This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Is there a reason you decided to close the RFCN discussion without giving it even a chance? I admit that RFCN seems like a bad idea - but this was absolutely the correct place to bring this. There was no reason for you to close the discussion without giving it a proper chance just because you dislike RFCN. 64.178.96.16816:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my self clear in the closing summary. For your reference:
wrong forum to deal with this user - either follow instructions regarding spam or conflicts of interests.
If you don't understand the merits, please follow the links cited. (Also, please consider approaching the user directly instead of "plotting behind their back" (in a metaphorical sense) and hoping for an admin to do the "dirty work" (ditto)). Миша1317:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done any "plotting" - I followed procedure completely, except that I forgot to notify the user. Look, it was a genuine mistake, and your attitude of assuming bad faith on my part is quite off-putting. And, after reading those links you provided, I see nothing to help me with a conflict of interest/spam username. 64.178.96.16817:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claim you made when putting the username up for discussion was "spam username". If a user is promoting a company/website/whatever that matches their username, it is a conflict of interest and should be solved by communicating with the user directly rather than using other forums (especially since the user didn't seem persistent in their behavior - why not give the user a chance of getting a grasp on a policy instead of ruling him out, slamming a block and driving off a possibly good contributor?). Миша1318:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valid argument. You are correct. However, to be sure, aren't there procedures for placing a block on a username which clearly breaks the rules, and having that person change their username afterward? I believe there are. 64.178.96.16822:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is. One of the instructions placed on {{UsernameBlocked}} notes the existence of a special {{unblock-un}} template used for requesting an unblock with the intent of changing username. In practice however, bureaucrats often reject such requests, because if a user has no other edits than requesting the unblock, it is way easier to simply create a new account. Миша1310:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RCFN closure
Hi. I'm bothered by your closure of the Bastard Soap RCFN. I hope you don't mind if I question your rationale - don't worry, I'll stay calm! :-) You cite two reasons. Taking them in reverse order, you cite that he's not been disruptive. That's true, but it's not a valid rationale. An offensive username is disruptive on its own. We'd disallow User:Ikilllesbiansandfagsonsight regardless of quality of contributions. We're not talking about a block, but whether we insist on a name change. The question here is whether it's offensive. Which brings us to the other rationale you provided; the disambig issue that bastard can mean more than one thing. True. However, in the diff I provided the user himself clearly explained his meaning. And, more to the point, the vast majority of users seeing the word are undoubtedly going to be clear which meaning is intended. The question, which you've not addressed, is whether that meaning is offensive. Look forward to hearing from you. Cheers, --Dweller18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty simple case for me. The diff indeed explains the intentions clearly - it's about a "soap with an unstable family history" - a clearly silly username and by no means offensive. And again, even the first meaning of bastard is not offensive ("an illegitimate person"). So, unless soap has a hidden reference I don't get, the username is fine. Those somehow offended may actually discuss with the user directly and ask for a username change, but Bastard Soap should by no means feel obliged to do so. Миша1318:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about censorship but legal status of Wikipedia. As far as I understand it, this "secret" key allows for an illegal decryption of copyrighted videos - I don't want Wikipedia to have any legal troubles beause of this (it's probably too late anyway). Have a look at the top of any page - it's "free encyclopedia", but that doesn't mean an "illegal" one. Миша1314:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So then the censorship Google does in China is not objectionable either? Or the censorship that China itself does. Same thing apart from scale/severity. --MarSch18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the bot edit!
