This is an archive of discussions past. Please do not edit this page, and instead visit User talk:ST47 if you want to leave me a comment.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47.
Wikimedia Foundation
Contents
Here it is: ready for conoms.
Just don't go ahead and add it until you're ready, and make sure the dates are accurate.
Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Blair signature.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's running on my machine now instead of toolserv, because toolserv is broken, but I think we know what the problem is, the content is coming back compressed. I'll let you know if someone fixes it. --ST47Talk11:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. I was just keeping you up to date in case you hadn't noticed. (Bot owners often don't notice changes in their bot's status. I'm a professional developer myself so I understand how that can happen! ) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It is online, ant it's probably accessible from a google search, however our search engine won't register new articles until it's updated, which happens pnce in a while, probably weekly, but I can't be sure. What you can do is choose some related articles that talk about your subject, edit them, and put a Aztec on the River somewhere. This will allow visitors to see that your article exists. --ST47Talk01:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
195.110.173.55
So I respond to an editor and I'm accused of "attacking" them? You guys really are fascists, aren't you? THERE IS NO INHERENT TRUTH.
I don't see anything pejorative in calling a fascist a fascist.
00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Aztec On The River
Hello
I've registered the page under the name Aztec on the River
The official name is Aztec On The River with capital letters
I cannot manage to edit the title of the page
Would you be so kind to do so ?
Thank you very much
Kind regards
Thanks for your comments on the proposal. You said "If that isn't clear enough, change it, but leave a message is just taking up space." But there are several other proposals there that take up less space, like "New comment". You are opposed to all of those? — Omegatron12:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several other people said it wasn't clear to them. Have you asked non-Wikipedian friends if they can figure out how to leave a comment if they see an error in an article? I've asked several of mine, and they weren't even aware they could edit the article without logging in. :-) I think our interface needs some serious revamping to continue attracting contributions from passers-by. — Omegatron12:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a tooltip, right? Add a comment to this discussion. Anyway, we have help pages, don't we? If it isn't clear enough, then a comment should be there, or in WP:EDIT, or something. --ST47Talk12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahha! I never meant to leave it running that long, I really only wanted 2 edits for the BRFA - I should have put a throttle in. It's since been throttled and is awaiting approval. --ST47Talk21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Approved and running 8-9 e/m. Worst-case is 5 hours for the ones we know are bad, and another 3 for the possibles. --ST47Talk21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry (noticed you were waiting for an approval after I asked). You do realize the "possibly broken" ones might or might not still be broken (sampling some by hand, most of them seem to still have the problem)? I'm curious how your code might handle this. Are you looking for a specific pattern and editing only if the pattern is present? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot did it again, for at least the sixth time: [1].
Please, please, please, do something to fix this bot of yours (and the others, i.e. the whole interwiki.py gang). This must be stopped. Please also see my recent posting to the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard, which was the third posting of mine to a relevant board to which I have had no response at all from any of the bot owners. Fut.Perf.☼05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it added it again, something's wrong with the bot. I'm going to see if I can put in some sort of override, and until then, I'll disable the bot. --ST47Talk10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help. As I said on the noticeboard, the solution that would probably be easiest to implement and most transparent for editors to handle would be if it just checked if the link is already in the page text but commented out. Fut.Perf.☼11:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but...
