User talk:Brandon/Archive 12

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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Ask for protection, how?

Dear adminstrator, one of users of Persian wiki has insult me in my English talk page (in Persian language). How can I ask for protection of my User page and talk page and all sub pages against that I.P address? I have some valuable photos in my pages I dont want let him/her to damage them. Regards Pournick (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of and replied on their talk page. Killiondude (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Inquiries

After finishing sockpuppet inquiries, please indicate in the report itself and on user pages those users who are cleared of this accusation. I was notified that I was under investigation, but not that I was cleared. Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to mention it on WT:SPI, the clerks would do that kind of stuff. Brandon (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keegscee

Sorry to bother you, but since you handled this, there has been another obvious sock show up trolling my user talk. I've listed it on the SPI. Since he's claiming to be using proxies to harass users, perhaps you could check and see if that is the case and if he's using this proxy for any other socks.--Crossmr (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Luna beat me to it, the user and their range as already been blocked. Brandon (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This user claims he's harassing people using open proxies. Could you or another CU figure out if there is some kind of underlying technical connection between the socks/accounts and if there is a common range all the various socks are coming from. is it possible there are some open proxies wikipedia doesn't have blocked?--Crossmr (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Account Blockage

Brandon,

I would like to request that the block on my account for the use of Hotspot Shield be removed. I am a new editor here and had no idea that the use of such a program was frowned upon. I am currently in China and I use it to gain access to certain websites such as YouTube and Facebook that are otherwise blocked by the Chinese government. On reflection, I do now realise that the privacy afforded by it can be detrimental to the editing community and I promise that I will learn from this mistake. I had never considered the privacy aspect of the program because that is not what I was using it for. I hope that you will not punish me unduly for what was an innocent mistake.

Thanks.RumBuddy (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Image deletion templates

CfD nomination of Category:Image deletion template shortcuts

Jeffrey Steinberger

Re: Deletion of Jeffrey Steinberger article - I'd like the opportunity to add reliable sources to this article. It was deleted while was in the midst of doing that. Please advise how I can proceed. Thank you. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Pynchon

Re: Deletion of Victoria Pynchon article. I can easily add citations and reliable sources to this article. Can you allow me to do that? Thank you. Any suggestions for removing what you think is not appropriate for the article, please advise. Thank you. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make an appeal to you and request that the deleted Jeffrey Steinberger page, along with the Victoria Pynchon and Charis Michelsen pages, be restored so I can better source them. I can improve those pages to meet Wiki standards with outside, verifiable citations. Is this the proper way to appeal the deletions? I've been busy the last few months, and if I had seen notations or discussion pages that the Pynchon and Michelsen pages were marked for deletion, I would have then worked on the pages, better sourced them and brought them up to Wikipedia standards. I'd like to do that now in good faith. I posted my appeal on the talk:Jeffrey Steinberger page as well (not trying to bother you; I just want to make sure this reaches you). Thanks very much.--AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're a boss

Get big. Yesitsnot (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Excessively Brief

It seems to me odd that this user is still baned as an obvious sock, when we do not know who it is a sock of. May I ask who it is a sock of as it (at least at first glance) seems to have been created as a black sock account.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know who is the sockmaster. Brandon (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I assumed you were the checkuser.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am, however checkuser is not magic pixie dust. :) Brandon (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fairy. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't even go here! Brandon (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How To Destroy Angels

Hey. Yeah, I know it was a bit bitey to go to that level, but honestly, I was feeling pretty attacked at the time, and I wanted to make sure everyone knew what was going on. I figured that if we saw a bunch of seemingly random anon IPs show up and start supporting one way or the other, there would have been some justification. I guess things just got a little out of hand, you know? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off too snappy, my admin hat was fully off making the comment. I was just reading about the band and wondered what there could already be an edit war on. Brandon (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that's alright. The page is getting at least 1k hits/day, and yesterday it spiked to three times that. Wikipedia is pretty serious business... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Flushing258

