Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brandon (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 25 June 2009 (→Your block of User:PJHaseldine, your deletion of Alan Feraday: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

?

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

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

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

AfD nomination of DreamHost

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

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

From Csifan16

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

Block of Zeltis

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

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

Bot errors

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

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

BJBot is damaging my article draft

Greetings, BJWeeks

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

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

BJBot could be more helpful ...

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

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

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

Your block of User:PJHaseldine, your deletion of Alan Feraday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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