Hey ST47,
thanks for approving SkyBot 1 for a trial run. However, it may be a little while before I actually get the time, what with my limited time here (schools back), to do the trial run. I hope this is ok. Also, being entirely honest, I'm still trying to make myself understand WP:AWB/CFD - I have followed the file path to Pugins, but I cannot find the Recategorise per CFD 'main menu item'. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a CFD.dll in the /Plugins folder, and you need to copy that into the same folder as the .exe. Don't worry about the delay, we realize that people have lives, and good luck - ask if you need help. --ST47Talk10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know exactly what you are talking about. I should be right on my way now, ready for trial tomorrow. And many, many congratulations on your sysopship. (I actually, considering the way you handled yourself, thought you already were an admin) Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, disagreement over whether a page is speedily deletable is traditionally discussed on such forums as WP:MFD. I suggest that if White Cat wants them deleted, he take the issue there. >Radiant<13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It breaks links from 2 talk pages, and one of them is mine. CSD states that some subpages are needed for 'administrative purposes', which I think means to retain vandalism warnings and and relevant history, but there's no need to keep these pages against the user's will, so I am going to go for deletion without strong evidence that the pages should stay - why do we need these redirects? --ST47Talk·Desk13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to need them primarily because their absence has caused repetitive drama on the admin noticeboard. I don't really know the background of this issue but am trying to minimize drama here. >Radiant<13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a calandar/clock to your user page, if you copy that lump of text to your talk page, it will be there too. Would you like any modifications? --ST47Talk·Desk19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the calendar & clock, but it is Adeelbutt88 who would like to have them; not I. I simply moved his question from your subpage to your discussion page. ;-) — Dorvaq (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you undeleted Code2000 per DRV, did you check the talk page and its history? It seems curious that the only comments I see are ones made while the article was in deletion limbo. If there is no prior talk, no worries; but if there is a prior talk history, we should get that back as well. You can reply here if you wish. Thanks. --KSmrqT04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some sort of weird glitch, when I tried undeleting the first time, it didn't go through. All 35 revisions are there now, thanks for telling me! --ST47Talk·Desk14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; and what scintillating reading it is! One more puzzlement: Should there now be a note at the top of the talk page that this article was re-instated after a DRV? I'm not familiar with the boilerplate for this situation, but the usual idea is to let future editors/admins know not to waste their time: notability is attested. --KSmrqT19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you archive the old talk page, rather than merge it with the new one? The sequence of comments is confusing, especially since there is no page history to see what in the article, the comments are discussing.jonathon20:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Unfortunately, you'll have to restore the contents yourself, I don't have access to that information, perhaps you can track down the bot that did it? --ST47Talk·Desk21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You again do it? I wish you had told me the first time, as there's probably an interwiki conflict. I'll try to resolve it. --ST47Talk·Desk13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm a bit concerned that you immediately reverted and assumed I was abusing templates and wasn't a clerk as opposed to notifying me of the problem. I've put the case into the NC section. MSJapan19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see enough reverts by you recently enough for that block, probably an accident. The block's expired, and you're good to edit, however. Sorry for the inconvenience! --ST47Talk·Desk21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but that is not acceptable. Having such a block on my record would cause grave harm to my chances of applying to become an admin. Will you please:
I made it yesterday or the day before and today I was thinking of changing it for the same reason. Thanks for telling me as I really wasn't sure about it. Angel Of SadnessT/C15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole point, mkil will reply with 10 arguments and most of it makes no sense, just watch over this guy you and bart, but on a private level... he needs to go. Do you want accurate wikipedia?>
I understand that, and I understand that you believe that user is malicious, but we can't leave it there. I'll bring it up with some other admins and see what they want to do. --ST47Talk·Desk19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you are new? The above user has connections to some administrators who are helping him, watch out for his edits and reverts! I can send you directly lots of evidence.
Well, I am new, and I've looked at the user's edits, and don't see anything particularly bad, perhaps a particular edit would help? --ST47Talk·Desk22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i appreciate your nice reply, this is something i never get, can i have your email, since some things may be against wiki privacy rules. (if there is such a thing)
The problem is not a simple one and there is a lot i want to tell you, all i want is neutrality and not to be influenced by other administrators who back this guy. As I am sure by now you have been told. I am also on a public computer and different people edit, i was accused of some vandalism and it was not me, one of the reasons to find good administrator. The reason I am writing you is because you replied to my query, first.