Re your block of User:Flushing258 as a sock of User:Bcai3887, there is no Bcai3887. Did you mean another user?--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be Bcai388 (talk · contribs). I'll fix that. Brandon (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, cheers--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody

It's not clear from your comment as to whether there were any other accounts using the IP.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Brandon (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Chronosome

This user has requested an unblock. Just wanted to see if you meant block them as part of this investigation or if you misclicked. Thanks! TN X Man 15:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The block was intentional, replied/declined on the talk. Brandon (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. MuZemike sent me an email explaining the situation. I appreciate the response. TN X Man 11:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Page Unprotection

Greetings Brandon. As the admin who locked the article, Eliseo Soriano, I would like to ask if it is okay to unprotect the article once again. All BLP issues are currently being discussed in a "heating" debate here. If you sense that unprotection is still not worthy, kindly place the reason here. Thank you. 180.191.61.151 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I protected that so long ago I honestly don't even remember the circumstances and I don't have the time at the moment to review it. If you don't mind, make the request for unprotection at WP:RFPP and you can mention the protecting admin referred you. Sorry for the inconvenience, I just don't want to unprotect a BLP without review. Brandon (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I am using only one alternative account now, but another CU was filled here. How many CU can they fill? As you know, I'm not from Turkey unlike what Brandmeister seems to suggest. That's fishing, CU come negative, keep and keep requesting new ones. Ionidasz (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I declined the case. It was a different filer, so this isn't an abuse/stalking issue. Brandon (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think Ionidasz's alternative account should be checked for legitimacy to clarify that issue. Brandmeister[t] 17:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Meowy (according to his contributions) contributed while my primary account was contributing, so it can't be me. Both accounts (primary and this one) edit on two compleatly different topics. Please check Hetoum_I checkuser case for more information. Ionidasz (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ionidasz is an admitted alternate account, if he is abusing it any admin can block based on this information. As a CheckUser I reviewed the master and alternate accounts for article overlap, or abuse from the master account, neither of which I found. If you continue to have problems with this user I suggest you bring it to the attention of the normal admin channels (e.g. ANI) instead of SPI. Brandon (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Question re block

At [1], you wrote: CheckUser block, contact ArbCom for inquires. Does this mean contact an arb on-wiki or write an email to the arb mailing list? Novickas (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Email. Brandon (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thx, done it. Novickas (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Serial sockpuppeteer

Can you help here? Enigma^msg 18:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Enigma^msg 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Shit Bag

Hey bud, what's idea mutilating the Sprint HTC Evo page? You clearly are biased against it. What do you own an iPhone? Worried that the Evo will kick the new 4G's ass...lol... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.92.11 (talk • contribs)

Replied on the talk page. Brandon (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee‎

Rlevse said you helped with the rangeblocking of the Keegscee‎ sockpuppets. Just wanted to thank you for a job well done. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help! Brandon (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For the CU excellent work you do!I award you this barnstar. Great work! :) - — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please chime in

See User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Moving and let me know what you think. Pls respond in that thread. I'm asking other crat input too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on BN. Brandon (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oi

A crat, so does that mean you are someone who like knows policies and stuff? I just reverted myself after I reverted your edits to Gandi. It was my own fault, I misread the date on the removed prod. However, if you don't use edit summaries you make it a lot harder for anyone who is working on a given page. It then becomes necessary not only to check the article history, but to check each individual edit for validity. And ultimately if you don't provide edit summaries there is nothing to stop other users from misinterpreting or even ignoring your edits - please try to fill in the edit summary box, it makes it easier for everyone. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

On further examination, it seems that on 25th May that article was proposed for deletion. On 26th you reverted, without explanation and without improving the article. Do you have a link to where you expressed your disagreement? Weakopedia (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Brandon is not a crat, but he is an admin and checkuser. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oo, thanks for the clarification. I guess so long as he is familiar with policy my question still stands. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The prod was added with the summary "Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD.", I then remove the prod with the edit summary "dispute", clearly disputing the prod, then I undid a previous edit to the page that added a spurious sentence with the summary "Undid revision 362547908 by SPARTAN T-82 (talk)". Both edits spoke for themselves and were sufficiently annotated by the edit summary. Proposed deletion is for uncontested deletions, anybody can remove it at any time. Brandon (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