was starting to tear my hair out working out how to get it to work, I is liek a noob on teh interwebs (lol). When will it archive the page?--Speed Air Man14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking through logs of today's execution and noticed the error (which reminds me to fix the bot so that it doesn't panic on underscores in templates), so just routinely fixed it. Everything else looks fine, so it should visit you about this hour tommorow. Cheers! Миша1314:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source code for bot
Hello, Misza13. Would you be opposed to letting me view the source code of MiszaBot III (or any other version for that matter)? *Cremepuff222*22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The code is to be released into the pywikipedia tree soonish, for everyone to view & use. (And yeah, I know I've been promising this for weeks now...) Миша1322:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which other bots do you mean? The numbered ones (MiszaBot I, II and III) are running the same archiving code, just in different namespaces. The main one (MiszaBot (talk·contribs)) only updates some category stats in it's own space and WdefconBot (talk·contribs)'s source is available on it's page. Миша1310:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Username blocks
Hello, firstly I'd just like to thank you ever so much for your hard work catching violatons of the username policy via Special:Log/newusers however I would kindly ask you if you could add {{UsernameBlocked}} onto their talk page and then its easier for non-admin patrollers to see if they have been blocked or not rather than going in their contribs and block log then reporting to WP:UAA if appropriate, thank you and again excellent work! Happy editing. The Sunshine Man10:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced of this idea. I get your point, but at the same time the template categorizes the page in question in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, a category that's supposed to be (and was!) periodically cleaned up (and that either means an increased workload for admins or we hire an adminbot). And the reason for having these pages deleted/redlinked is the following: Google does not index pages that do not exist. Wikipedia has a PageRank and we'd risk some insulting usernames to show up in searches if the pages has any content. Миша1310:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as WP:UAA is managed by a Bot- all that happens if usernames are reported that have previously been blocked is that the helper Bot removes them... So feel free to err on the side of reporting to UAA. Its far less work to have too many reports than to clear out more temporary pages. WjBscribe14:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was basically one thing I wasn't sure of - what happens is a user is reported after being blocked. But in this case, all the more reason to leave the pages red. Thanks. Миша1314:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!
You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.
I have the nom quite ready now by examining your most recent 500 contribs and the edit counter. Have quite a few diffs and links ready. If anything, I could use an example of a discussion where you encountered gross incivility or some other stress-causing behavior from other editors and how you reacted/handled the issue. Миша1310:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Misza, please forgive me for the late response. Regarding disputes, I've been in less than half a dozen serious conflicts on wikipedia, which I guess is good in terms of civility, but bad in terms of RFA noms! I had two disputes with User:100110100, one regarding editing other users' comments and the other concerning the use of American English in the article International Phonetic Alphabet. The first disupte can be found here and the IPA one can be found here. The latter one resulted in me filing an RFC. I was also involved in a dispute concerning death and abortion in my early months on wiki, which can be found here. I also filed a WP:3O for a dispute in Cigarette a few months back. Feel free to use these as examples, I am also planning on using one or two of them in my answer to question 3. Also feel free to use any other contributions that I've made, for better or for worse :-) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I have the (non-existent yet) page on watchlist, so should spot it right away. I must say this is one of the most prepared nominations I've ever seen. :-) Миша1322:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TOR proxies
Please do not "tweak" any proxy blocks to "soft-block" them. TOR proxies, like all proxies, are hard-blocked. Soft-blocking is the same as no blocking at all. Jayjg (talk)19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems our policy on allowing registered editing via Tor has changed dramatically today - I have reblocked that upon a request by a fellow editor on IRC. Миша1319:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the policy has always been quite clear: Wikipedia:No open proxies. Editing from open proxies is not permitted, TOR or otherwise. I know people keep complaining that they want TOR proxies "soft blocked", but that's worse than useless, as it gives the impression something has been done, when in reality nothing has. The deletions of the Main page over the past couple of days have been done through "soft blocked" TOR proxies. Jayjg (talk)19:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were done through admin accounts with mouth-droppingly bad security. The main page would still have been deleted because the compromises didn't need TOR in any way, and in some cases, didn't even bother with using TOR! Fortunately, I have the luxury of using TOR out of a wealth of caution and so can disable it to tell you that the solution to recent events is to require non-halfassed passwords, and not hardblocking TOR exit nodes. --Gwern (contribs)23:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted image