I should have my email posted somewhere...It's [email protected]. And yes, I see that you're editing from a library, and I wouldn't hold any childish vandalism from that range against you. --ST47Talk·Desk19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of UK locations
Hi,
I've now finished - I hope! - sub-dividing the pages listed at User:ST47/UKLC. Please will you re-run the query, so that I can see if I've missed anything? If you want to overwrite the last results with the new ones, that will be fine. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your decission to protect Anonimu's talkpage, combined with User:Sceptre removing userboxes from several users, including one admin, has lead to a controversial discussion. The discussion can be found here. This is what Sceptre said about your action: "No, ST47 protected it because Anonimu was disruptively removing comments because I'm a "blind supporter." He seems to suggest that he is a "blind supporter," but I guess that was an error from his part. I think he meant to imply that Anonimu removed his comments because he believed that Sceptre was a blind supporter, which would in turn constitute as a personal attack, and which made you protect the talkpage. I would like to know if that is how you reasoned when you protected the talkpage. --Thus Spake Anittas23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop posting information about other editors, regardless of whether you believe it to be true or not. If you persist, you will be blocked. Crum37521:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I was informing a user of an article that referenced him, much the same way as people inform me when there is a discussion that involves me on the administrator's noticeboard. In no way did I endorse or oppose the opinion given in the article, I just think it's important to know when you're linked to on the front page of slashdot. My edit certainly wasn't as inflammatory as, say, Hexrei's. --ST47Talk·Desk21:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your note
You are not appointed as a news provider of attempted outings of WP editors. Rest assured that we all have google and we all know how to use it. By your posting this information here, you are furthering the aims of the original harassers. Please stop, or you will be blocked. Crum37522:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor have you been appointed a 'reverter', or what you will. We're volunteers, and we discuss. Further, you've already threatened to block me for editing slim's page, surely this threat isn't for me editing your talk page? His new message bar was activated, so I have no need to edit again, he can decide whether to revert or not. As a final note, perhaps we should protect slim's talk? --ST47Talk·Desk22:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are all appointed as protectors of each other's privacy and well being. If I see an attack or harassment against anyone, I will revert it, warn the offender, and block if necessary. An attempted outing, or information about it, are harassment. If a user sincerely wanted to alert another about a personal matter, s/he would use email. Crum37522:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a dyktalk template on Talk:British Army - did you mean to put it on Talk:Johnny Ramensky, because I haven't been able to find a DYK factoid for the British Army, though you posted two user ones for Johnny Ramensky. Just noticed it on my watchlist. RHB - Talk11:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This bot task is dangerous for our project. On Commons users explicitly have to express that their uploads are “own work”. We often have to delete files as copyvios transfered via CommonsHelper because we can’t find a source on en.wikipedia.org (again and again: actors, musicians, often uploaded by users with a few edits, no source, no permission). :-( --Polarlys17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the approval and it seems as though the bot only tags articles that are marked {{GFDL-self}}. Regardless, I've asked him to comment. Thanks, ----ST47Talk·Desk20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons the bot exacly does what you asked him. But that’s the problem. On every project people upload files without information on author and license, but choose one of the -self licenses (they are at the top of every drop down list). Often there is no correlation between authorship and -self license. Without this bot function everything remains as it is (no advanced state BTW), with this bot we get pictures including a lie. A work is likely “self-made” when the author typed these words. --Polarlys00:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! When placing a Commons image on the main page, please remember to first upload it to the English Wikipedia and tag it with the {{c-uploaded}} template. Otherwise, it will not be protected (so a vandal can replace it at the Commons and change what appears on our main page). We just had Image:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG repeatedly replaced with an image of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and it could just as easily have been a Goatse image. Thanks! :-) —David Levy07:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why were the audio samples removed? Wikipedia:Music samples states "There's no limit of how many samples you could use in one article" and other FA musician articles have more samples than this, eg. Kylie Minogue, Pink Floyd, AC/DC. There shouldn't be a set number of samples allowed; each sample must be judged for fair use seperately, eg. The Sensual World song was discussed in great detail in the article so its sample easily satisfied fair use. I may reverse your edit if I don't hear from you soon. Epbr12313:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that you can justify that much material as fair-use, especially on an article that's on the main page. Fair use must contain the minimum amount of material needed to illustrate the subject. Feel free to change the samples around, but there shouldn't be any more than 3 non-free media in an article. --ST47Talk·Desk13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came up with three as a sort of guideline. There is no need to have that many samples in an article. WP:FUC, a policy, requires minimal use. 12 samples is not minimal. 3 is more than enough. I don't care which three, change it if you will, but for a featured article, the 'best' articles on wikipedia, we should adhere to some sort of standard of quality and legality. --ST47Talk·Desk15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a nice rule of thumb to go by (and personally one I'll keep in mind), but it's certainly not a guideline. Every article is different; some music articles may need more than three soundclips, some may need less. To be fair in this case, I do think the three soundclips present at least give a basic overview of Kate Bush's sound. WesleyDodds10:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree that Kate Bush's musical range is any less varied than Pearl Jam's. It's possibly far more varied. The article emphasises her wide range of musical styles. Even her voice is different when comparing Wuthering Heights and Running Up That Hill. Epbr12310:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks + your sig
I dunno if you noticed it or not, but your bot signed a recent comment to my talk page with a datestamp of "21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)." If this is true, I demand you divulge to me the details of how you reconstructed the the flux capacitor. Now. (hehe, totally just kidding with you). :D Anyway, thought you might be interested in that bug. Have a good one, and cheers. :) --slakr03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was tagged because it was orphaned fair use (CSD I5), not because it was missing a fair use rationale (CSD I6). In any case, the image was not orphaned, as it was reinstated immediately after it was tagged, and the editor who readded the image perhaps forgot to remove the tag on the image. Can you take another look at this, and perhaps restore it so a fair use rationale can be written? Thanks! —Kurykh17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was deleted because there was no rationale, not because it was orphaned. I've restored it so that a rationale can be produced and tagged it with norationale. Once you add a rationale, please remove the template. Thanks, --ST47Talk·Desk17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the answer to my question I'll put it in bold so you can see it if you didn't before Why did you remove the image of the blue rahkshi?heres that link you are desperate for.RahkshiSwirlex01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for getting rid of stuff that shouldn't be in Wikipedia, but can you at least clean up the mess you make as you do it? You've left broken links, legacy text and template image tags in the Keane (band) article. -- Scjessey12:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Breaking Articles, You Great Administrator You
You know, I am fed up with self-righteous administrators and brainless bots breaking perfectly good articles with perfectly good rationale for things like specific photo content. I am so upset you don't even understand. Most people who contribute to Wikipedia don't have the time to fight with this garbage and will just tell you to go to h$ll and not fix it!