The ANI discussion you archived was un-archived. I reverted, but am not about to get into an edit war of something like this. Just thought I would make you aware. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. Brandon (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I not reverting again, [2]. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither am I, I'm just going to leave a hat note. Brandon (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk Patriarchy

Sorry to bother you Brandon but I must confess I'm bewildered by the post at Talk:Patriarchy [3]. Did somebody request clarification be sought from this author or did the writer contact wikipedia themselves - if so why? I realize you may need to tell me that some information is confidential but the lack of context to the post makes it very confusing. Also would such a commentry not be more relevant to an entry on this book? I have WP:FORUM and WP:ADVERT in mind here--Cailil ^talk 03:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It was relayed from the author via WP:OTRS. I'm not well versed enough in the debate to really understand the contents. Brandon (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about the contents of the post per se. I am very intrigued as to why an author of a source would feel the need to get OTRS to post this though. Did the author feel his work was misrepresented in some way? Or is he trying to establish something?
Right now there are a few issues becuase of it. There is an appearence of 'an appeal to authority' by this post being there if it's not to correct some factual error about his work. There is also, in my view, a slight WP:ADVERT issue.
I've never seen this type of post by an academic before and as an academic I find it highly unusual. And for that reason I want to figure out if the author has either been misrepresented in the talk page or in the article in some way (and which we should immediately correct per WP:BLP) or if they have been promted by wikipedians to post this to support their arguments (which is a bit dubious per our rules), or if this is off the author's own bat (and if so why). I have concerns about this page - not related to this author -visa vie some behaviour there, and want to establish all the facts of this before going up the line--Cailil ^talk 12:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied via email. Brandon (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I could not find the email in OTRS. Can you please add the OTRS ticket number to the talk page comment. Otherwise it may have to be deleted. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have access. Brandon (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well what kind of behavioral evidence would be sufficient?

I showed both accounts making the exact same edits to the exact same articles and responding to the same user in the exact same way. He clearly has a great deal of animosity over the Fred Singer article and the account was created right when he was being topic banned from it.

At the very least it should be checkusered to see if it is Ratel, who was recently banned and who helped WMC with that article a lot. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the SPI case, I did check Freakshownerd and found nothing. Brandon (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You checkusered him and he wasn't using an open-proxy/starbucks IP? Not located in England? TheGoodLocust (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No and no. Brandon (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and one final question - this account wasn't using the same IP range as Ratel or his sock? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, different country altogether. Brandon (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Very unusual. Thanks for answering my questions. I really appreciate it. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Gamer Guy

If you deleted Gamer Guy, you might as well delete Gamer Girl since they are bascially the same article with the gender reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knovevmber (talk • contribs)

Trolling is funny any all but WP:POINT. Brandon (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

block of 212.183.140.0/26

Hi

I'm just about to change your block on 212.183.140.0/26 to point to the ACC tool's web interface at http://toolserver.org/~acc/, rather than the (somewhat ignored) mailing list. If you have an issue with this, feel free to revert me :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No objections. Brandon (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And 212.183.140.64/26 :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 09:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

GoRight SPI case

Could you take a look at User talk:Stephan Schulz#Spoofed user agent strings? Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Brandon (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Expired toolserver?

Are you able to nudge your toolserver account? I went to access something of yours, but it says you're expired ([4]). If not, oh, well. Thanks anyway. If you can, I'd be grateful. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Try http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py --MZMcBride (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Block of 64.255.164.0/24

Can you explain why my smartphone access has been blocked?