Hi there. I noticed you deleted my picture on my userpage. I don't have a problem with that (some may say that picture deserved to be removed for reasons other than copyright), but I'm having some trouble getting to grips with how to stop pictures I add being deleted. I have looked at the help but cannot see how to tag an image I have uploaded previously. Can you help? Thanks. Mthastings2516:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image, Image:Image 007.jpg was deleted because it lacked any indication of copyright status (and stayed that way for a longer while), in the form of an appropriate template (see WP:TMIN) on it's image page. This is a free encyclopedia and images used should be free also (mind you: not free as in beer, but free as in freedom). If you have taken the photo yourself, it's best to tag it with some free license tag (pick it when uploading the image), like {{GFDL}} or whichever licensing you prefer. I can undelete the image if you wish, but there's also an issue of the image's name. It'd probably be best if you reuploaded it yourself and used a slightly more descriptive image name. If you have any further questions or need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Миша1316:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me - I have added my 2 cents (more like 100 dollars, actually - hope I didn't overdo with numbers). :-) Миша1317:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Misza! Thanks for the awesome nom. I'm waiting for my admin coach Shyam to get back to me before I accept, but it should be up and going by today or at the latest tomorrow. Sorry about all of the posts and talk about this—I didn't want there to be any misunderstandings or multiple RFAs made! Anyway, stay tuned, and cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)20:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Key messages
The key exchange is not the important part; for example, I can get your key off of most any key server. What we are trying to do is perform encrypted challenge-responses. Not as secure as eye-to-eye fingerprint exchange with government-issued ID's being checked, but the idea is to show (hopefully through more than one mode of communication) that the user behind the wiki-id is the same user behind the PGP-key. Once satisfied with the checking, we can sign your key, and if, G-d forbid, your account gets comprimised and hacked, once you recover, you have a pretty straightforward way of identifying yourself as Misza and not H4xxored, by using your key. -- Avi21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand the purpose (way of identifying oneself) - was just thinking what were you sending inside these messages. Some key fingerprints? "Hello" messages? Just wondering how to join in - link to my public key has available at the top of my talk page for months, but haven't had any use of it, except signing each other's keys with User:Where (verifying fingerprints via IRC /privmgs - I know it's pretty weak) for the fun of it. Миша1321:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied, but not without troubles - kmail kept whining that the key I try to encrypt with is untrusted. Also, because gmail seems to be recognizing my other e-mail as spam, please check your spam box too. Миша1322:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Vastolorde-full.jpg is now linked to directly from Hollow (Bleach) through Image:Vastolorde.jpg's thumbnail description. The purpose the full image is to demonstrate the silhouette, while the purpose of the cropped version is to flow better as a thumbnail within the Hollow article.
While I was at it, I reduced the images in resolution and added fair-use templates. Everything should be fine now, though I'm thinking of reducing the cropped version in resolution further since it serves only as a thumbnail while the full version is used for full-views. Anyway, what's the template you place on images to say that they are not orphaned due to a direct link from mainspace? –Gunslinger4708:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is used in mainspace, it suffices to simply remove the tag that says it's orphaned, place a fair use template and provide fair use rationale. Миша1308:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Visit the image page. Check the "File links" section at the bottom. Are there any articles (not other images/templates/whatever) listed? If the answer is no (which it is when I'm writing this - only another image), then the image (being a fair use one) is orphaned. Миша1318:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me what template to use to mark an unorphaned image. Since I wasn't aware of {{not orphan}} (which I gather now a rather historic artifact), I have replied to my best knowledge (my first reply in this thread) and described what'd I do. You also asked me to clarify the term orphan, which I did as explicitly as I could in my second reply. If these answers you find unclear/unsatisfiable, I'm afraid I can't help you any further but to suggest a closer review of our non-free content policy. Regards, Миша1321:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry for the trouble. I wish WP:NONFREE was written more definitively at times. This is not the first time that I've stumbled over a rule written only on talk pages. ;_; –Gunslinger4722:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, but can you shed some light on this accusation? I'm going to guess that it's a disgruntled bad username you blocked, but if it's true, it would be good of you to 'come clean' about it. Cheers. -- nae'blis 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Since you've now confirmed it, the above is moot. Unfortunately, I will have to therefore request that you turn in your sysop bit, per the voluntary process you subscribed to. I find this to be a significant breach of the trust given to you, and would have preferred that you requested administrative rights for a bot separate from your own account, per policy and precedent. -- nae'blis20:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The witch hunt that has started right after I have confirmed to be operating an adminbot doesn't quite assure me that bots stand much of a chance on RfA at this moment. Depending on how this dispute resolves however (if, for example people realize that adminbots are needed), I might reconsider that. Also, use some care when comparing this situation to either Marudubshinki's or