You are diminishing the quality of Wikipedia, and if that's your primary contribution, then you SUCK!
It's too much work fighting the system when you're just trying to contribute a little bit of knowledge or add an openly-available media release picture, which of course, I can't properly put a license on because the correct options just aren't there anymore. Why is this? Administrative power trips, perhaps?
So, thank you for pissing me off and making me hate the world again.
And furthermore, do you actually read the photo descriptions or the rationales the people put on them? Or do you just systematically go around deleting things that look like they're unlicensed? Because I have news for you: photos I put up are always, always legitimately available freely. I just don't have the correct options available to me in order to tell YOU what that license actually is. What is the point of expecting proper licensing tags if you don't give general users the ability to tag them properly?
I believe I have contributed to this community a LOT, yet I feel treated like crap and undermined at every turn. Self-righteous jerkwads love to exert their power over the puny Wiki-peasant masses and frustrate their best efforts at making good, not-broken articles.
Thanks so much! You're a pal breaking my articles! What a nice guy! Yayyy! I'm so happy I have to re-upload an image at some point that I couldn't tag property given the options! Yayyy! I'm so happy you noticed! Yayyy I'm so glad you didn't check that it was actually legitimage!
Yayyy, big brother, I'm so happy! You're great! Do you get points for every crappy edit you make that frustrates normal users? Does someone pat you on the back? Or is this the best way to troll Wikipedia-- with an official title? That way you can frustrate people legitimately and get a kick out of your power.
Does it make you feel special inside? Do you rub shoulders with President George Bush, because you're acting like him-- a great leader and the greatest tyrant the world has ever known. Heil Bush! Heil Wikipedia! HEIL HEIL HEIL.
(Yes, I just snapped. It was coming for a long time. Do you know how many times I've re-uploaded necessary crap and fixed broken elements?)
As long as I'm ranting about Wikipedia, how much time to you spend on this project? I'm sure a lot. Why do you think it helps anybody to blindly remove content without looking at what it is or where it actually came from? I put it right there! You could have read it for god sakes! If you want to improve your precious Wikipedia you care so much about, why not be more CAREFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.100.135 (talk • contribs)
Most people who've spent your thousands of hours toiling away on the project have taken to the habit of signing their posts with ~~~~. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous user: You have 24 hours to rescind your personal attacks or I will rescind them for you and will most likely block you in the process.
As for the image itself - What was the point of commenting here if you won't even give me enough information to review the deletion?
However, any image I deleted was tagged to be deleted for at least a week. If there is a particular image, I can recover it and email it to you, so you can upload it following our non-free media policy. --ST47Talk·Desk11:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I do feel bad about the character tear-downs... I'm sorry-- thus, rescinded. It was uncalled for. I hope you realize how much of a problem these image deletions are creating for people, though. The image deletions themselves still make me never want to contribute to this community again. It probably won't be me who makes you reconsider bulldozing through articles and images, though. Either way, I hope you can find it in your heart to change the way you do things . . .Wikipedia has just become too regulated and heavy-handed these days and you just happened to incur my wrath for so much frustration building up . . . And I'm not an angry person. I have never gone off on anybody online like that ever-- until now. The situation is not your fault anyway-- it's probably the fault of Wikipedia's own success and legal ramifications of "possibly" copyrighted images.... Not to mention the tendency of any community to become totalitarian after a while...