It said:

"mislabeled Opera Mini proxy range; blocked until XFF data can be updated"

It also said:

"your IP address (64.255.164.111) or range may have been blocked"

I do a good deal of editing from my phone (Android OS, T-Mobile), using an Opera Mini browser. I have done nothing wrong, and do not understand why I would be restricted from editing on my phone. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave him IPBE, hope it's all right with you. —fetch ·comms 02:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be affecting other users as well. Brandon, can you clarify what you're saying in the block message. Is this range not sending across the requesting IP and essentially acting as an open proxy? Kuru (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with the configuration of the range, which we are working to sort out. At this point, it would be helpful if administrators don't take any action that would negate the range block; we hope to have it sorted within the next 36-48 hours. Editors caught in the range block will, hopefully, be willing to stick it out while we get this sorted. Risker (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you illustrate what damage would be done by exempting long term good faith editors from this range block while you sort it out? I can understand stalling new accounts popping up, but I would feel obligated to provide a much more detailed description of the issue and potential threats to long term contributors we are blocking. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The trusted XFF list has been updated and the range block has been lifted. Brandon (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You go girl. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was told to request that IPBE be removed when the problem was fixed - do I need to request that of Fletchcomm or can I ask you? I ask because he had a note on his talkpage that he didn't have internet access right now. I see that you already handled it - it was further down on my watchlist. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 11:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

Hi there; re ThinkEnemies. You have instituted a checkuser block, with which I have not the slightest problem and for which I have declined unblock. But I wonder, if I can ask without giving offence, why you needed to add on the offending userpage a seriously firm warning to admins not to unblock? I am reasonably certain that the admin corps, of which I am a distressingly increasingly senior member, already understand about checkuser blocks? Or am I wrong? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it that wasn't a great template to use. Noted for the future. Brandon (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound

Hi there; re Consequence of Sound. You previously deleted the Wikipedia entry citing a lack of notability. Seeing that the company was recently brought under the umbrella of Complex Media [5], achieves over 50,000 impressions daily [6], ranks as one of Technorati's most influential music sites [7], and is affiliated with several events [8] [9] [10] [11], it might be time to change that stance. I am not affiliated with the company, but have interest in creating a new Wikipedia entry Chuckd1584 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) --Chuck

The article was deleted at AfD a while ago. You're free to create a new article as long as it is substantially different form the previous one. Brandon (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is there any way to shave this down to just MookieG and categorize the other names to whatever account? †TE†Talk 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, thanks again for the reinstatement of my editing privileges. †TE†Talk 18:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Any idea the master account for the bunch that isn't yours? Brandon (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I fear it would be one that isn't even listed. Of the bunch, PartyJoe is the established one, and where I would to want draw the line. The biggest problen with PartyJoe is that it ended up at D.C. Douglas (an article that MookieG edited while also tagging Misterdc with COI). The fact that PartyJoe had words with Misterdc here and here also doesn't help. Other than that, PartyJoe used the same type humor displayed by Sodomite, I dropped the soap, and Doby Mick here and here. PartyJoe has also displayed an ideology I find little agreement with, has decorated their user page with userboxes (something I also haven't done), and has edited some articles I've never heard of. I wouldn't agree with most of their edits as a whole, either.

I guess it's up to you whether or not to find my word credible. ThinkEnemies and MookieG have been very direct, goal-oriented editors improving Wikipedia the best that I can. Those other accounts are not, and they do not even slightly resemble my editing history. †TE†Talk 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bump, so Miszabot doesn't archive this just yet. †TE†Talk 15:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Brandon (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock requests from one of your rangeblocks...

Can you handle this, since it's your rangeblock he's running into? Not sure what the background is, so I can't really deal with it myself. See User talk:209.20.72.124. --Jayron32 06:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:660gd4qo requesting unblock

Hello Brandon. This editor has asked that you be notified of his unblock request. You did run a check as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bsharvy/Archive, and at that time you found that 660gd4go and Bsharvy were unrelated. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Replying there, thanks. Brandon (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks EdJohnston. and thanks brandon.660gd4qo (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:209.20.72.124

Anon-only rangeblock. This one is on hold waiting for a response from you. I've already commented that I don't see a reason to unblock. If they wanted to contact you directly and explain their situation, things might be different. Unless you want to take some other action, you might consider declining the request, to get it out of CAT:RFU. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied there! Brandon (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

