User talk:B/Archive 9

You deleted my sandbox due to violating the image hosting policies. I don't disagree with you as I was a tad bit misinformed about the policies beforehand. However, I would like to ask a couple questions. 1. Is there anyway an image can be hosted off of wikipedia and still be linked to the wiki? 2. If not, as long as I don't upload images that aren't relevant to the wiki itself, can I continue creating the material I was before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosCron (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• @
  image use policy, then it should be uploaded here (the vast majority of the images on the internet are copyrighted and are NOT acceptable to use here). If it's not going to be used in an encyclopedia article, then it is not needed here. Active Wikipedia contributors are allowed to have a user page with a brief biography or useful information about themselves, but extensive writings unrelated to the building of an encyclopedia are never permitted here. --B (talk
  ) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The file File:The Jazz Café Logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• @
  The Jazz Café and I have moved it to Commons and added it to Commons:Category:Jazz Cafe (London). --B (talk
  ) 14:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help.Willy1018 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe there was a consensus to delete File:Bush portrait on 1DEC2018.jpg [1]. The portrait has been released by the National Portrait Gallery under a non-commercial use license, demonstrating to a reasonable degree that it does — in fact — also own the copyright to the portrait it commissioned and owns. The fact it is released as non-commercial use is, itself, irrelevant as we know the USG routinely mislabels or applies erroneously restrictive licensing terms to images it makes available online and we (WP) routinely ignore those when applied. The mere demonstration of any form of release, however, as I mentioned, demonstrates ownership of IP. Can you reopen the discussion? Chetsford (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• @
  Portraits_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Gallery_of_presidential_portraits - portraits of Presidents that came after Carter (plus Ford for some reason) are all copyrighted. There is simply no evidence that the copyright to this portrait was transferred. A "consensus" to delete at IFD is not required if there is a copyright violation. --B (talk
  ) 21:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No prob (Just in point of clarification, it is incorrect to say "portraits of Presidents that came after Carter (plus Ford for some reason) are all copyrighted" - if I paint a portrait of Reagan tomorrow I am free to release the copyright as I see fit. The portraits commonly referred to as "official White House portraits" are, indeed, all copyrighted post-Carter; however, not any portrait anyone happens to paint of any post-Carter president is suddenly enveloped by a super-secret copyright corollary. To your confusion as to why these portraits are copyrighted, it's because — beginning with Reagan — the series was commissioned by the WHHA instead of the EOP, though this is an irrelevant digression in this instance as the portrait in question is an entirely separate image commissioned by the Smithsonian.) Anyway, I'm tied down with some other things right now so I may not have a chance to take this to deletion review for a couple weeks but will ping you once I get around to it. Thanks for your fast reply! Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest you clarify the sentence If you are a "contractor", then unless you are actually self-employed and you own the copyright to anything you create, unless you specifically have a contract that assigns the copyright to the company/entity that engaged your services. ? I've read it a few times and still can't parse it. Either I'm missing something or it's got a surplus or deficit of a word or two. It's useful education, I think. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a confusing construction. I believe what they meant was that a contract employee of the USG can't be treated as a regular employee of the USG. While that may or may not be true, when visual art is done on the basis of "work for hire" the copyright transfers with the physical object. The artist's only residual rights are in prevention of its alteration or destruction, and correct crediting. However, a commissioned portrait (which applies in this case) is not a "work for hire" under U.S. Copyright Law unless it is otherwise designated as such by the contracting and contracted parties. In this case, the portrait was otherwise designated, however, before I could proceed to offer further evidence of that point the file was deleted (which is ultimately my fault as I was offline for the last few days). I'll take this back up in a couple weeks when I have more time. Chetsford (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@AlanM1: remove the first "unless" (which I have struck) - that was a typo. "Contract employees" are not employees. @Chetsford: unless you have a FOIA request for a copy of the contract, I'm not sure how you could demonstrate that. One further annoyance is that, though the federal government cannot CREATE a copyrighted work, it can own copyrights that are transferred to it. So if I (an independent contractor) create a creative work and my contract uses the magic words that we agree my work is a "work for hire", then it's public domain, but if my contract uses the magic words that I agree to "assign my copyright to the government", then it is copyrighted. For a company, that's probably a distinction without difference (it would be the difference between the copyright lasting 95 years vs my lifetime plus 70 years I guess?), but for the federal government, it's the difference between public domain and copyrighted. Of course, in the case of this particular picture, if the copyright was transferred to the government, then that would be good enough for us - because we're only trying to use the government's own derivative work. So basically we're good with that in any case other than the artist still retaining the copyright. Unfortunately, however, there is no evidence that the artist did not retain the copyright. --B (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct, and since the file has been deleted, no evidence that the artist did not retain the copyright can be presented. Chetsford (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chetsford: well, no, it can be presented at any time, but in any event, by the time you typed that, I had already undeleted it and relisted it at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 29 ;). --B (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we were ships passing in the night ... I did the same! Thanks again. Chetsford (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You overwrote this with a different picture. Does the ticket apply to both pictures?