Betacommand's. My bots are designed with great care not to cause harm and a genuine aim to improve Wikipedia. Aside from vandals, noone has actually ever asked me to disable them due to some outrageous and repetetive errors, simply because there were none, or close to none (re: block of DennisGay). I've unfortunately become involved in this discussion at a quite late hour (just past midnight while I'm writing this), so I guess I'll have a good night's sleep now and see how matters evolve tomorrow. Rush is inadvisable - it's not like my bot is on a rampage or anything... Миша1322:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is no rush and no great harm, which is why I did not block you for contravening policy. However I do not feel my opinion on this matter is an outlier, and have outlined what I personally would expect before I would support an adminbot. If I am the only one to hold this opinion, so be it, but I do not like this Wild West mentality toward our bot policies. I made this request before the bad block below was discovered (and started it before you confirmed it), for what it's worth. Sleep well; I'll check back here in the next day or two. -- nae'blis22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that you keep your admin bit, and if the rules stop you from improving Wikipedia, please continue to ignore them. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support Misza continuing as an admin. We have a shortage of administrators (especially active administrators with a long history of good judgment). One mistaken block does not a bad sysop make. I would expect someone to show credible evidence that Misza's continued use of the tools is damaging to this project before seeing a request for recall. Not only has that not been provided, but I find the very thought absurd. WjBscribe23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that's why you are always first to username blocks :). I would definitely never ask you to take away your admin powers. As said above, we need active admins. I would suggest releasing your code to those who request it by e-mail if they're a trusted user, such as other admins. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is where irony kicks in. Even since I've been developing the bot, I figured it'd be much easier to sync my developer's board at home with toolserv where is runs by using Subversion. While at it, I also figured I might've as well put it in my public repository for everyone to reuse. Therefore, noone really knows how many such bots are running out there (with absolute certainty I know of one that forked and operated in the past). Миша1312:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ on the issue of issuing further notices to blocked users. When the block takes its effect, the user in question will see the {{UsernameBlocked}} template on his screen - and that provides quite a lot information already. I'm not convinced that further spamming is necessary. Миша1321:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I a wrong, doesn't that display only when a blocked user tries to edit, not when the user logs in? If so, won't the attempted edit result in an autoblock of the IP, which, if the IP is shared over a school or corporate proxy or the like, may cause additional colleteral damage, which a blocked user might choose to avoid if informed by a talk page msg as soon as s/he logs in? But my main point is that IMO a user name block ought to give more detailed explanation of why the user name is considered unaceptable, rather than a generic boilerplate msg. This may not be needed in the case of blatently offensive usernames such as "F-You" or "<name> is Satan", but a more marginal one such as "Time to Die" or "X is Gay" (at least where X is a generic first name, not an identifiable individual) could possibly profit from a more detailed explanation. If these truly are irredemable vandals, why worry about "spammig" them? If there is any chance thqt they are not, woudn't a more detailed talk page message have a chanec of eduacting them? Surely your bot (assuming that you continue to use a bot for this purpose, which is anothe issue) could select a template from a list based on which regex triggers the block, and subst that template onto the relevant user page. This would not be the same and a fully individual msg, but would be rathe better than the one-size-fits-all approach you are using now. DES(talk)15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That surely is some coding I might add in the future (together with a more flexible system of autoblocks - thread above), but generally I aim at keeping out the most offensive cases - ones that don't deserve further explanations. One extra point to consider: Google indexes only those pages that exist and not the redlinked ones. Considering Wikipedia's high PageRank, we certainly wouldn't want pages like User talk:Jimbo Wales RAPES BABIES! (an actual blocked user) to show up in searches, now would we? [1]Миша1316:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block of DennisGay
I have unblocked this user per WP:AGF, as the name doesn't seem to be clearly offensive to me. It happens to contain "isGay", but not in a way that attacks anyone. Hope you don't mind, Kusma (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, since I notice it's a very rare occurance of an username matching the "isgay$" regex, that's actually a valid username. I might've unblocked it myself when reviewing my blocks later. On a note related to running a block bot, I might've as well instinctively block such a username personally if I saw it when watching the feed. Миша1321:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you consider disabling the autoblocker for username blocks? While I sometimes leave it on when I block clearly vandalistic usernames (as opposed to those that merely violate our arcane policy and need to choose another name), it is probably undesirable to have a bot autoblock many IPs (this opens up a DoS attack vector on shared IPs). Thank you, Kusma (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, I wasn't setting autoblocks at all. Quite recently, I have written an extension that makes the bot set "angry" mode (with autoblocks) if it detects several bad usernames in a short