So, even if it's a long-winded and a little underhanded of an apology, I honestly do feel bad for the personal stuff. Sorry.
can you tell me what happened to my teenagent image video cover screen shot, why it was deleted and why I was not informed on my profile talk page? Govvy08:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was deleted because it did not have a fair use rationale, as required by our policy on non-free media. If you'd like, I can email the image to you so you can re-upload it to include the fair use rationale? --ST47Talk·Desk11:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I missed the rationale when I deleted it. I've restored and removed the speedy delete tag, and readded the image to the article. --ST47Talk·Desk14:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting images
Please actually check if a rationale has been added before deletion, as in the case of Image:Tbmviolet.jpg. --Eyrian 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Main Page Report
TTOTD: 7 not spelled out.
TOTD: 7 not spelled out.
TTTOTD: 7 not spelled out.
OTD: 4 not spelled out.
19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Miguel Alvarado.JPG
I noticed it was removed from page. What was the reason. We want to make sure its done correctly.
According to I6, you deleted the OGG samples on Keane due of not having a fair use rationale which actually had. Having been deleted about four times, I'll upload the samples once more and I'll just tell you, if you delete them again, I'll link them when they cannot be deleted as I did once. And it worked. Nāhuatlahtōlcopa cēntlamatilizāmoxtli īpan.--Fluence03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 8/4/07, Dan Collins wrote:
> On 8/4/07, Achilles Sakai <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > whyd u remove the logo from the new trier page
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Messenger Café — open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. Visit now.
> > http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_AugWLtagline
>
> Speedy deletion criterion I6, no fair use rationale, as I stated in my edit summary.
>
> --
> ST47
> Administrator, en.wikipedia
>
Non-free media must have a 'rationale' - you can learn how to write one here. Once you add it to the image page, please remove the speedy deletion template. --ST47Talk·Desk16:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that particular one, but I think you need to go back through all of your recent edits and doublecheck...I keep finding more.[2] Are you using some kind of automated software? It doesn't seem to be working well. Postdlf16:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pat MacDougall.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --ST47Talk·Desk20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what if the picture is big? I just resize it when I use it, what's the problem?
Excuse Me
Is it any surprise that you have become an administrator only to delete images and destroy other people's useful work? Especially when you yourself don't know how to post images. Idiot. Jade198408:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to ad a delay to your bot "STBotI", i uploaded an image, then forgot the tag, clicked immediately on edit to add the appropriate tag, and by the time it was done it had added a warning to my talk page and a deletion warning to the image page. I think if the bot was delayed by 5 to 10 minutes, then you might reduce the number of situations like mine, whilst still reminding people to tag their images. Thanks User A112:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of adding a delay, though for other reasons. I'll make the delay longer to accommodate situations like yours. --ST47Talk·Desk12:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus "no rationale" tagging
Regarding this edit, what more do you expect to see a rational state that isn't completely redundant to the non-free content tag already on the page? It might be the case that the tag on the page is inaccurate (I see the image isn't used yet, and it's an album cover not a DVD cover) but a user provided rationale isn't going to be any better. Please don't demand rationales except in cases where the validity of the fair use claim looks questionable. --Gmaxwell13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy states that those tags are not valid rationales, as there are several things that must be stated by the user: replacability, resolution, source. --ST47Talk·Desk13:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If policy says something clearly stupid we don't follow it, per policy. ;) When we have an album cover image used on an article about the album it's clear who the copyright holder probably is (and any source claim is going to be equal or worse than that obvious guess). The mindless no-rationale tagging is clearly harmful: To make your bot shut-up people just paste in mindless boilerplate rationale which simply repeats the copyright tag a second time. Once thats done the image gets no more oversight. We might as well make a rule that says the each non-free image has to have a unique 14 digit prime number in its image description for all the good it does us. --Gmaxwell13:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there. I've been helping out a bit at WP:ACC and noticed that when I or someone else creates an account for another user, AccReqBot is the one who welcomes them with {{Welcome}}. Is it possible (and I'm in no way a coding expert) to have some sort of user list where it signs a certain users name, or some way to notify a user on a list to welcome the new contributor? This is in no way a major concern, but I think new users would benefit greatly by being welcomed by other users rather than a robot. Thanks and happy editing, Arky¡Hablar!20:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get the image deleted off of the Wikimedia Commons as the Commons does not allow for "Fair Use" images. I would like to reupload the pic to Wikipedia with the following:
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
It is a historically significant photo of a famous helicopter of which only two were built.
