User talk:Brandon/Archive 9

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.

While reviewing the AFDs I relisted last night, I noticed that you had struck out the !vote of DeletionMojoMan without giving a reason. Now I usually get a little suspicious when someone drops out of the sky and starts nominating/!voting at AFD so I checked his user page and see that he had been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Gameworldduelist2 with a pointer to this page. However, I see no mention of DeletionMojoMan on that page or in the archive. Is there somewhere else that this may be documented? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

CU confirmed off wiki. BJ^Talk 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You blocked these two for sockpuppetry, claiming a checkuser confirmation, but I can find no record of that on Wikipedia, and furthermore, it is vague about who these accounts are linked to. Kinty500 is requesting unblocking but Element404 has not. I need to confirm this with the actual checkuser before proceeding. Also, I'm undoing your removal of their comments at the AfD for Bell Tower (band) because you also removed the comments of several other people who were not blocked. Mangojuice^talk 16:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Luna already commented there (different CU however). BJ^Talk 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would you be willing to reopen the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations? Notablity for the topic was never demonstrated through in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and I am unable to find any. There was a majority of people saying "keep" but they only hinted that sources might be available to support the topic although many of the facts included in the article are verifiable. When I opened an AfD case, it was closed procedurally as "too soon" since it had only been a little over 30 days and I was told to discuss it with you as the closing administrator. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable taking any action in light of all the centralized discussion. You may wish to see here. BJ^Talk 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me over there. Also, I'm not questioning that you closed it properly, I agree with what you did, I just believe the discussion itself was poor and didn't really address the important issues. Thanks again. Drawn Some (talk)

With east's bot? Dropping this around to everyone whose name east dropped. لennavecia 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you run that bot you ran on the service academy alumni articles on List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) to get all the ref accessdates to YYYY-MM-DD format? If it's not too much trouble. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I still have the script laying around, I'll have a look a bit later. BJ^Talk 02:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the behaviour I described at this section of the technical village pump intentional, and is this bug/feature going to stay around? I'd prefer a reply at the pump, naturally. Graham87 11:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. It's not going anywhere. BJ^Talk 02:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Your bot seems to think this is orphaned. Actually, it is used in Banquet/Staying Fat. What's up with that decision?? Rafablu88 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[1] caused it. BJ^Talk 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn those vandals messing with cyberheads. Rafablu88 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

About wikistalking: Do you think the script could be changed (without too much trouble) to consider all of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jessica Liao as a single user? Is there another way to do what I want? (That is, before I have to pester the checkusers again...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - I see you have three times deleted Kibbutz Beth-El with reference to an OTRS ticket. I just came across Kibbutz beth-el during new page patrol and wondered whether it was something you'd like to know about. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Further the article Kibbutz Beth-El, I am curious to know why it was deleted. There is no logged discussion of the deletion. There is a short discussion of this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#Infoboxes (scroll down to see it).

If there is some secret reason that this is being deleted (copy-vio? slander?) that you can't discuss on a talk page, you can email me. Tnx, --Ravpapa (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd quite like to know too, but if it's none of my beeswax please say so :) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Gonzonoir. I think the article's content makes deletion self-evident. It is a borderline attack page created by WP:SPA with an agenda. Since the group has the possiblity of being notable I've unprotected the title and blocked the editor instead. BJ^Talk 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. User:BJBot removed some images from an infobox I was trying out in my sandbox. I was also using this infobox as an example for use in a discussion. Please remove personal sandboxes from its search parameters. Thanks! imars (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandboxes are not exempt from WP:NFCC, you should use a free image instead. BJ^Talk 06:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BJBot is incorrectly marking images with G7 such as GoodbyeSaysItAll.jpg, which are actually unused unfree images without a fur. Can you fix this bug, its not too disruptive, but creates more work! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was the image removed from [this] page but not from [this one]? Writegeist (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images are only allowed in articles. BJ^Talk 03:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Writegeist (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Zeltis for an unblock request. Any information you can provide, other than the OTRS number, would be appreciated. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. BJ^Talk 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain these edits [2] and [3]. The image is clearly free, as I took the picture myself. CTJF83Talk 04:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The images are in the non-free category. Removing the fair use rational templates would fix the problem. BJ^Talk 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, BJWeeks

I have a problem with BJBot: It is damaging my article draft (a rewrite for Windows Media Player) which I have been developing for over two month now. While the burden of source is crashing down on me, BJBot is adding to my troubles.