timespan. Even more recently, there was a need to turn the bot to a permanent angry mode (due to Mr Oompapa's spree). Since it has calmed down now, I'm setting it back to "calm" again (with angry when triggered too much). A better solution would be to add the possibility of making some patterns default and some with an outright autoblock. But that's some extra coding I didn't have time for recently. But then again, I aim to only block the most offensive suernames... Миша1316:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was ancient history. Various statistics show that workload per admin has at best doubled in the last year. This means that we either somehow get just as many new admins as we have (and do it right now) or we start delegating some work that doesn't require thinking (only following an algorithm) to bots. Миша1315:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed, that, when the bot archived my page, it placed {{talkarchive}} on my page. However, since I archive my pages to User:Tim.bounceback/Archives/<Month> <Year>, it links to User:Tim.bounceback/Archives for the "current talk page" link. However, the template {{archive}} allows me to specify a parameter of where to point the link to (which should be User_talk:Tim.bounceback). Can you add a parameter to the config template that will allow you to choose exactly what template and what parameters should be put on top of the archived page? Thanks! Tim.bounceback(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the exact same problem with my archives (furthermore, I prefer to use my entirely own template as a header). Yet, that's a feature I haven't had the time to code yet. Миша1315:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
>:-( Thanks for letting me know - my bot gets angry (and starts setting autoblocks) if triggered too many times in a short timespan. I'll remove it from the blacklist then. On a side note, can't he use a testing wiki of some sort instead of polluting our logs? Миша1321:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there might have been some error in dating signatures a while back (March) so that sig's ended in "(UTC-8)" rather than "(UTC)". With this, the bot does not archive the comments. See, for example, [2], where there is a gap between March 7 and April 29. (I am not sure that this dating is actually the cause, just a hypothesis). —Centrx→talk • 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right - no idea how it got there, but in that state the threads will not be archived - my bot expects timestamps in the standard HH:MM, DD Month YYYY (UTC) format and is as of yet quite inflexible on this (time handling is a pain). Миша1319:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I fully understand. Being fair use, they can only be allowed in articles (no other namespace) and only with a good rationale for inclusion. I'm afraid any other use is a violation of copyright policy. Миша1307:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this image may have been deleted in error, but I'm not able to check since I don't have The Tools, and thus can't look at the history for deleted pages. The uploader (User:Luck-one) had uploaded several photos that were his own work, but neglected to tag them with a license. When notified by OrphanBot, he added license info, but did not remove the tag. I have corrected his mistake on several other pages, and I wondered whether that might also be the case here when I spotted the bot-notice for this image on his talk page. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind having a look? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I went ahead and left a note about the situation on the uploader's talk page; hopefully, he can add his license info to this one in the near term, like he did to the others. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)15:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(2d)
|archive = User talk:Cyberoidx/May
}}
to my page, but its not archiving... Can you please check and tell me why CyberoidX13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted an image I donated to Wikipedia. The image was falsely marked by gnome bot as being an unfree image. User:Eagle_101 made sloppy software and as a result he is vandalizing many pictures in WIkipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Wikipedia-share.png
I made this image and I listed my inspirations out of respect to the community. I did not copy it. I copied parts of it. You marked it as an unfree unused image. It is however from the banners and buttons archive, which are intended to be used on ouside websites and are only 'in articles' in so far as they are in USER pages. Please restore it.
Mrdthree15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point he is making is that if it had been marked {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} (like most of Wikipedia:Banners and buttons) rather than {{logo}} then people would have ignored the non-free use requirements. In the continued absense of any direct licensing/logo use policy from the Foundation (something that people have been requesting for >2 years), I personally feel that continuing to give special treatment to WMF is bad policy, and would favor removing all the banners from Wikipedia (perhaps placing them on Meta), but there is not really a consensus to do that. So the status quo has been to tolerate such buttons/banners when labeled {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}. Dragons flight15:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To change how banners and buttons are posted, start a discussion on the page. There are good reasons to restore the image: (1) THe banners and buttons page is an article. The image was included in the article. Therefore it was part of an article. The only other article these images can be included in is a USER page. I will add the code to my user page.(2) There is a bug in the BetacommandBot; it applies the same rules to banner advertisements that it applies to article images. However the two classes of images serve different purposes.Mrdthree15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no bug in the bot, it just follows a predefined algorithm. It might've been tweaked a bit, but that's another issue.
