User talk:Staecker/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wax Tailor

If you don't mind my asking, what's going on between you and Tawkerbot at Wax Tailor? [1] o.o Luna Santin 12:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot is a bot which thought I was vandalizing the page when I deleted most of it. I deleted most of it because it was a copyvio. See Talk:Wax Tailor for a link to the source of the complete text of the original article. Staecker 12:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. :) Tawkerbot is famous in the CVU, but now and then it messes up -- it's actually surprisingly accurate, most times. For what it's worth, sorry about that. I'll watch the page. Luna Santin 12:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your help- Staecker 14:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Twice married

Are you ashamed of the fact that Joyce Meyer is "twice-married"? I suppose at least YOU realize that disqualifies her for most of her ministry, so its natural that you would want to hide such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel Angelo (talk • contribs)

I'm not ashamed- I'm not affiliated with JM's ministry machine. And I don't really know what you mean by "twice-married". Does that just mean that she's been married twice? The information about her marriage(s) can surely go in there. I removed your text because of the comment that this contradicts "biblical Apostolic directives." This comment is based on a particular interpretation of scripture, and this isn't appropriate for the article (see WP:NPOV). Could you just say that she's twice-married (and explain what that means), and leave it at that? Staecker 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Baseball images

Sorry about that, wasn't sure what license to give them and I suppose it's too difficult to use copyrighted images. I'll delete them myself and use the team photos--it seems that those are recognized as free use. Once again, sorry about the trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalwraith (talk • contribs)

Thanks- Staecker 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Andrei Tarkovsky + Stalker (film)

I have searched in vain for the sources needed for those pages for a while. Perhaps the text requiring citations should be deleted? Anyway, i apologise. I am planning on expanding the pages soon anyway and will hopefully find the souces then.Itafroma 12:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK- It's helpful to know that you couldn't find the sources. That means the statements should be taken out, like you say. thanks- Staecker 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:StrugatskyBros.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StrugatskyBros.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Biy

Please source the content you added to Biy. I kept the picture, but removed the sentence. Thanks, KazakhPol 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I saw the Biys all over the place when I was there myself. I remember in particular 4 parallel streets in Almaty named after the guys. That's as good as I can do for a source. Staecker 17:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Colbert vandalism

The Nativity Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Keisha Castle-Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are semi-protected because of another spate of Colbert-induced vandalism. The first vandals hit within second after Colbert discussed the movie on his show and stated that he was deliberately spreading rumors which he wanted to see "appear on the internet". We're still seeing the effects of a similar incitement he made this summer (the elephant incident). No need to make it easy for the tools and vandals. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but isn't a pre-emptive semiprotect against WP:SPP? Staecker 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? Use common sense. We know from prior experience what will happen. I'll unprotect after a couple of days. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we'll disagree on this one. I think that a lot of people care about WP official policies. And many care about semi-protection in particular. Remember when it first came to WP, and several folks got upset that this would be the end of true openness- that pages would be sprotected willy-nilly, whenever somebody felt like it was a good idea. The fears were allayed by strong statements by sprotect proponents that it would be used very sparingly. Things like "Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only reasonable option left to deal with vandalism on a page or to stop a banned or blocked user from editing it."

Suffice it to say that there's a lot of back-and-forth on this at WT:SPP, and lots of people care about it. The issue is too complicated to be solved by a simple appeal to common sense. Staecker 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lsw2gba_characters.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lsw2gba_characters.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kazakh

Sorry for not responding earlier. This issue is somewhat tricky; you would have to make a good explanation in the category header, to prevent people from (1) getting confused, and (2) once again proposing a cat merge. If you can make the difference clear to the average reader, you are most welcome to recreate the relevant categories. Perhaps you could enquire at a Wikiproject for help, if you aren't already a member. >Radiant< 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Play of the Month

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Staecker! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Please refrain from your falsifications ragarding photographs of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn suppsedly being searched at a checkpoint in Ekibastuz, particularly in this photograph[2]. It is well known that this picture was not taken at Ekibastuz, and that the man searching Solzhenitsyn is his companion, in fact it says so in the caption of the book this was taken from. I know false photographs, lies and pro da are a popular method for attacking the Soviet Union on Wikipedia, but am not going to allow you to spread your lies and distortions, especially with evasive edit summaries such as "grammar" to make this seem like a real photograph other than a re-enactment. Ruy Lopez 10:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ruy- I changed the caption because it looked like a piece of Runglish which is typical of USSR related articles (I frequent articles about Kazakhstan in particular). "Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn depicting being searched at a checkpoint in Ekibastuz Special Camp" is a poorly constructed sentence. Now that you've filled me in, of course I understand what that is supposed to mean. But to me it looked like a word-order error trying to say something like: "Photograph depicting Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn being searched at a checkpoint in Ekibastuz Special Camp", which is what I tried to clarify in my edit. My edit summary was entirely appropriate for this (admittedly misguided) edit. Sorry for my mistake, and thanks for fixing it with a much clearer caption.