Now I do understand the implications of NFCC#9 but can you please consider modifying the bot, so that it comments out the images instead of removing them? Fleet Command (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look, should be a fairly simple change. BJ^Talk 04:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your two-week block of PJHaseldine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be harsh, given the lack of recent block history and PJH's obvious and clear attempts to continue to contribute to Wikipedia consistent with and honoring his ban, whether or not he's made mistakes. In investigating this, I now realize that the original ban closure was highly irregular: Ncmvocalist is not an administrator, and was not neutral, having proposed the ban in the discussion, setting overbroad terms for the ban, and he has not been available to consult regarding the matter. You have now, however, enforced the ban with a block. Are you willing to take responsibility for it as if you had closed it? I'd suggest reviewing the original ban discussion, which includes the closed ban section, checking the evidence, and so forth. The ban discussion cautioned other editors about contentious behavior, and one of those editors is the one who has made the fuss about PJH's edits, insisting on broad, strict, and literal ban enforcement, even where there has been no disruption other than possible technical ban violation.

I supported the ban, in the closed discussion, as a "a temporary ban pending closer review" and there was agreement on that. The reason for closer review was possible disruptive behavior of other editors. I also closed the overall discussion, with some level of reprimand for PJH for continued contentiousness; he became compliant and cooperative.

In any case, under the circumstances, I suggest you unblock, 24 hours or even just a warning would have been enough, and, if you choose, clarify for PJH the terms of his ban, since Ncmvocalist is unavailable. A ban, especially an indef ban, should always have a responsible administrator, unless it is imposed by ArbComm, for the protection of the banned editor and of the project; otherwise, to lift a ban when it is no longer necessary takes another extensive discussion.

The article you deleted appears to have had usable content. It's been requested that it be recreated from cache; however, reading the article, it may contain original research or synthesis from the sources, PJH has had a tendency to do that, as do many good writers. That's why they need editors. Would you mind undeleting the article and, if you think it unready for article space, userfying it to my user space, where I may assist in getting it ready? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you are distorting the facts and dramatising an otherwise simple case. For the record, I didn't "insist" or make any judgements about this recent editing - I asked the closing editor to review one of his edits that specifically involved PA-103, after first asking the banned editor himself for an explanation. Furthermore, the community ban was reached by consensus, so you are overplaying this matter. While on the subject, I reject your implication that I've edited anything inappropriately, as you've claimed on his talk page. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was part of that original ban consensus, and the close did not accurately state it, that's part of the problem. As to possible inappropriate editing by Socrates2008, that's not relevant to the ban of PJH, itself, except that a ban against one editor when there are concerns about more than one, which was the case with the ban discussion, should merely be a temporary measure based on consideration of that editor's behavior alone; otherwise the ban effectively ratifies the behavior of the other editors, which certainly was not my intention nor was it the intention of others who supported the ban and who were not involved. I'm confident Bjweeks can sort this out, or, alternatively, recuse, with or without unblocking. --Abd (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've forgotten your note where you were encouraging me to get involved with PJH to allow him to make contributions under his ban. You also conveniently overlook details such as this, this and this where I have helped him. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget that at all, and I've cited this in the past as an example of how to encourage a banned editor to cooperate with those who might have originally wanted the ban. You aren't on trial, here, Socrates, why are you behaving like a defendant? --Abd (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, so kindly stop making unsubstantiated accusations of inappropriate editing or conduct on my part. You are not an administrator; your attempted intervention here is distracting everyone from getting on with editing some articles. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started an ANI thread in regards to the sanction. I must run now, I'll respond about the article later. BJ^Talk 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd missed the OTRS ticket issue. Because it appears that the article was sourced, the matter is more complex. If, instead of userification, the wikitext is emailed to me, I will review it and remove anything not BLP-complaint, and if enough is left for a stub, userfy it for further review before being restored to article space, or request undeletion with the changes performed. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure whether to put this on your bot:talk page or here, so I'm doing both. To alleviate edit warring on the Barack Obama page, we've created a sandbox. We copy a section from Barack_Obama to the sandbox, edit it with discussion on the talk page, and then when we have a consensus, copy the new section back to the main article. When I copied to the sandbox a section that included an image, the bot removed the image because there was no fair use rationale for its use on the sandbox page, just for its use on the article page. It's also possible that a bot would remove it because it's not in the article main space. It would be a burden to our process to have to make temporary fair-use rationales for these temporary images. Can you tell me how to get Talk:Barack_Obaba/Sandbox added to the list of exception pages? Thanks. CouldOughta (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Obviously that was supposed to be Obama, not Obaba. CouldOughta (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that someone might want a formal justification for the exception. The justification is: only images which already are used and justified for the same subject matter on the Barack Obama page will appear on the sandbox page. CouldOughta (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything to do with exceptions myself, they are discussed here. The bot just respects Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. BJ^Talk 04:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this string of edits, when I created the gallery, I'd forgotten that some of the pictures were not Public Domain, so thanks for identifying them for me.
However, if you look closely at this string of edits, and then at this edit, you will see that more than 50% of the bot's edits were on bits of text which were explanatory annotation, not "pictures".
I see your bot is clever enough to work out that "[[:File:xxx" is NOT a problem.
But it does not seem able to determine when " File:xxx" is a "picture", and when it is just a piece of text.
As 30+ occurrences of the piece of text "NonFreeImageRemoved.svg" is not a particularly useful explanation of anything, I was required to manually restore my annotations. I did not find this to be a particularly interesting or enjoyable way to waste my time.