Can you point me to the page with WP banners and buttons? I'd like to compare with other images of this type before making a decision but I can't find the page.Миша1316:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit-conflict) Okay, I have provisionally restored the image, and re-tagged it with {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}. A point of note, however, re "THe banners and buttons page is an article." - totally incorrect. Wikipedia:namespaceis not article space. Миша1316:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the image is saved (for now) only because of this WikiMedia exemption. When decision comes that these be considered regular fair use as well, it will inevitably get deleted again (hopefully after being migrated off-Wikipedia) - User: namespace is not article space either (just like Template:, Portal: and any talk namespace aren't). Миша1316:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The image linked above was actually removed from an article due to long-standing vandalism that I just caught now. Could you undelete it? I'm having trouble finding it to re-upload myself. Thanks. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Just wondering if you could tell me how you actually made your userpage code appear backwards! I tried copying and pasting some code from your userpage, and it worked, but everything appears normal again when the code is removed :( Lol
Just some magic character. Depending on what OS/browser you use, you input it differently. It is ignored when rendering HTML code, so pages display normally. The edit box however gets confused. If you copy only a part of the source, it's likely that you miss the character - that's why after pasting it elsewhere it looks normally. Миша1314:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still would in some sense. It was a non-free image and its use in a namespace different than the main (such as Talk:) is disallowed, regardless of purpose. What the bot did is correct and the image was deleted accordingly with our policy. Only case in which I could undelete that image is if you wanted to use it in an actual article and had a fair use rationale to back it up. Миша1319:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot didn't remove a statement on my page, under the sub heading 'Broncos', its timed dated to 2006 so it should be put in the archive but it didn't. SpecialWindler09:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use MiszaBot III, and I must say I'm very satisfied! Thanks for providing this great service. One thing that I was wondering: is there a way I can "exempt" a part of my talk page from archiving? I'd like to add some "permanent" features there, and that way they wouldn't get moved. Thanks again! PaladinWhite14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything up to the first ==heading== is ignored and preserved, which is probably all you need. Additionally, any ==headings== without timestamps are ignored, so you can add stuff this way too, but that's not recommended. Миша1314:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are missing from the vandalism IRC room. I saw Martinbot come in this morning, must have been a server split or something. FYI. Real9614:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:I Want A New Duck.jpg
Would you please restore Image:I Want A New Duck.jpg? You probably deleted it during the period when its page was improperly speedied. Robert K S22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for an automated process for archiving WP:EAR posts. In particular, this automation would be based on using the {{resolved}} and {{stale}} tags as flags. Any suggestions? --Aarktica13:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, my archiving bot framework should be able to handle this. So far however I haven't had the time to implement that and it only works by time of newest timestamp. I don't know of any other archiving framework capable of pattern-based thread recognition. Миша1314:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. Do you know if it is possible to have a bot scan an article for words or phrases corresponding to article in the encyclopaedia? --Aarktica14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, say I want to wikify the first appearance of hapkido, special sauce, and Greenland in an article (after checking to see that the articles do exist), and remove wikilinks from every appearance of 1981 and 1984 in the same article. Is this possible? --Aarktica15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely doable - it'd just need to check out the page's content, apply a well-designed regex and save it. And designing the regex in question will probably be the fun part of it. ;-) Миша1316:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe I was ever contacted about this image. Next time, please contact the authors of the image before you delete. That way, the author can solve the problem.
