User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 33

This page 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.

Re File: KowloonCanton.svg. This file will not support a non-free reduce as it does not have a width associated with it (it is a scaleable SVG). Wikipedia chooses to render all scalable SVGs at 512px. This should be changed Wikipedia-wide for non-free images rather than sizing files individually.   JaJaWa |say hello 

@JaJaWa: We know. The template adds it to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. All can we do with these is to reduce the default page size, so that Wikimedia does not show it as a big image. Wikipedia is showing it as 512 × 713 pixels which is 365K pixels - so when I search for images over 100K - it gets included. The method to change page size is shown at User:Ronhjones/SVGreduce. There are a lot of svg files in that category, we are busy (at present) with the vast amount of bitmap type files. Once these have been sorted out (could be a year), then this category will be looked at - there are also a lot of gif files in there as well (which the reducing bot cannot do). Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. May you please undelete this page and then tag it as {{G8-exempt}}? This discussion has some value. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 12:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

12:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If you be so kind to revert the vandalism on Kermit's Swamp Years, I be so grateful. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, could you please userfy me this article? He's a notable jazz artist in standard encyclopedias, and I'd like to resurrect the article with better sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chubbles:  Done - Now at Draft:Anthony Ortega (musician) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chubbles (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

19:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ronhjones,

It's my pleasure to contact with you. Actually, I'm totally new in Wikipedia. Yesterday I created an article introducing background information about Converse Bank company. I've seen that yesterday you deleted the draft page written by me. Yesterday while creating my first draft, I was consulting with DrStrauss, one of the members of help center. After saving the draft he advised me to edit it by adding significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Afterwards, to create a userpage and paste this into it:

This user has publicly declared that he has a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Draft:Converse Bank.

. I also read the notification sent by [|Yeryry]

If it's possible I'd like to ask you to restore my drafted version, so that I could edit it and transfer to userpage? I would be very thankful if you could make it possible.

Thank you in advance for your support :)

Best Regards

Marianna Mezhlumyan

@

WP:CONSENT Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

20:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems DatBot has made a mess of File:VFPDataHandling.png and File:Windows 8 RE - advanced options.png. Do you mind if you restore the now-hidden old revisions so that I can try an informed attempt?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Done and tagged for manual reduction, will stop further tagging for bot - change to {{non-free no reduce}} if you can't get any smaller. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello

I bet the subject of my message already told you everything. DatBot has downsized File:Mosaic Netscape 0.9 on Windows XP.png and it hasn't done a very good job either. Could you please assist?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: :-) Done as before Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! You recently requested a lower resolution version of this image, which was dutifully produced by a bot within 48 hours. In this particular case, the image is a pull quote from the longer text (whose copyright is not held by BuzzFeed). Your request did not engage with the rationale for the resolution I posted, which appears in the image description:

Not replaceable with textual coverage because: Publication is accompanied by a carefully designed excerpt of the larger text, which is only understandable by directly viewing it at a resolution where it is legible.

Minimal use: Used once, resolution has been halved (not more so because legibility of the graphic is an element of understanding the image). Since the text is much longer, the image cannot substitute for an actual visit to the site.

What do you think of this reasoning?--Carwil (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:DELREV if you think it must be bigger.Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

20:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Actually,

Stefan2 (talk

) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

15:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert? The airline has already started services to Kuala Lumpur on June 10, 2017. 107.77.219.35 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

But this source states that it was launch http://ftnnews.com/aviation/32481-philippine-airlines-returns-to-kuala-lumpur.html. 107.77.219.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Ooops looks like my error, sorry for that. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe you reverted this edit made by another user as well but I am guessing it was an error as well. 107.77.219.35 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Jones i would like to know if persistent removal of flags in destination boxes of airport would be vandalisim, you may rember i reported an IP adress for that exact reason and you did block him\her. i would like to know if that would be vandalisim and if so is it a blockable offence? many people cite the avation project guidelines that say you can not do this but it also says that following any of the rules is optional. Please respond on my talk page. Thank you! Jkd4855 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification Jkd4855 (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not sure if you follow the talk pages of users you recently blocked. If not, it may be worth looking at this diff of commentary the user added and removed again in response to the block. The user is now permanently blocked on Japanese Wiki and has temporary blocks on both English and Chinese (zh) Wiki. Not sure improvement is in sight. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: I ignore any comments like that. As an admin one needs to ignore them. Will be interesting to see what happens in a week - Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, removing extra spaces from an image description page is the very definition of an "insignificant or inconsequential edit" as prohibited in