It is of much lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality).
The photo is only being used for informational purposes.
Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the helicopter in the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. The image also presents the helicopter in a way that all the unique features of the design are viewable, and is recognizable as one of the most popular images of the Fw 61.
Since you were the admin that deleted the image, I wanted to be sure that it would meet your requirements and/or your understanding of Wikipedia's fair use requirements before proceeding. The image is to be used in the infobox on Focke-Wulf Fw 61. It is also found on the web at various resolutions at many other sites (here, here, here, here, and here) and is one of the most popular images of this particular helicopter. --Born2flie11:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your assistance in helping replace an image for one of the critical historical helicopters of WP:AIRCRAFT. --Born2flie
Your bot
The speed and fast-paced nature of your bot is being disruptive when it's completing it's tasks. I ask that it's edit rate is slowed. — Moeε12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the bot edits real-time, slowing the rate would result in lost edits. I am going to add a delay to the bot to allow users to add rationales. --ST47Talk·Desk12:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and again...
Serously, did you even bother to slow the rate like I asked you too? It just tagged another one of my images in under a minute of me uploading it. It doesn't matter how fast the task is performed by the bot, all that matters is that it's actually performed. Next time, I'm not going to bring this argument here anymore, if it happens again, I'll bring it to adminsitrator's noticeboard. — Moeε15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot has a 5 image buffer, after which it loads the image and makes the edit, unless you're reuploading deleted material. If that isn't enough time, then add the licensing information as you're uploading it. If I make the delay any longer then we lose context and we give uploaders more time to upload infringing content before being contacted. --ST47Talk·Desk15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to remember to add it as I go along, and I don't think it's a very unreasonable request for a delay of 4-5 minutes to occur. Less than a minute is absurd. Why can't the bot be scripted to look at images uploaded 4-5 minutes ago instead of the ones most recently uploaded? I don't think 4-5 minutes of lag can cause much harm to Wikipedia considering there are users who periodically do the same work your bot is doing and they do it just as annoyingly fast as the bot. — Moeε16:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scripting the bot to wait based on time would require me to harvest/analyze the data, set a timer, watch a timer, harvest data to make sure it didn't change, and most likely in the process double the size of the bot, increase memory usage by approximately 100 MB, increase cpu utilization, increase network utilization - causing the threat of disconnections and increasing the lag time for response to IRC commands, causing a bigger usage spike on shutdown, precluding any use of testing by inputting custom data, precluding the use of my instant tagging in the case of oversized images, and causing a discord between input and output for anyone who happens to be watching for bugs. Now, we have a little drop down box in the image upload dialog that allows you to choose a license. It's hard to miss, you almost have to look at it. There's also a custom inputbox where you can input whatever you please including the requisite rationale for non-free images. These two components make up most of the active UI. There is a very large blue box which states, in large, red, bold font, Your file will be deleted unless you provide detailed information on both: the source and the license. This is followed by several other boxes, including one which details the need for a rationale. It even uses the word "must" in italics. Now, there is no way that you can upload an image without seeing this message, and there is very little excuse for failing to provide the requisite information. However, there are still over 500 images each day which to not follow these guidelines. To compensate me for the time to delete these, surely you can take the time to either read these guidelines as was intended, or use the bot's warning as intended by correcting your error, removing the deletion tag, and going on with your editing in peace. As I see it, this is much the same as antivandalbot, which promptly reverts possibly accidental edits and informs the user of their error. STBotI, like AVB, detects violations of policy, identifies them, and notifies the uploader, saving people such as myself the time it would take to review every image uploaded to this encyclopedia. --ST47Talk·Desk16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is I don't violate policy and I add rationales and licenses, and always have, two minutes later if I didn't do it the first go around. Well damn me for being slower than your bot.. — Moeε16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ... but is there something you can do rather than tag it for a speedy? It would probably be nice to have repeat customers tagged so that they can be examined to see if they are copyvios ... but if the image was originally uploaded with incompatible license terms, deleted, and reuploaded under a legitimate free license, we don't want someone to speedy it as a duplicate. --B17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your bot adds "Template:Di-no license" to commons images. That template does not appear to exist on commons. Same for the user talk page template. Please fix that, and the pages the bot edited. Thanks, Magnus Manske20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the bot for three days so you'll have fewer pages to fix once you come back from your wikibreak :-) I'll unblock it once its fixed. --Magnus Manske20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ST47, what do you think (if this is even possible) of adding a minimum of three minutes between image upload and user talk page message for your bot? Sometimes getting the messages right on time can be quite annoying for established editors who add the proper tag in the very next diff.--Chaser - T04:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just add the tag as you're uploading the image? It seems like that would be easier as you have the dropdown box of all the tags. Unfortunately, I can't add a delay of time, but I can and have added a queue of 3 images for other reasons. We can increase that time, but I don't see why it's so hard to add the tag the first time through. --ST47Talk·Desk11:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You had cleared out a few fair-use images I had up that had been tagged by a bot while I was away from the wiki for a while. They are Image:UsmLogo.gif and Image:UsmHuskies.gif. These images are University logos for use on their specific page. If you can undelete and tag a message on my page, I'll take care of fixing the rational for them. Thanks, Autocracy10:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From /Now