So, can you please consider modifying the bot so that it comments out what it thinks are images instead of removing them?
It will still be a pain to have to go through and manually remove the comments from around the annotations, but at least I won't also have to manually restore the annotations themselves.
And also, I will know which of the pictures are the problems; as I said "NonFreeImageRemoved.svg" is not a particularly useful explanation of anything.

I look forward to reading your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be gone for a few days but this is on the todo list for when I return. BJ^Talk 04:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pdfpdf (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

	In the area? You're invited to
	Phoenix Wikimedia Meetup
	Time/Date: Sunday, June 28, 3:00pm
	Place: CUPZ Coffee; 777 College Ave, Suite 101, Tempe (map)

--EdwardsBot (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the CSI NY image from my user profile. I didn't really know about WP:NFCC. If you want to reply me something, contact me on my talk page.

Hey there could you please get bJBot to leave my page alone it is really starting to aggravate me! User:Agent008

BJBot better leave my page alone to, or else you can kiss goodbye to your Kodiak Bear! Maildiver

Just checking on the date bot run for List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry about the wait. BJ^Talk 18:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How come the article was deleted, again? You can answer here. --Shuki (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Same reason it was deleted last time. The author has made no good faith attempt to work to correct the article, instead they continue to post it under new titles with sock puppets. BJ^Talk 18:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with the article? --Shuki (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious WP:NPOV violations. It seems to be a "cult outing" article that seeks to reveal the practices of the kibbutz without any references to back up their claims. BJ^Talk 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact is that this group exists. Can you please point me to the deletion discussion? --Shuki (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If the group exists than create an article, my deletions are entirely without prejudice. BJ^Talk 18:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I think that the article should be undeleted and the proper prod/del process allowed to take place, especially with more visibility. --Shuki (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just write a stub, there is no need to undelete the libelous version. BJ^Talk 19:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any information on this group. If you can't do it, then we should get help from somewhere else. --Shuki (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Shuki, I've looked at the article and its contribution history, which was one edit. An article as it was cannot remain in that condition, and it would take removing revisions from the visible history log to clean it up. With it having only one revision, deletion was the only option. As bjweeks said, you are welcome to start a fresh article with verified reliable sources. Undeletion of that revision will not aid in building an encyclopedic contribution. Keegan (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This behaviour and attitude is very suspect. No justification has been given to warrant a speedy, and definitely looks more like WP:NOTCSD. The issue with one large edit is absurd. I'm actually for large edits in minimum steps. I also don't particularly like cults but certainly, recreating the article will let WP editors police it properly. It actually seems like a balanced article. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? It is almost entirely unsourced criticism bordering on libel. There is nothing that can be salvaged from the current text, it would need to be written from scratch and sourced to be acceptable. I can not in good faith undelete this article. If you insist you can try to have it overturned at WP:DRV but I strongly suggest just having a proper article written. BJ^Talk 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it seems like a decent article and yes, you finally forced me to read the whole thing. We all want articles to be proper on WP, and some take much longer than others to improve. If this is a cult, and especially with its documented business ventures, then it should have an article here. --Shuki (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a libelous article. Your second sentence answers as to why that article, undeleted, is worthless in building an an encyclopedic contribution. The bottom line is that original article, which has been reposted many times by single purpose accounts proves intent to disparage its subject. It's not a matter of right or wrong regarding content, it's a matter of integrity. Keegan (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sup brah? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you deleted Sport Clips, the first haircare provider of its kind? We provided 15 articles of reference, including the Wall Street Journal; numerous national and local third-party articles; and a book reference. Knockouts, a knock-off of this concept with only a few stores, has had a Wiki up for months with fewer references (one of theirs is an article about Sport Clips in which they are mentioned.) Also, the Knockouts' Wiki has a photo of scantily clad stylists. Sport Clips was founded in the mid-90's by an MIT and Wharton School of Business graduate, now has 650 outlets, and is well known for its philanthropic efforts to support US veterans, especially as the largest contributor to the VFW's Operation Uplink. The Wiki was deleted today after having been up for a couple of weeks by someone who posted incorrect information. We merely updated and added to it with accurate information. Many thanks, Dana Dussing Berry —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaDBerry (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KnockoutsDanaDBerry (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)DanaDBerry

My image used is accepted as non-free under its image usage rights, as a logo for a university, that I attend nontheless. Could you put an exception in your bot to not edit my page please. Thanks dude. Cliffsteinman (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately non-free images can only be used in articles. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Howdy. I use a script to tag images with various image issues. One of the issues is orphaned non-free images. The script tags the image as orphaned, and then notifies the uploader. It can tell (somehow) if there is an orphan template on the user's talk page already. If there is one, it uses a shorter template instead. You might consider adding this functionality to BJBot when it adds an "orphaned file" template to a user's talk page.--Rockfang (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you removed DreamHost from the file hosting category? It was added only recently, and DreamHost does indeed run a file hosting services called "Files Forever". -- Scjessey (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, it might be helpful if the article explained or mentioned why it is in the category though. BJ^Talk 03:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a slo-mo edit war over the section I linked in my last comment: what's your opinion? In, or out?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that excluding any information on the service does a disservice to our readers. It confused me, I would think it would do the same to others (or I'm just stupid :). BJ^Talk 03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's confusing to have the category without supporting text, but objections have been raised that including information on that service is advertising.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you deleted Sport Clips, the first haircare provider of its kind? We provided 15 articles of reference, including the Wall Street Journal; numerous national and local third-party articles; and a book reference. Knockouts, a knock-off of this concept with only a few stores, has had a Wiki up for months with fewer references (one of its is an article about Sport Clips in which they are mentioned.) Also, the Knockouts' Wiki has a photo of scantily clad stylists. Sport Clips was founded in the mid-90's by an MIT and Wharton School of Business graduate, now has 650 outlets, and is well known for its philanthropic efforts to support US veterans, especially as the largest contributor to the VFW's Operation Uplink. The Wiki was deleted after having been up for a couple of weeks by someone who posted incorrect information. We merely updated and added to it with accurate information. Many thanks, --DanaDBerry (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Dana Dussing Berry —(talk • contribs) (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockouts (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)DanaDBerry