Also, seems that someone managed to get {{

@

Stefan2: I didn't even notice they were different. I will delete the old one. --B (talk

) 11:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I believe you created this page or worked on it at some point. I've been maintaining it without any real knowledge of the code there. I've managed to keep it working until I tried to add 2019, and I don't know what I did wrong but I can't get it to work. If you can, please help. Thank you. Donnie Love (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Donnie Love: Fixed. It was a broken curly brace. ;) This is amazing work you are doing - I hadn't looked back at it in a while. --B (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Donnie Love (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Please tell me how to resolve any issues with the Liz Mair photo. If the photo size is too large, will that be resolved by Wikipedia or do I need to submit a new one? When I uploaded the photo, I had never done this before, so I do not believe I correctly filled in all the required information about its use I (about "non-free use"). I found the information to be somewhat confusing, so I sort of guessed on how to fill it out. This photo is the sole property of Liz Mair. This is a "selfie" portrait, so there is no issue of copyright issues with an outside photographer. Liz Mair has given her permission for this photo from her Twitter account to be used on her Wiki page. Should another photo that is not in use elsewhere be substituted? My volunteer involvement on the Mair page is limited to formatting it. I have not, in any way, written, edited, or contributed to the content, and do not have any affiliation to any person or organization listed within it other than a casual acquaintance through another person with the subject (and I am a Democrat). I want to comply with all Wiki policies. A non-technical explanation would be appreciated. Thank you!PNW Raven (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@

fair use, this is never permitted for photos of living people.) --B (talk

) 22:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed the file I'm referring to. I so appreciate your speedy and understandable explanation. I can contact Liz Mair, who is the subject and the photographer of the photo, and ask her to email this form to Wikipedia. I have certainly learned a lot by working on this page. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! PNW Raven (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@PNW Raven: Please note that if the person claiming to be the copyright holder is depicted in the photo, then they will get a reply asking them HOW they are the copyright holder. From looking at this image, I think it's a selfie? So in this case, when she sends the email to permissions-en, she should note in there that she is the photographer and that the image is a selfie. (A lot of people who - in good faith - submit statements of permission for an image aren't actually the photographer and the photographer is usually the person we need to hear from. If you hire a professional photographer to take photos at, say, your wedding, your contract usually stipulates that they retain the copyright and so they - not you - are the copyright holder. But in this case, it looks like a selfie, so she just needs to point that out.) --B (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed a selfie from her official Twitter account and is the one she requested be used. I will make sure she knows to indicate in the form that she is the both the subject and the photographer. Again, thanks for all your help.PNW Raven (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reducing the image size!, You reducing the size of this image absolutely helps thiis project in every single way!, Thanks to your help the image is so much more readable than what it was before!. Thanks again for your valued edit here. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: The change was made pursuant to my close of Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_December_8#File:BBC_iPlayer_Screenshot.png and should not be unilaterally reverted. If you think that this image should be an exception to our guidelines, you should be able to convince at least one uninvolved administrator of that. --B (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Immediately undo your actions please, You've now your bit to essentially "win" this dispute which should not be done as per

WP:ADMINABUSE

, The original size was 1,364 × 5,065 which is what Ron had an issue with - I cropped the image as well as reduced it and no one as far as I know had an issue with this, If you have an issue with the image then you should've started another FFD,

You were BOLD by further reducing the size however your edits have been reverted so as such your next step should be FFD not' instantly reducing the file and then hiding all revisions,

My changes were done as a middle ground - It meets fair but also the image can be seen sufficiently - If others disagree with me (and agree with your changes) then I'll leave the file alone but that FFD was inregards to the large file size and not my changes.

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't realised you were the closer so as such ignore the above reply, It's a shame that you prefer following policies letter by letter over following (or atleast having) some common sense .... In the grand scheme of things all's you've done is rendered an image useless and for what ? ... to satisfy the other admin who's hell bent on everything being at 100 x 100 because "why not" apparently ....

