasks, then I think that's taken care of as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In your previous archive I thanked you for your note of support in the dispute over this image and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg. The editor who just unilaterally removed them originally and then relented so that they were re-posted has had a change of heart, nominating them for deletion again. He seems to have an obsession about them. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just did a copyedit on Magypath, not realizing you had tagged it for deletion. Just to let you know, I am not making any suggestion that it be kept or not kept.

It does appear that Vruben has removed your tag without comment.

Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was this image deleted? I thought I had given a reasonable justification for keeping it here in the deletion discussion. There has cerainly been no valid counterargument. Your deletion summary says "Listed on PUI for over two weeks". That has very much taken me by surprise, if I was wrong in my reasoning I expected to get a reply before the deletion, I had assumed the image was safe until that happened. This does not make sense, if you are going to delete images anyway after two weeks whatever, then why bother to have a discussion. SpinningSpark 23:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"for non-commercial purposes as long as obvious credit for the source of the code and the designs it embodies are clearly made" the author clearly intends non-commercial. BJ^Talk 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Spinningspark, you cannot simply assume that the GFDL is applicable when it's not explicitly stated. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 23:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The author clearly intends a non-commercial licence for the software. I do not believe that she intended this to apply to images produced by the software, and I am not merely assuming that. She is fully aware that images from her software are appearing on Wikipedia and has no objection whatsoever to this, indeed is supporting and encouraging. The 4D Cubing Group share software and have a common attitude to licencing. Roice Nelson from this group (admittedly the author of different 4D software) has been absolutely plain to me in e-mail on this point. According to Roice, the output of the program is to be considered the creation of the user, not the software author, just as a creation of a drawing package would be and should be credited as such on Wikipedia. Roice has also speciified to me that screen shots of his software should be released into the Public Domain. Thank you for listening. SpinningSpark 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the GFDL is not a non-commercial-use-only license. But if you can have the creators of the 4D Rubiks Cube software release a screenshot to the public domain, by all means do so and forward your email correspondence documenting that fact to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where the idea is coming from that I think GFDL is non-commercial; I don't and it isn't. I already have e-mails from both Melinda Green and Roice Nelson regarding images used on Wikipedia. Roice is utterly unambiguous, the licence online refers to source code only, but images produced by the code are to be licenced public domain and credited to me. Melinda's e-mail is not quite as plain, in regard to Wikipedia images she uses the phrase "of course I don't mind!". Furthermore, the part of her on-line licence which is quoted above is specifically referring to source code only, not images, just as Roice's is. Will these e-mails be sufficient or are their more hoops to jump through? Is there a recognised way of tagging images that have a permission registered at Wikimedia? SpinningSpark 12:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you forward your emails to permissions-enwikimedia.org it will be reviews and an OTRS ticket number will be given to you. The images are then tagged with the {{permissionOTRS}} template to let everybody know you that the images are allowed. BJ^Talk 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy assistance! --Amble (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake! It'll make sense in an hour, but that edit was supposed to go to a sandbox. So thanks for catching that! Happy‑melon 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

BJ, per this thread on my talk, please tag those by bot. I did some spot checks and all are missing a license. It would be too tedious to do by hand, I think. Kelly ^hi! 16:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little unfamiliar with the bot process- does my bot now have a flag? Is it good to run? Can I run it automatically, or does it have to be manually assisted? J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The bot has been approved but it hasn't been flagged yet. Watch this page, once a 'crat flags it you are good to run it automatically (you might need to add it to the AWB bot list though). BJ^Talk 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been flagged. BJ^Talk 23:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind adding me (the bot) to the "Bots" in the AWB approved users list? Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Trial finished. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind looking over this request? Thanks! « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This Robot has more than 100 edit in English wikipedia(this) please see Regards Amir (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You deleted Image:Anne Robinson.jpg under WP:CSD#i9 as a "Blatant copyright violation"; but the image was a screenshot of the vandalized Wikipedia page Anne Robinson, and duly tagged as such. It wasn't needed any more, and its deletion is appropriate, but why as a copyvio? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It contained various copyrighted logos, at first glance. SQL^{Query me!} 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Vista, Firefox, Wikipedia, Pandora, Gmail, Stumbleupon, Google, etc. BJ^Talk 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I upload the one I hadn't yet cropped? My mistake wholly; sorry the the inquisition. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the full browser. BJ^Talk 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