Hi, sorry to bother you, but I think User:STBotI may be malfunctioning. It is tagging for speedy deletion duplicates of images that were previously speedy deleted. However, a prior SD is not binding, and I have checked several that are inappropriate. In one, an album cover, the prior image was uploaded by a banned user, but that isn't relevant as long as the current user isn't banned. Another was deleted previously for lack of a fair use rationale, but there's one now. I don't think prior SD's should be flagged for SD. They have to be examined on their current merits. Thanks! --But|seriously|folks07:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is strange, mostly because I thought I already fixed that error. It's probably due to a change in the input format. I've fixed it and will watch the bot for a very long while, however it has also been configured to not create new pages. --ST47Talk·Desk17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir! The image has been re-tagged with non-free fair use rationale and re-added to the articles in question. Thanks for you assistance! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure of the story with your bot, but it clearly needs a good deal of fine tuning. In addition to marking images as duplicates of themselves, it's doing things like marking images for deletion saying, "previously deleted elsewhere as orphaned", when the current one is not orphaned, or "previously deleted elsewhere as no license", when the current has a license. Just wanted to give you a heads up; as of yet, I have seen few to no postive contributions from the bot (though those may be deleted). The Evil Spartan23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First: Tagging as duplicate of self means the image was previously deleted under the same name. These cases are particularly important because it is not likely to be an accident, and an expert should review the image to ensure it does not violate policy.
Second: The markings as deletion no longer occur. I now use a tag to warn others that does not utilize deletion categories. The template in no way harms the image.
Third: The bot's tagging of unsourced or nonrationaled images is certainly useful, as it allows those who usually perform the task to work elsewhere.
You deleted :Image:Swtpclgo.png because it did not havea fair use rationale. This is true. The license was incorrect because the logo was not a registered trademark. Southwest Technical Products did not copyright their catalogs or brochures and they only used a trademark on a few software products. I will ask around and try to determine how to tag the image. Do you know? -- SWTPC680000:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert, but I think that it's PD. Let me know if you decide what to do and I can restore the image if you do not have a copy. --ST47Talk·Desk00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please restore the image and I will change the license to PD-ineligible because it is an abandoned or dead trademark. -- SWTPC680004:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says that somoeone told it to call the image $imagename, but it was really called $image, and it informs me that the error is fixed now and apologizes for any inconvenience, informing you that the correct image is in the edit summary and that the dimwit who caused the error has been dealt with. It hopes you will have a good day. On behalf of STBotI, --ST47Talk·Desk19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a problem
You're way too much obsessed on the FU, and you act like a malfunctioning bot deleting images with a FUR applied as I proved on the cover for Hopes and Fears. I think it's obvious for any rational living being covers are the only image which could possibly illustrate an album; furthermore there is a special template for them, so if you're not lacking logic you won't delete that image when I upload it again, get it? If not, you may be a bot--Fluence 15:20 8 August 2007 (UTC-5)
2the Max
Regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2the Max as 'no consensus', please consider that this AfD was already coming from Deletion review, so arriving at a consensus would be desirable. Moreover, it seems to me that the first opinions have been based on a not sufficiently thorough evaluation of the sources. For these reasons relisting the discussion would in my opinion be the better option. --Tikiwont20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can STBotI leave a more descriptive and not-so-loud edit summary when editing User:ST47/IMG? The (WARNING! WIKI IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE!) thing makes it look like a vandal edit summary. Also, it may be better to just link to the images (possible copyvio and/or non-free) instead of inlining them. Resurgent insurgent04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I should hope theseedits were the result of a malfunctioning bot, or of a malfunctioning user. Either way, it's not something that should be happening. --Carnildo05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Well, the bot doesn't like unicode, however I set it to leave a warning anyway, since the user will likely know what it's talking about. Perhaps I should set it to simply ignore such images. --ST47Talk·Desk12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would (IMHO) be the better option, until you can make it understand unicode. Otherwise there will be unnecessary cleanup to be done. Hopefully these bad cases are rare enough that it doesn't matter if the bot misses them. --Pekaje12:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lou Harrison Photo Removal
I have noticed that the image of the composer Lou Harrison has been deleted. Now that the composer is dead, how would it be possible to get a free image of him? Surely the image would be justified on the basis of fair use in this instance? --Godfinger14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you have deleted these images under CSD i6, but to my knowledge, they had not been tagged. Policy requires that i6 images can only be deleted "seven days after they are tagged". Please provide the log that these images were indeed tagged. — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page history
* 21:10, August 1, 2007 . . Videmus Omnia (Talk | contribs | block) (146 bytes) (Image is missing fair use rationale and will be deleted in
seven days if it is not added.)