Your edits have not improved this project nor have they helped our readers .... which is what we're all here for and which is why I enlarged the image ever so slightly, Shame. –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that B-bot has not been tagging orphaned fair use images for about a week now and I wanted to let you know in case there something needed to be done to fix it. Aspects (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Aspects: Thanks, sorry, I have been away. I will look at it immediately. --B (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is running again. --B (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for uploading claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

A link to the list of winners is

talk

) 19:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@

fair use policy. Supporting documentation should be linked to on an appropriate external site, not hosted here. --B (talk

) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

On the article Mainland High School, a new user mistakenly uploaded a non-free image to Commons to replace the old logo, rather than Wikipedia. The image was deleted, and User:Filedelinkerbot, rather than reverting to the prior link of the old image, simply removed the image link. This left the article with no infobox image, a rather boring look. User:B-Bot then flagged the old image as orphaned, marking it for speedy deletion. Without user intervention, a logo that has stood on that page for 12 years would've been gone. This would have essentially been a bot-led vandalism. Additional logic should be written into this bot's code to check for such issues prior to such brash action to see if an easy fix is possible based on why the image was orphaned. ----Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 03:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Vox Rationis: The issue is one that would need to be fixed with Filedelinkerbot - maybe in the limited case where it remove an image from an infobox, it could look and see if that image had one that was there immediately prior and if it was, restore that image. For B-bot, there is nothing that we can do because by the time B-bot tags it as an orphan, it is already long gone from the article. --B (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not on Wikipedia as often as I used to for various reasons. I just noticed today that the above image is tagged for deletion within the next 2 days because it is an orphaned non-free image. I am left puzzled as this image is still in the infobox of the page Edward Akufo-Addo as I type this. It has not been deleted. Am I missing something here? I thought of removing the tag as advised on section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion but opted to wait for your advice.--Natsubee (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Natsubee: From the history of that article, a user made an edit breaking the infobox on June 17. The image was then tagged for deletion. On June 25, the change was reverted. On June 27, shortly after your message, the bot re-examined the image, saw it was in use, and removed the deletion tag. After images are tagged for deletion as orphaned, the bot looks at them every two days over the seven-day period - and the last time is right before the seven days expires - so if the image is re-added to an article, it should get detected and the tag should be removed. (And, of course, administrators deleting the images should also be checking.) --B (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I've used this image in an article that's currently under review (Draft: Native Union). Do I need to wait until the article is published before I re-upload this image for the company infobox? Soyoungpark.nu (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have moved

@Tyw7: Umm ... you're asking me about something I did in 2013??? I obviously don't remember what I did six years ago, but in the diff you linked, I fixed the capitalization of an article that was already in the namespace. I assume what you are really asking about is several diffs later. In that one, I was repairing a copy/paste move. I wasn't the one who moved it to the mainspace - rather, I corrected the capitalization and copied the revisions from AFC into the article that someone else had created in the mainspace. --B (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

B, well the diff makes it seem that you prematurely moved the article from AFC to mainspace. I suspect it was the article creator who prematurely moved it.

Is there any way to find out who did the copypasta move? --

ping me

) 17:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to use your photo File:Poutine at Le Champlain in Quebec City.jpg in poutine (a recent GA) and was wondering if you could identify what toppings are on the poutine? Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Reidgreg: - fortunately, I took a photo of the menu. The description they gave was "french fries and smoked cheese, BBQ pork from Ferme Beaurivage and herbs sour cream". --B (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That's great! I've added it to the image description. Thanks so much! – Reidgreg (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

File:VERIDIA Numb Single Cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I just received an email from the bot about this file. The bot is accurate that it's not linked to a live article. I'm currently working on the article and hope to have it published by tomorrow. Please do not delete or orphan the file as I do plan to use it. Thanks! --MJC8104 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@MJC8104: The best practice is to use a placeholder for non-free images articles that are in development. That way, it doesn't get tagged as an orphan - and you can replace the placeholder with a non-free image right before you make the article live. I see that you have made the article live now and the image is there, so no harm/no foul. --B (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

File:San Francisco Scott McKenzie.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Your bot left me a message about this file. Could you (real person!) look at the history of that file, and also the message I left at its talk page. What happened was that the image that I originally uploaded was then overwritten by a new editor who didn't realise what they were doing, replacing my file with a different image. For some reason, unknown to me, I was unable to revert that change. I re-uploaded the original image as a different file, but you may need to check that the correct file is the one to be deleted. (I think it is, so, hopefully, no worries.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: It doesn't especially matter which one is deleted - I see the image is at File:Scott McKenzie San Francisco Ode label.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and everything looks good there - so there is no need to change anything. I'm not sure why you weren't able to revert the upload - you should have been able to. In any event, it looks like all is well. --B (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. When I tried to revert the change that had been made, I was getting the "It looks as though the change has already been reverted by another editor" message (or however the wording goes). I'm sure it wasn't simply me being stupid (often happens!) as it hadn't happened elsewhere before and I tried several times. So, it may have been a glitch somewhere along the line. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Familyguyseason17.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. i need you to delete this picture of family guy season 17 because i publish the new dvd cover and i will like you to put iy up for deletion please and thank you. --Homerfan12 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Homerfan12 The image has been tagged for deletion as an unused media file and your inappropriate removal of the FUR and license has been reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Could you update this list? If you could exclude files with a {{Keep local}} and {{Self}} and {{Own}} then it would be a help. Files with a Keep local are often on Commons already. Files with Self/Own does often have a "wrong" license and a license review is not really needed if it is really own work by the Wikipedia user. --MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

00:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your bot automatically removed the image, claiming that the page lacks rationale. However, the page already does, so I undid the edit. Why does the bot not recognize it? --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @
  talk · contribs) - had removed it from the page because it (apparently) lacked a rationale. Of course, what had really happened is that Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) moved the page and did not update the link in the rationale. So JJMC89 bot, thinking that the rationale was for a different article, dutifully removed it. My bot, seeing that the image was orphaned, tagged it for deletion. Maybe JJMC89 bot could be updated to check for recent page moves before orphaning images? That's really what needs to be done here - update the rationale if a page is moved. I can't really do it because by the time I get to it, it has already been orphaned and I can't distinguish between a bot accidentally orphaning it, a vandal maliciously orphaning it, or an editor making a content decision to remove the image. --B (talk
  ) 18:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi,how do you run a bot? Linxi 1234 (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not something that new users are generally invited to do. Contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Then, in the future, if there is a need that you would like to meet, you could pursue creating a bot to fulfill it. --B (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello B, I created

@

deletion review. Personally, I agree with you - I think there should be an article on Base58 ... but there was a deletion discussion that found the topic is not sufficiently notable. --B (talk

) 15:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I requested an undeletion. Feel free to give your opinion in the undeletion proces. --FlippyFlink (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Your bot itself is working as intended. At John Battaglia anonymous users keep removing an image but not giving a reason why, and as a result the image keeps getting tagged for removal. I am constantly removing the tag from the image page to combat anonymous attempts to remove the image. I'm wondering if there is a way to prevent the bot from tagging this image WhisperToMe (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. Hopefully that will be enough time that the vandals will get bored and go away. There is no way to protect the image from being tagged for deletion and, honestly, it's better that way anyway. You're going to get a notification when the image is tagged for deletion, but if we were to (somehow) prevent that from happening, you wouldn't get a notification when the article is vandalized. --B (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Example problematic edit: Special:Diff/974796827 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, it should send the notice to nobody if the user who uploaded the file's talk page redirects outside of the user talk namespace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: Weird. I will obviously fix it so that the bot won't do that ... but as a general rule, if the talk page is redirected to the user page, then everything should be fully protected. You can see from looking at the history that for the last seven years, there have been plenty of notifications left on the user page - mostly by humans. I really think either the user page should be protected or the talk page should just be turned into a normal page and not a redirect. --B (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The human notifications were made using Twinkle, which has already been updated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is still happening * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: I have fully protected the page. I will fix the bot issue, but there is no point in that page being unprotected. --B (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

B-bot made this edit to File:Modern Mickey Mouse.png. Then notified me here. Looking at User:B-bot it says to notify you if I wasn't the first contributor in the images history. A quick look at Mickey Mouse.png&oldid=550709904 this shows that Peteforsyth was the first contributor. I didn't edit the page until here. I checked the deleted edits but my name isn't there at all. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• @CambridgeBayWeather: Thanks. It looks like your contribution was 100 from the top (there were 100 contributions newer than your's), which suggests it might be an API limitation or something where I need to pull in a second page of results. This probably has never come up before because images aren't very frequently edited more than 100 times. --B (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • And I have 500 revisions set so I wouldn't notice it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

B-bot pinged me about an orphaned image. I uploaded the image for a draft I just submitted; is there a way to avoid the automatic seven-day deletion during the draft review process, given that there's no way to tell how long that will take? Thanks; this is my first submission, trying to make sure I do everything correctly. --0h_$nap (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@

the size permitted for non-free images and should be reduced to 260x385 to be in compliance. --B (talk