An anon removed the image from an article, and I was unaware of what was happening, as I do not regularly check the page. WhisperToMe23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did not contact me regarding image rasols-small.jpg prior to deleting it. I indicated I was the author and (believed) I had appropriately tagged it. I certainly hadn't violated anyone else's copyright. Now I'm away for a week and don't have access to the original to re-upload and my user page simply looks inept. Please restore if possible. Thanks! — Pēters J. Vecrumba16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, I am not at all obliged to inform uploaders of deletions. For the other, I have restored the image - please apply an appropriate tag as soon as possible - all images must be tagged properly or deleted. Миша1317:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see the spoiler tag go. I thought it was helpful. The reason there were never any complaints about spoilers is because the tag was present to warn people about them. I didn't catch wind of the debate over the use of spoiler tags until much too late in the game, so I didn't bother weighing in. Anyway, when removing the "redundant template", I guess the end spoiler tag should also be removed? After consulting the new guideline, I wasn't sure, but went ahead and did so anyway on 13 Beloved. Best of luck as you go through the numbers and into the alphabet. — WiseKwai11:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out - I missed {{spoiler-end}} as being an alternative to {{endspoiler}} and thus my regex didn't catch that. Anyway, such tags in sections clearly labelled as ==Plot== are truly redundant as the heading already gives suggestions as to its contents. Cheers, Миша1311:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one guy who's running a robot to tag all the pages with trivia questions. You should do likewise with the "spoiler" tag. It is clear from its definition that it can never be used. It shouldn't even be an option. Baseball Bugs16:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I surely could run a bot on full-auto and remove them within a day. It is not, however that simple - in many cases the templates can be replaced by cleaning up the article a bit - but that requires human intervention. Hence, it's not exactly a job for a bot - several seconds of human's brain are required. Миша1317:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are removing spoiler tags? On the two Upstairs, Downstairs episodes pages there are there because plot details are given away. Isn't that what they are therefore? --UpDown17:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the new "screw-the-reader" world defined by some very aggressive editors recently. They say that the reader shoudl go to Plot Synopsis "expecting" to find everything about the plot, including giving away the ending and other key info, and if they didn't expect that, then it's somehow their own fault for being "stupid" (not my word, but that of another editor with whom I argued in vain recently). Baseball Bugs17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're missing the whole point of writing an encyclopedia here. Encyclopedia is supposed to be comprehensive, and this one specifically aims at being the "sum total of human knowledge". This means that by looking up a article, you seek knowledge, not diversion. This ain't a movie/book/comic review magazine, you know... We actually respect our readers this way. Миша1317:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have so far removed the tags from hundreds of articles, you could be more specific and name the diffs precisely. Whatever it be however, I have most probably removed them from under a section named "plot", "summary" or something similar - such sections sufficiently warn of their potentially spoilerific content, so the addition of this highly unencyclopedic template is not welcome at all (if not insulting to the average reader of this, after all, encyclopedia). Миша1317:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the logic (both articles have "Plot" sections). But lets be honest, wherevery "spoiler" tags are, I would have thought it obvious that plot details are going to be given away. Either we have them in all "Plot" sections, or not have them at all. --UpDown17:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why in many cases (where there are no headers) I do edits like this - should be pretty self-explanatory and fit the have them in all "Plot" sections scheme, too. Миша1317:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem that I kept complaining about.. that the editors who want to remove it are imposing their own judgment on how they think the readers "should" be using wikipedia, on what "should be obvious", rather than giving the readers the choice in the matter. So at this point, the notion of having any "spoiler" tags in wikipedia is obsolete. Those editors' justification is another double-think notion, that they are somehow "POV-pushing". If so, then all of them are POV-pushing, and they should all be removed. Baseball Bugs17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you removing all spoiler warnings in the encyclopedia indiscriminately? I've seen you remove them with your automated script with articles where they weren't on plot summaries at all, and your speed makes it impossible for you to view the context in any detail. --Kizor18:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he's not, he should be. All spoiler tags are inherently POV-pushing. You can't say it's OK for them to be in one section and not another. You can't make assumptions about the reader's intentions in one place and not another. Either you keep all of them, or you remove all of them. Baseball Bugs19:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(3rd edit conflict on my own talkpage today!)
No, I'm not removing them indiscriminately, although almost all of them must ultimately go away (some will require more effort than I'm putting now - these I skip for later)
Can you give examples where the removal wasn't obvious? I'll try to explain.f
As of speed, you're wrong - my script requires me to approve every edit manually (by pressing [y]/[n] and [Enter]). There's alot of automation, but it does display the templates within a context and gives me all the time I need to decide on the edit (which is 2-5 seconds on the average).
How dare you be considerate and polite when I'm pounding on the keyboard over my inability to stop your trail of destruction? --Kizor19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, that would create a lot of ugly red links all over the site. :) That might give an impulse to remove them more hastily, but that's not the point (in many cases I'm doing a cleanup together with the removal). And blanking has been tried already. ;-) —Миша1315:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oops
I'm really sorry about screwing up that Example thing with your bot; it's not like your instructions weren't clear, I was just careless and forgot to change it. It was nice of you to fix it for me. Sorry. Madeleine14:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that the {{spoiler}} template is redundant?
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Spoiler: "Spoiler warnings are redundant when used in ==Plot== or other sections that are clearly going to discuss the plot. Use such a header instead."
This was a minor cleanup edit.
I could also point that using standard "warning" templates like {{minor}}, which you did, towards established editors is likewise considered poor etiquette (as is the use of admin rollback on edits that are not vandalism. Regards, Миша1313:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#Vastolorde-full.jpg){kind=link}