Hello Brandon. A few minutes ago, I was trying to replace a PNG roundel on an article with it's SVG counterpart, and got a message saying I was blocked by you because I was using Hotspot Shield, a VPN that annonomizes my IP Address, until the year 2014. After disconnecting from Hotspot Shield, I've been able to edit stuff again, but I want you to know that I do not use Hotspot Shield to evade blocking on Wikipedia. I was using it so I could watch a video on a website, at the same time I was on Wikipedia, and that's why you saw me with a VPN. I just want you to know this, so that when you see my account making edits in the future, you don't block me again, as I'm not a vandal. I will remember not to engage my VPN when I'm on Wikipedia from now on. I appologize. Fry1989 (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All edits from the VPN are blocked, it's done automatically and not held against you. Brandon (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, just making sure. Fry1989 (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mobclix

Hi Brandon. I was wondering if there was a way to access an entry on Mobclix that was deleted by you because of G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I'd like to look at it and see how we can improve it for Wikipedia. Many thanks. Shu717 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Supervised editing?

According to Lar I should ask other editors/admins if they would be willing to to supervise my editing. Would you be willing to do this? I won't be much of a problem. If so then this gives the gist of the situation. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I did a little research into the situation (I don't follow CC at all). I'm not really inclined to take any action with a ArbCom ban hanging over your head. I personally would suggest you get a supervised editing alternate remedy added to case. I'm willing to be one of the monitoring admins, so that might help your case. Brandon (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the consideration. One of the reasons I asked you was because you weren't, to my knowledge, involved in the CC area on either side. I'll post on the PD board that you are willing to supervise me. Thanks. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hi,
Can you please undelete the File:Eur.fr.200.gif? It will be needed for fair use in the articles French euro coins and 2 euro coins. The Commons file with which you replaced it cannot really do, because it is a non-free image and it will likely be deleted from Commons sooner or later. Thank you. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Same request about the File:Eur.it.200.gif please, for use in the articles Italian euro coins and 2 euro coins, and the files File:Eurocoin.mc.series1.200.gif, File:Eurocoin.mc.series2.020.gif, File:Eurocoin.mc.series2.050.gif, File:Eurocoin.mc.series2.100.gif and File:Eurocoin.mc.series2.200.gif please, for use in the article Monegasque euro coins and in the respective euro coin articles. Ty. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: The Commons files have been deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

uploading images

Hi, i'm new here and i was hoping you could tell me how to upload an image. --Bob987654321123456789 (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Hi there Brandon. Just letting you know I've removed your old account from the AWB list of bots (you added it here). You should not run bots on an unapproved, non-bot account (not really an issue any more since that account was renamed), but as an administrator, you will still have access to AWB's non-bot functions. If you wish to run an AWB-bot, please go through a BRfA to obtain approval. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

hiya :), im just wondering what this ticket looks like on the OTRS system?. Thanks Sophie ^(Talk) 02:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

All I see is your original email and the response from the agent indicating they added permissions to the image. Brandon (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh ok :) Sophie ^(Talk) 20:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there.

Hi. Addihockey11 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

New Stanovc/Whatelsetodo sock

[12] fairly obvious it's him. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Graffiti4hire

And there was me writing up an AFD for it. Good call. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Trout

I'm reverting your change [13] to {{Expand}}. This is policy for template discussions, and for such a widely used template, discussion is important. (I would personally dispute your claim of "well publicized" anyway.) It is not by happenstance that {{tfd}}, {{being deleted}}, etc are designed to display inline for transcluded templates. If you don't like policy then work to change policy. Until then, we display a notice for such discussions. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What policy? You have yet to cite a single policy other than "policy" itself. TFD itself explicitly states:

"If placed directly into the nominated template, consider using <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template. However, make sure to publicise the Tfd in the appropriate WikiProject, noticeboard, etc."