) 11:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

B-bot flagged this image as no longer in use, which is true; another user replaced it with an updated logo. However, its replacement File:FC_Copa_Academy_Logo_2019.png is scheduled for deletion (logo was inappropriately uploaded to Commons, and lacks copyright rationale). The end result of B-bot's deletion and the Common's deletion will likely be the deletion of all identifying images. -Oznogon (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi I received notice of the fair use image being deleted, as the article it's used for has been redirected. Would it be possible to save the file, as I will be appealing the redirect? Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @
  WP:REFUND. (Nothing on Wikipedia is truly deleted - it can all be restored. Completely non-controversial undeletions like this are generally done very very quickly.) --B (talk
  ) 03:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

14:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2021

WikiProject Scouting | May 2021 Notes for May: Please go and "watch" this page: Article alerts. You will quickly see if any issues arise. Here is a list of other pages to watch as well: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Watch Congratulations to our Barnstar awardees! Interested in coordinating a zoom meeting? Please let us know. Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk) 20:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:He or she has been nominated for merging with Template:They. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Casspedia (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

B-bot posted on my talk page on 17:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC) that it intends to delete File:Akufo Addo.jpg as "the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia". I have had a quick look just now and as at this very moment, the image is still on the page of Edward Akufo-Addo. Your bot is malfunctioning. I have had other images deleted in the past as I am not that regular on Wikipedia and miss some of these messages. These bots need to be fine tuned because getting sources and images on things in Africa can be difficult and I do not expend my energy searching for these things any more as they get tagged for one reason or another and deleted. This comment is not targeted at you. I have raised this elsewhere and the response is the same that it is unfortunate Wikipedia has a "Western bias" but it can't be helped.

The image is still there so it still fulfills the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. I will not post anymore pictures under this policy as I do not have the time to monitor all these bots. You need to check it. If you still think it needs deleting and that this will make Wikipedia better, so be it. Thanks.--Natsubee (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Natsubee: The image was removed from the article on May 26 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Akufo-Addo&diff=1025330066&oldid=1004804926 (presumably accidentally?). The bot correctly tagged it as orphaned. I'm not sure how a bot - or even a human who doesn't know the content area - can necessarily distinguish between an accidental removal and a deliberate one as an editorial choice. At least with the process we have, if an image is removed, someone - the original uploader - is going to be notified - whereas if we don't do anything, the image just stays gone until someone notices. In this case, the image had already been restored to the article by another editor and the bot would have automatically corrected itself and removed the tag if another editor hadn't gotten to it first. (It re-checks each image tagged for deletion after 2, 4, and 6 days to make sure it's still orphaned.) --B (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--Natsubee (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Got a notification saying these two images were not being used in an article and will be deleted on June 23. They were used on Banknotes of the pound sterling#Current circulation except another bot auto-removed all the banknote thumbnails from the table. I just found out about that change so I haven't looked into the details of why. Regardless the images will be used on Bank of England £50 note once the new note officially enters circulation on June 23. When I uploaded them I was completing the current circulation table on the former article and laying the groundwork for the latter dedicated £50 article. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• @
  WP:REFUND. --B (talk
  ) 20:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting | July 2021 Things to watch for: New: Newest articles Alert: Article alerts Continuing: To do Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk) 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Unfulfilled religious prophecies. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 1#Unfulfilled religious prophecies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting | October 2021 It is with sadness that we note the passing of Jim Howes. Throughout his life, Jim worked to make the world a better place. WikiProject Scouting now has no administrators listed as willing to help the WikiProject. If you are an administrator and are willing to help, please let us know here. Things to watch for: New: Newest articles Alert: Article alerts Continuing: To do Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk) 15:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:OTRS pending subcat starter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:OTRS received subcat starter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You recently left a note on my page, or your bot did about the image used in this article saying the image isn't used in any article. But since the image clearly IS used in the article I linked, I think maybe you need to fix your bot or something. I haven't edited on wikipedia for years is this is one of the reasons why... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Realm MiracleMat (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @MiracleMat: At the time the message was left, the image was not in use. Its removal was subsequently reverted. No further action is necessary. --B (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Userbox sample has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 08:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi B, on January 2019 you changed the Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission page with a comment The original email from the copyright holder is preferred, but now that preferred process has become compulsory. I wonder where was that discussed and agreed. I need a reference for the process I'm going to begin. Thank you very much. --Robertgarrigos (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@

OTRS volunteer. For at least the last decade or so, if we receive an email from someone other than the copyright holder themselves, then we turn around and email the copyright holder to confirm the veracity of it. (The issue is that it's too easy when you're just forwarding an email to edit that email to say whatever you want.) There is frequently a very, very lengthy backlog (you can look at the history of the backlog and see how long it can get) and if all you do is forward an email, then what frequently happens is months later, the copyright holder will get another email asking them to confirm what you already sent in, they are going to be annoyed with it or ignore it completely, and the image is going to get deleted. You can see that our text is similar to the instructions at Commons, which says, "ask the author to forward the email with their clear statement of permission to [email protected]". I don't remember or know of any discussion on Wikipedia, but I can tell you that the current recommended process is that the author/copyright holder sends the email, because if they don't, it slows things down. I can also tell you that the least-complicated requests get processed the fastest. If I have a simple email, obviously from the copyright holder, that clearly spelled out a suitable permission, that was going to get processed far more quickly than something that required a lot of work. --B (talk