Now that that's clear, might you take some time to review WP:AGF? Staecker 13:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion bot

Hi Staecker. I was wondering if that bot was new or not, I guess I have my answer. From the deletions I looked it, the bot was 100% correct in matching the images. In most cases, I deleted the other image because there was a longer description (one guy said he used this model camera on one image and this model camera and then gave a description of where it was taken on the other image). Maybe your bot could check for the longer summary and keep that one instead, although I am not sure how well that would work. Sometimes there was a source on one and not the other, etc. Anyway, keep up the good work and let me know if there is anything else. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hey I've been cleaning up Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy and I would like to know where the image Image:Lsw2gba characters.jpg came from, as you were the uploader. If it came from a website I need the specific url, and I you captued it yourself I need to know that. If you can remember that would be very useful. Thanks. Gran² 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was an emulator screenshot that I made myself. By the way- does it matter? If I got it from a website, it wouldn't be theirs, right? They would have to claim fair use, in which case we could take it as fair use too, without attributing them. Is that right? Staecker 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that would be so, but you took this yourself as I thought so that is fine as well. Thanks. Gran² 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot issue

Thanks for running this bot, it looks like it's doing a great job. I have have one issue, sometimes the dupe has a tag on it that's bad, like [3] an untagged tag, then the bot includes this in the other maybe correct description page. Instead if it didn't actually subst the foreign templates, but showed them that might be helpful. - cohesion 05:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right- thanks for the suggestion. I keep forgetting that those templates put them in all sorts of categories. I'll get on this sometime today- a bit busy at the moment. Staecker 12:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not the end of the world, since they're hidden, at worst it just confuses people as to why it qualified for the list. I doubt anyone would delete a good image if they didn't actually see the tag :) (hopefully!) - cohesion 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Staecker. Do you have any interest in applying for WP:RfA? I think being an admin might be invaluable to you in helping you to refine Staeckerbot as it would allow you to review deleted images that your bot has tagged. Some at RfA might feel that your total edit count and contributions to the Wikipedia namespace are probably on the low side, but I think that you have a very compelling reason to have access to the tools. I skimmed your contributions and you seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and are a good contributor that hasn't had any problems. Let me know what you think and if you are interested, I'll nominate you. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the encouragement, P- I'd be honored to accept a nomination. I hadn't really considered that folks might be interested in me as an admin, but I guess we'll see. Since I've become interested in speedy deletion I've seen that that whole process could probably use some help (it's not often so speedy, and it seems to still be a pain for the admins to do it, even if all the noms are as they should be). Hopefully people will feel that I have something to offer. Staecker 20:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely could see you helping out with CAT:CSD as you already have experience tagging things as speedy. Would you mind enabling/activating your e-mail on Wikipedia? This is especially useful in allowing blocked users to contact you. I'm working on your RfA nomination now. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I just wanted to let you know that I have finished your nomination. I thoroughly reviewed your contributions and the only suggestion I can make is to warn more vandals after you have reverted them, along with enabling e-mail. Anyway:

Also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate#What_to_do_if_you_are_nominated_by_someone_else:. If you have any questions, just drop me a message. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and the nomination. I've filled in my blanks, and hopefully submitted it all correctly. (Also enabled email.) Staecker 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. As an idea for the expansion of the bot in future (when you have time), it would be good to have it inform the uploader, if the same person uploaded both copies. Thanks, Martinp23 13:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot is now doing notifications. Staecker 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Walt Frazier image

How you doing? Don't worry, my intelligence has not been insulted. O.K., tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to keep the original version "as is" because I also have it posted to my personal gallery. However, I will upload a new cropped version and post it in Walt Frazier's article. Tony the Marine 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• By the way Staecker, as a show of friendship I invite you to check this out: User:Marine 69-71/Autographs, Tony the Marine 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks- and thanks for your note at the RfA. See you around- Staecker 12:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kinnikuman Nisei Chojin Tag 03 001.jpg

Hi. When I first uploaded this image, I stopped it because I wanted to give it a better, more descriptive title (hence "Image:Chaos Kinnikuman Nisei"), I didn't realise it actually uploaded anyway. I don't object at all to this image being deleted. Seigi Choujin 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Great- the one with the good name will be kept. Staecker 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bath_badge.png vs Bath_rugby_badge.png

I received a message from the bot you run telling me that one of two duplicate files I uploaded is due for speedy deletion. If possible, could it be made that Bath_badge.png is the one that is deleted, rather than Bath_rugby_badge.png please? PeeJay 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what happened. Thanks- Staecker 18:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image bk-israel.jpg

Hi, one of your bots targeted the image bk-in-israel.jpg for deletion as a duplicate. This image should not be deleted, instead the image bk-israel.jpg should be deleted. I uploaded the latter under the wrong licensing and did not know how to undo or change the licensing.