@TAnthony: It was a clean up of a bot test which did not go quite as planned and failed to remove the 2 blank rows at the top of the file page when it removed the template, after deleting the unused images. Bot code has now been changed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Your bot deleted one of the orphaned revisions and removed the template, but left the other orphaned revision. Not a big problem as my bot simply re-tagged the file again, but it looks strange. --

@

Stefan2: Thanks, maybe when I aborted the run as the template was not getting removed everytime, I'll fix it manually Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

20:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This also happened with

Stefan2 (talk

) 20:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: Odd. I had a nice run last night and a (I thought) a nice run today. There was no aborted run today. Clearly there is the odd situation where the bot misses a revert. Please let me know if you see another one - I can fix it straight away and not wait another week. I will have to save the screen log on the next runs - not that there is any guarentee that there is enough print statements is see the reason! If all else fails I might have to resort to reverts and selected deletes to trick the bot into thinking it a "normal" file to process, and re-process it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

21:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware of a file for which your bot has successfully deleted two or more revisions? I haven't inspected your bot's edits too carefully. These two files were spotted when I checked some of my bot's edits. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 11:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2: I thought that, but File:Harrods Estates logo.jpg went OK on trial #1. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

14:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Seemed (note past tense!) not to like multiple deletes sometimes - I think it got confused running through the abuse checks every version - now changed to running the abuse checks on the first pass - see File:Amira Nature Foods Logo.png - went badly at first, then managed to get it to work. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ronhjones. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Zxcvbnm123456nbvc (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that you're making a large amount of requests to reduce image resolution to comply with the NFC guideline. This is OK for photography in jpg and other lossy formats, but reducing the resolution of pixel art is way more problematic.

1. For start, desktop images in any dimension equal or below 1024x768 have an amount of pixels which is below the 1 Mpx allowed by the guideline. I believe that threshold was deliberately chosen so that screenshots in these legacy formats didn't need to be reduced.
2. Further reducing the resolution of software terribly mangles it, as software widgets are composed of clear lines and pixelated text, which get blurry when re-scaled. In order for a pixel-based software image to be useful, it should be rendered as close as possible to the original. The amount of product included in the article (a screenshot) with respect to the original (a whole software program or desktop environment) is already minimal, so it complies with the policy by far.
3. In particular when requesting that a bot automatically does it, the resulting image is often unreadable, with broken lines and random noise.

Having unusable non-free images in the project, that don't serve the use for which they have been included in an article, is a worse violation of the policy than simply showing a static full-size image of the software.

Cheers! Diego (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Where is 1Mpx guideline? - I know

WP:Image resolution, with is 0.1MPx. For images like this, when objected I use {{non-free manual reduce}} to set the image for someone to do it manually and ensure that enough information is retained. Once a suitable reduction (and still readable) is achieved, we can use {{non-free no reduce}} instead. There are a lot of files in both Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing and Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction - possible nothing will be done for a long time (most other Windows screenshots are in one of these cats). The presence of one of these makes sure I don't re-tag them again for bot reduction by accident. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

23:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're right about 0.1Mpx being the "safe" threshold in the guideline, my fault. (Note to myself to follow

WP:SLEEPY

and avoid calculations after my due bed time). The 1Mpx figure quoted there is when it definitely "will require a close review".

However, my main argument remains, i.e. that desktop software screenshots (and maybe pixel art and other "pure digital", "non scalable" images) should be given more leeway than logos, DVD covers or printed maps. The rationale for the 0.1Mpx limit in the guideline is the same I stated for the 640x480 and 1024x768 cases, which is to avoid distorting software screenshots in some very common legacy formats. Maybe web pages and mobile apps would not need this special treatment, as they are more easily scalable; but almost all desktop software typically depends on a fixed pixel density, and varying it will always produce a very poor effect, even with the best smooth rescaling algorithms. My position is that if the screenshot is contextually relevant enough for the article to include it, it should be shown undistorted; otherwise, we'd be better of without it at all, rather than keeping an unreadable non-free mess and using the NFCC exception for no good.