) 12:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @B:. The question is that "recommended process" is not the same as compulsory. I don't mind having a slower process if it's simpler for the holder of the copyright. It looks like that you are saying that I could have used a forwarded process, although it's not recommended. However, I had an answer from OTRS people saying that this is not the process. Then, I guess it should be somewhere a discussion and a decision making to change the process in the way you stated in that page on January 2019. Otherwise, it looks like it was an arbitrary decision. Robertgarrigos (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Any email you send you're going to get a response to it and the volunteer who processes it will do their best to get the ball rolling, but what OTRS needs to successfully process the permission is something from the copyright holder themselves. This is what is stated on Commons and on Meta and it is the process actually used. The fact that someone can choose to not follow the exact instructions and still get a reply doesn't make that the correct process. You could send an email that says "Bob says I can use his picture" and you're going to get a reply - but that reply is basically going to tell you that we need Bob to send us a statement of permission matching the template - exactly what the instructions say to do. --B (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, B,

I don't do much handling of files but I do keep an eye on maintenance categories like Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files and I've noticed the number of tagged files has gone way down in the past couple of days. Typically, there are anywhere from 25 to over 100 images tagged for deletion every day. The number usually goes down over the course of 7 days as editors untag files and find a use for them. But for the past few days B-bot has tagged 6 or fewer files every day.

So, I just thought I'd check in and see if the bot was doing okay. Maybe this is part of a regular fluctuation I've never noticed before. Any way, I hope you and the bot are well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Tagging orphaned non-free image for deletion

Hi @Liz:, thanks for letting me know. It looks like someone stopped the bot at User:B-bot/STOP. I'm letting it run manually to catch up with what it missed. --B (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

According

• @
  deletion review. --B (talk
  ) 17:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello B, I recently found about your bot on the Bots Noticeboard (permalink). It appears that, for the most part, B-Bot tags orphaned non-free files within a few days of orphaning. However, there are some cases where the bot doesn't tag the file. For example, File:"Mookajjiya Kanasugalu", Film Poster.jpg hasn't been used in Mookajjiya Kanasugalu (film) for more than seven weeks, and File:"Weird Al" Yankovic - Amish Paradise.ogg hasn't been used in Bad Hair Day for more than four months. (I've just tagged both.) Is there any way to fix this? Thanks, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(Thanks, replied there) --B (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

A token of thanks Hi B! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

Perhaps files tagged with {{Now Commons}} can be excluded from your orphaned non-free files query since they will get deleted anyway? Example: File:Besiktas JK.svg. Jonteemil (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: If an image is non-free, it shouldn't be on Commons. Either the non-free tag is incorrect and should be replaced with an appropriate license tag or PD tag, or the image should not have been uploaded to Commons. In this particular case, according to the Commons PD tag, since this image was anonymous, it looks like it is PD if it was published more than 70 years ago (so prior to 1952). Has anyone provided evidence of that? --B (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:OTRS received old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this edit which tipped me off to the vandalism of the article involved, which I have now reverted. I have also removed the template from the image description page.

Question 1: Do I need to do anything more?

Question 2: Maybe consider making the message to the user talk page explicit about the need to do that second step? I feel I might easily have missed it. Or does the bot do it automatically anyway? Did I even need to do anything more than revert the vandalism to the article?

Question 3: Is there anything that could be done to make B-bot a bit more selective? This was a very obvious case of an image that was only recently orphaned, and should not have been. I suspect not; As a friend and workmate now with a PhD in artificial intelligence once told me, Unfortunately, the closer we get to true artificial intelligence, the closer we also get to artificial stupidity. Just a possibility to ponder. (And the context of that comment is, we did do some awesome things with neural networks that saved the business a lot of money.)

But mainly, thanks for this very useful bot. The results seem to have been good on this occasion! Andrewa (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1. No, nothing to my knowledge needs to be done.