Jerem43 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hi, Staecker/Archive 2, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop!

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, block anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion for more than 5 days (provided there's a consensus), protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=
 PS Please add you name to WP:LA!

=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Whilst I opposed your nomination I do offer you my sincere congratulations from downunder.--VS ^talk 05:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Congrats Staecker. If you ever have a question, feel free to ask. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Seconded, congratulations :) - cohesion 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ooo, yay! I didn't realize that you were a sysop until you deleted an image I tagged! Congrats! --Iamunknown 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I thought it was supposed to be no big deal! Thanks a all- Staecker 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho images

Hi. When I first uploaded this image, i forgot to add a license to the image Cho_Seung-hui_vid.jpg. I went ahead and upload the same image with a different file name Cho Seung-hui_NBC.jpg, with a license. Could you go ahead and delete the picture "Cho_Seung-hui_vid.jpg" instead? Thanks.

- Goldwiser 19 Apr 2007, 02:48 UTC

Staeckerbot: Improvement

Might want to write this up as an exception. –Gunslinger47 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The history is gone now. If you never saw it in time, your bot flagged a duplicate image for deletion that was already flagged with {{db-self}}. –Gunslinger47 00:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw it- thanks for the note. It's a bit of a pain to check if the image has already been nominated. I'd just assumed that it's not a big deal to overkill on with the nominations- do you think it's disruptive? I suppose it is a bit annoying to get my friendly warning after a db-self. Thanks for letting me know. Staecker 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not disruptive, though it might make things minimally more troublesome for the administrators that are trying to determine if the criteria for speedy-deletion has, indeed, been met. {{db-self}} is easier to confirm that other forms of speedy deletion that might have extenuating circumstances. –Gunslinger47 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it a bit, and I think that I'd like to keep the bot as is- I think that extra db tags would be helpful to admins in the infrequent occasion that they appear. The admin can take their pick of the criteria. Also, in the event that one tag is inappropriate, the image will still get deleted under the other tag. Staecker 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:1614BibleBookJohn.jpg

I uploaded this image three times because I was having trouble with the title. Please do not delete the third image which is 1614BibleBookJohn.jpg because that is the one I have used in the article. Instead please delete the first two. Thank you User:Bhschwarting

Bot issue

I cross posted this for Carnildo. I think there is a conflict with the two bots on some currently untagged images. Image:Alice9.jpg is an example. This is the surviving duplicate, which StaeckerBot tagged, but it had some meaningless text on it. Orphanbot I think saw a tag and text and didn't tag it for no license. Just letting you both know. :) - cohesion 22:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

I feel you should not delete my image or i will upload it again sorry and do not report that i uploaded a image twice because I have trouble with my naming. I don't like your notice on my page that says Thanks for uploading Image:Towerville dragon council.gif. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you uploaded the same image twice: as Image:Towerville dragon council.gif and also as Image:Towerville Dragon Council.gif. The latter copy of the file has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zardragon1 (talk • contribs). --Zardragon1 19:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for deleting that extra image i was unsure how to delete images YellowSnowRecords2 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Staeckerbot Duplicate uestion

I was trying to upload an image of myself for my user page (though I'm not entirely sure that's possible). I also wasn't sure of whether it would be more appropriate as fair use or public domain. Any answers on if this is possible and an explanation as to how to put it properly on my user page? IrishmanDX 01:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Clever little bot you got here, but

It's annying that Staecker bot promotes a page to speedy deletion when it's already nominated. Perhaps you should check for the "db" template before taking action. Also, you should check if the new image has the "db" template before tagging the old one.

--Anss123 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really annoying? (See "staeckerbot:improvement" comment above.) Having more reasons to delete the image can't be bad, can it? Perhaps what's annoying is the notification you got? I'm not trying to be contrary, just trying to clarify. Do you think it would be an improvement to suppress the notification if there's already a db tag? I can't see how double db notices can hurt, and I can see how they could help in some cases. Thanks for your comments, by the way- I am always trying to improve on the bot. Staecker 20:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The first case is just annoying, the second (when the new image got the db tag, and the bot tags the old one) can be more than just annoying (but is a rare corner stone case). If it's technically difficult to implement the feature (I wouldn't know) then I think it's best to let it be (it's a useful bot, after all).

--Anss123 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks- I agree it's essentially never helpful to delete an image which is a duplicate of an image that's already marked for deletion. (An exception, I think, would be the "WP-only" tag that some uploaders indicate, which is an automatic db. I'll put the change on my to-do list. Staecker 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Two different medal ribbons

Please see . Staeckerbot compared it to and thought that they were the same. The two ribbons are the same size, but they have different colors. --Eastmain 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks- that's never happened before. I'll look into it. Staecker 04:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, those two images (PNGs) have the same image data, but different color palettes. The bot will now check for equality of palettes along with equality of data. Thanks for the catch- Staecker 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Straydogfinale.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Straydogfinale.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for informing me about the duplication of the image, it was very helpful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silly monkeys (talk • contribs).