Template design isn't policy, template instructions aren't policy either. Policy is policy and none of them say you have to litter thousands of articles with TfD notices. The template in question doesn't affect the articles this notice is being transcluded on at all. Having this notice does nothing more than litter our articles and annoy our readers with a process they can't even begin to participate in. Brandon (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you honestly just try to claim that something you added two days ago is policy? In the future before you go mocking admins with fish template and informing them how Wikipedia operates you might want to get your facts straight. Brandon (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't even try to mislead or put words in my mouth. I specifically mentioned {{tfd}} and {{being deleted}}, and not {{delrev}}. Deletion Policy indicates that we display a notification for these discussions. Full stop.

Now, are you willing to personally take responsibility for other editors removing a template from articles while it is under discussion at DRV? That was indeed happening before the wording of {{being deleted}} was improved.

As for {{delrev}}, I have been trying to improve the display of that template, as it previously had almost exclusively been used on articles [14] (not my edits) and before, used a full {{mbox}} [15] instead of a small notification. We haven't really had a need to send such a widely used template to deletion review before, so the code and wording of the original template being more or less article-specific is not surprising. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To add to what I wrote above, I originally disabled the display of {{being deleted}} myself [16] but self-reverted [17] and attempted to improve the template wording instead because disabling the template message display could be misinterpreted as being disruptive to the discussions. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Graffiti4hire

You recently Speedy Deleted the article on Graffiti4hire under "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". However, as far as I can tell, from the Google cache of the article, it wasn't promotional at all and was definitely a valid article. Perhaps it wasn't notable enough, but that's an issue for AfD, not for Speedy Deletion. Can you explain this action? Silver seren^C 06:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not elaborate too much on wiki to avoid feeding the trolls. However I will say that deletion also fell under G5 of the CSD policy. Brandon (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That...doesn't help answer my question, considering that G5 doesn't matter much, in my opinion, if the article is valid. I think it's fairly anti-WP that some users advocate deletion of completely valid articles that banned users made. Silver seren^C 06:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would help answer your question then. I don't really care to debate the ideology behind CSD G5. Brandon (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia 10th Birthday

Hi Brandon,

As far as the e-mail thing goes - I wasn't aware of that, it must've been an oversight on my part. Yes, I would absolutely be interested in attending. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a geonotice for Phoenix to advertise the event. After we get a few more people picking a venue would be a good idea. Brandon (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Process

Prodego didn't just ignore the previous discussions, he also screwed up the archives. A move back would at least enable these to be fixed - or at least found by editors taking part in the debate. As it is, he's succeeded in imposing his version and hiding the previous debate. He really should be reverted, and he has at least said he won't object if he is. DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, I was overridden. Brandon (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How soon do you think it will be before another event gets set up in The Valley?

How soon do you think it will be before another Wikipedia tenth anniversary event gets set up in The Valley?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite understand the question. Brandon (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the "Phoenix, AZ" page, there is no location for the event in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Do you know when a location shall be specified? Also, with all due respect, I believe that the person who tried to set up the other event has as much right to set up an event as anyone else does. He was not selling anything, and reserving a venue for thousands, hundreds or even dozens of people is risky, costly and difficult. In many cases, it could require that people like us pay money up front. Like it or not, the fact of the matter is, that many venues can only hold a limited number of people.--Jax 0677 (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very curious how such an event was "sold out" when no more than 5 Wikipedia editors from the Phoenix area have shown interest. We are currently waiting on knowing how many people are going to show up before picking a location, but a library or similar is likely. Wikipedia meetups in Washington DC, where people actually travel to be a part of, don't get that many people. In Phoenix we have yet to get more than two people together for a meetup. So I don't know who is going to that event, but it sure as hell isn't Wikipedia editors. Brandon (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am new to the Wikipedia meetup process myself, so forgive me if I sound naive. I guess the event could end up diverting from a Wikipedia focus, but obviously nobody knows yet. According to google, their internet site was only posted on wikipedia, so perhaps people who are not registered on wikipedia, but who either edit wikipedia without an account, or who simply use the site often might be attending. Additionally, they might not have expressed interest on the wikipedia forums themselves, but may have simply applied for tickets, and that's it. Whether that is the case or not, I appreciate both of you trying to set something up. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I just wanted to give my feedback.--Jax 0677 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)