2. The bot will remove the template itself in a few days if you don't do it.

3. B-bot already waits 2 days between the image becoming orphaned and tagging and notifying it. The bigger problem is that the vandalism was undetected for two days (and we do have AI-based antivandalism bots). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Your bot, can it be set up to create categories using the new names instead of OTRS? E.g. Category:Items pending permission as of March 2022 instead of Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission as of March 2022. Thanks in advance! Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Yes, I can change the name to be whatever is desired. Is there a RM or other discussion somewhere for this change? --B (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, we've got https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T280392 as well as other internal VRT legal discussions requiring the change away from using the phrase OTRS. This has been brought up long ago, but given the wast amount of pages and templates and categories, the focus was put on meta and Commons and not enwp (also, being bold). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting | May 2022 Notes for May: Please go and "watch" this page: Article alerts. You will quickly see if any issues arise. Here is a list of other pages to watch as well: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Watch Congratulations to our Barnstar awardees! We want to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. B-bot keeps tagging File:Saoradh logo.jpg for deletion because, it says, it is not in use on any articles. But it is in use in the Saoradh article. On the file page, the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" section shows and links the Saoradh article under "Use in article", but for some reason I can't understand, the article doesn't appear in the "File usage" section. Any idea how to fix this? Scolaire (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The jpg isn't in use anymore. It was replaced in the article by the higher quality png version: File:Saoradh logo.png. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Scolaire (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you get B-bot to escape the equal sign in File:X=Prem film Official Poster.jpeg (or prefix with 1=) when using it here? Otherwise it's not going to work with the {{lf}} template, and it puts the pages in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls that my bot patrols. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't really see the point of passing the same input twice to {{lf}} which only supports one input parameter, but that's not a real problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Passing the same input to {{lf}} is not intentional - it's because the format of its source page for the list of files changed. I'm fixing that now. How do you escape the equal sign in the template argument? (Although I'll probably just do 1= since that way I don't have to worry about de-escaping it when I process the list.) --B (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the 1= is most common method for dealing with this. The other was is to replace the = with {{=}} which is more characters. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This is done. It will take two days before the lists percolate out, but you can see that at User:B-bot/List of orphaned images/day-0, the template now includes 1= --B (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

B-Bot notified me about File:Plymouth (automobile logo).jpg being orphaned because I had the oldest edit in the history, although I was not the uploader. I don't know why, but it's been 14 years and I expect the file to go away in a week so I don't think it matters much. I updated the date on the template on the file to today and notified the actual uploader - I don't think an extra few days will hurt anything, although I also don't expect the original uploader to show back up this week. Thanks for all you do.  ★  Bigr Tex 01:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

) 13:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: July 2022

WikiProject Scouting | June 2022 Notes for June: Hey! Hey! We have updated Portal:Scouting/Recognized content, go give it a look! Congratulations to our Barnstar awardees! We still want to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting | August 2022 Notes for August: Happy Scout Scarf Day ! You wearing your neckerchief today? We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. These three articles are our top candidates to work up into Good Articles. Gilwell Park Girl Guides World Organization of the Scout Movement Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) August 1, 2022

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, B,

It looks like B-bot has stopped tagging orphaned non-free images and posting notifications on the talk pages of those editors who uploaded those files. There is typically around 50-70+ files in the "Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files" daily categories but as you can see here, Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files, the number has gone down to single digits. I think I've posted about this problem here before and you were able to solve it by restarting the bot or some other tech magic I don't know about. Hope you are well! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Liz: Thanks. It looks like the format of Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files, which is my backup source for a list of orphaned files, changed. And my primary source - m:Research:Quarry - changed their login page. I'm going to need to sit down and figure out what to do to get my queries from Quarry working again ... but fortunately the change from Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files was pretty simple. The job is running now. --B (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm so glad we have smart folks like you who can set these bots that make our jobs so much easier. Maintaining this website would be a much bigger chore without them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

To the article Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs has been added by this user, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.2.47.111, an inappropriate and non-neutral "racist" in the introduction: "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs is a 1943 racist Merrie Melodies animated cartoon directed by Bob Clampett." Could you do something about it and remove said word, please? Also, the phrase "animated cartoon" doesn't make sense, it would make sense "animated short" instead. Could you do something about it too, please? Thanks. 151.57.119.94 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

hello @B i just want to let you know that User:B-bot tagged the file for speedy deletion because the bot thought that the file is not in use in any article (Tagging orphaned non-free image for deletion.) and that's strange because the file's currently in use, so i reverted as a false positive thank you. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

after a review i found out that the bot was right, the tag dates back to 25th of aug, back then the file was unused sorry for disturbing you. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That does happen and unfortunately, there's not a way we can completely avoid it. Someone vandalizes the article (or, for that matter, makes an ill-conceived edit that removes a bunch of content). The bot runs and sees the image is unused. But it can't distinguish between a bad idea vs someone making a deliberate editorial decision. What we do to try and mitigate this is we will only tag an image as an orphan if the image is missing from the article for at least 24 hours. So if there is vandalism, and it's reverted within 24 hours, we're not going to tag the image as an orphan. While obviously not all vandalism is discovered in that amount of time, most of it is, so it's not incredibly common that we'll mark things like this. --B (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:He or she has been nominated for merging with Template:They. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TartarTorte 00:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:His or her has been nominated for merging with Template:Their. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TartarTorte 00:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Userbox sample compact has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I came across your