Regarding duplicated Filler School Blocks.JPG

I understand that this image was duplicated. Please refer to the talk page at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image_talk:Filler_School_Blocks.JPG. Optakeover 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop Staeckerbot!

Your bots flags pictures emptied by a disgruntled editor. Please stop it until the pictures are restored. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Image:R1200rtp.jpg&action=history

--87.189.126.65

Thanks for noticing- incidentally, you can revert to earlier image versions on the image description page. No need to wait for others to do it.Staecker 01:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how. I would expect "(del) (rev)" in each line to work, but they are not links for an IP, just text. --87.189.80.209

OK you're right- I guess IPs can't do it. I believe they're all fixed now, right? Staecker 12:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it, thanks! --87.189.80.209

Please Delete All Redundant Files EXCEPT THE LAST ONE

Please? I understand I uploaded one too many. >_> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Royal Scottish (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

KIMEP

On the Talk page for Wikipedia user Mcmchugh99 you made the comment, in relation to KIMEP in Almaty, "it seems to me that they're a bunch of crooks over there". I am a serving administrator at KIMEP. I hope you understand why I am concerned about a statement that implies that I, or indeed any other member of the KIMEP administration, faculty, or staff, am engaged in criminal activity. I request that you delete this comment from the Wikipedia site.Prodigal55 05:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some things about which I am an expert, and Kimep is not one of them. My comment at User talk:Mcmchugh99 is on a Wikipedia user's discussion page, and is not intended to carry the weight of encyclopedic accuracy or objectivity which is (ideally) expected of actual articles. Anyone who happens across that comment will know that it represents my own personal opinion and is not endorsed by anyone of importance. If anyone sees your comment right here, they will see someone in authority at KIMEP who disputes the fraud allegations, which probably carries more weight than my comment.

I also hope that you realize that this comment was written after I had removed some blatantly accusatory commentary from the article, which you can see at the bottom here and again here. Staecker 11:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bug in your bot?

Why does it think Image:Kolchak gerb.jpg and Image:ITunes Viz.jpg are duplicates? Not a good enough hash algorithm? And it also added [[Template:mac-software-screenshot]] to the former! -- Paddu 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Paddu- One (now blocked) User:Bù hán ér lì uploaded Image:Face-glasses.jpg on top of several other images, which the bot (correctly, in a sense) identified as duplicates. This is a vandalism vulnerability that I've known about for a while, and coincidentally I just remedied in the code a few days ago- the bot now will ignore any files which have a history of previous versions. This particular incident happened a couple of weeks ago, so it wasn't caught. Thanks- Staecker 17:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

bot

In the Staeckerbot message, replace "remember exactly which name" with "refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name". people don't need to remember! -- RHaworth 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea- thanks. By the way, the message is substed from User:Staeckerbot/dupewarning, which you may feel free to improve in other ways if you like. Staecker 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Crosfields Image

Cool, OK. Sorry, I uploaded another one with another label because i thought the other one was getting deleted for some reason :( You see, I GO to that school and I'm very sure the headmaster would not mind me using pics from that site. Thanks,

Monbro 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

F50 Pics

yes that is good that it is getting deleted I acidentally uploaded two. for some reason the F50-rm one wouldnt show. It would be a redlink. thnx. vipetheviper 18:36, 14 May 2007 (CST)

Image:12 year old girl Nina Cicchelli date of birth June 07 1994 099.JPG

Can you Delete this image. I wanted to re name it but was not able to. thank you. --Cyberman101 01:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

possible overkill on my part?

Glad to make your acquaintance.

I hope I wasn't guilty of overkill in my recent notes on Talk:Monica Goodling.

I picked the wrong balance in my initial interactions with some of those POV-pushers, assuming too much good faith. That first, year-long, interaction with that admirer of Paul Bremer consumed hundreds of hours. I was far far too patient with her, because in the end, she went fully rogue.

My second wikistalker was even more emotionally taxing, and my attempts to extend good faith were even more of a mistake.

A significant fraction of the articles I started that have been nominated for deletion turned out to be nominated by sockpuppets.

Anyhow, I am trying to figure out a balance of good faith that leaves me a bit more protected. My apologies if I wasn't careful enough in my note, and left you feeling accused.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey no problem- actually I didn't feel badly at all about it, and you made some good points. It looks like you've been frequenting some pretty high-stress articles. Goodling's is pretty tame by comparison, I think. Let's hope it stays that way. Staecker 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)