* 10:28, April 25, 2007 . . Cydebot (Talk | contribs | block) (98 bytes) (Robot - Renaming non-free template "tv-screenshot" per
Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates.)
* 17:10, July 25, 2006 . . 71.29.77.154 (Talk | block) (Summary)
* 22:19, June 26, 2006 . . Pacman5 (Talk | contribs | block) (official logo for hell's kitchen)
File history
* 22:19, June 26, 2006 . . Pacman5 (Talk | contribs | block) 360×288 (71,814 bytes) (official logo for hell's kitchen)
Would you please kill your malfunctioning bot? It keeps tagging images that have a valid FU rationale as lacking it. [8]Óðinn16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of templated fair use rationales is 'highly contentious', in the words of another admin, and as such the bot seeks to enforce the part of policy that is more clearly defined, aiming towards unique, or at least specific, fair use rationales with a focus towards an image's use in a given article. Even though you may use the same fair use rationale for all logos, each criterion must be confirmed for each use of each image, and I interpret the use of templated rationales to be an easy way to circumvent that. On the other hand, if you use {{Non-free use rationale}} it is necessary to at least read the name of each parameter and consider the image's compliance to that criterion. --ST47Talk·Desk17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. If you are angered by users, you should still abide by policy if possible, or if impossible, shut off the computer. --ST47Talk·Desk21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bot edit
Hi, Your bot recently re-added a flag icon to a place of birth in a bio article infobox, just after I had removed it.[9] Flag icons for place of birth and death are very strongly deprecated, per WP:FLAG: "Not for use in locations of birth and death." There are some very good reasons for that. You can read recent discussions about that particular use of flag icons here and here. Perhaps you could have a word with your bot. And thanks for your work in creating a bot to do the thankless, tedious mopping up on Wikipedia. If there isn't a Barnstar For Bots, there should be! ॐ Priyanathtalk03:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably due to an edit conflict or something like that - though the edits were 26 minutes apart, perhaps a database glitch. I'll go through the bot's recent edits to ensure that it only did this once. Also, we have several barnstars related to bots, the davinci barnstar and we have this award someone made, but I don't see anything to give to a bot :( Poor bots don't get any barnstars. (Oh, and I didn't make this particular bot, it's based on m:interwiki.py) --ST47Talk·Desk11:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't see any other edits like that one, so I thought it might be a bot with a hiccup. Maybe you should give him/her some milk and cookies. ॐ Priyanathtalk14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did see, but never got a chance to fully review the decision. At the moment there are 7 users with opinions and they are split through the middle, so I don't see much chance of reaching consensus, and relisting is used where it isn't even clear that there's no consensus: 2-3 comments. --ST47Talk·Desk11:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback! If I remember correctly, I have seen AfDs being relisted with that many contributions and that is just the numerical side. But there is more. Already in the original CSD7 DRV at least two editors -- wihle overturning expressed concerns about the quality of the sources--, and it is this issue that the initial !votes didn't really address. (A relisted discussion, which according to that small orange note attempts 'to generate a more thorough discussion' could, on the other hand, built on the 7 sources already having been broken down. --Tikiwont14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Wings_to_Fly_and_a_Place_to_Be.jpg&diff=149578601&oldid=149578584){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Image:Keiichi_Morisato_%28Oh_My_Goddess%21_Manga%29.png&action=history){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Rahpsody_of_Fire.png&action=history){kind=link}