I've searched for a response to this query and fear I may have missed it. I'm hoping to hear from BJWeeks regarding the deletion of Sport Clips. Many thanks. --DanaDBerry (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)DanaDB

I deleted the article for being promotional. There was a better version that I didn't notice, I have undeleted and restored it. BJ^Talk 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 articles about Susanne Alt. I am new to Wikipedia. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susanne_Alt seems to be better because also there are sources. Could you possibly help to merge these 2 articles into one? cheers, Patricia Patriciasmaragd —Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

I redirected the lower cased title to the proper title. BJ^Talk 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any comments on my suggestion?--Rockfang (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed you.--Rockfang (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That bot is in complete disrepair due to pywikipedia being broken and is entirely legacy code (again, pywikipedia). I don't intend to add any features unless I rewrite it. BJ^Talk 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for replying.Rockfang (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As the admin who blanked/protected it, I thought you might be interested in the Unprotect request of User:Otterathome. Cheers. Plastikspork (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. BJ^Talk 06:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

for keeping me informed regarding PJHaseldine's restriction, but I'm sorry I couldn't review it closer to the time (due to my absence). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need to remove non-free images from most namespaces, and I can see that BJBot is doing the job well. Would it be appropriate to leave a link to the removed image without displaying it? Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop uses template {{GLNF}} to show a dummy image, which we can click to see the description page for the image being discussed. I have amended a few BJBot edits to use this compromise, e.g. Certes (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It already tries to link, if the regular expression doesn't match it replaces. BJ^Talk 17:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. That explains why most of the images are already linked well. I suppose just a few requests in odd formats slip through the net, and there's no way any bot can be expected to catch those. Certes (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Have a diff? I can try improving the regular expression. BJ^Talk 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you recommend a new AfD, and the arguments put forth in the AfD count more than votes, why did you just not delete? I could use some constructive criticism. Do you have any ideas for improving the article? Anarchangel (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I reread the AfD and I still can't see any consensus either way. Though closing delete would be in the discretionary range of an administrator. AfD reopened, I'll let another admin make the call. BJ^Talk 00:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I sent an email to [email protected] stating I had permission to copy over the material from http://www.blue-star.org/founder_trin.asp for the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Vasudeva . I also stated this on the discussion page. Can you guide me as to what else I have to submit in order to permit the page I created to be made online? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JT2032 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was interested to see you said to merge the above article when 5 people said delete and only 4 say to merge it. I was going to say delete also. Which would make 6 peeps to 4 for merge. Govvy (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD is a discussion, not a vote. None of those in favor of deletion gave any arguments against merging. BJ^Talk 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Consequence of Sound. 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. 71.178.191.137 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you messed this up; you have redirected to itself! Timneu22 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I fail. /me fixes. BJ^Talk 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, no biggie. Timneu22 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you click the wrong button when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doze4? This was a merge, not redirect. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I asked was this [4] since it seemed a little odd to see a G8. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see a place to merge it, if you'd like feel free, the content is still there. BJ^Talk 21:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I meant you G8'd the talk page, so I figured you clicked on the wrong thing? Can you restore it? --Tothwolf (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, why? It contains nothing of value. Merge discussions take place on the target page. BJ^Talk 23:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does, it contains the WikiProject templates and the talk page will continue to remain in place with a merger template. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is somewhat related, so I put it in this existing section. I noticed WP:Administrators' noticeboard#admining help, regarding deleting the Talk pages of redirects. I found Talk:Kristi Yamaoka as a red link in my watchlist. Would you consider undeleting it? I recall that there was a list of previous AfDs (though accessible at the last AfD), and a template noting the merged/copied content may be in order. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Both undeleted. BJ^Talk 01:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Flatscan (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick speedy keep on that AfD. Seemed everyone I asked last night had fallen asleep just after I asked :) Thanks again...NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) BJ^Talk 01:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

BJBot, the spoilsport, tweaked a photo I had placed on the WP:RD/M reference desk. Unfortunately it did this:

thumb|right|Or perhaps this?