I think I'll raise this concern at the NFCC talk page. I've seen several other guys here and there reverting a poor reduction work of some other software screenshots, so I believe the problem is shared by some other guys. Diego (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: That's why there is the 2 categories to show that the image should not be bot reduced. You will find a large number of screenshots which I have put in there. A few editors have assisted by reducing their images manually - say from 1024x768 to 640x480 and not much degradation of image. Sadly we have got into a huge backlog of oversized images - for a variety of reasons - the main one being how difficult it was to find them - since search upgrades last November we can now search for a given resolution (sqrt of pixel count), thus we have been able to make inroads into the backlog. Also that was only possible once we sorted out a dead reducing bot! However there will always be the odd image that does not reduce well, sometimes one cannot tell until the bot actually does the reduction, and of course then there is 7 days to revert it (and I have happily done it after 7 days when requested). Current failure rate is in the order of less than 0.2%, which I think is very reasonable figure. The total number of oversized images is now 150K - it was 250K when I started sorting them out. I am currently down at fileres:>497 (247009 px), I guess there is still a year's worth of tagging to do... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I download an international photo of the Outlander tv show, but you constantly delete the image. Why are you doing this? And if it seems wrong to you, can you upload a photo of Outlander by yourself ?? Larssonus (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:Image resolution. Note that local images can only be used on en-wiki pages. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

16:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Vincenty846 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vincenty846: Here's an easy way for this case.

1 Get the image from zh-wiki onto your pc.

2 Open the edit window on File:FuJenCathU.png (wikisource, not visual editor) and copy ALL the text into notepad or similar (or copy from below)

== Summary ==
{{Non-free use rationale logo
| Article           =  Fu Jen Catholic University
| Use               = Infobox
| Purpose           =
| Source    =   http://www.fju.edu.tw/#&panel1-2
}}

== Licensing ==
{{Non-free logo|image has rationale=yes|auto=yes}}

3 Goto Special:Upload - use the "browse" button to find the file on your PC, and copy the text from notepad into the large box - leave the rest of the boxes and press "Upload File".

4 As a new user it might go belly up, let me know if you fail and I'll do it. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there ! I've done it and succeeded in replacing the logo. Thank you very much for your help :D

However, I did somehow mess up and claimed this logo as my own work (which it is not) here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fu_Jen_Catholic_University_Seal.png

Could you perhaps help me delete it ? I'm totally lost on how to delete this file that I uploaded.

Thank you :D Vincenty846 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Gone when I got there (on commons there is a nominate for deletion link in left margin). I removed the warning as you knew it was wrong, and said why. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

15:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you, this user User:Alldina Roewi Branasti is pretending to be an admin on their user page, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Well spotted, I've changed the text (and revdel the old version), also messaged on talk page. If he changes it back then we might have to consider proper warnings. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks, hopefully he'll be good now Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I will reduce this image but the links on the non-free reduce template leads me here which does not explain about what the resolution should be. Can you point to a page (section) which explains what the size should be, My [sic]reculation is 250-350 which this file already meets. (sorry my spell check is not working :P ) - FlightTime (open channel) 00:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:Image resolution is the guideline - don't bother reducing it, DatBot6 will do it within 24h to the biggest size to meet guideline. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

01:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems a bot reduced it already. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This image is already reduced as far as it needs to be. The visible cover is about 250px wide, and the rest of the image shows spines of the other volumes. There's no reason to reduce it further, so I would appreciate you stopping tagging it. Thanks. ···

Escape the Night is under a mass attack and needs to be protected right away. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Jones, how would you reccomend that i handle a person that is constantly hounding all of my edits, we dissgaree on one main topic that is a contested one in our wikigroup. but even for edits outside of that topic he continues to hound me. i was wondring what the best course of action would be. i have allready left a message on his talkpage and he has not responded. Thank You Jkd4855 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jkd4855: If you cannot agree with an editor, then we have Wikipedia:Dispute resolutionRonhjones  ^(Talk) 19:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