...for the quick approval! –xenocidic (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question, do I need to wait for the bot flag to be applied before performing the task? –xenocidic (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you want to run very slowly then yes. BJ^Talk 20:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, k. How slowly otherwise? I gather they flag once a day or so? –xenocidic (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Whenever a 'crat sees normally. I'd stay under 4 EPM when running without a flag. BJ^Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

cheers, thanks again. –xenocidic (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a particular max edit rate suggested for AWB bots? I initially put 6 epm because that seemed like a standard but can I bump that up a bit? I've also requested another task approval, if you have time to review it. –xenocidic (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  AWB doesn't respect maxlag so I wouldn't go above 10. Running during off peek hours helps. BJ^Talk 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  Alright, I'll keep below 10. The reason I ask is because the way AWB does it with the count down till save, it never takes into account how much time was spent loading and saving the page, so I wanted to lower the timer a bit. –xenocidic (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Trial be done. cheers, –xenocidic (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I finished the trial of MifterBot and was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking checking everything over to make sure everything worked fine (I found no errors myself in the trial) so that my bot can be approved and then start operating regularly. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't both trial and approve a bot, so one of the other BAGs has to do it. BJ^Talk 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, would you mind giving a trial for {{uncategorized}}. Also, when logging in using Python, the apostrophe in the bots username is a problem, it causes an error. How can you avoid that? Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you please tell if I can use this news piece from Fox News as RS for astronomy related article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That is actually this article, Fox seems to syndicate Space.com. I don't see anything that disqualifies it as a RS but if available scientific sources would be preferred. The article says their findings have been published, so if anybody has access to the journal it would be a vastly better source. BJ^Talk 03:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Read what is written in references and notes. :) --Avala (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It refers to damage "Unauthorised alteration, erasure, or intentionally caused damage, destruction or unavailability of the data is prohibited and unlawful."--Avala (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But I still think it is only regarding the intentional damage one would try to make by alteration.--Avala (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the old logo with the reason that it's not being used? After all, you were the one who changed the picture on Boston Celtics, and that's the reason that you deleted it. That's not fair. Also, how is Boston Celtics logo.svg free and the picture you deleted wasn't? It was the same picture. And also, the colors of Boston Celtics logo.svg are totally off. The gold vest and the basketball have different colors from the original, and the green doesn't have the correct hue. Please introduce me into what's happening. ● 8~Hype ^@ 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored. BJ^Talk 20:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I have been getting a great amount of hassle for using the image SunSymbol.jpg as an illustration for my user page. First, it was replaced with the NonFree.svg image. Today, I found it deleted with no explanation.

I am willing to comply with behavioral limits if reasonably informed and reasonably dealt with. The image is an image of my own creation and was used to illustrate my user page. It was not copied from anyone else; it was created by me.

Kindly explain.

Samuel John Klein (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You uploaded the image under a non-free license. You are free to upload your own image under a free license and use it on your user page. BJ^Talk 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I did read up on this sort of thing but it was somehow not intuitive. One of those learning experiences, I suppose.

Thanks again.

Samuel John Klein (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. You are one of two admins who left a warning for User:RMDRDR. Could you both (I've posted to the other one) take a look at what happened here and what I said here (old page version in case of blanking)? I initially thought the partial reversion (which led to some vandalism being missed) was someone logging out to vandalise, back in to partially revert, and then back in to vandalise. But then I realised I should assume more good faith (see here). I don't have much experience dealing with vandalism, so if one of you two could follow this up, that would be great. Possibly enough has been done, but I'm not sure. Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

10 days ago you reverted a lot of edits by this bot. This bot is still under discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot VII 2, you may wish to comment. Mr.Z-man 21:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your Giffords edits.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A swift bit of blocking on your part. Keep up the good work! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

BJ^Talk 16:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting the templates, I didn't understand the due process involved and thought because I saw "keep" that the decision had been made by the Administrators. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the articles New Kadampa Tradition, Kelsang Gyatso, Dorje Shugden and Dorje Shugden Controversy are experiencing repeated attacks by a user called [Thegone]. He's posting quite hateful and biased information out of context in each of these articles. Is there anyway to stop him or to protect the articles? I don't want to be breaking the three revert rule. Thank you --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I protected Dorje Shugden already but I know nothing of the subject. I'm trying to find an admin more qualified to look over this. BJ^Talk 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was this image deleted? The vague suspicion that the image was "most likely non-free" simply because it was of professional quality is far from proof that the image actually was non-free and the deletion of the image based solely upon this misguided suspicion implies that professional quality images are not permitted on Wikipedia even if they do have a valid license attached, as this image did. For the record, I approached the staff at Bob Baldwin's office regarding this, while I was there to receive a medal. They don't know who the uploader is but they said there was no copyright on the image and weren't at all concerned about it being used on Wikipedia. The image was actually a better quality and larger version than used on either the Parliament of Australia website[3] or Baldwin's own website[4] so it's more than likely that the uploader actually was the copyright holder. There is really no justification for deleting this image given the complete absence of any proof that the licence wasn't as indicated. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof that the uploader had the rights to release the image under a free license. BJ^Talk 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor was there any proof that the uploader didn't have the rights, just a vague, unsubstantiated suspicion. There rarely is any proof that any uploader has any rights to release any image under a free license but we don't delete images simply because of that. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is standard to require an OTRS ticket for professionally taken photographs. BJ^Talk 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the proof that it was professionally taken? There are lots of good quality, apparently professionally taken photographs on Wikipedia that were actually taken by amateurs. It's not just professionals that can take photos. Again, it comes down to vague suspicions but no proof. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting a studio photo of a politician isn't professional? BJ^Talk 16:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly missing the point. The image was listed as a possibly unfree image and no proof was ever provided that it actually was unfree. Even now you can't prove it. Wikipedia requires proof that somebody is a sockpuppet or has breached 3RR in order to take action against them so I don't see why you shouldn't need to provide at least some proof that a copyright license isn't valid before deleting an image with an apparently valid license. And yes, it is possible for a "studio" photo of a politician, or anyone for that matter, to be taken by an amateur, especially with the wonderful world of digital photography and Photoshop. The days where you actually needed to go to a photo studio for a simple headshot are gone. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a web resolution headshot, most likely professionally made, lacks EXIF data, used on a website, was uploaded by a new user and has no OTRS permissions. This is a clear cut case. I will not be overturning myself, you can request it be undeleted at Wikipedia:Deletion review. BJ^Talk 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of EXIF data is irrelevant, as is the fact that a new user uploaded it and that it appears on another website. One uploads images here fully expecting that they'll be used on other websites. Perhaps that's why the uploader provided a smaller image with no EXIF data rather than a full image. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:BobHeadshot.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi BJ,