...which looks bad. Is there a way to make the whole thing disappear? Maybe instead of sticking a : in front of the filename it should put the whole reference between the [[ and the ]] into a comment? Tempshill (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly that seems like a MediaWiki bug more than a bot bug. Works fine like this: Image:Z-machine480.jpg. BJ^Talk 01:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there; could I ask you to have a look at the talk page of this editor, whom you blocked at the beginning of this month. I am in no way crtiticising the block, I am sure I would have blocked in the same situation, and I have already declined one unblock request. Others have been declined by other admins. I have a gut-feeling that he actually wants to be a real contributor. But it's your call. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, forget it. He is editing using his sockpuppet even as I posted my comment to you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have that watchlisted, quite the show. BJ^Talk 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You no longer have one. Daniel (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was told you run a bot that removes non-free images from articles when the image page has no backlink? Is that running at the moment? J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi:

I not speak english, I'm sorry. This image: File:Dr tangalanga cd lo mejor.gif, is for Dr. Tangalanga. Ferbr1 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed BJ^Talk 05:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your very useful app does not seem to be working. It's producing an error message (1049, "Unknown database 'enwiki_p'"). Any ideas what's wrong?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The database server is being worked on. Nothing I can do, unfortunately. BJ^Talk 07:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

http://status.toolserver.org is usually kept up-to-date. On July 2, a power outage caused some corruption in the Toolserver's copy of en.wiki's database and one of the Commons databases. It's being re-imported now. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt replies, guys. I'll wait a while then :)  Roger Davies ^talk 08:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on your comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AntiAbuseBot, I thought you might be interested in this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No probs. As it stands it doens't seem to meet WP:N - I beleive things have tioghtened up considerably since the last time, so it's a valid debate. Artw (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please confirm here that you wanted n:user:bjweeks renamed n:user:Brandon. Thanks. Sorry to be such a bother. --SVTCobra (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye. BJ^Talk 17:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thx. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see you are on break and hope it is for good reasons, such as a summer vacation! Anyway, when I try to use this tool, which I find immensely useful for such things as RfAs, I am getting the following error: "(1045, "Access denied for user 'bjweeks'@'wolfsbane.toolserver.org' (using password: YES)")" Anyway, sorry to intrude on the break and no rush, but just wanted to bring it to your attention. All the best! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just got home from my trip. I'll have a look at the tool in a bit, thanks for the heads up. BJ^Talk 07:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed BJ^Talk 08:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

May I be the first of many to congratulate you on your new checkuser status. May I also be the first to present you with the follow userbox:

This user has checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Again, congrats! Now I know you to bug when I need a checkuser :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BJ^Talk 07:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on being appointed as a checkuser. I remember how scary those first few checks can be, so I wanted to assure you that it does get easier, and that I'll try to keep myself available on IRC at #wikipedia-en-admins and #wikipedia-en-checkuser (which I've added you to the access list for, and given you invite exemption) so I can help you out with those crucial first few checks. Don't be afraid to ask me any and all questions you might have. Have fun! --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well done my friend - good hunting and best wishes. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• You just haaaaaad to get a rename right about now, didn't ya? That was quite a surprise, seeing checkuser results from somebody I didn't recognize in the least, then finding out that they're even really a checkuser! Thanks for the heart attack. ;) Welcome to the fold. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What was {{{Non-free vector version available}}} redundant to? The reason it seems unused is that images it is used on are subsequently deleted under the NFC rules. {{{Vector version available}}} can't be used on such images because it includes a thumbnail, violating NFC rules and resulting in bots removing the image reference from the template, making its presence pointless (and removing the information it was providing). At least, {{{Non-free vector version available}}} could be a redirect to whatever template you think is appropriate. Were you also planning on deleting {{{Nfvva}}}, which redirects to this template? Thanks, Stannered (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Recreated as a redirect to {{Vector version available|{{{1}}}|nonfree=yes}}. BJ^Talk 11:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Stannered (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)