• @Zinnober9: This is done. I have also set it so that it's only going to log errors, which should dramatically reduce the amount of stuff in the logs. (Honestly, I don't see the point in even keeping the logs any more. I did it initially as part of the approval process, but it's been running for years and hardly seems useful to even keep the logs any more. --B (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi could you restore File:Dentyne ice mints.jpg which was deleted per this discussion], thanks. IIRC it's free-use anyway so we can move it to Commons if desired. Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the intended use for it? The reason for deletion is that Wikipedia (and Commons for that matter) is not free webhosting. We don't host images unless they have some sort of conceivable educational use. This image is what looks like an MS Paint version of a Dentyne ice mints box superimposed onto a star. --B (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but "I don't like this picture" wasn't the basis for deletion, orphaning was. If after restoration you want to send it to Images for Deletion on that basis, or discuss it on the article talk page, that'd be OK. In the meantime, after all it's the only definitely free picture we have (that I know of) illustrating an article (or a section of a larger article -- this is up in the air atm) about the entity, which after all is (or anyway was) a major product of a famous brand. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Dentyne Mints in the slightest if that is what you are thinking. --B (talk

) 19:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I am, or else in the section of Dentyne that it's merged to, probably, if that's what ends up happening. But good news, after some digging around in my archives I actually found the original (I had thought I had long lost it, should have checked before bothering you, sorry), so no need for the restore, again, sorry for taking you time, carry on. Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't imagine any world in which this is appropriate for use in Dentyne. We don't include MS Paint drawings of products in encyclopedia articles. --B (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: January 2023

WikiProject Scouting | January 2023 Notes for January: We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. These three articles are our top candidates to work up into Good Articles. Gilwell Park Girl Guides World Organization of the Scout Movement Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) January 16, 2023

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, B. Two users, Seasider53 and Materialscientist, have removed by edits stating that Robert had married Gabriella Salick in 2008 and I tried my best to add some sources and these two didn't care about it. I just need your help to fix this issue and tell those two to forget about it otherwise it will keep lacking information stating that Robert was unmarried. Thank you. 103.3.81.102 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see

WP:DR for Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. --B (talk

) 21:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: March 2023

WikiProject Scouting | March 2023 Notes for March: The article on the The Scout Association was recently "delisted" from Good Article status. Help is requested. We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Looking for a new project? perhaps authoring an article on Aids to Scoutmastership Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) March 16, 2023

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:BLP top has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, your bot sent some message to an opt-out user, see Special:Diff/1146972922. You may want to look into it. -Lemonaka‎ 07:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Lemonaka: To my understanding, messages sent by B-bot are not mass messages. My understanding is that "mass messages" are things like newsletter deliveries, global announcements about voting in elections, and the like. Messages sent by B-bot are given to a particular user when a particular image is listed for deletion, in compliance with the requirement that users be notified before a file they uploaded is deleted. (Note that if a human being were to manually list an image for deletion, they would notify the user with the same template.) The bot obeys the {{bots}} template:
  • {{nobots}} - block all bots
  • {{bots|deny=B-bot}} - block this bot in particular
  • {{bots|optout=orfud}} - opt out of notifications of orphaned fair use images from this bot and any other compliant bot or script
• Users who want to opt out of bot notifications should add {{
  nobots}} to their page or can use one of the above more-specific examples to opt out of this particular bot. --B (talk
  ) 12:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

21:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting | July 2023 Notes for July On our To do list, we need to prioritize some tasks for articles outside of the US or the UK. The Scout Association has been nominated for a good article reassessment. 25th World Scout Jamboree, this may be a good time to improve this article. Anyone going? We want to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Wood Badge, Brownsea Island Scout camp and Philmont Scout Ranch all need attention. Announcements for the benefit of all Please go and "watch" this page: Article alerts. You will quickly see if any issues arise. Here is a list of other pages to watch as well: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Watch Other ways to participate Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk)

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 16:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Per User:B-bot/Event log. I'm assuming this task was never updated for the template rename that happened a while ago (it's now called {{permission pending}}) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This is still an issue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Lx has been nominated for merging with Template:Pagelinks. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. SWinxy (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)