Your bot deleted an image that is the logo for a company that I am creating a page for. I do not understand why it was deleted, please explain or replace it.

Thanks, Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images can't be used in the user space, you can add the image back when you move the article to the main space. BJ^Talk 16:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you delete images immediately, how can they be discussed in the graphics lab Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop ? I cannot put them on the pages they are intended for since they are not completed and imperfect. And if I cannot show them and discuss improvement with the graphics lab how can they reach such a state that they can go to the page for which they are created ? Hektor (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The intention in creating the article on Numeridex was certainly not to promote the products sold by the company. If it appeared that way, I, the author, certainly apologize. I have taken the following steps to correct the situation: First, I deleted most of the listings naming the products sold by the company. Second, included a verifiable notable classification of Numeridex as one of the fastest private growing companies in America. Third: added some additional independent links to verify the above. Numeridex, although a small company, I believe has made a contribution to computer related technologies, especially by the authoring and publication of two desktop guides now added to the article in reference. We will welcome any additional suggestions to improve this article. Thank you.--Colmirage (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

I am writing in regards to my account in hope that you may help. Another wikipedia editor who I knew personally was seriously abusing sockpuppetry. One admin did a checkuser that showed we had different accounts but said it is likely we are the same person. The admin said we are in the same geographic area, which is true, but we are one hour apart! We did both go to a Buddhist festival at the same time as well. We were still on totally different ISPs.

I was using a second account when I first started on wikipedia, but stopped completely after I learned about sockpuppeting. I would like to request for you to look at this that my account be unbanned. I have not edited since I was banned.

Here is the checksuser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wisdombuddha

My account is wisdombuddha and the one I stopped using was wikilama. Fourthdragpa was another person at the residential Buddhist Center where I work from. I have no idea about flowerlover67, maybe someone from my corporation. The user who abused sockpuppetry was Wisdomsword and used Geoffduggan, Helen38, Helen37, Trudy21, ect.

I do not think it is fair that I have been banned indefinitely and all the sockpuppets are put on my account. I have also asked Thatcher to reconsider this. Thanks wisdombuddha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.193.243 (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently your bot removed some of my pictures I was kind of frustrated at first then when I read the Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg [5]and I found out that I had a pictures on their that I should not be on their and I just want to tell you thanks you for making that bot it is helpful--Talon the cat (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you intend to use cascade protection on User:Bjweeks/Protect to protect transcluded templates such as Template:VG Reviews? Gary King (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Still testing updating it and forgot to blank it. Thanks. BJ^Talk 06:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend creating test templates, such as in your userspace, and then transcluding those in the future. Gary King (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier this year you appear to have deleted the page on VQmon. This technology is used by over 100 equipment/ software vendors and over 200 million copies are deployed. Whilst this is a commercial technology, so is Windows, and hence there does seem to be some point at which a commercial technology is sufficiently widely used for it to be included in Wikipedia. Adclark88 11:45 18 July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What user box? I didn't know any of my userboxes were non free. I'm not someone who disrespects Wikipedia by the way. I defend it. If there is an error, I will correct. I appreciate you helping me out.If possible please write me back on my talk page. Thanks and Happy Editing Tm93 (TALK) 08:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I had no idea that it wasn't under free-license. Maybe if I'd of read the image page I figure that out. I appreciate you correcting me. I do have a question though. What can those pictures be used for if they cant be used in a userbox? If possible please write me back on my talk page. Thanks and Happy Editing Tm93 (TALK) 09:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It will be great if you could look into this bot task -- Tinu Cherian - 10:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello I'm operator of Amirobot Amir (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you'd you take a look at the response I posted in a new section. You waited only 8 minutes to close the request based on a single claim without giving me a chance to refute it. Don't you think that's a bit spurious? SharkD (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)