[29] This is where I can see problems in how fast you are tagging things at a rate that there is no human judgement involved, which got people in trouble before with using semi-automated tools for NFC enforcement, and why I'm asking for a delay on DatBot as to minimize what some others might see as disruptive behavior. You had already tagged this image two days ago. DatBot reduced it a day later; the problem is that I was on travel and had no way to react to your tag, which I would have removed before DatBot got to it since I have a rational of why its larger than 0.1MP. Instead, I had to undo all the steps. Now, you have just retagged it, even though you said on the DatBot talk page that you mark those that had been reverted. This is probably not the normal case you are expecting, but this is something that shows no human check on the process and that other editors will get on your case about if it happened to their images. I know what you're doing is correct and I'm trying to help smooth out the process, but there will be editors out for you based on how they got on BetaCommand/Delta's case about rapid use of semi-automated tools for NFC enforcement. The DatBot delay I'm suggesting basically makes your tagging more a no-harm, no-foul situation to give editors time to correct and your actions seem inconsequential. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: The rate of tagging has no relation to the rate of viewing, not sure if I said to you before (it's been explained a few times in the archived talk pages), but viewing the list of images takes some considerable time before I do the runs applying the tag - I use the same search parameter in firefox and awb at the same time (to get the same list), then view all the images in Firefox before running awb. It has to be done that way as there is no image preview in awb, and opening each image window one by one and adding the tag is also impractical (even with my javascript quick add). At the start there were quite a few to leave out (e.g. screenshots with small text), much less now that I'm down to 228K sized images. When an image is reverted, I get a notification and I examine the image (your image notification just arrived) and I usually add a template. If editors just edit the page and remove the tag, then I get no notification and often it gets tagged again (I cannot visually remember every image tagged) - then they normally drop me a note. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That last case (where if they don't revert but just edit out) is something that I can see going to cause a problem with others, going off what happened to BetaCommand. Editors are going to expect you to review histories and the like if you are re-adding tags they just removed (eg within the last week, not from 2-3 years ago), and while you say you are loading images to check, I think you may need to have an additional check against your lists of what you've done - if you see an image that you have done relatively recently (last month?) pop up again, you might want to either hold off or make sure you spend time to check the history to make sure that re-tagging it is valid (for example, if there is zero statement in the rationale or edit summaries to explain why they removed non-free reduce, then you're good to re-add). I'm sure the 99.7+% you're doing there's no tricks, but it was that small fraction that got BetaCommand in trouble before, and where I see more recent semi-automated editing also being frowned upon in other areas of WP. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: OK, good idea - I will start saving my awb lists that are executed, and compare with any new proposed new list before executing. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

15:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ron - the Matlock_Rose.jpeg is the size the UNT Library allows for download by the public under its license. I can understand why some fair-use images taken off the internet would need reduction but this image is compliant with the fair use license required by the UNT Library. If there was a crop tool handy like we have at Commons, I'd simply crop some of the sky but why bother? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Changed tag to a no reduction one. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ron!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, did you happen to see this IPs block log? From what it looks like, this appears to be a long-term issue. Regards. 2601:1C0:10B:6D5:5C50:CA04:F35F:9FA (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@2601:1C0:10B:6D5:5C50:CA04:F35F:9FA: Well spotted, mouse must have slipped when I selected time Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ron, on the map of the Grand Union Canal, on the Wikipedia page of that name the canal is correctly marked as going in an aqueduct to the north of Milton Keynes. The river which has been named as the one which the canal crosses is, however, incorrect. The name of that river is the 'River Great Ouse'. The 'Ouzel'does indeed exist, and close by, but it is not the one which the canal crosses. Sources: 1)local knowledge (I live in Milton Keynes), 2) a look at the map and 3) the information boards near to the "Iron Trunk aqueduct". Best wishes, Luke Wiseman 17:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@79.73.163.74: Not guilty - I put "Ouse" in original - that was changed by User:Bob1960evens at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Grand_Junction_Canal_Route_Map&diff=next&oldid=653917575 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I have changed it back to River Great Ouse. However, the map that you mention only appears on the Grand Junction Canal article, and not on the Grand Union. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about that template. I'm definitely behind your project to see non-free images reduced in size- keep up the good work! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit (and expanded the rationale/added the "don't reduce please" template) at File:The Devil of Christmas poster.jpg for the same reason. Hope that's OK. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:Image resolution is only a guideline. There will always be a small number of images that don't fit the standard size Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

00:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Your recent bot task has been Approved. You can see the full details at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot. You should receive both bot and admin flags shortly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks. I intend to run daily at 3am UK time using a scheduled batch file containing.. python deleter.py >c:\python27\bot\log\%RANDOM%.txt Thus I get a new log file for each day (I've been testing this with a non-saving version). Eventually I will remove the many print statements. I just need to stop Sphilbrick clearing out the category before the bot runs... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha, just let him know the bot is around and I'm sure he'd prefer to focus on other things. There will be plenty of files needing human assessment, I'm sure. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Question — what will the bot do if it finds a file with the template, but all the old revisions have already been revdeleted? I hope that it will simply remove the template, rather than ignoring the file completely. I skimmed through the BRFA without finding anything, so I'm unclear if that situation hasn't been addressed, or if I simply missed something. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Interesting question. The bot first checks that (a) the final size is <100000 pixels and (b) there have been no edits for the 7 waiting days - if either fails it adds "human=yes" to the template and moves on. If OK, then it will get a list of old images, remove from that list any that are "filehidden", and rev del what is left, then it removes the template on a separate api call. I'm certain that if there is nothing to do and the initial check is OK - then the template gets removed. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you made some sort of mistake; I came here because I didn't have a rollback link at this page in Special:Contributions, having never gotten a ping. That sounds reasonable, and I suppose a human would eventually find it, even if that didn't happen. I just know that I've several times done a revdeletion and then forgotten to remove the NFR template, so of course the image stayed in the category improperly; I can assume that this will occasionally happen when sentient admins go through the |human=yes queues, especially since the bot's activity will mean that humans will go through less often and thus be prone to make oops-I-forgot-that mistakes more often. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Look at last line of User:Ronhjones/common.js it adds in User:Ronhjones/rescaledsidebar.js (which is based on User:B/rescaledsidebar.js - but that does not work with the new "human=yes" in the template). The script adds "rescaled" to your toolbox in left margin (only when showing an image), and when clicked revdels the images, removes the template and refreshes the window. I've not manually revdeled an orphaned image for ages. P.S. The script when installed will respond to Alt-Shift-S - saves moving the mouse. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that Ronbot is running (yay!), but Category:Non-free_files_with_orphaned_versions_more_than_7_days_old is growing (?) What am I missing?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I just read through the request for approval process. I had read an earlier version, so knew this was far more complicated than one might imagine, but this second review reinforced that observation. Thanks for all the work, and thanks to both Ron and Rob.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Bot running fine. 2500 files processed since approved. Cat is growing as I'm tagging as much as I can for reduce!. As far as I can see the bot clears the cat when it gets run (Windows is set to schedule it to run at 3am UK time - 02:00 UTC at present). It did 550 files last night in 71 minutes. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great. I had noticed the count going up each day, so wondered. of course, the day I ask, it drops. That said, I noticed File:ACPE Logo.jpg in the queue several days ago and it is still there. Is there some reason it isn't being handled? Forgive me if I'm not following how this works, but I expected that a file would be added to the cat when re-sized, and removed the next day when the bot runs (or moved to the manual intervention cat if it couldn't be processed).

Second question. It looks like you cleverly replaced Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old with Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review on this page: Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion which makes perfect sense, but {{CSD-categories}} still includes the first cat. I know enough to ignore it, and we both know most admins ignore it, but if we get a new zealous admin looking to clear out backlogs, they may stumble across it, not knowing that should ignore it. Do you agree? It may be as simple as changing it in {{CSD-categories}}, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Alteratively (or additionally), should we modify the instructions on Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old to note that this is now handled by a bot, so the instructions should only be followed if the bot is not working? If you were planning to do this after the bot is fully vetted, my apologies for jumping the gun. I'm just concerned that some brand-new admin is going to stumble across this page, and attempt to clear out the apparent backlog.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Good ideas - feel free to try and fix the cats - I did add a notice at top of Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old, maybe not obvious enough. I did fix Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, not looked at {{CSD-categories}}. Odd behaviour with that file, The system makes a new log each day on my PC - I'll have a look at them and see if the file is getting picked up, and what action happened. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Log is clear One of the potentially free categories were found. Skipping. - has Category:Possibly free imagesRonhjones  ^(Talk) 21:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I did miss that notice. I see it now, but I added a more prominent one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ron, I'm responding to the reduce tag for the above image.

The current image size is only ~221,000 pixels. Although this is definitely larger than the 100,000 pixel "low end" that

When I originally posted this image, I did take the no-free image guidelines into consideration, and made sure the smaller dimension was less than 300 pixels, setting it to 849x260. This seemed to fit the spirit of the size guidelines; for example, record album covers are commonly posted at size 300 x 300, and the short dimension for this image is 13% smaller than that.

If it's OK with you, I'd like to tag this image {{non-free no reduce}}. Does this seem reasonable? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@NapoliRoma: Template changed. One could debate as to whether this might qualify for a {{PD-textlogo}} template. It is rather simple - one would need to ask someone who is more aware of the c:COM:TOO in the US (if it was UK, I'd say no, but each country is rather different). Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanks also for the link to the TOO discussion -- something I hadn't been aware of (and I hadn't even considered that the "non-free" issue is of course about copyrights rather than trademarks).--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You recently tagged File:Memory and Five Mile Creek (1995).jpg‎ for reduction in resolution. I am aware of the general principle of non-free images being low-res, but I have several times now seen this happen to a degree that the image is rendered useless or too poor quality to support the article. The current version of this image is already at a limit of making out the features of the artwork. Further reduction appears to me unwise. Can I ask that you prevent the proposed downgrading of the image? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hamiltonstone: The vast majority of non free images (>99.8%) will be just fine at the guidline size of 100,000 pixels. There will always be a few images that don't work at that size. I have changed the template to a no reduce one for you. The presence of the template will ensure I do not tag it again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

22:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just one of those wikipedians who contribute images occasionally without knowing much about the mystifying dos and don'ts surrounding images. With this edit you placed the tag "Orphaned non-free file(s) deleted per F5 (disable)" which zapped the image from the article. How does WP:F5 apply when the image was being used in an article? Moriori (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Moriori: Only the unused image was deleted - the current image is still there and the article looks OK. Non-free image history can only have the text data, not all the images. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your bot removed the template and claimed to have deleted the old revision, but apparently it wasn't deleted. Any idea why this happened? --

@

Stefan2: No idea. The log shows the correct image number (20170708000541), it shows a successful gain of a delete token and seemed to go through OK. The api call is just a call to the system (api.APIRequest(site, params).query()). If it fails for some reason, it does not do anything. Since the template removal has to be done as a separate api call, it will get removed. I'm not sure if one can get a "result" back from an api call in python. I will have to investigate. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

23:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Ron? I need your help. Are you online? Atsme📞📧 05:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Not at 7am UK time! Usual here 8pm to 2 am UK (bit variable on Sun/Mon) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

So...is it customary for editors to get "crusty" and start banning people from the TP after about their 6th year of editing WP? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@

owns a page. I have known editor X ask editor Y not to post on editor X's talk page - if they don't want to talk then that's their problem, not yours. Otherwise edit where you like. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

20:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I was jokingly talking about me after a round of NPP which is nothing compared to trying to keep a political article in compliance with NPOV. Atsme📞📧 22:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Always avoid politics and religion - there is never any middle ground... :-) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for calling my attention to the report, i recently reviewed a page Tan Songyun which was created by a blocked editor with username "Xdeluna". After placing a speedy deletion template on the page an IP address removed the deletion template [[36]]. Subsequently another edit and comment was made by another IP. I suspect it's the same person, or the creator of the page or someone with interest to the page. After i made the first revert he/she did, awards/nominations were added to the page. I would really be happy if you can also review the page for me. Thanks in advance Zazzysa (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, July 2017

Greetings! Here is the 4th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: BAG link rot . Welcome to the BAG! BRFAs We currently have 12 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing! Discussions Efforts at WP:CHECKWIKI to identify cosmetic fixes are still ongoing. The RFC on COSMETICBOT has concluded with "a clear consensus exists to adopt the proposed language". The new wording is now live. The venue for bot appeals and reexaminations has been changed from WP:BOTN (see discussion ) The Wikipedia:Bot owner's noticeboard is now the Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard (see discussion ). New things A historical correction was made to WP:BOTPOL (see discussion ). WP:HIDEBOTS now mentions how to hide all bots from your watchlist , not only specific bots. The phabricator ticket T162685 is now closed, and we now have "#Bots-Framework" tag, so issues related to bot frameworks can be tracked. Wikibits.js has been removed (see discussion). 21 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). WP:BOTISSUE has been updated to mention that BAG members can act as neutral mediators in bot-related disputes. WP:INTERWIKIBOT has been updated to reflect the post-February 2013 practice of putting interwiki links on Wikidata, rather than on Wikipedia (see discussion ). Upcoming HTML Tidy will be phased out in June 2018, or possibly earlier. This may affect some bots (see FAQ). Wikimania Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know ! Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

You cannot revert at File:VIXX Hades (EP) cover.jpg[37] and then quickly delete per F5[38] - I'm more than happy to discuss this however you cannot use admin tools to get your own way so please revert and we'll discuss it!, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry my error, I meant to just F5 the other two. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries and I apologise for sounding snappy, Thanks for kindly restoring it, I know we're both going to disagree with each other so is there a way we can compromise ?, My main issue is that "Hades" and "Aions" cannot be read under your version, I realise files need to be small but they also need to be readable and as Hades are the group that made the song realistically their name should be readable ?, Anyway thanks again for restoring :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In my web browser, the words "Hades" and "Aions" are larger than the text on this talk page and I can both read the text on the cover and the text on this talk page. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 20:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@

Stefan2 and Davey2010: I have to agree with Stefan2 - if one wants to examine the image, it's always possible to zoom in - the text does not have to be readable at the default size - which is going to vary so much with individual users device and screen resolutions. The key question is if the text is distorted so much that it's not readable - I don't see that is the case here. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

20:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Stefan2 & Ron - So does images vary on laptop screens aswell ? ... I mean they obviously would look different but I assumed text wise they'd all be the same regardless of screen res ?, If I were to zoom it'd be pixelated which I assume would be the case for everyone else?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk

21:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010:I assume so - here's the image on my PC after full zoom - http://www.ronjones.org.uk/misc/VIXX..jpg Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ron, Holy crap that looks massive compared to mine, Obviously if I zoom in it's just pixelated, Well I had no idea it would vary like this ...., Okie dokie in that case did u just wanna redelete ?, No point waiting 7 days, Apologies for the unintentional fuss, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: No problem. It's nice to know that these differences exist. Information I can possibly use some other time. (My screen is set to 2048 x 1152, which for a modern PC with a wide screen monitor, is not that unusual - I don't use the 3840 x 2160 as the icons are so very small.... :-) I'll go and delete your screenshot before someone puts it up as a copyvio. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Handy being an admin in both camps. It can wait the 7 days, my bot will sort it out then. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea they did I just assumed what was on screen was the same as everyone elses but apparently not lol, Wow that's one huge screen! , Mine's only 1280x800!, Biggest I've used is 1366x768 but that's it at the moment, Oh shit yeah sorry It's 'cos I'm so used to uploading everything there! - Thanks for that, Okie dokie anyway thanks again for your help much appreciated, Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 01:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

15:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello

It appears DatBot has made a mess of File:Java WebStartApplicationMan.png. The funny thing is: I audited this file! But I guess a caching problem prevented me from seeing what the bot actually had done.

Can you assist?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Caught out by the caching - join the club. All sorted. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

I noticed that a couple of years ago you semi-protected the article

@Landscape repton: Wow - that took some tracing! - Have a read - User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_27#Martial_arts_vandal_is_back Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I really liked the photo File:El Hadj M'Hamed El Anka plays the Oud.jpg but I'm convinced it isn't a free image. I can't prove it, but the French Wikipedia deleted their copy as not free. I noticed you editing a photo that I was involved with, so thought you might the right one to approach.Jacqke (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well there's a curved ball you tossed at me. I tend to agree with you. We are unlikely to to be able to find an earlier image still on the net (although there are bigger ones). I suppose an FFD would do to sort it out one way or another. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jacqke: Watch this space Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_July_25#File:El_Hadj_M.27Hamed_El_Anka_plays_the_Oud.jpg

Will do, thanks.Jacqke (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am asking you for administrator intervention against vandalism of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.183.157.199 . Almost every his edit can be marked as vandalism. If you can help, thanks you very much. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, blocking someone anonymous who has enough guts to stand bullying by 'The Centre' & his 'registrered friends' is just what the Wikipedia needs. Kudos for TheCentreCZ, who is not ashamed to cry for help - instead of discussing content of the articles fair and square.;-) You can ask to block me - as the antisemitic zemanofascits on Czech Wiki did, instead of bothering with discussions, which are not favourable to their leader's worldview anyway. ;-) -109.183.157.199 (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:AIV - I suspect he needs more warnings Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

23:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@109.183.157.199: Yes, so antisemitic. Your edit on Party of Civic Rights is so relevant when President Miloš Zeman is close friend of President Reuven Rivlin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThecentreCZ (talk • contribs)

False accusations are still false accusations, even with your unsubstantianted attempts to harm me (without your FALSE unsubstantianted accusations of antisemitism). :-ú Pathetic fascist Miloš Zeman is still friends with Assad, Putin and other similar antisemitic fascists who are sooo close to him. I just don't understand why are even you tryin' to smear me here?-109.183.157.199 (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite OK to report that I have no way to be supportive to accept possible accusactions of having anything in common with zemano-fascits users, and their associated antisemitists and I'd be quite disappointed if someone would mistake me with their "fancies", despite their (rather pathetic) attempts to smear me. Yours.--109.183.157.199 (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)01:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ronhjones, I noticed that you tagged some of my images for downsizing. What size should I make these images in the future to avoid being tagged? In other words, what is your typical threshold for tagging them? Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:Image resolution), which states that images should ideally be under 100,000 pixels, unless a good case can be put forward to have an image larger than that size. In general we find, photos, record covers, film posters, book covers, etc. can be reduced satisfactory to that size. The exceptions are often where there is some important text within the image which pixelates badly on reduction. We now have some useful tools to help editors - DatBot6 will reduce any image that has a {{non-free reduce}} template to the biggest possible size under 100,000 pixels (so no real need for editors to calculate what the size can be). After 7 days RonBot will do the revision delete of the unused images. Note that this does not apply to gif files (the python image library often corrupts a gif, also svg and pdf files cannot be auto reduced - they end up in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing, for manual reduction). Images that have to be left bigger than the guideline can be tagged with {{non-free no reduce}}, and they then are added to Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction - I suspect some of these images will eventually get challenged... Ronhjones  ^(Talk)

00:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought that I was staying within the tolerance of

WP:Image resolution, but if it's meant to be interpreted more strictly, I'll start making sure I'm always under 100,000. I don't want to be creating extra work for people. Do you have a specific size that you patrol for? For example, anything bigger than 100,000 or is there some wiggle room? I often make upright images slightly larger than 100,000 to make sure they aren't scaled up when displayed in the article. Kaldari (talk

) 13:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kaldari: No extra work - DatBot6 is an automatic python script and runs a few times a day (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 6). It will ignore any reduction request less than 5%, so 105000 pixels and below should not get reduced. Any file that is tagged with {{non-free reduce}} will normally be reduced within 24 hours (then you have 7 days to view the reduction and revert if the reduction is corrupted. Some editors will load up an image and add that template, and let the bot do the reduce for them. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the file Thomas Newton Allen.jpg was set to be reduced as non-free image. This was originally copyrighted in 1909, so is public domain based on that date. I changed the file to public domain. I had trouble with the uploader when I contributed the file, and settled for fair-use until I could figure out how to make it show as public domain. Then I forgot about it. Can this be put onto Commons? I appreciate any help.Jacqke (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jacqke: No problem. I've tagged it for now. I should have time this week end to move it Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate it!Jacqke (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@

21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You note that the photo used in Mark Hanna Watkins is copyrighted. Please note, however, that I was granted permission to use this photo on the English Wikipedia by the copyright holder, according to an email sent to me on 5th October 2015 by Stephen T. Robinson Senior SCUA Assistant, Special Collections & University Archives, W.E.B. Du Bois Library, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 154 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA 01003-9275, http://scua.library.umass.edu/, who wrote: "We'll be happy to grant permission for use of the photo. We'll waive the fee in this case, but we would like to have you fill out our permissions form so there is an official record of it." I subsequently filled out a form as required, which was returned by the library granting permission. (I can email it to you if you wish.) In view of this, I don't see the need for the photo to be reduced in quality, at least for the English Wikipedia. What do you think? Kanjuzi (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kanjuzi: Lets log it properly - send me just an e-mail note (so I get your e-mail address - don't put it here - spammers...). I will then send you an e-mail from OTRS, then you can reply with a copy of the letter, then the letter is nicely logged on the Foundation's servers. I will then add an OTRS ticket to the page and we won't need to reduce it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I sent you an email (I think) but heard nothing back yet (as far as I know). Kanjuzi (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kanjuzi: Now sent, been boating. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I need this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Media .

Aliyahasan (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia page is deleted .plz Restore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Media Aliyahasan (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

see reply lower down Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I want see on Wikipedia, I need for business or relationship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Media Aliyahasan (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aliyahasan: There is never a guarantee in getting an article into Wikipedia. Any article must comply with the polices and be notable. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyhow, I did not delete it. You must talk to the deleting admin. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. Last year I created a wiki-page for a Bosnian national football player named Kerim Memija. The page was deleted and is now protected which means that only admins can create the page. Now despite being a wiki-editor for few years creating and developing many pages, I am not an admin, and that is something that I would really like to become. But till then, could you please open the thread so I can make a page for Memija? Thank you. By the way, if its not to much to ask, could you please respond on my talk page?

replied Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ronhjones. I just wanted to offer re:

@Tenebrae: Set to manual reduce - it will let some editor do trials (sometime in future...) to find if any reduction is possible without destroying content. The auto reduce script will not do it now. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. May I add the words "for the reasons given below" after the part about the objection? I'd hate for the objection to appear arbitrary or capricious. Would that be alright? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Sounds OK to me Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You're a very collegial editor with whom to work. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Since it turns out the boxed text is a template and cannot be altered, I wrote the following directly beneath it: "In consultation with user:Ronhjones, who applied the tag, the original uploader notes that the objection referenced above is for the reason specified in sentence two under 'Low Resolution', below." I hope that's OK. Thank you again. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Looks OK. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ron! I have a question about deleting a file...

@Corkythehornetfan: Found File:Retro Charlotte Hornets logo.gif as prev. version - set for non free logo (unused). As it was now not set for non-free logo, it becomes a copyright violation - and I deleted it as such. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Sadly, there is no suitable template Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That would explain why I couldn't find one! Appreciate the help! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at

21:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the articles. Additional ones that have been vandalized are St. Louis crime family, Patriarca crime family, and Philadelphia crime family. Sundayclose (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sundayclose:  Done Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)